Lab pitch v. camera pitch: is it really a problem for originals?

[Jim Carlile]

As a variation on a topic that has come up lately, I was wondering something. As 16mm double-perf film now requires a pretty big minimum from Kodak, and as double-perf print and intermediate stock is so cheap by comparison, is the pitch difference between the two really that big a problem in a camera?

 

I'm aware that blue sensitivity, halation, low ASA are all factors when using print stocks as originals. But since projectors can easily interchange the different print and camera pitches without jumping up and down, why can't the camera itself?

 

16mm projectors don't fight over the pitch difference between lab prints and reversal originals, so why does the camera?

 

Double perf 7302 acetate is amazingly cheap, and with a low minimum. For $300 you can get 4,000 feet of film. As an alternative to special-ordering double perf in an 18 roll quantity, are lab stocks worth the experimentation involved?

[Michael Kubaszak]

As a variation on a topic that has come up lately, I was wondering something. As 16mm double-perf film now requires a pretty big minimum from Kodak, and as double-perf print and intermediate stock is so cheap by comparison, is the pitch difference between the two really that big a problem in a camera?

 

I'm aware that blue sensitivity, halation, low ASA are all factors when using print stocks as originals. But since projectors can easily interchange the different print and camera pitches without jumping up and down, why can't the camera itself?

 

16mm projectors don't fight over the pitch difference between lab prints and reversal originals, so why does the camera?

 

Double perf 7302 acetate is amazingly cheap, and with a low minimum. For $300 you can get 4,000 feet of film. As an alternative to special-ordering double perf in an 18 roll quantity, are lab stocks worth the experimentation involved?

 

 

shoot on 7302, it's fun. 6 ASA though.

[Simon Wyss]

The point about the right pitch in a camera is noise. You would want a quiet run with a self-blimped camera. For the rest don't worry. All cameras eat long and short pitch perforated stock. The mathematical difference is .0006" (0,01524 mm).

[Dominic Case]

since projectors can easily interchange the different print and camera pitches without jumping up and down, why can't the camera itself?

Camera stocks only have to run through the camera once, but need to produce a steady image. Projectors are designed for an easy-on-the-film transport system, as a typical film print will have to run through many times without wearing out. So there is much less image steadiness in a projector. It's the tighter tolerances in the camera movement that may make it less tolerant to the longer pitch stock.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Pure camera stocks such as Kodachrome were always long pitch. Stocks that served as masters for duplication such as Ektachrome, or Color negative were usually short ptich. The reason for this is to get better steadiness on a continuous contact printer where the long pitch print material is wrapped around the short pitch original. On 35mm you have the additional complication of having different perforation types for camera and projection stocks (BH and KS perfs). In 16mm all perfs are the same.