Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted November 9, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 9, 2009 Is there another size of daylight spool other than 100' in 35mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 (edited) Is there another size of daylight spool other than 100' in 35mm? No sir there are no current loads for 35mm daylight spools other than 100 ft: http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cac..._Iba1y2ndRB33Dw Now at some point in the early days I seem to remember seeing 200 and 400 ft 35mm spools but I can find no documentation in my quick search to support that vague memory. Edited November 9, 2009 by James Steven Beverly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Cooper Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Is there another size of daylight spool other than 100' in 35mm? It might be worth contacting Philip Rigby & Sons in the Uk. Their website seems to list 100ft, 200ft and 400ft daylight spools in both 16mm and 35mm. ...of course you'd need to load your own film onto them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted November 9, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted November 9, 2009 Thanks, Ian. I sent them an inquiry about the widths of those 200' and 400' spools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted November 9, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 9, 2009 Dear Paul, no. But, films are becoming made thinner like in the case of Gigabitfilm 40 in the 16 mm gauge (0.068 mm or 2.7 mils). More (black an white) stocks are likely to be availabe on a thinner base in the future. Which means, you'll load 200 feet on the hundred-foot spool. Only problem is to get thin film processed. I'm working on that, a new machine design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted November 9, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted November 9, 2009 Dear Paul, no. But, films are becoming made thinner like in the case of Gigabitfilm 40 in the 16 mm gauge (0.068 mm or 2.7 mils). More (black an white) stocks are likely to be availabe on a thinner base in the future. Which means, you'll load 200 feet on the hundred-foot spool. Only problem is to get thin film processed. I'm working on that, a new machine design. Then, I could put 4000' into a 2000' Mitchell mag and run it for just under an hour and a half through FrankenMitchell. Speaking of new processes, Simon. What about a peel off backing for anti-halation? It'd be a lot easier to process. If it were loosened chemically in the pre-bath then it could stay well enough in camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Speaking of new processes, Simon. What about a peel off backing for anti-halation? It'd be a lot easier to process. If it were loosened chemically in the pre-bath then it could stay well enough in camera. Dear Paul. How have you managed to procure funds for this endeavour? Is this (yet again) a case of if wishes were horses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted November 10, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 10, 2009 films are becoming made thinner Only problem is to get thin film processed. I'm working on that, a new machine design. Estar base films can be made thiner then acetate. This is why the print stock on estar is thiner than the older stock. Years ago I worked with microfilm that came as 215 ft on a 100 ft spool (a microfilm spool is basically a plastic version of a 16mm movie spool) The limit in movie film is more to do with the transport, make the film too thin and the perforations will bend. As long as the processor respects the tension specs of the film, thick or thin will not make much of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted November 10, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 10, 2009 As long as the processor respects the tension specs of the film, thick or thin will not make much of a difference. How about instead of sprocket holes, film with exposed in camera edge registration marks? You could shoot it and telecine registering off the marks. All the pulldowns and transports would have to be different, of course. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Syverson Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 How about instead of sprocket holes, film with exposed in camera edge registration marks? This is a great idea... It's too bad all of the engineering talent is going into digital these days. You would need a modified film transport, but you'd be able to use the full 35mm width for picture. The registration mark could be printed along with metadata such as timecode, between the frames. Kodak would of course have to start manufacturing perfless 35. Because the transport would be independent of any perforations, you could have it switch aspect ratios on the fly (just adjust the speed and mask). 35 x 14.9mm for 2.35:1 would be twice the film area of Super-35 (521.5 sq mm vs 263.6). 1.85 would have 2.5X the film area (662 sq mm vs 260.4)! You would wind up with far greater detail, tonality and grain structure, without any increase in film/development costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Syverson Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 How about instead of sprocket holes, film with exposed in camera edge registration marks? This is a great idea... It's too bad all of the engineering talent is going into digital these days. You would need a modified film transport, but you'd be able to use the full 35mm width for picture. The registration mark could be printed along with metadata such as timecode, between the frames. Kodak would of course have to start manufacturing perfless 35. Because the transport would be independent of any perforations, you could have it switch aspect ratios on the fly (just adjust the speed and mask). 35 x 14.9mm for 2.35:1 would be twice the film area of Super-35 (521.5 sq mm vs 263.6). 1.85 would have 2.5X the film area (662 sq mm vs 260.4)! You would wind up with far greater detail, tonality and grain structure, without any increase in film/development costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted March 1, 2010 Author Premium Member Share Posted March 1, 2010 This is a great idea... It's too bad all of the engineering talent is going into digital these days. You would need a modified film transport, but you'd be able to use the full 35mm width for picture. The registration mark could be printed along with metadata such as timecode, between the frames. Kodak would of course have to start manufacturing perfless 35. Because the transport would be independent of any perforations, you could have it switch aspect ratios on the fly (just adjust the speed and mask). 35 x 14.9mm for 2.35:1 would be twice the film area of Super-35 (521.5 sq mm vs 263.6). 1.85 would have 2.5X the film area (662 sq mm vs 260.4)! You would wind up with far greater detail, tonality and grain structure, without any increase in film/development costs. We've been there on this approach. It will take me a while to find it as it is a thread from a couple years back. If I can find it, it will save you some brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted March 23, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted March 23, 2010 What about a peel off backing for anti-halation? It's been tried with Polachrome. I say nono. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Why is it that our European posters (forgive the stereotype) keep "digging up the dead" in these threads? This thread is over a year old. Why not start a new thread, as talking about rem-jet or protective light-proof backing isn't even on the original thread subject. . . I don't see the point of daylight loads. Buy more mags and you can conceivably shoot without fogging a single frame (except for one at the end of the shot when you check the gate.) Do what the pros do. Daylight loads are for amateurs/hobbyists. And they can and will bite you in the ass. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now