Mark Dunn Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 (edited) We have found that shrinkage over 0.7% (linear) in 16mm will be destroyed on a Steenbeck flatbed viewer. Thanks for the tip- I was wondering what the limits were. I've not had anything in over 0.5% (mid 60s-70s) but it does run rather noisy. Edited March 3, 2018 by Mark Dunn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 . Originals belong in canisters far away from cutting rooms. As an ideal, yes, but my business is based on persuading people that a well-maintained Steenbeck is suitable for originals! Paying me for a couple of days to pull selects is a lot cheaper than just scanning every foot of an archive. Of course I keep handling to a minimum. Steenbeck's entire business now is based on archive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Viewer-editors are not film friendly, they were made for synch and editorial work to dailies/rushes, repeatable copies of picture and sound. Never must one place originals on these apparatuses. The intermittent sprocket Moviola is a little better in that respect. True, Steenbeck delivered sprockets fitting shrunken stock at some point of time but strains are still too high. Originals belong in canisters far away from cutting rooms. Steenbecks were used by broadcasters to edit the camera reversal film in the days before ENG for the many programs that didn't have the budget or schedule to shoot neg .This original was then transmitted without being printed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars preisser Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I put the film in the 60m mag now and had a look at the 120'. Is is normal that the wheel on the feeder side is not connected to the take up wheel and the sprocket-wheel? When I turn one of the wheels on the 60' everything else turns accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) Lars, you will need to be more precise with the language. I can't understand what you are saying. Did the 60m (200') mag work or did it loose a loop? I can't tell what "wheels" you refer to. You can download a parts catalogue with good diagrams here http://www.apecity.com/ so as a last resort you can use those terms and expect us all to know :) Edited March 6, 2018 by Gregg MacPherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars preisser Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) Lars, you will need to be more precise with the language. I can't understand what you are saying. Did the 60m (200') mag work or did it loose a loop? I can't tell what "wheels" you refer to. You can download a parts catalogue with good diagrams here http://www.apecity.com/ so as a last resort you can use those terms and expect us all to know :) Sorry, yes the 60' mag works. Now I am trying to find out whats wrong with the 120'. I noticed that when I load a film into the 120' and turn the film-core a little bit then the wheels on the other (take up) side do not turn accordingly. So basically the feeder side is not motorized at all and the film gets just pulled through from the other side. I guess that's not supposed to be the case. PS: the link is not working Edited March 7, 2018 by lars preisser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 Lars, we are still victims of the novel use of language. These pics may help... If the guide shoe (363E, 371E) rollers are not correctly adjusted then the film is not correctly positioned against the mag drive sprocket (315E). So the loop may be lost. Just guessing..Any competent camera tech will see what is wrong straight away. Just go find one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 7, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2018 As an ideal, yes, but my business is based on persuading people that a well-maintained Steenbeck is suitable for originals! Paying me for a couple of days to pull selects is a lot cheaper than just scanning every foot of an archive. Of course I keep handling to a minimum. Steenbeck's entire business now is based on archive. Our 35mm Steenbecks are modified at the factory with a slightly reduced diameter prism sprocket and reducing lenses to show a full aperture image out to the middle of the perforation on each side. (You can learn a lot about the provenance of an element just by watching the perforation print-through of a copied element). While we almost never run originals on these, we do routinely run dupe negs, interpositives and sound dupe negs/positives for quality control purposes. They work fine and, as long as you keep them scrupulously clean, in good running order and thread them properly, they do not damage the element. Flatbeds are particularly nasty with married elements (elements with a printed-in track), as the sound advance distance is very precise and any hint of shrinkage on an element will result in perforation damage IF run with the composite sound head engaged. We have toyed with the idea of modifying the sound head to pivot the distance of a couple of perforations toward the picture head to accommodate shrinkage, but in the end we decided that would only encourage people to run marginal elements; not ideal for an archive... Luckily, we now have access to gentle, high speed digital scanners and can make a digital reference copy to evaluate content on these elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars preisser Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) Yes a mechanic I will be able to find but I wanna try to find the exact problem first to make the repair a swift operation. I think the problem is on the other side of the magazine -do you have a pic for the other side too - is there may be a second belt that could be broken? Edited March 7, 2018 by lars preisser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 7, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2018 Steenbecks were used by broadcasters to edit the camera reversal film in the days before ENG for the many programs that didn't have the budget or schedule to shoot neg .This original was then transmitted without being printed. Most of the stations I worked for, or visited, in the days of film, simply used a Viewer and a squawk-box type amp. Some would shoot mag striped reversal, process the film and run it through a magnasync displacement recorder that would put the audio in dead (or editorial) sync back on the stripe itself. The film would be edited to desired length and then run back through the displacement recorder to restore the proper sound advance distance and the edited piece would air "live" via a film chain during the news broadcast. Some would lay the striped sound off to fullcoat and do a dual-system cut and run it interlocked "live" on a film chain during the news broadcast. Of course, everyone had their own way of working and I am sure there were many variations of workflows to get film news on-air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 7, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2018 Yes a mechanic I will be able to find but I wanna try to find the exact problem first to make the repair a swift operation. I think the problem is on the other side of the magazine -do you have a pic for the other side too - is there may be a second belt that could be broken? If the magazine is defective, a qualified repair person should spot it instantly. If your 60M magazine runs fine, it only makes sense that the defect lies in the 120M magazine. Good communication with the repair shop helps speed the process and minimize repair costs. Yes, repairs are expensive; what about film isn't? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 Our 35mm Steenbecks are modified at the factory with a slightly reduced diameter prism sprocket and reducing lenses to show a full aperture image out to the middle of the perforation on each side. (You can learn a lot about the provenance of an element just by watching the perforation print-through of a copied element). While we almost never run originals on these, we do routinely run dupe negs, interpositives and sound dupe negs/positives for quality control purposes. They work fine and, as long as you keep them scrupulously clean, in good running order and thread them properly, they do not damage the element. Flatbeds are particularly nasty with married elements (elements with a printed-in track), as the sound advance distance is very precise and any hint of shrinkage on an element will result in perforation damage IF run with the composite sound head engaged. We have toyed with the idea of modifying the sound head to pivot the distance of a couple of perforations toward the picture head to accommodate shrinkage, but in the end we decided that would only encourage people to run marginal elements; not ideal for an archive... Luckily, we now have access to gentle, high speed digital scanners and can make a digital reference copy to evaluate content on these elements. I'm only talking about 16. My ST-1600 is one of the ones designed without a composite sprocket, and it's fine with some prints, but for those prone to wow (the ones where the film seems to twist from side to side when running) I find I can thread as for composite, then thread through the right-hand mag film sprocket as well, and run interlocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 Most of the stations I worked for, or visited, in the days of film, simply used a Viewer over a squawk-box type amp. They would shoot mag striped reversal, process the film and run it through a magnasync displacement recorder that would put the audio in dead (or editorial) sync back on the stripe itself. The film would be edited to desired length and then run back through the displacement recorder to restore the proper sound advance distance and the edited piece would air "live" via a film chain during the news broadcast. Of course, everyone had their own way of working and I am sure there were many variations of workflows to get film news on-air. I remember in the UK news film was cut for the sound so there would often be an odd picture cut. So they obviously didn't lay back the sound to dead sync. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 7, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2018 I'm only talking about 16. My ST-1600 is one of the ones designed without a composite sprocket, and it's fine with some prints, but for those prone to wow (the ones where the film seems to twist from side to side when running) I find I can thread as for composite, then thread through the right-hand mag film sprocket as well, and run interlocked. That's a nice trick! I think our 16mm Steenbecks are the ST-900W model and I'd have to have another look at one to see if that might work on that model. OK, sorry for the thread hijack; back to the regular show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 Perhaps we can just borrow the thread for a while..... The 00Ws seem to have a quite different bed layout. I think the fact that the threading works on the 1600 is a coincidence- there's no reason for the distance to the sepmag sprocket to be an exact number of perforations. I also have to admit that the lacing is rather tight but it's adjustable by clicking off the picture clutch and putting in 1/4-1/2 frame of slack. Sorry if I'm talking nonsense, or even heresy. I'm nowhere close to being an archivist- this is self-taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 That's a nice trick! I think our 16mm Steenbecks are the ST-900W model and I'd have to have another look at one to see if that might work on that model. OK, sorry for the thread hijack; back to the regular show... I'm afraid I've misled you. I've been mis-threading my composite prints. According to the manual they should go through the sepmag sprocket. So I don't think what I've said can help you, except possibly the bit about adding slack. Talk about RTFM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 7, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2018 No worries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 PS: the link is not working Irrelevant characters are being automatically added to the URL. Delete anything after www.apecity.com 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