Jump to content

16mm Cinema Gate 1: 2.24


Arthur Sanchez
 Share

Recommended Posts


Mainly potential scratching as the claw drags back over the now exposed area between perfs (since it's a Bolex).

 

Also the possibility that the film bows in a little at the gate aperture because it's barely supported at the edges, causing focus problems.

 

But shoot a test and see!

 

Nice job on the machining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks good ! I recently had a go widening a Bolex H16M gate with needle-files. Probably not quite as wide as yours ? as I was wary of those confounded latent code numbers appearing on images over about 2:1. But I've done some footage and it works great. No problem with focus across the image. I also made sure there was no scratching at the sprocket teeth and 'sound track' inner support ring by filing away anything that touches the image area.

My U16 Bolex projector shows it at 1.85:1 and very sharp and steady. But I've filed out an old Philips to give about 2.2:1 though this is strictly for single frame optical work.

post-29820-0-54769900-1490524361_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same idea. Why stop to ultra16 ratio and not go even wider between the perforations (using lenses that can cover it).

 

But I don't have a sufficiently cheap 16mm camera to test it and I don't want to test it on a Aaton LTR that I can have access to.

 

I really want to see the results. I hope it works out fine ! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same idea. Why stop to ultra16 ratio and not go even wider between the perforations (using lenses that can cover it).

 

But I don't have a sufficiently cheap 16mm camera to test it and I don't want to test it on a Aaton LTR that I can have access to.

 

I really want to see the results. I hope it works out fine ! ;)

Me too ;) and good luck Arthur with Cinema 16... which film stock did you use ?

Probably the results vary in different cameras, according to the pressure plates and so on. I've only tried Bolex myself and i seriously can't see any focus problems with 2.2:1 and perhaps wider. The only drawback is the latent markings. It would be great (as i've said before) if film manufacturers could make allowances and push them further out. Much smaller markings are still readable !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Doug!!!

 

well, I've found a source for 16mm film with no edge markings at all... I've not received it yet but keeping my fingers crossed.

Is that colour ? Wittnerchrome 200D is the only one i've found without markings.

 

Interesting history: way back in the 1950s some 16mm film-makers it seems were experimenting with images between the perfs. Australian Henry Buckingham invented Varispect, which was really wide and used some kind of vacuum pump to stabilise the image in the Bolex. Ian Smith of UK invented VariScope which came in two versions: about 2.4:1 I think, and another format identical to Super-16 believe it or not.

Both these people and probably others too, shot with Kodachrome. At that time the edge markings on Kodachrome were much smaller (better eyesight then!) and right at the edge of the film, so it was fairly easy to obtain a wide image.

An interesting thought, as this was the decade of expanding screen ratios (and before TV fully adopted 16mm) perhaps Kodak was thinking that more people might take up the idea, and left the emulsion free for some years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... the test is back... now remember this test was to see if there would be any bowing in the film and cause out focus areas... I used some older... very older crap film for the test so there are some process marks visible along the edge... The lab said it was just the effect of old film stock.... The GATE is a bit high, but I'm almost sure that is slop is the attaching of the gate... this was not calibrated at all... but that's next.

 

So, anything else needs adjusting?

post-71166-0-12894300-1491432121_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the focus is OK.

 

Is there scratching between the perfs or is it only the processing marks you're talking about? Can you see any bruising from the claw dragging back over the film? Hard to see from those stills.

 

Bolex made a jig to centre the frame between perfs when refitting a gate, I think they still sell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dom...

 

Is there scratching between the perfs or is it only the processing marks you're talking about? Can you see any bruising from the claw dragging back over the film?

I wanted to post a clip but the files were to big...

 

The Lab says it is not scratching... but subsequent test will determine that... as far as I see there's no surface damage in the film from the claw...

 

Yes, I have a jig, but like I mentioned but the focus was the main objective of this test... Also that was the last of my test film stock... now to buy more new stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your work ! That is great. I would love to have hi-res files from newer film stock.

If kodak stocks has edge marking, do you think it could be possible for them to do a special batch without those for say 10 to 20 rolls (It must be possible but for much more I guess) ?

I could modified an old aaton LTR (regular16) but that would be a bit risky I guess since its not mine alone.

And there is the problem of the 1.33 ground glass, it's a bit like shooting blind on the side of the frame, isn't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Premium Member

It’s illegal. Violation of

  1. the 3-to-4 concept;
  2. the original state of the camera;
  3. the geometry of the film canal inasmuch as you have reduced the contact surface meaning less friction and hence possibly steadiness issues;
  4. the 16mm film format with space reserved to the manufacturer for applying marks;
  5. the 1:2.2 aspect ratio being reserved to the 65mm-70mm Todd-A. O. process (ISO 2467);
  6. common sense which should have led you to a machine shop where the job would have been done by professionals

Problems headed your way are that you probably will regret the action one day because you have a totally disordered Paillard-Bolex H-16, that you won’t easily find a lab where one is able to provide you with duplicates and prints off the totally nonconform originals, that you will have still bigger problems finding a place where your originals could be blown up to 65mm or 70mm stock, that you won’t even be able to see the entire picture on a viewer, that you might have to take the responsibility for hundreds or thousands of imitators you have led into disaster, and that perhaps one day you will discover the Suter-16 process wich is equally crazy. Suter-16, named so by and after the inventor Rudolf Sutter, is based on perforated 35mm film from which two strips 16mm wide are cut and then used in adapted equipment, a wide image sitting at the side of one perf hole. The aspect ratio is 1:2.5.

 

That was easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Simon... I agree with everything you've mentioned... but that was then and now things have changed...

 

Film is just the capture mechanism... the camera can withstand the changes. Adapting to newer trending image formats allows you to expand into that world.

 

Living is the old school puritan sense is fine... But there is a natural evolution happening and Bolex is a mighty enough camera to grow.

 

so, I bought my own professional machine shop to do the work.

 

just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought that all these wider 16mm native formats, and indeed UP8, are a means to an end. They are not actually intended for projection or for making contact prints. They have blossomed in recent years because scanning has so much improved and it's now possible to extract all the information. Personally though I am more attracted to making 35mm internegs optically from ultra-16, after editing. I think of it as a cheap way of ending up with a 35mm movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... are a means to an end. They are not actually intended for projection or for making contact prints. They have blossomed in recent years because scanning has so much improved and it's now possible to extract all the information.

Very good point... advancements in technologies that the millennials along with others (self included) have embraced. That's why all the modifications are not done by hand! Rather Precision CNC technology...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have always thought that all these wider 16mm native formats, and indeed UP8, are a means to an end. They are not actually intended for projection or for making contact prints.

 

We have fallen back into the peephole state of motion pictures, prior to projection before numbers of spectators. Film is the mass medium. Seems that the mass is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...