Marc Roessler

In general film projectors either have (in effect) two bladed (48 Hz) or three bladed (72 Hz) shutters. This is true for 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and 70mm projectors. A "three bladed "shutter usually has three blades. The Kinoton series with geneva cross film transport has this three bladed shutter as an option. For the regular, "two bladed" (48 Hz) shutter there are serveral ways to achieve this mechanically: - a two bladed shutter as a flat disc or as a cone shaped shutter (for getting closer to the gate) - a single blade shutter rotating at double speed (flat: Kinoton FP20/30, Philips DP75; cone shaped: Philips DP70 afaik), thus making the transition phase between open and closed shutter shorter and reducing flicker - a revolving drum with two opposing sides open (when seen radially), thus also forming an 48 Hz shutter The three bladed shutter has a light loss of 50% over the two bladed shutter, this means you need to double your light output (and thus your lamp wattage.. not a linear correlation but you get the idea). As many big screens are already running the largest lamp (4 or 7kW) with water cooled lamphouse, dichroic heat filter and water cooled gate it's simply not possible for them. Karl, can you elaborate a bit on the make and model of those "standard shutter" projectors? I have never encountered anything like that so far, neither with US nor European projector models? Greetings, Marc

Daniel, can you tell us a bit more about the special "fog removal" process? Are there any other effects on the film when doing this? Thanks, Marc

Ok so it probably was either the dichroic lights (FAY) or gelled lights not fully corrected. Thanks David and Shelly!

small correction.. according to this source http://www.fostoria.org/history/skonecki/1996/Apr_21_96_1.html yellow arc carbons are HI carbons as well, developed after the white arc carbons. So there seems to be a difference between "pure coal" carbons and yellow arc carbons...

How could I forget the arcs! Not so sure about the dichroic lights/FAY lights... as far as I know they weren't as wide spread in Germany back then, but maybe someone who worked there back then can chime in? Maybe the arcs are part of the answer: I just remembered that there are "white flame" carbons (containing rare earths, 6200K..) and "yellow flame" carbons (4100K according to Harry C. Box's book). From their use in movie projectors (HI carbon/"Beckkohle" vs. pure coal) I know that the pure coal carbons are cheaper and burn much longer than the white flame arcs. Are the white flame and yellow flame carbons used in arc lights equivalent to those? Maybe they were used for economic reasons? This would explain the yellow cast. Just guessing here... (the films I was referring to weren't really big budget Hollywood blockbusters after all) Unfortunately it is getting harder and harder to get this kind of information on films made outside hollywood as many of the old DoPs already have passed away and there's not much written on this. Greetings, Marc

Hey everybody... I've been watching some old german movies from the 70s (one of them: "Das Millonenspiel", 1970, Germany, Tom Toelle.. Trailer here: Does anyone know what typically was used for fill light for daylight/ext scenes during that time? The fill light of these films always seems to be somewhat warm, but not really warm enough for 3200K fill vs. 5600K available light. Afaik HMI wasn't really available at the beginning of the 70s yet (first notable use being the Olympic Games 1972 in Munich with Arri's Arrisonne?).. so what did they use? Tungsten with a very light CTB so you don't loose as much light? Tungsten without any color correction? Similar for day/int scenes where you can see the windows: gelling the windows (lots of work and gel), gelling the tungsten lights (lots of light loss)? Also in this case the light always seemed to be a tad too warm, but not enough for the difference between 3200K and 5600K. Or was this purely an effect of the emulsions used back then? Thanks, Marc

Lately the footage counter (displays meters shot) of by beloved little Arri 16S has been giving me trouble - it does not count any more! The frame counter beneath it works just fine. Is this a known problem and is there an easy fix? Greetings, Marc

Francesco, a screen grab (of some non copyright sensitive material) would be great. Make sure it is OK with the DoP first, though - not worth risking anything here! Still looking forward to hearing about others' experiences pushing 7219 two (gasp..) or more stops...

Has someone here tried to push 7219? One stop? Two stops? Even more? How does it behave, comparable to pushing 7213 (tried pushing that one +1)? Some frame grabs would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Marc

Does anyone know the exact stock used for Fassbinder's "World on a wire" (shot by Michael Ballhaus)? I seem to remember that I've read it's Ektachrome - but which one? Surely not 7241 or 7242 (antecessor to the VNF stocks)... could be 7252 (EI 25... unlikely?) or Ektachrome 160 introduced in 1971... anyone happens to know for sure? Thanks, Marc

The funny thing is, telecine / scan really seems to be the most expensive part of the whole film workflow. Shooting film is cheap (relatively speaking) as long as you go the photochemical route. It's really when you do either a BlowUp (S16 to 35) or telecine/scan (2K) the stuff when it gets expensive. I got a quote from a lab for a 16mm shoot (b&w negative): negative cutting according to a workprint, including the "zero print" and one regular print, with sound negative and printing with optical sound to regular 16mm b&w print. This was half of the cost. The other half was scanning (SD telecine) and preparing for the DVD. This somewhat surprised me... If just telecine or scanning would come down a bit shooting on film would be so much more interesting (especially S16). The price of 16mm/S16 equipment really has crashed and processing 16mm ECN-2 is quite affordable. The negative is not too expensive either. The only problem is telecine/scan. I'd shoot much much more S16 if (HD) telecine prices would drop a bit.

Aaton advertises their cameras as having the "hair free gate". The idea is that there is no horizontal running pressure bar at the top and bottom of the gate and thus any fluff/dust is much less likely to be caught there. Sounds good. And up to now it worked perfectly with the XTR, whereas I sometimes (very seldom..) did have a small hair at the top of the gate (bottom of picture) with my Arri 16S. Do you do a gate check with the Aaton? Has anyone ever encountered a hair in the gate with an Aaton? Thanks, Marc

Charles, of course you're right, it's not the base itself that is colored. Fingers faster than brain... Brian, I did remove the rem jet backing, that's not the reason why it is so dark. It seems that it's not actually the emulsion that is too dark (dark grey), but the base itself. As I wrote, the emulsion comes off quite easily after those 60 mins of processing. Where it came off a bit, the base was visible. It has a dark grey color. This was not easily removed by scraping! Maybe it's the coating between the base and the emulsion that's turning grey? Anyone interested in pictures PM me your email address and I will send them to you. Greetings, Marc P.S.: Just to clarify to avoid confusion: this was 7213 (Vision3 200T), not 7231 (Plus-X).

Lately I had been processing 7213 as b&w negative, as described in another thread. Of course the next step was processing it with a b&w reversal process... I used leftovers from my foma reversal kit (Fomadon LQR, Clearing bath, bleach bath, fixer... replenished the bleach with some fresh permanganate). To my surprise it actually (somewhat) worked. Now I'd like to learn what went not-so-well and why: After developing, bleaching and clearing the neg actually looked very much like a regular bleached b&w negative: lemon colored - which actually surprised me a bit, because I didn't expect the orange mask to disappear (anyone knows why?). It was a bit low-contrast, though, as expected with a color neg. After re-exposing, re-developing and fixing the neg (or rather: positive) was very dark. You can see the positive image if you hold it against a strong light source, but it's much too dark. Now the fun part. The emulsion is really hammered during that long (60 minutes) reversal process, so it tends to peel off easily. This is how I found that it's actually the base that colors dark grey, thus giving a too dark positive. If it was possible to keep the base transparent, the density values of the positive image should be ok! Any ideas what's happening here? Is there any way to keep the base transparent (or at least orange like it used to be?) Greetings, Marc

Robert, good point with the chemistry variation... hadn't tought about that. With larger tanks it spreads out much more. This means that agitation and replenishing would be extra critical with such small (2 liters) tanks - probably not worth the hassle.

Some time ago I've discovered a webpage (gone in the meantime, unfortunately) which covered the lomo spiral processing tanks and also some very compact continuous processing machines. Somehow the idea about those really small contiuous processors keeps fascinating me. How cool would that be, a (b&w) continuous processing machine for home use, preferrably with the same tank capactity as the lomo tanks (1.8 to 2 liters) but much easier to use... probably b&w reversal would be a bit too much, but surely it could be adapted for b&w neg? There seems to be very little information on the web on such processors. I have found some information about the "Kodak Prostar II" microfilm processor, maybe you can use that one for a normal b&w neg process with some modification? Interesting: it is claimed to have automatic threading, I'm wondering how that is supposed to work... Has anyone any information on those compact processors in general? I seem to remember that the mentioned russian page said something about such machines being used for processing in small TV stations back in the 70s/80s? Thanks, Marc

P.S.. 16:9 display with zooming into the 4:3 image is nice when you want to display a 1.85:1 ground glass image full screen. Native 4:3 display (with black side bars) is nice when you want to see what's going on around the frame. So ideally, both of these options should be possible.

Hi, I'm searching for a TFT Video assist monitor for my 4:3 b&w video assist (an XTR Prod, not that it matters... as far as I know it's said to be one of the better quality video assists?). After going through three monitors that all turned out not to really be optimal I'm looking for suggestions here. What's important to me: 1. can display b/w images 2. 16:9 display, can display 4:3 (zoomed, keeps aspect ratio) and 16:9 signals 3. low power consumption 4. bright image 5. usable without a remote control, no setup required after power-on 6. good resolution and good scaling/video circuitry 7. screen > 6 inches Concerning item 1, it's surprising but not all displays can display b&w images. One of them crashed when you'd display a b&w image and switch between 4:3 and 16:9. No way to get back into the menu (even after power cycling with delay, or resetting) without applying a color (PAL) image first. This is really bad on a set where you only got a b&w video assist! Item 2: it's equally surprising, but some 16:9 images display 4:3 images squeezed so they fit the screen. Not quite good for a video assist where you have to judge movement and track it accordingly. Item 3 and 4 work against one another, obviously. Howevere there are displays which are a bit more power efficient and real power hogs on the other hand. Consumption usually is between about 7 and 12 Watts. Item 5 really means: power on, image is displayed - either in standard mode, or in the last mode the monitor was set to. On Screen Display. Concerning item 6, there are quite some stinkers out there. I've been using a small Sony XV-M30E monitor... I know video assist is really just for framing, but what I got by feeding this monitor a b/w signal is bizarre. Maybe the pixel count is not quite optimal here... Any suggestions? Thanks, Marc

For your amusement, some technically incorrect actions: - push processing, pull processing - skip bleach - shooting through the base side of film - shooting on print stock - using uncoated (or old.. spell: Cooke Speed Panchro) lenses - flaring a lens I can only imagine what kind of heated debate those pioneering these technologies had to endure. You wouldn't believe it: I once even had a lengthy discussion with an elderly owner of a small lab who could not get his head wrapped around the fact that I wanted plus-x neg push processed one stop because I wanted a more grainy, gritty, contrasty look. I think we phoned for about an hour with him continuously trying to pursue me into using his favorite faster, smoother, fine grained stocks because those were technically better. After repeatedly trying to communicate that I was aware of these facts but that it just wasn't the look I wanted I gave up on this insanity and went to another lab. P.S.: I actually do have a scientific/university background

This is all about learning, understanding, experimenting, having fun - using what's available. It is not about technical correctness or economics. Leisure and art never is.

Intellectual? Not so much as I do intend to try this :) For me it's a very interesting and highly educational thread. Thanks for all your contributions! I guess I will try to get hold of a few feet of 16mm color print stock for experimenting.

Brian, at what step would this be done? I suppose after filming but before processing? I would like to try this, can you elaborate a bit? Dominic, I supposed this would be a problem, as (afaik) usually extra care is taken in the lab that no parts of the rem jet get around the film onto the emulsion side when washing the rem ject off. Haven't really checked for it yet, as I haven't had a print or scan made yet and it's quite impossible to see with bare eye. I'm just toying around a bit though, so this is not a big issue for me at the moment... I mean, bucket processing.. this is really just for getting a feeling for the process and for fun at the moment. Would you get a usable image (contrast wise) by carefully printing to color print stock using neutral printer lights? I'd have to expect color shifts I guess? I will try to push a bit (2 stops), to see what happens to the gamma... Greetings, Marc

Hey all... During the last few weeks I processed a few meters of 16mm color neg (7213 Vision3 200T, 7248 EXR 100T) in b&w chemistry and I wanted to share my experiences here. I had some leftover Fomadon LQR so i used that one. The (already thinned) processing solution is about 3 weeks old now, still works good. The developer (in theory) should be consumed by now (1.8 liters, processed about 80 meters of film in it) but still seems to be usable for such experiments. I rated the film normally (100T, 200T) and developed for 12 minutes. For the first batch I used a lomo tank, for following ones I just dumped the film directly into the tank (bucket-processing-style in a dark bathroom). The first neg batch seemed rater fat, so probably for fresh developer the right processing time is a bit less than 12 minutes. After developing and fixing you will have an orange masked negative with a negative silver image. During the development step (and during the following washing) the rem jet will come off, which will kind of mess up your developer. However the developer can be re-used for future cross processing experiments. I've found it's best to bucket process in the dark, then wash in the dark while running the film through your fingers, this will remove the rem jet backing. As far as I can tell by photographing the neg with my Ixus camera through a magnifier lens and inverting it digitally, it turned out nice. No way to upload images here, though - sorry. Anyone else here played with this? Color neg leftovers (especially recans shorter than 10 meters) are easy to get and are ideal for this. b&w developer is cheap as well, and 10 meters are easily "bucket processed". Anyone tried to print such negs? I've read they are rather low-contrast (due to the color masking maybe?)... Greetings, Marc

Friedemann, cool tip, thanks! I used distilled water already, but still had the problem of manganese dioxide forming after some time. Does the calgon work against oxidizing? I developed the two rolls yesterday, used 1800 ml instead of the 1600 ml for all baths, same processing times. Filtered the bleach solution before use. Worked like a charm. For the second film's bleach bath I added 3 grams of permanganate for replenishment, let stit for 15 minutes, and re-filtered it before use.. lots of manganese dioxide in the filter, again, so this tells me the replenishing was not an entirely bad idea. After I had processed the two rolls I remembered that I still had a short end of 7213 (Vision3 200T) sitting around, so I shot these 12 meters in my bathroom. I developed with the used developer, quickly threw together a stop bath from vinegar (balsamico works great...) and distilled water and fixed in the used fixer. It worked! The negative still has the orange masking of course, but you seem to get a usable image. I developed for 12 minutes, this seems to result in a slightly higher EI then the usual 200. Difficult to judge without a densiometer or scanner or 16mm printer though. Wanted to attach an inverted scan of the neg, but unfortunately I seem unable to upload any images, as the board claims I exceeded my upload quota. As I can't find how to delete any previously attached images, I'm SOL... Greetings, Marc

you're brave Karl.. dichromate with bare hands and a cut on the finger :ph34r: Just checked my disulphate, it contains traces of chlorine ions when dissolved in distilled water. Not so good, so I'll go with reusing the original bleach bath. Bleach by inspection sounds very good... what is the starting point where no ill effects can be observed on the film when exposed to light? After rising the first developer? After a major portion of the bleach bath has completed its work? I know that you re-expose (to light) after the bleach bath, but you don't re-expose (chemically) to the bleach bath after that again.. so is this safe to check bleaching "in progress" or does one have to take care here? The (potential) issue with the emulsion peeling off is not because of the bleach itself, it's more because the Fomapan emulsion is quite soft from the start, so having the film in processing solutions for about an hour total (with wild pH changes) is critical already. (That's what I found on the net from others doint a reversal process on foma 100R). That's why I'd like not to dramatically extend bleach time. Thanks, Marc