David Venhaus

This is a short film (experimental/psychedelic?) I created over a 3 year period. Apx. 26 min. Shot on 16mm, all hand processed and printed (18,000ft+). I used lots of out of date filmstocks (a couple were from the 1960's (kodachrome) and 1970's (7390)) and did various cross-processing, etc. I also composed, recorded and played all the instruments on the soundtrack. Would appreciate any thoughts or opinions about it or will answer any questions, thanks.

Kodak 5285/7285 is an E6 film. Some years ago Fuji also had Velvia (also E6) available as a motion picture stock. It's mentioned by the previous posters why it wouldn't be particularly suitable for most workflows for making regular motion pictures.

Yeah, I've stripped the gears in a Krasnogorsk 3 while running polyester based film through it. The gear that stripped was not metal though, I think it was made of fiberglass or some similar material. All the gears in the Eyemo are brass or steel, as far as I can tell, when I took one apart. I've shot over 10,000 ft of polyester based films through it and never had a problem, even with jams occurring, the camera just usually stops. I think the gears and the associated mechanisms seem strong enough to be able to handle it.

Though not as thin as the above mentioned ^ film, there are several different lab films that are available in a thinner polyester base. I've experimented with several different ones, wound on daylight spools and used in an Eyemo. Some of them can fit about 200ft on a regular daylight spool. I don't know if those types of films would be suitable for your intended application due there specific characteristics, as they are intended for lab use rather then as camera negative.

The lens is supposed to focus the image on the film plane, not on the mirror behind. It needs to have film in the gate, for focusing, as how it was originally intended to be used. The camera was designed for b+w films (that lack Remjet or similar coatings) so the image could be seen through the emulsion on the base side, which the mirror will then reflect to the optional eyepiece. So you could use a short strip of a similar such modern undeveloped b+w film and insert it into the gate to check focus for lens testing. As for the speed, you could just measure a length of some scrap film and run it through the camera, keeping time with a stop watch, then calculate what the speed is from those measurements. I have seen special modified versions that ran at 24fps, but most of the "lunchbox" ones, as far as I know, were originally built to run at 18fps. There is a governor mechanism inside the camera that regulates the speed of the movement but I don't personally know how to change it.

From my experience, 7302/5302 b+w print film isn't nearly as high in contrast as any of the sound rec films, even with developing it in high contrast developers. As for intermediate films that I've tried, 5363/7363 also doesn't seem to be as high in contrast as the sound rec films, imho.

That machine is awesome! Last I heard, acetate film base was made from a cellulose source like tree/wood-pulp or cotton linters, no petro-chemicals (or dinosaur goop) involved.

I never measured the output but the old B&H one that I had, used a 360w halogen bulb, if that helps at all.

I remember from the DVD extras on the "Dazed and Confused" disc, that they said that they had used one of those "legal" alternative herbal smoking blends. It is rumored that in "Easy Rider", that they are using the real thing.

Well, given the limited amount of info on the problem, I'm just giving a few simple general suggestions. I've rebuilt k3's before, if I knew the specific technical problem, I could probably give a more definitive answer.

When you were winding it, did it make any abnormal sounds like a sudden crack or something. If you broke the spring, you probably would have heard something. If it is actually broken (or the gears) then it will require someone to repair it. Sometimes the camera just gets stuck. I used a K3 that this occasionally happened to. Just pressing the trigger a couple times, letting it spring out, back into place, usually worked, or tapping the camera on the side, with the palm of your hand, will get it working.

Is there film in the camera? If so, it could be jammed.

I think a lot of them probably just don't bother reading the rules and just assume its like most other forum rules (since most don't require real names).

There is a Russian made "desktop" continuous processing machine, the MPM-16-3M. Here is a link to some photos and the details of it- http://www.geocities.com/cinetank/processing/machine.htm I have also seen one or two American made machines which are similar in size and function, though I don't remember the names of them right now.

Sorry to hear about that. I recently had almost the same thing happen with some short-ends. I picked up 2 cans (240' 5246 + 400' 5276) from a reputable reseller of vid/aud tape (but very rarely sells short-ends so I don't think it was really his fault). Got them cheap, so I did a clip test and both rolls had already been exposed. Both rolls were labeled from the same production. Luckily I found out before I shot something important with it. I'm just gonna end up using the stock for destructive experimental testing or something. Also, does anyone know what the copyright issues would be, if I develop any of the film and use it. Would I own the copyright since the actual images didn't physically exist before I developed it?

Something you might want to check out is where the "Eastman Kodak" and date codes are printed on this stock. I shot some of the 35mm version of this (2374) and they were printed right in the middle of the picture area, every half a meter or so. As this is intended as a sound recording film, that wouldn't effect its normal usage. With the 16mm (3374) I don't know where its printed, so its something you might want to find out.

I've seen it done, a few different ways. First would be physically, such as with a drive belt or chain between the projector and audio track(s) to keep them in sync. The second would be electronically, with either a analog or digital connection. I think most modern (in last few decades?) recorders/reproducers can be either interlocked togather and/or with a projector, such as this one - http://www.magna-tech.com/mte2000.html which has connection ports for various interlocking capabilities.

Yeah, the rocks do look almost the same. Forgot to mention, my picture is from Joshua Tree Nation Park, also in the Mojave desert.

Here is an example of daylight balanced film, shot under a full moon but overcast sky. Looks like night-for-day, since the stars are not visible. Though not a very interesting picture, it demonstrates the normal looking color values, as if it were taken in overcast daylight. - Fuji Velvia 100asa- 30 min. exposure at f2.8

For a Nikon f-mount lens (if that's what you have), the flange to focal plane distance should be 46.5mm. Just measure it and see how far off it is. Then correct it or have someone else correct it.

A couple years ago I developed some old Kodachrome II as black and white negative. The film was about 40 years out of date (exp date 1964). I developed it in full strength Dektol for a couple of minutes, if I remember correctly. The film was heavily base fogged. The only thing bright enough to get enough exposure and keep the development time below the fog level was photographing the sun. The film also retains a green layering as many/most?(at least all the ones I've tried) color reversal films do when developed as black and white negative. I hope this helps some, but I'm not sure how different K2 is from K40. I shot the sun (with star cross filter) with reg. double 8mm and printed onto 16mm 7302 BW print film. Below is a scan of that.

Tron is a unique film, nothing else quite like it. As far as I know, no else has made another feature film using the same backlight animation technique with live-action. As a kid, I saw it as double feature with "Firefox" with Clint Eastwood. There was talk in the last few years of making a sequel, but I don't know what happened with that.

Some charging units have a discharge function built in. On them you simply flip the switch to discharge and turn it on and it dischranges the battery. Those units will usually have a meter so as to know when the discharging is complete.

ISO (International Standards Organization) has set standards for chemicals to be considered photographic grade quality. Photographic grade is different then regular grading, certain small impurities can make a big different such as metals like iron in the developer. I am not familiar with NZ standards but for important work, make sure that whatever chemical you buy meets the ISO standard.

I really doubt the emulsion would stay on the film, going through a machine processor. I cross processed some Ektachrome 7241(which is very similar to your 7242, they both were released the same year, 1966, both ME-4 process, only the 7241 is balanced for daylight) in regular temperature (36 degrees C) C-41 chemicals in a spiral tank and the emulsion stayed on, barely, but was very reticulated. Example below - close up of film frame. I also developed some in 20 degree C black and white chemicals, in a spiral tank and the emulsion did not reticulate but was still soft compared to other non- ME4 process films, so I don't think it would make it safely through a b/w machine processor, either.