Nicholas Kovats

Dismissive remarks aside... this is a mind blowing work that is a testament to a very painstaking and detailed 35mm craft involving multiple exposures via contact printing, i.e. http://www.resettheapparatus.net/corpus-work/outer-space.html "Outer Space is – together with L'Arrivée (1997/1998) and Dreamwork (2001) – part of Tscherkassky’s “CinemaScope Trilogy,” which draws on fragments of Hollywood films. It utilizes footage from The Entity (S. J. Furie, 1981), a psychological horror film, in which the female protagonist is pursued by an invisible ghost. In Outer Space it is no longer an unknown entity against which the woman must struggle, but that portion of the filmstrip that is normally unseen when film is projected – the “outer space” of the film’s image, consisting of the optical soundtrack and its perforations. Outer Space is a camera-less film, entirely created in the darkroom by means of an archaic contact copying process. Tscherkassky explains the method: “I place a strip of unexposed 35 mm film on a piece of cardboard that measures 15 by 100 centimeters. The filmstrip itself equals 48 frames in length, which comes to two seconds of projection time. The raw stock I use is orthochromatic – since it is desensitized to red light, I can work in a darkroom dimly lit by a red bulb. The unexposed film is held in place by small nails with which the cardboard is outfitted. I place one meter of found footage on top of my unexposed film stock. The nails of the cardboard protrude through every fourth perforation hole, so I can keep track of the frame lines: 35 mm film has four perforation holes per film frame, each pair of nails holds one frame in place. Subsequently I copy the found footage onto the raw material by exposing it to light. After copying details from 48 frames of found footage, I repeat the process several times over again, exposing the same single strip of raw stock to several different strips of found footage. In this way, I can mix details from entirely disparate sequences and each individual frame becomes an intricate optical collage. Parts of Outer Space include up to five multiple exposures” (Tscherkassky 2012)."

Simon, I am in agreement with the heavier cameras. When did Paillard-Bolex shift their "190 degree shutters" to the current mixtures of 133 (effective?), 144, 180 degree shutters. A tad confusing to keep track.

" "Cine-Technical Papers 1976-1992 by Dennis Couzin" "Notes on Optical Printer Technique" (1983-1987), 32 pages. https://sites.google.com/site/cinetechinfo/

Well, Derick, you lucked out with some tremendous detailed responses from three experts in the field. I understand the attraction to the Beaulieu but the Bolex is one heavier robust battle ready simpler camera for the masses and inglorious film students. It just works and can be serviced so much easier than the more fragile Beaulieu. Does your Bolex have the 10x or 13x viewfinder? The 13x viewfinder significantly improves the Bolex experience. It's not a lightweight alternative to the spring motor but have you heard of Tobin "digital' motors for the Bolex?

Thanks, Erkan!

Brilliant and simple.

Utterly fascinating. I now see the genesis of Arri's movement.

You asked for participatory advice then collectively dismissed us as sheeple absent practical experience? Good luck with your search for an obligatory peanut gallery that can validate your alleged superiority. Over out.

Your right, i.e. "Optional Arri standard/Bayonet lens mount upgrade $250.00" http://www.duallcamera.com/services/index.shtml

There is only one direction for this type of adapter as the M42 FFD is less than the Arri PL FFD, i.e. M42 FFD = 45.46 mm (camera mount) Arri PL FFD = 54 mm (lens mount) Replacing the K3 M42 hard front with an Arri Bayonet is not trivial nor inexpensive. It would be less expensive to purchase a used Arri 16mm camera with an Arri Bayonet mount, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri_bayonet "...SB (only one turret), ST/B (only one turret), M/B, 16BL, Arriflex 16SR, and Arriflex 16SR2 (early models)." Les Bosher might be able to assist you with your desired hard front, i.e. http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/ under his CAMERA CONVERSIONS tab. Good luck on finding another filmmaker who has undertaken this type of conversion.

Correct.

No direct usage with the following links. I rejected my newish K3 sometime ago as a reliable camera. It kept jamming with simple load tests. Some specialized M42/PL Mount adapters that may work in conjunction with an Arri Bayonet/PL Mount adapter. Careful. Only specific PL/Bayonet lens will work especially if the rear element protrudes deep into the adapter. You do not want to hear a spinning mirror crunch. As in Rolling Stones's "Shattered". https://www.rafcamera.com/m42-lens-to-arri-pl-mount-adapter https://araxfoto.com/accessories/pl-m42_adapter/ Nicholas

Well done! Beautiful haunting simple song paired with excellent visuals. The short subtle double-exposures worked well. Does the vimeo link represent the final version? Or is additional post planned to remove the occasional film based artifacts, e.g. dustballs, startup flash frame re: motor ramp up, etc?

Interesting and thanks for the followup benefiting future Arri 416 users.

I doubt as the Bolex bayonet FFD = 23.22 mm and the MFT FFD = 19.25 mm which leaves a paltry 4 mm spacing to work with. You could send Les Bosher a request to assess your potential difficult task, i.e. http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/ He is a Bolex bayonet adapter specialist.