Zachary Vex

stored cold since birth? what is it doing under an Xmas tree?

I wonder how many more of those things are floating around out there? So many telecine operations have had to upgrade that it could be there are hundreds of those machines sitting in telecine houses taking up space. Although the footprint is only about 1' by 2', and 6.5 feet tall. The guy selling it to me tells me he paid $25k for it 25 years ago. It holds 6K foot rolls, which last over an hour! Of course, in 2-perf land, that's two hours and 20 minutes... a full-length feature complete with newsreels! 8^)

Alright, I just ran into the best bit of luck ever. I was looking around at portable 35mm projectors, trying to find something for my livingroom (maybe park it next to my Moviola... heh-heh) and I made a call to a friend of mine that does transfers and processes 16mm/35mm neg, and stumbled into something that may solve all of my problems and provide hours of entertainment as well. He's willing to sell me an 80's RCA FR-35B which is a projector designed as part of a telecine chain that takes in video sync pulses, can stop in one frame, can start instantly to full speed, and completely preserves the negative so it isn't scratched... He's willing to set me up with all the necessary stuff to do my own telecine work at 2-perf because that particular projector can easily be modified for 2-perf because the pulldown isn't a pulldown at all... the neg runs on a sprocketed wheel that is driven by a servo motor! It can even run backwards! So not only can I create my own work transfers to select the images I want to scan from 2-perf (and 4-perf, for that matter) material, I can also stick a lens into the thing and project incredibly stable, high-quality images for my family and friends, either from 2-perf PRINTS or 4-perf prints! Eventually if I have 3-perf material it will work for that too. And the fact that it syncs to video means I can use my camera to store high-quality audio material and have digital-quality audio playing along with the film... gahh! And I picked up an anamorphic projection lens a few weeks ago for $50... it fits right into the projector! (insert delightful squeals of joy) Total cost for this fantastic beast: $2500. Wow! I'm just jumping out of my skin with happiness. It's the best Christmas ever! 8^)

Okay, after all of this, I'm just dropping the "Cinevex" idea completely because of all of the problems that would surely be encountered. I've certainly learned a lot about cameras from this thread. The patent thing was a joke. I've never wasted any money on patenting anything, just buying silly obsolete and useless gear. 8^) As a result of my fascination with Techniscope I nabbed the Cameflex CM3 Techniscope (2-perf and 4-perf) camera that was on eBay for the past week (2 mags, lots of glass... seems like fun). Before doing so, I contacted Pixelfarm here in Minneapolis to negotiate a reasonable rate on their Arriscan, which allegedly does 2-perf scans. A full 400 foot roll will take 53 minutes of scan time plus setup, and with no correction I get their minimum rate. If I need anything done later I can bring it back and re-scan selects.

Would you ban Jesse Ventura if he posted in here? He never changed his name legally. Film Runner at least has that name on his California driver's license. Jesse's says "James George Janos".

Here's a reminder of the exact details of different film format sizes: 16mm 35mm If you compare height alone, Super 16mm is 7.5mm to 2-perf's 9.47mm. This implies an absolute grain size relationship of 1.26 times larger in Super 16mm over 2-perf 35mm, or to look at it another way, the grain size of 2-perf 35mm is 79% that of Super 16mm images. Comparing height alone between Super 16mm at 7.5mm and Super 35mm (3-perf) at 13.9mm, the grain size of Super 16mm is 1.85 times that of Super 35mm, or, inversely, the grain size of Super 35mm is 54% that of Super 16mm. As long as I'm at it, the grain size of Super 16mm is 2.48 times larger than Cinemascope 35mm, or inversely, Cinemascope's grain size is 40% that of Super 16mm when comparing height alone. So let's face facts. Comparing height of the exposed frame alone, 2-perf 35mm gives you grain that's 21% smaller than Super 16mm. And 3-perf Super 35mm gives you grain size that's 46% smaller than Super 16mm. Cinemascope gives you grain size that's 60% smaller than Super 16mm. So 2-perf gains you 21% reduction in grain size, 26% increase in height and 77% increase in width over Super 16mm, and probably costs less for stock when shooting short ends, but costs roughly the same for process and transfer. Except that I can't get it transferred in Minneapolis because there are no telecines for 2-perf here.

This one here: http://visualproducts.com/storeProductDeta...=741&Cat=11 Will it significantly reduce the brightness at the eyepiece? And of course, naturally I wonder whether the Visual Products video tap is brighter/clearer/better than the AZ Spectrum unit. And additionally, I'm baffled as to how the battery fits when using the very high-brightness, high-resolution camera that AZ Spectrum has installed outside of the camera! http://members.aol.com/azspectrum/ltrvid_c.html Plus, since the VP video tap is only available as b/w, is there a very strong reason why I'd want a color unit instead?

Yes, Robert, the only solution to that is scanning, right? You wouldn't be able to cut the negative.

1-perf frame height would be half that of 16mm. When the anamorphic vertical stretch was performed after scanning, the grain would be twice as tall as that of 16mm and elliptical... pretty wild!

Del Olson of Delden Film Labs sent me the following warnings about this idea: " I would worry mostly about the camera proceedure. Any mishap at that point and you would have a double exposed waste of time. You would also have watch for loosing the loop in the camera. From my experience, the average assistant cameraman would have trouble with this concept. If they chew up the film while loading, that section of film has to be cut off before it is processed, because torn perfs will not make it through the processor. A pin hole would be hard to feel or find, I would tape on a dot. I use tape o dots for the telecine, so the sync dot is white on a neg. They work great. You need a punch in the film instead of the tape on dot, for going through the processor. If the has a magazine that has a loop of film sticking out of it, the dot could be replaced with a 1/4" punch while reloading. Slating the scenes would have more importance since the film would be hard to identify heads from tails after processed. The little bit of film cost savings you might enjoy would most likely be burned up in extra telecine time, sorting things out. You would end up cropping it down to fit 16x9. If you were thinking about film finish, a chat with a lab that does optical printing would be a good idea b-4 going forward. If you are thinking about a 2K scan for film finish through video, I would just use super 16mm, which is getting to be the new medium for features going that route and save yourself a lot of agrivation. I think b-4 you start on this project, you owe it to yourself to ring out the existing formats for what you want to accomplish. Something like anamorphic super 16mm would be real close to what you are talking about." Sigh. I guess perhaps I got a little ahead of myself with this thing. Maybe I should just be happy I've got a super 16mm Aaton.

Hey Paul, your domain is expired.

Kodak keeps their perf holes cut to a very tight spec. I'm absolutely certain that offsetting the gate very slightly up or down will make every last fraction of a millimeter available for exposure in both directions!

If the film runs out you are not screwed... you simply don't expose it in the opposite direction. That one roll costs you normal 35mm film and processing instead of half. I realized this morning that there's one more problem I didn't address... the fact that the perfs pull down from the bottom of the hole in one direction and the "top" of the hole in the other. That will cause the "center" of the frame to be offset when the film is flipped in the other direction... no problem, though. I can't set the gate exactly in the center vertically... it will have to be very slightly offset up or down to compensate for the perf size. Yes, this will introduce very mild distortion in the corners of the frame when shooting 1:2.33 with a very wide lens. Will anyone notice? Heck, I've suffered watching all sorts of visual distortions associated with anamorphic shooting and projection ever since I was a kid... I'm sure it won't be a problem at all. BTW, for those of you worried about changing a roll in a change bag or tent, trying to feel the position of a frame that's been marked with a pinhole, there's a solution to this problem as well. This guy offers cassettes that allow you to load a camera in full daylight and then drop the film into place in the change bag once you're finished. http://www.supervision2perf.com/ Brilliant except for one thing... the frame you've marked "1" is at the original "head" of the roll. When you're ready to change direction, you're at the tail. Oh well!

When Nick Mulder first mentioned that problem, I immediately figured out how to solve it. It's easy to change the setup to park the 2-perf window in the middle of the frame. This still leaves a 2-perf region unexposed. As far as the idea of using 2-perf pulldown, there are zero transfer houses in Minneapolis that can handle that... however, they can all handle this idea, which is 4-perf pulldown but would have to be transferred twice on each piece of film, once forward and once reverse, just re-framing and re-centering in each direction. And to anyone else poo-pooing this idea, the conversion for any camera would only be in the hundreds of dollars (a new gate only) rather than the thousands required to convert to 2-perf pulldown. The advantages are immediately apparent to anyone familiar with Technoscope 1:2.33... you can use spherical lenses, get full depth-of-field, pay half as much for 35mm film stock and development, convert a camera for a song, and gain 25% vertical resolution and 40% width over a Super 16mm frame. The only disadvantage over 2-perf pulldown (Technoscope) is that the film has to be marked and re-loaded carefully so as to not re-expose any frames, and the total run-time per roll is the same as standard 35mm cameras rather than double for 2-perf pulldown. Also, keep in mind that the negative cannot be conformed... it must be scanned for release prints, but that's really not a problem in 2006 if an indie company gets that far.

Repeating what I said above... "The camera is stopped before end of the roll and turret is moved out of the way, exposing one of the frames to the open air, where the film loader pokes a pin through the center of the exposed half-frame. This marks the film so that it isn't accidentally re-inserted in such a manner as to expose over the original shots!" "The film is drawn off the new supply reel until the pinhole is felt with the fingertips, which is carefully placed behind the protective part of the gate as the sprocket holes are locked onto the pull-down claws."

good idea. i've just re-written my patent application. thanks! z

Just to be clear, I've applied for a patent on this approach. 8^) I think it will help indie filmmakers make the best use of their film/process/scan money! Nothing like increasing depth-of-field and close focus while using easily-obtained spherical lenses, cutting film/process/scan costs in half, and getting all the way to 2.33 wide all at once! Imagine modifying your 35mm movie camera for about $500 with a simple screw-in gate that takes advantage of the new low-grain stocks and all of the lenses you have available in town, plus lets you use your local telecine people to take care of transfers (once forward, then again!) BTW, it's called CineVex [tm]. 8^P At least that's the working title. heh.

Okay, call me crazy, but I've got an Eyemo and I'd like to shoot Techniscope-style images, but none of the transfer facilities in my town (Minneapolis) have the ability to do 2-perf (except scanning, which I don't want to pay for.) So being the imaginative nutjob that I am, I've come up with a scheme which I think might work... First, I have a machine shop fabricate a modified gate so that only the upper (or lower) half of the image is exposed on the film, protecting the other half from being exposed at all. The film is run through the camera from beginning to end. The camera is stopped before end of the roll and turret is moved out of the way, exposing one of the frames to the open air, where the film loader pokes a pin through the center of the exposed half-frame. This marks the film so that it isn't accidentally re-inserted in such a manner as to expose over the original shots! Next, the camera is run out in the change bag and the loader flips the rolls over a-la regular 8mm, to expose the other half of the film. The film is drawn off the new supply reel until the pinhole is felt with the fingertips, which is carefully placed behind the protective part of the gate as the sprocket holes are locked onto the pull-down claws. Finally, the other "half" of the film is exposed, and during the tele-cine process, the image is sized and letter-boxed to suit as the film is run through the transfer twice, once for the first half, once for the second! Anyone see any flaws in my reasoning, or have any suggestions?

with a very nice paint job.

If your object is to get something that can be projected straight out of the camera after processing, just use reversal. That's what it's made for! It's beautiful stock that produces fantastic contrast... just make sure you expose it properly. Not much latitude to fool around with!

I dropped off a roll at Delden Film Labs (Minneapolis) for processing today and asked the technician about modern film stocks and their ability to survive being stored at room temperature, and he shrugged and said not to worry about it... in his opinion, even a month isn't too long to let a roll sit around at room temp, exposed or raw.

As I stated quite clearly before, the Nikon lenses are NOT for my K100, but for my Aaton LRT7.

The Nikon lenses are for mounting on my Aaton using a Les Bosher adapter, not the K100. No aperture ring??? That's no good! Forget the DX series then. Thanks!

I just shot some slow-mo helicopter footage in Las Vegas with my super 16mm K100. I haven't done a transfer yet so I haven't looked at the results, but I'll try to post back in this thread when I have time to do that. Thanks for the info on the DX lenses... although the SLR community is irritated with Nikon for introducing this DX series, it certainly seems like a boon to those of us with Nikon adapters on Super 16mm cameras! Now I've got to visit bidslammer and cancel some Nikon bids...

I have a Les Bosher Nikon adapter. Do the DX lenses have a different mount than standard Nikon lenses?