Jump to content

Jame Lo Piccolo

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jame Lo Piccolo

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Sound Department
  1. Thank you so much, Jean-Louis for your reply, and for the Link: it is, indeed, the very Website, that I remembered; also, thanks for relieving me of the suspicion, that it was a false-memory, a made-up fantasy. The diagrams of the coverage on the D S8 16:9 prompts a question for you, as a camera technician: Would there be any advantage of extra width in a single-perf version of DS8, or would it be outweighed by the need to re-center the camera lens, as in Super16; or, would it require a registration pin, because the gate, and pressure plate could not have enough contact on the narrowed edge of the film to keep it steady? James
  2. Thanks for your reply. Looking forward to seeing your "Charts, and People Posing", when you get to it. You have encouraged me to get in touch with both Bernie & Duall to make some in inquiries. Is your new CP-16, the reflex model? Did not know there was an adapter for the CP-!6 mount to M-42. Is there an adapter for C-mount lenses?
  3. There may still be somewhere on the Internet an item, or article, possibly from a European publication, or Website, that describes an inventor / engineer's proposal to convert a Standard 16 camera to use Double Super8 film (with all that entails in new sprockets, pull-down claw, etc)., but NOT to the Super8 format. Instead, his proposal is for a conversion to a variation of the Super16 format.The inventor claims that his new format is superior in a number of ways to the present Super16: Those advantages include a better use of the film-frames's real estate, side-to-side, and up-and-down; It allows for elimination of the necessity of physical A/B-roll editing, because the frame-line is between the film's smaller Super8 sprocket holes, and; there is no need to recenter the lens position, since the gate is still dead center (in the manner of Ultra16). It is unclear, whether he built a proof-of-concept model, or just did drawings, and diagrams, but that is owing to my faulty memory, the loss of the site from my computer, and an inability to find it again on-line (Apparently, I never printed it out the page.) Perhaps someone here on this forum already knows where the site can be found, and can confirm, or refute my recollection dating from early 2017, or late 2016 - my best guesses. Meanwhile, the father-son team that invented the Logmar could adapt their $7000+ camera to this new format, and still retain the internal single-strand 50' cartridge. To make their camera even more flexible & modular, they could come up with a variation of the Ritter re-usable SD8/60 top-mounted 200' magazine, but could take single-strand Super8, as well as Double S8, It could be a multi-format camera, even including Ultra8 31. As for the problems of two pull-down claws, and two sprocket-sets; well, the Eclair CM-3 has coincident 35 & 16mm gates, and claws; and doesn't Aaton(?) have a lens-mount that rapidly re-centers between standard, and Super16?. No doubt, it would add substantially to the cost; maybe an additional $7000 to make a nice round, even number of $14,000, and that's not including all kinds of add-on accessories that would make the camera even bigger, clunkier, heavier, and if possible, even less-ergonomic, than the basic model. Say; another $6000, that would bring the full-kit to $20,000? When you are doing a vanity project, or a fantasy project, cost is no object. Kodak could have done it in 1965, when The Great Yellow Father introduced Super8 as a consumer product. Had they supported processing labs, and professional users of Super8, it might have competed with Super16, before that format became established. But, it would have been like turning the Queen Mary, given Kodak's moment of inertia. If anyone has actually read all of this reply, thank you for you kind indulgence. James
  4. Hello Sir Alvin, Your Post is the only one in my present search, now in 2018, that even comes close to having information that would be valuable to know before contacting Bernie: First; Did you have Bernie do the Ultra16 conversion, as you planned, and how did it work out? Next; What can you see in the converted Beaulieu's viewfinder -- does the mirror have enough width to deliver the left & right extensions of the frame, and does the viewfinder also need to be modified front & back to show the extended frame-width. Finally; have you had any problems with actual coverage of the whole Ultra16 frame using native C-Mount lenses, either made for standard 16 format film, or video lenses that cover standard 16 ( e,g, 2/3")? Your own on-going search for a solution to your viewfinder problem seems to have ended successfully -- congratulations Best wishes, James
  5. Gentlemen: Thank you for your replies to my inquiry, and thank you for the correction of my faulty measurements and arithmetic; this is the first time I've seen in print anywhere the diagonal-length of the 16R frame, and that includes my 1973 edition of "American Cinematographer Manual". I've been out of the active world of film for a long time, but thought I'd ask my question, just in case... (Incidentally, does anyone anywhere do projection of 16mm film, anymore, and has anyone ever projected Super16 film prints for exhibition?)
  6. Hello: I just did a little calculation for the 2/3" sensor using your dimensions of 9.58X5.39mm, and came up with a diagonal of 10.99mm. If this is accurate, does this mean that a 16mm focal-length 2/3"video lens will not cover the standard 16mm film-frame? My approximation for the standard-frame diagonal is 13.25mm. Therefore, only a 1"format video lens could cover the standard film frame; but would it cover Super 16?
  7. Thanks for your reply: Kodak admitted somewhere in their published boiler-plate, after discontinuing Kodachrome 40 and introducing Ektachrome 64T in Super8, that the latter was the same emulsion as the 64T 35mm and 120 Ekatchrome still-camera film, one of an aging family of Ektachrome tungsten transparency films. I've used the 320T version in my 35 still-cameras with an 85B filter in daylight at 200 ASA/ISO to good effect (it's not the long-gone, much-missed-by-me, GAF/AnscoChrome 100D, but it's an acceptable substitute for that painterly film). Now, 320T has also been discontinued, by Kodak. But, 35mm slides have 8 times the image area of a 16mm frame, so even the least-grainy, 64T member of the Ektachrome family would not cut it as a Kodachrome replacement in 16mm, never mind Super8. You probably detect the sour grapes in that assertion, since it would be too costly for me to buy it slit for 16mm from Kodak, anyway. Don't know where the Germans are getting their Kodachrome 40 for Super8: Kodak claims that they ended production of Kodachrome 40 years ago, and that any film remaining in their inventory that reaches expiration date is destroyed, not sold to anyone. Kodak may still have some Kodachrome 64 still-film, but that's a daylight film and so would be far too slow to use, filtered for my few, simple 3200K tungsten quartz lights, and it would be far beyond my means to light with rented 5400K fixtures, even if I could afford a special order of the film from Kodak. No, the one that got away, as far as I can tell, is the Fuji T64 with an RMS granularity of 7, as compared to Ektachrome 64T at RMS 11, and Kodachrome 40 at RMS 9. James
  8. Good to know that this machinery still survives in the US outside of a Kodak plant. Recently, I enquired from Kodak about buying on special order some Ektachrome 64T slit and punched single-perf for 16mm. They would be glad to oblige me for a minimum of 10,000ft @ $4400, non-returnable/non-refundable. Since the project I have in mind requires about 2000ft, tops, I decided to look elsewhere. Someone in Germany is doing Super8 slitting and perf'ing of Fujichrome 64T reversal still-camera stock -- reportably a better stock than Kodak's -- so I was hoping to cut a better deal with Fuji, only to disccover two things: One; Fuji had an even newer tungsten-reversal stock, Fujichrome T64 Professional still-camera stock with specs SUPERIOR to Kodachrome 40 in every respect, and, Two; Fuji had discontinued both of their tungsten 64 reversal stocks earlier this year and their cupboard was bare; no demand was the explanation. Should I abandon all hope ( negative color and video are NOT acceptable as alternatives )? Best wishes, James (NYU '69)
×
×
  • Create New...