Doug Palmer

What about using stills... Maybe not, but when I think of memories the image comes before movement.

Perfect in Saving Private Ryan-type films. Tiring on the eyes in others. Most people don't care about screengrabs.

I like this idea. A long lens gives a kind of abstract feel rather like a 2-dimensional painting or drawing.

Me too. I'm always amazed how good the image is at F1.2, which is mainly why I use this lens. Maybe there's some degradation because of the prism, but OK if there's out-of-focus stuff around the main subject.

Yes it should be fine. In theory there could be a problem due to the fact it's not a RX lens built with the prism in mind, but I haven't found this, especially if stopped down a little. Shorter lenses may be not so good.

Well thanks to Simon in Switzerland I'm now the happy owner of a GIC 16mm camera that runs at very nearly 24 ! Can't wait to take it on my travels. https://filmisfine.com/blog/16mm-exploits-with-the-g-i-c-camera/

Yes surely. I've never done 3M front projection :unsure: , but doing optical effects with normal projection the halo problem is less when using smaller stops on the projector's lens.

Presumably though you could just add black washers onto the front of the lens till you get the best result ?

Were any black and white separation negs ever made from this movie I wonder. If so you'd think they would be pristine. I don't know if this archival method was done with 70mm.

I should say that I haven't tested the sound channels for play-back either. All 'as is'.

You may have seen this at http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=76670&hl= So although it's free to a good home, do bear in mind there's work to be done on this editor to get it operational. I simply haven't got the time at present to do anything on it. And it's taking up valuable space in my small shop here in Bridport, Dorset UK. This was formerly used by Raj Kothari who previously worked on 'Gandhi'. If you remember, his father was the gentleman who cajoled Richard Attenborough to keep his 20 year film-dream alive, though I think he didn't live to see it actually made. Raj himself sadly died last year. Coming back to the Schmid, I think it probably has been in storage for a long time and maybe needs fresh oil etc. I had a brief look at the switches and couldn't see anything obviously wrong. Machine runs forward but not backward. Speeds work OK. Only two of the sprocket drives work, those of the sound tracks. So if you're interested in getting this going again, let me know. My email is doug@filmisfine.co But remember, it's entirely up to you to collect ! I won't be shipping it anywhere !

Ha ha yes I know what you mean. In the past I've dumped many old projectors into the council skip, knowing at least some parts will be likely salvaged.Yes Simon, I've run some Ektachrome on the little GIC but haven't got round yet to get it processed. I asked Kevin at gaugefilm.co.uk to see if he does the 50ft lengths of 16mm and he says yes, so that's good. (He stopped doing the 100ft rolls) Thanks Mark, I'll have a final look !

A long time replying, my apologies to Mark and Simon. And thanks so much. So many other things have got in the way of this little project. No progress I'm afraid. I've gone through the obvious contacts like on switches. But my problem is lack of space as this monster is occupying a chunk of my small shop, so I'm rapidly losing enthusiasm. It's a shame as it looks so well engineered and so on. Consequently I think the best thing is to offer it to someone as a gift. But that someone has to take it out of here ! ie. big car or van needed plus some muscles. The whole thing can be dismantled for transport but it's still bloody heavy ! To recap: It runs forward but the sound sprockets rotate, not the picture sprocket. None of the reverse take-ups work. Is anyone out there keen to take it on ? (Bridport Dorset UK)

I want one ! :rolleyes: I agree. If Logmar could produce a reasonably priced and quiet 2 perf, there'd be a market for sure.

That's interesting about Lean preferring flat screen for Lawrence. I can't see any harm though in slightly curved screens for 70 and indeed 35 scope. I would have thought also the focus would improve at the edges in most film setups. Maybe digital projection doesn't like curves ? The Revenant I think would look good on a deeply curved screen, with its wideangle photography, if the digital origination is up to it. Yes it's shameful to see normal screens without any masking.

It's a shame most cinemas now are flat-screened. Even a slight curve gives a sense of marvel to the film, as well as making it a special experience away from the living room. But the deep curves of Cinerama and D150 only seemed to work well with wideangle photography. 2001 a good example. The Ben-Hur chariot race looked terrific. Some 70mm films though had a few long-lens shots. I doubt if Omar Sharif's entry in Lawrence of Arabia would have been as effective on a deep curved screen.

All the Cinerama and D150 presentations gave viewers an immersive experience, in my opinion better than Imax most of the time. Because of the wrap-round effect of the screen, as long as you sat centrally near the front of the balcony. However, in most films there was at least one shot that looked wrong but maybe had to be included for flat-screen showings. In 2001 that ridiculous side view of the Jupiter space ship... curved not straight ! In The Bible D150 there was some scene I think of a camel or horse procession side-view that appeared to be climbing over a 'hill'. In Patton the introductory sequence with the stars and stripes all curved... yet somehow that didn't look bad as it was quite surreal anyway.

As I recall, Patton was incredibly sharp when shown on a Cinerama screen. I didn't notice the distortion. Maybe though it was the non bug-eye footage. I think the screen then at the Casino theatre in London was the ribboned version. It's amazing how those cinerama presentations stay with you all your life :rolleyes:

It would be nice to see how these EMP cameras are constructed. The limited number of moving parts is interesting. I'd have thought a reflex finder may have been possible, though maybe they thought it wasn't necessary because of the small parallax distance and a likelihood of short lenses with big depth of field being used. Pav, how would you rate the steadiness of your 50ft mag cameras ?

Couldn't see it on their site...? I'm surprised if only a small number were manufactured, unless they had problems. It would seem a nice way of capturing 16mm images with a tiny camera always at the ready. And I'd think there would be a market today for something like this.

I guess that lever is meant to activate reverse ?

Simon and Mark, thanks ! I haven't got around yet to looking inside the beast, only just recovered from humping it into my shop. As you see the outside at least needs a little clean. Dog hairs ! I still haven't been able to fathom how to go into reverse. I can't find any switch. Can you remember either of you ? Probably I'm staring at it :) That lever doesn't do anything either. And those 3 switches alongside the buttons.... I realise they activate the sprockets, but the one at far left doesn't work the picture sprockets. I tried to lace the film round a set of 'sound' sprockets instead, then into the picture channel but that didn't work. So I guess there's some electrical problem with the picture sprockets, maybe that switch. Next step I suppose is to take the back panels off...at least you can swing the whole thing vertically. I'd like to think it won't be all a waste of time, as I expect parts are almost non-existent. However, this flatbed actually runs quieter than my Steenbeck...

I have a Schmid 16mm editing machine and I'm not familiar with it. No instructions and I can't seem to find anything online. It runs forwards but doesn't go backwards, unless there's something I'm missing... And there is no direct drive to the sprockets (surely this is wrong ?), so there's a strain apparently at the takeup hub, causing the spindle to slip and not turn. But maybe I'm not doing things correctly. Any help much appreciated ! ^_^ This machine was formerly used by Raj Kothari who sadly died early last year. He was an assistant editor on Gandhi, and his father was instrumental in encouraging Attenborough to make that movie.

Dark evenings not conducive to lens testing B) This morning sunny and nice out there. I tried the 10mm non-macro lens with a shim behind and the aspheron in front.... the focus looks good from infinity down to about 3 feet. That's at f1.6. However, all lenses are a bit different so you may find a thicker shim or even a washer is necessary. The previous posts misleading, I'm sorry. In the past I've always used a macro 10mm lens with the aspheron.

Paul, a problem I'm afraid. I tried the 10mm non-macro RX lens again on a Bolex EBM regular-16 camera, plus the Aspheron in front. There was no vignetting visible. However, when focused for fairly near distances like across the room for example, the closest focus on the lens was not sufficient for sharpness. I was using max aperture of f1.6. When I unscrewed the lens slightly the image got sharp. So it looks like a shim behind the lens would be necessary for these sorts of distances. And maybe at longer distances too, as your lens could be callibrated differently from mine. With the macro 10mm lens of course there's not this problem. So the non-macro lens plus Aspheron isn't an ideal combination, especially if doing close-ups.