Doug Palmer

By edge numbering, I really mean those dreadful code numbers that appear every so often between the perfs.

Roberto, I'm currently converting another Bolex (non-reflex) to ultra-16. I was wondering whether to enlarge the gate to the full width, ie. wider than 1.85:1. Maybe something like 2.2:1. As you mention, the edge numbers are the problem on most film stocks. But maybe if we put our concerns to Ferrania and others, they would keep those numbers away <_< Wittner doesn't do the numbering on 200D. But my query is this: Did you have any problem enlarging the Bolex gate to the full width and how wide is that please? Is the film held flat and steady, as before ?

Lately I've been using quite thick cables, but when adjusting the locking position (so that the shutters are phased properly) any lag seems constant. The main thing is to ensure there is plenty of time gap when the camera shutter is open, for the projector shutter to open and close. So any discrepancy is avoided. It also simplifies things if the auxillary shutter blade of the projector (that is just used for flicker-removal), is cut off. Caution: If the film in camera jams for any reason, the strong projector motor will likely cause damage in the camera as it continues running. So it's best to either use a cheap camera or provide a way for the cable to slip in emergency.

Using a flexible shaft to make the camera sync to projector doesn't have to be as involved as my set-up with the Bolex. Any simple DIY connection should work, as long as you trust the camera not to jam (so maybe a cheapo one is a good idea) The projector can be inched to find the best position for locking the cable, to get the most light from the shutters of both camera and projector. Maybe try this :lol: set-up ? The camera can be hand-held perhaps for extra realism.

It's fairly straightforward making a physical connection from projector to camera. So there's no density fluctuation on the image. Assuming there's an accessable 1:1 shaft on the camera. http://filmcamblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/bolex-projector-runs-bolex-camera.html

David and Carl, thanks for helping me with that query (post no 163) about the inaccuracy of super-8 perfs. Maybe it's a problem that should be put right if super-8 is to be reintroduced now by Kodak with its new camera, and also with Ferrania's new film. I still can't understand why it is beyond hope of achieving. New punching machines ? Impossible ? Coming back to Lasse's original idea of a 2-perf camera, interesting it apparently does not require threading, so presumably isn't a pin-regd design. Although Lasse has apparently given up on this idea, if it had materialised... and Kodak's new camera too, it would seem to me that stricter controls on manufacturing super-8 film are essential for it to compete with 16mm and digital. I can't really see the attraction of buying an inferior product at almost the cost of 16mm, just to get that so-called super-8 look. And if people want that jumpy appearance, it will still be there partially even with better perforating, simply by using a crap camera, as the cartridge design isn't going to be improved presumably.

I can't understand the reason why Super-8 perfs are supposedly not made to the same standards as 16mm perfs. I know S.8 is twice as likely to be inaccurate because it's half the width, but you'd think that would be the only technicality. And the fact that they are narrower holes you'd think would help registration if anything. Normal cartridge super-8 cameras that I've come across tend to be only noticeably bad on the up and down registration, so I guess the edge guides tend to work fairly well. I am a little amazed that Logmar have adopted the edge registration method even with a pin-regd camera, so it is obviously an inherent perf problem with super-8. But I'm baffled...

I was just imagining something fairly simple like this

Yes I should have added that there needs to be some kind of break between the miniature and the real distance. Maybe it's possible diagonally just to the right of the figures, breaking up the join with rough ground or foliage. This part may be better as a diffused glass painting.

Why not have the miniature ground (road ?) extending right across the frame, as in the "Rocketship X-M" scene, but only a thin sliver underneath your actors. Not above them. So the miniature foreground won't need hazing to match the contrast of the real distance. It can also be slightly soft focus perhaps, as it seems to be in their shot. If the camera is quite low down it could blend in OK. But would be easier if the miniature sliver was perhaps some 'rocky' ground as a foreground to the road. To reduce the contrast of the rocket/launchpad make up a sheet of glass with some bridal veil or something over just that area of the frame.

Now we're totally off the 2-perf S8 topic :D But as 2016 dawns it's nice to dream a little. I wonder if Kodak ever considers doing a sort of special edition Kodachrome run. For movie and still photography. And processing at Dwaynes, if they still have the machine. I'm sure many folks would pay the necessary high prices just for that great experience all over again.

Tyler, this is probably a daft comment..... I was just wondering if the lens problem they were having is something to do with the fact that the screen wasn't curved. Were some of those old UP projection lenses set up for deeply curved screens like Cinerama ? (Fond memories of seeing Ben-Hur this way many years ago) But then it's off-centre as you say and strangely darker too... Looking forward to seeing Hateful Eight in London and hope no similar issues.

A 2-perf projector sounds a good idea. But to be truly successful it would have to be at least as easy to use as a 16mm projector. Remember, cinemas and film societies don't have projectionists anymore. So I guess foolproof auto-threading would be necessary and a very low noise level to compete somewhat with the digital projectors. Also I wonder if having a 4-perf pin registration is overkill, and surely this could be a potential print wear issue. I would think one pin may be sufficient ?

Wonderful as these ideas are.... the 2-perf super-8 and the 2-or more-perf 16mm and so on.... I feel they are not really feasible. OK they probably would work, but why would people want to spend more on film-stock when if the budget allows it is easier to make it on a standardised format like 35 in one of its forms. 4-perf yes is expensive for any big quantity, but 3-perf offers a saving and 2-perf even more so. TechniScope may be a challenge to keep the image good on such a wide screen, but if they somehow managed it in the 1960s with their grainy stocks, it must be easier now. The drawback is simply the lack of cameras etc. Lasse please note ;) Another problem with increasing the linear speed of a super-8 or 16mm camera: the mechanical noise. Also a non pin-regd camera is more prone to unsteadiness at higher speeds ? In theory these problems don't occur if you are content to simply widen the image as much as possible like S.16 U.16 Varispect UP8 etc. OK some of these formats are not standardised but at least they can be scanned without trouble.

Straying off a bit but as we are currently discussing 2-perf 35mm, I wonder if Nicholas or Carl or anybody ever heard more from Steve Buckingham in Australia ? Remember, he talked of his late father Laurie developing a 2-perf camera and he claimed his family still had the prototype. I've seem to have lost all the correspondence we had ;) but there's just a small paragraph here near end of this article: http://www.filmisfine.com/?p=36&v=79cba1185463 It would be interesting indeed to actually see this camera, if it does exist. There's no mention though of a 2-perf projector. I agree... both camera and projector would be a great idea if someone could manufacture them, taking advantage of all the recent technology.

I think they were hoping to be in your video Freya :)

This raises the question whether or not it's a good idea to get in there before Kodak ditches another of its classic emulsions. Like many I wish I'd bought more E100D and got them frozen, but there's a storage limit with colour. The duration of storage isn't a problem so much with black and white. You would think that if you bought a lot now it would encourage Kodak to manufacture more and more Tri-X, but I wonder if this is the case... :angry:

If considering U16 it may be an idea to widen the gate slightly more. Although non-standard (and maybe getting in to some scan difficulty) it's possible to get quite wide ratios this way on 16mm. And the image would then be wider than S16. But depending on the film-stock used there may be problems with the code numbers ;) http://www.filmisfine.com/uncategorized/can-16mm-become-wider/

Oh I see yes... I think it's interesting that this firm Gratispool were selling and processing their 8mm "Kodachrome" film about one third cheaper than Kodak's, even with buying their chemicals.

Many years ago when Kodachrome II was around there was a lab in UK that sold and processed its own brand of Kodachrome (actually the US Dynachrome film). There's a history of it: http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Gratispool.html and I've always thought it must have been a little crazy for a small company like that to have used something very similar to the complicated Kodachrome process, when Ektachrome was already available. Presumably there was at that time an independent supply of the colour dyes needed. So maybe it's just possible with the later Kodachrome :unsure:

Camera 65.... does anyone know if it was actually projected anamorphically on to the original Cinerama screens back in the late 1950s ? Before those screens diminished slightly I presume, to accommodate the 70mm Cinerama frame. Ben-Hur springs to mind naturally. As a boy I only saw it at my local cinema in 35mm scope, but many years later saw it in 70mm Cinerama at Casino, London. Absolutely stunning as it was, I wonder if this version was projected 'normally'. That is, without anamorphic, and maybe losing some image at the sides. It's fascinating this Hateful Eight adventure :rolleyes: and hope I get to see an anamorphic print somewhere someday.

There is a fine line I think in any film between being aware of what the camera is doing and immersion in the film and its characters. This film passed that test. The cinematography was good but full marks also to the editing. However, I thought the tarpaulin haystack scene wasn't particularly convincing, not enough wind and rain following. And that shot of the corn field gleaning had far too many digital workers ;) and appeared too spacious for the period.

I would think any of the Bolex RX lenses will be fine for Ultra-16. This format's quite a lot easier to cover than super-16, yet almost as wide. I use the 10mm Switar alot with ultra-16.

I've just seen it in Bridport, Dorset. A stones throw from the locations, so it was a packed cinema (Electric Palace). I'm still not sure whether I saw a digital or film print, but whatever the Vision photography was beautiful. Yes I thoroughly recommend everyone to see it just for the lighting and landscapes. The forest scene was particularly well done. Re the handheld footage, I wasn't too struck on some of it later on in the film, it looked good earlier on though.

Muhammad, have you tried operating the camera via the 1:1 shaft from some kind of external motor ? This would probably indicate whether or not there is a problem with the transport. If all is well then it surely is some problem with the electronics or electrics that could be solved by a competent person locally.