Simon Wyss

I have. Makers of magnetic film are Pyral and FPC-Eastman-Kodak, see under Fullcoat.

As lab technician I like to find white cloth tape around cans containing exposed stock. Film type identification by can label, any additional information written on the white tape. Please don’t write or paste on the label. Let it be the way it is. Short ends in cans sealed with black tape. That’s logic to me. Original film manufacturer tape discarded

Did you ask Bolex for H 8 spools? They might have another one or two in the drawer.

Entirely agree with you, Phil. I call it opportunism.

Which theater projects with flicker?

Perhaps because being married doesn’t have the same importance anymore? Only fooling A married print, the term comes from before WWII, is no more dead synch but only reproducable on a projector or similar device built for the sound-to-picture advance. As long as picture and sound are on separate films one can manipulate and adjust for synchronism in a theatre, in front of the telly, whatever. In spite of that, printers are able to jeopardise the concept, projectionists as well. Worst experience is what I am making today with TV. Sound comes before picture, and you never get more than cop-outs.

Reminds me that I wanted to offer my new perforator also in DS-8. Give me a hint if interested in DS-8 black-and-white stock anyone, for instance Gigabitfilm or Europan.

Nothing can be too professional. The more something is done professional, the less it will be noticed (at all). Weigh content with form. Form alone is not enough, content alone is not enough.

My recommendation is black and white.

So would I. Planning on processing spirals for film widths above 16 mm, I can only recommend that you make contact with Mr. Alfred Kahl in Germany. He holds the molding tools from JOBO. Ask me for his adress in case of interest as PM. By the way, what is your full name, please?

Your camera was made in 1944. It certainly wonʼt mind care, so learn about it by opening, cleaning, and lubricating the mechanism. You first unscrew the lenses from the turret, then screws 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. NOT ONE of the others (6 through 12) ! The four turret screws are seen in its corners when looking at the camera from front. Take care when removing the mechanism from the housing because the shutter protrudes radially into the turret from inside. NEVER try to remove the spring housing from the mechanism NOR to take the spring out of its housing. That can be very dangerous. IF you need to refresh the spring lubricant, graphite powder, DO pass the whole camera to a specialist or to Bolex International; 15, route de Lausanne; 1400 Yverdon-les-Bains; Switzerland. Give the governor top bearing some grease. That bearing is a bit hard to reach. Give the governor bottom bearing a drop of oil. Oil all the axle bushings, one drop each. Grease the gears. If you unscrew that slotted cap under the winding handle you get access to the spring core into which fits a winding key with square tip. I think it is of a quarter inch width but Iʼm not sure. You can wind the spring from the core while the camera is running.

How old?

Ben, let me put it like this: Black-and-white or color film can and will capture violet. Subtractive color positive film, subtractive printing, subtractive LCD, additive fluorescent VCR tubes, additive LED arrays, additive LASER projection, and any other system will not display violet unless this specific light colour is introduced either by a filter (subtractive) or a source/luminophore (additive). Still another point to consider is transmission from a color negative to positive stock. Had we the corresponding value of violet on the neg, an unknown yellow, would the pos stock produce violet from it? But what gives me a real feeling of b. is the confusion about hues and their names.

Violet, not purple, not lilac. Violet does not contain any red, not a trace. I cannot put up violet here for you in the forum, nor on any monitor. It would take an extra dye on the film to project it. It’s sometimes done with art imprints, seldomly, as a fourth colour.

Very good question! A film layer can be sensitive to ultraviolet, violet, and longer wave-length colours but multilayer colour films bear filter layers plus they cannot reproduce violet by their dyes. Nobody has ever seen violet on a cinema screen. That’s the mystery of the simple thing. The secret of everything boring. The holy oafishness.

Ladies and Gentlemen It’s time again for buildup. It is my plan to manufacture and sell motion-picture film equipment, amongst it an editor. Direction is solid, reliably machinery. The editor shall be a combination of all the good things there are without the drawbacks of the known products. Example: With most flatbed machines you need rather long arms to reach everything. They are too big. Some have cold or warping materials such as aluminium or chipboard table plates. I want to improve on the accessibility of everything, flexibility of use, and size. I want to offer a fusion of table and Moviola. As mad as it may sound, this is my question: Would anybody deem the project viable in one or two points? Who would think of purchasing a fresh 35-mm. editor providing one image and three sound gangs? Other formats? Kind regards, your technician

Jean Yves, you don’t have to apologize, it’s rather me who has an uncomfortable feeling here. What I meant to say is formally half a question, half a statement, namely that and why somebody not working at a lab is coming up with a technical photographic curves discussion. I have nothing against someone’s curiosity but I can’t see a point in here. Would you want to participate in a lab technicians’ round some day? Do you find anything out of control with the raw stocks? I’m just blind for juggling games. There is the scientific, objective, way as initiated by Hurter and Driffield. Yes. There is the subjective view. Yes and yes. A calm look at the green green grass of home in a cinema. Comparison between two pictures side by side, one filtered, the other one not. That discussion is my passion. What is shown in the shadows of a black-and-white scene.

And here you trespass the line. While you are stating that all this is purely theoretical lab technicians take care building the base for the more or less artistic work of a production. Let me cite from the Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide for Black and White of which I have the 3rd Edition from 1964. The verso of the first page is imprinted with an 18 % Gray Target, actually a raster of 60 dots per inch. A reflected-light-type meter before this target, “will (on the average)”, Kodak writes, “give the correct reading for calculating exposure.” I think there is nothing theoretical about that. Why an approach, why should it complie “enough” with reality? There you are: you’ll never start experimenting with negative latitude without the thing. What one does with an electronic calculator, that is a computer, is a simulation in total abstractness. You will always stay somewhere else, that is in the electric realm. Film is chemical. You can’t be farther away from it than by saying “even processing”. Please try to follow me: film manufacturers produce films which are to be processed according to their specifications, that is in aqueous solutions of chemicals after given recipes at given temperatures and some degree of agitation. How should I simulate that? Apart from the other self-deception with the so-called analyzer (introduced 1957) which is again an Imitation of Life, a computer aided simulation of chemophysical imagery is, to me at least, kind of, how shall I say, preposterous. It’s like trying to bake a cake with microwaves. Why not slides, in the dark, plain photochemical pictures? The real craft.

The explanation is not very simple. It’s a bit apples, pears, and oranges. On one side you have the densitometer which has an incandescent bulb as light source. Some are equipped with LED. Tungsten filament glow lamps emit a lot of infrared, red, and yellow light. On the other side we deal with a standardized projection light of 5600 Kelvin colour temperature. Blue light is always of the weakest intensity but absorbed by the yellow layer. Red light prevailes again, being absorbed by the cyan layer. That is why cyan (blue-green) is densest. Green light will be absorbed mostly by the magenta colouring, lying middle. The matter becomes more complicated if a lab has to produce projection positives for carbon-arc light, I am referring to high-intensity arcs. Those are hard lights with ultraviolet, violet, and blue in abundance. The temperatures within the arc plasma attain 10,000 Kelvin. You see, it’s all about the light.

Whew, it is all more complicated than thought. Eastman Kodak state 7382, 16-mm. print film, as of 1953. It seems there was no 7381 ever. Gert Koshofer writes about US patent 2,449,966 filed May 3, 1944, issued September 21, 1948. Colour masks would have been employed for 16-mm. Kodachrome Commercial Film in 1946 and for a professional Ektacolor Sheet film in 1948. Kodacolor negative film (paper prints) for amateur photographers got dye couplers, too, in 1949. Cinecolor Corp. of Burbank was first to be equipped for ECN-ECP. Who will pick up information on the very first 16-mm. color negative-positive production? Looks like early sixties

Sorry, James, but Kodacolor was a reversal film. So far I could find out Eastmancolor 7247 was available from 1951 on but soon replaced. Problem was that there were no labs equipped to process it until only towards the end of the fifties.

Clutch as much of the old-time thing as you can. Yes, we can, it’s in the can.