Simon Wyss

Right guess. Spools for Double-Eight film are specified by ISO 1020, sizes 25 ft, 50 ft, and 100 ft. They have 3- and 4-splined spindle holes.

I have introduced Gigabitfilm 40 to cinematography in 2001 (35 mm), in 2005 (16 mm). We have shot with an Arriflex BL II, with a Paillard-Bolex H 16 S, and other makes. Its finest application is as a duplicating stock. Also, it served me well with variable density sound work. A gamma as low as log 0.4 is feasible. There's a machine version of the original developer under way. I did all processing by hand until 2008. www.gigabitfilm.de

ISO 1019 specifies daylight loading type spools for 16 mm motion-picture film cameras, there is also the 50 foot size. http://www.filmdex.com/film_11.shtml

That's correct but no more for black and white. A sharp negative has been exposed behind a lens, and everything after the negative actually should deal with that lens' geometry. That is why a good contact positive correctly projected outperforms any positive derived from data out of the same negative. But I am leaving the reversal issue.

Agfa have around 80 percent of the India cinema print market.

I know the beast. What's up?

Never mind

Not so. Fomapan R 100 is produced and marketed by Foma Bohemia, Ltd., of Hradec Králové, Czech Republik. It is available as 35-mm. film, 16-mm., Double-8, and Double Super-8. Then there is Kahl of Brühl in Germany who sells an E-6 process colour reversal stock in Double-8, along with more stuff. Then you have Wittner in Hamburg who offer different makes. Then you have Gigabitfilm 40 which will become available also in Double-8 in summer 2011. http://www.foma.cz/ http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/home.php http://www.kahlfilm.de/ http://www.gigabitfilm.de

Thank you, John, you give it in exactness better than I do.

There are movie stocks on the market that are meant to be developed after the E-6 process. E-6 has evolved from the older E-4 and the still older A-2 process of Agfa. There is the historical fact of forcedly published patents such as with Agfacolor in 1945. Eastmancolor derives from Agfacolor (1950). Motion-picture colour film of today is hardly comparable to these systems. Chemistry has been changed, too. An E-6 process film will not stand up to properly treated colour negative and positive after ECN-ECP, an ISO speed value given for both sides.

Why this mincemeat? I must say that I could not see anything like editing out of the pictures' rhythm, development from a given pace outwards. You chop up everything. Why?

Nick, I’ve just read your initial question, ...now what is the 'bolex' of 35mm ?, and should like to add that there was a 35-mm. film Bolex. Its name was Cinégraphe Bol and it’s been on display at the 1923 Geneva national exhibition. Jacques Bogopolsky and Charles Haccius together legally owned the trade mark Bolex from 1924 on. This Cinégraphe flopped entirely. It has a a double side five claw movement, a drum shutter, fixed lens, peep-sight parallax viewfinder, crank and screw-on clockwork drive. My theory is that this Haccius made a deal with one of the U. S. companies after the total failure of the Bol company in 1929-30. The Paillard-Bolex H cameras are not swiss, not Bogopolsky’s design. Possibly Rochester, perhaps Chicago

There is an antique school way of recording with wild cameras. You record the noise of the camera on a separate track, be it on tape, be it digitally. You will hear the camera whir exactly as long as the picture runs and from that be able to determine beginning and end of the synch section.

To produce a black-and-white motion picture film is a confession. What are you talking about with post production, digital hiphop, and negative contrast ranges? You light a black-white totally different. You draw the story rather than paint it. The relation between picture and sound is different, too. Polenta or popcorn

A lab with unsharp prints is not viable. Soft copy doesn't sell. What is possible is that the answer print in question has been a so-called wet print, i. e. a positive derived under a liquid. Most work prints, rushes, dailies are dry copy. Negative and raw stock come together partially around a toothed drum of 64 perforations circumference. Both films run onto the drum under some tension and leave the same in a slack with no tension. It's virtually impossible that the print comes out unsharp. A bit critical it is with step printers but I'd like to say that there, too, all lab folks are very well aware of their equipment and what comes out of it. Could be as an other possibility that there were different lenses in use for projection. You may want to check this before more investigation. Believe me, sometimes it is only a ridiculously small thing to trouble big minds.

One can enter Foma Bohemia's shop in Prague, Jungmannová 2, any time of the year and buy Fomapan R 100 in Double Super 8 and lengths of 33 or 100 foot. Gigabitfilm will be available in Double-Eight and Double Super 8 towards end 2011.

Hey, where the film did you learn German?

Course mit out sound, mean Klieg light (which actually is Kliegl light), and so on. Why not smile at my swenglisch? I can laugh about words and so, too.

A synch slate serves sound work first. Why worry about colours as long as that point has not become crystal clear? The slate should be nicely visible in the frame of the intended aspect ratio, steady, sharp, legible, open before the announcement, closed not like lightning yet with a nice slap for the sound record, held in place for a second, and then swiftly and entirely removed from the scene. Haven't we discussed the slate? Colours on the slate only make sense when the grader knows with certainty that its illumination can cope with the illumination of the scene. My opinion

Funny. Steven Spielberg and no one around to understand there are polyester base stocks that can be welded. Very durable joints.

Nuuhh, Hal, I'd say the reason is technical. They don't like to stitch or tape so many short lengths together and the stitches tear the squeegees down. Damaged squeegees are something most unwanted with processing machines.

Jade? You state Director of Photography in your profile and ask such questions? Something must be rotten in the state of Denmark.

Check out this: http://www.schutzcarbon.com/arc_carbon.html

Found something exciting: Code 1414, Kodak High Definition Aerial Film 3414 on an Estar ultra-thin base of 1.5 mil = 0,0381 mm, ~ 1970. Reference: http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml (wrong metrical value given there) That would lead to 400 ft of film on the H spool in your Eyemo.

Do you know the ‘A’ type core? Its diameter is one inch, you can place it on the spindle with its square bore. So you find some of them and roll her. Better of course were spools with smallest possible core. Next point: Get thinner film. If they've been on the moon there was Eastman-Kodak Ektachrome 160 (T ?) on a thinner polyester base. Maybe that somewhere there's still an odd film made by the yellow brother, maybe even in 35 and perforated. I don't know. What I know for certain is that there are black-and-white stocks with a dry thickness of 2.7 mils.