Simon Wyss

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.

Dear Paul, no. But, films are becoming made thinner like in the case of Gigabitfilm 40 in the 16 mm gauge (0.068 mm or 2.7 mils). More (black an white) stocks are likely to be availabe on a thinner base in the future. Which means, you'll load 200 feet on the hundred-foot spool. Only problem is to get thin film processed. I'm working on that, a new machine design.

An idiot must have had your camera in his hands. For luck, the tachometer can easily be inverted in its holding once the body is open. I think they should correct that for free if you point it out soberly. All the best

The trick is to thump a cartridge two or three times onto its feed side to loosen the windings a little prior to inserting. Feed side is the one with the sticker on.

You haven't peeped through an Arriflex II C yet.

Correct, you have the two ways. Light is cheaper, much better environmentally, and as even as a chemical treatment. The chemical way is common with the color reversal processes.

More information about alloy No. 12: It's been called American Alloy Number Twelve. Easier to work than pure aluminum and smaller degree of shrinkage. Copper addition by a pre-alloy of Al and Cu fifty-fifty. For those of you who cannot resist to restore a Bell & Howell Standard

Hello, Karl and everyone What I meant was the color reversal internegative film of Fuji for printing out on it but in the 16 mm format there are the specially designed films like EASTMAN EXR Color Intermediate Film 2244™ / 5244™/ 7244™. Aaand, there are the microfilms, correct, only not in 16. The reason why I cooled off a little cinematography-wise is that I have begun my apprenticeship as a mechanic. They call it polymechanic now in this country but the profession is still with saw, file, drill, lathe, milling and grinding machine. My occupation until summer 2010.

Better not print stock but intermediate film such as EASTMAN Color Internegative II Film 5272/7272. In the black and white realm you have a lot of low speed stocks: Gigabitfilm 40 and the younger Gigabitfilm HDR 32 (35 mm only), internegative films, interpositive films with a little more contrast. In 35 mm you have additionally photo films in case you employ a simple camera, I mean with a simple claw mechanism: Fuji color printout film, and others

Find this not too bad. Can continue like Voice: I am thirsty. CU of dog MC of Mike and Jason, bewildered Voice of dog: C'me on, fellows, let's find a bar! Group strolls away.

The Bell & Howell Eyemo camera was introduced in 1925. Announcement in the May issue of the SMPE Journal Never mind

Wow, Karl, what's bitten you in the meantime? I can't see any purist attitude with somebody who has film in her or his hands, and the question was so beautifully simple. Does film cement work with modern stock tells me so much about Aaron. There is a director who wants to know about the very base of our industry. I have just reread US Patent 610,861 of September 13, 1898, to Hannibal Goodwin of Newark, NJ: What I claim as new is an improvement in the art of making transparent flexible, photographic-film pellicles, the same consisting in dissolving nitro-cellulose in a . . . There is not a trace of arrogance in Aaron's post. We who know well enough can explain to him that PET polyester is chemically inert, i. e. not affected by any substance in view of making a bond between two pieces of such film. So we enter film manufacturing history over triacetate base to nitrate base and the ugly beginning with the betrayal of Goodwin by Eastman (US Patent 417,202 of December 10, 1889, to Henry M. Reichenbach). I read Witnesses: George Eastman, Fred F. Church. We're back in 1887 when Goodwin filed the application on May 2. Since then nothing has changed. Film cement is in close touch with the fabrication of film. The rest, in my ears, is silence, perhaps the humming noise of my ultrasonic polyester film welder.