Simon Wyss

Well, Dominic, in all our friendship, when I first got involved with film processing in 1987 there was this Photomec colour positive developing machine in which a pair of circular brushes was under water. Somehow Cinegram, the lab’s name, managed to make the backing flake off successfully. Sure, things change, and the jets today are not under water. Bryce, you will successfully expose 35-mm. still stock with the following cameras, regardless which perf type: Prestwich models from 1896 on Williamson, 1897 Schneider, 1898 Moy & Bastie, 1900 Ernemann from 1903 on Pathé from 1896 on Prévost, 1905 Gillon, 1905 Walturdaw, 1907 Debrie models from 1908 to 1920-21 Lubin, 1908 Chronik, 1909 Bell & Howell Eyemo models Defranne & Gennert, 1910 Akeley, 1911 ICA models since 1912 Universal Burke & James, 1914 Ensign Houghton, 1914 Barker Educator, 1917 Campbell Cello, 1918 Zollinger, 1918 FACT, 1919 Askania models from 1920 on Amigo, 1920 Ertel models since 1920 Arndt, 1921 Hahn-Goerz, 1921 Cinex, 1922 Stachow, 1922 Cinégraphe Bol, 1923 Kinarri, 1924 DeVry, 1926 Hodres, 1934 Zeiss-Ikon, 1934 Morigraf, 1935 Šlechta, 1938 Eclair Caméflex/Camerette, 1946 Maurer & Wäscher, ? Russel, ? Schimpf, ? An ARRIFLEX or an ARRIFLEX II is not suited for type P perforation.

Brian, what will the documentary be about, if I’m allowed to ask?

Do you mean type 71112 FG 80D/64T in 35 and 72161 RP in 16 mm ? These films were manufactured by Oriental like all Fuji black-and-white stocks including Fujipan R 50 and Fujipan SSS R 200 on polyester in Single-8.

Oh, yes, Tasma, not Svema. Fomapan R was available in 35 until at least 2004 in rolls to 1000', and still is in 100' length, P perf. or unperforated. Filmotec perforate 35-mm. and 16-mm. stock on request, acetate and polyester. Ilford, malfunctioning Engländer, could flood the market with Pan F, FP 4, HP 5 in ciné gauges if they wanted. Dummie cartons in shop windows, ads, flags, cans in fridges in Italy, in Mississippi, in Brisbane. Many an amateur or pro might pick his camera back en voyage, the Eumig C 16, the GSMO, the Revere, a Paillard-Bolex, an Eyemo. Lucky will sell unperforated 35. Fuji has microfilms that can be perforated. Efke KB 25, 50, 100 run in the Frankenkonvas, run in the Camerette. Bergger, I was in contact with Monsieur Gérard, needs only enough demand. From Adox am I awaiting a reply to the proposal of an 800 ISO stock. I’m not sure whether Manhattan was a true black and white. But Woody Allen could not resist an allusion of explosivity for that one. See the first three minutes.

Evan, negative-positive processes are professional because the possibilities with a negative original correspond with professional demands. A negative’s latitude is bigger than a reversal film’s one. The printing step alone allows so many tricks to be installed. The knack is actually that bringing together of two quite different stocks. The original is usually made of a panchromatic medium to high speed grey-base film, the copy in general of a non sensitized low speed colourless-base film. Each one suits its conditions of exposure at a reasonable price. Black-and-white cinematography can be very dull, can be most brilliant. One or the other of the so-called black and white movies of past years could have been real silver film. But they were not. Too many producers still cling to streamlined ideas. Yet, there have never been more different black-and-white films on the market than today. China Lucky, Bergger, Efke, Foma, Ilford, Gigabitfilm, Shostka (Polypan), Eastman-Kodak, Agfa-Gevaert, Orwo, Fuji (yes), Adox; sound recording film, duplicating film, printing film, traffic surveillance film, general surveillance film, general-purpose negative and reversal film, microfilm, microfilm duplicating film, X-ray film, infrared film, nostalgic film. One can have 0.004 ISO to 4000 ISO, no grain to very coarse grain. Go and try out.

It takes a little force to surmount the turret’s clicks. If you know so far, is there a fixing cap (red lacquer ring) screwed in the turret? Have you loosened the turret clamp? Do you have a lens screwed on that protrudes into the lower turret plate?

Thomas Give the film three to five minutes in the bleach bath, a short intermediate water rinse, then five minutes in the clearing bath with enough agitation, and two minutes in water, agitated. Then only switch on the light, incandescent light. Continue to agitate in water until five minutes completed. If you still have too dense a positive the first development was under. Nine to eleven minutes will be appropriate at 20 degree Celsius. First and second developer can be identical. Make sure you develop without fog. To check this develop simple positive film wich you can purchase at a lab. Expose the positive stock in your camera reading the meter for 10 ISO.

What is the mains tension in your place now? We have 233 Volt here. They constantly increase the tension in order to be able to do further investments and to help the supply industries sell their stuff, you know, new sort of bulbs, and the like. The lamp in your Mark 8 projector is a 100 Watt one. The motor draws 80 Watt. Seems that your adaptor is way too weak for the total of 180 Watt.

Isaac, would you give us a picture of the film chamber showing the mechanism plate to housing edge? We can tell from that whether the camera has ever been opened. If so, the T-I switch lever might have been screwed on back incorrectly causing the difficulty. The switch mechanism must be accurately held in place.

Interesting Thank you

I asked first

Who would want to buy Gigabitfilm 40 in DS-8 ?

Open it, check the following: Voltage setting (do you know the exact mains tension in your place?) belts, bearings, leakage at motor gear. Clean the beast thoroughly, give each idle roller a little sewing machine oil, and have at first run leader film only. Lace it up with white leader in all gangs. Listen to the noise(s) it makes. Procure yourself a dust cover for the table. Waxed cloth is best. The rest is wonderful trial and error.

Martin, you Norwegian are funny people. Take it with a smile. Sebastian was not honest to himself. The spot is about a clothing line for degenerated urban people. It should have been set in the somewhere of global suburban everyday life. The clothes are so absolutely wrong in place like what Japanese tourists often wear at the feet of Matter Horn. In a way your work is far better than Sebastian's. For instance, the two figures have absolutely no communication. Everything happens like planned. Do they apply the logo in many places? The brush carries already paint when taken out of the bag. I think that's what makes it so bitter to me. In spite of a liberty allure these youngsters behave like contractors of Cheap Monday. I'd never buy a button of Cheap Monday or any other brand after such a screw. It is a plain lie. Brian has the tact to not go that far. Who wrote the thing? What regards cinematography: If at all, I'd have taken longer shots, close together mediums, from tripod. Eye level. Perhaps only one point of view with the figures moving round me. I'd have tried to enwrap the spectator by the action. Two things must come out, the red brush and her red lips. No shaking.

Dan, the base lies within the concept of the Bell & Howell Standard Cinematograph Camera’s movement. All later attempts followed the idea of the tapered pins on which the film will be literally wedged, block dead. Leonard, Mitchell, Wall, Kästner, everybody else starts from the film running in a lineal fashion contrary to the forth-and-back flying film with the BH shuttle gate. So they employ movable register pins with tapered tips. The full fitting pin is the one on the right side when you assume position behind the camera and view towards lens and scene. The other pin fits the perforation hole only vertically and leaves clearance for any film width variation due to shrinkage, warmth and or humidity expansion, and so on. All cameras since Mitchell movement B (original Leonard movement “A” had fixed pilot pins) belong to the same class # 2. Class # 3 is reserved for film movements with rigid pins: Bell & Howell Standard, Leonard, Newman & Sinclair, Jones (rolling-loop device). Simple claw movements without additional means to steady the film are class # 1.

Why not start by visiting a cinema — alone, with friends — discuss what you’ve seen. Read a book like The Animation Book by Kit Laybourne (can you hear labour?). ISBN 0-517-88602-2 Purchase a little Double-Eight camera and two rolls of film, make a movie about your feet. Move! Start learning to project with a projectionist. Start to write, to light, whatever that has to do with the kind of joy you want to have. Enjoy every hour of work you can spend in this fantastic field. Become a collector (not a transistor, haha) of the bits and bites (not bytes) of filmmaking. Some get harassed by the shutter bug, I got stuck as a glowworm in the darkroom. Rubber gloves, you know.

About twenty years ago I thought I could direct. Twenty minutes short, a modern fairy tale in black and white. Most experienced DoP, an assistant spoilt in the ad business, a technician together with the crane I used completely out of synch with everybody. Half a dozen actors in complicated costumes, a nervous horse, bees. The worst of all was me. I was not able to manage it all, so one of the actors who had directed himself long before me took over. How I felt ashame! That is one of the reasons why I never did any play directing again.

I can double Tom's remark. Neither are the clothes brought to a bodily feel, nor is there a point in the people's doing. They (dis)appear as employees of the brand who paint a logo on a rock for no one. Abstract backward idea

Is it any wonder? Look, different films react differently with varying amounts of light. They react more or less in a linear fashion (simple black-and-white positive print stock) or with wild curves when plotted against the given time-intensity products. You cannot copy the figure 1 to 50 line without analysis of a defined film. It’s like calculating how the stew should taste. Does a cook work with a calliper?

Wonderful. I like the noise track. Funny production. Soothes the soul that old time rock ‘n’ roll.

Hello, Charlie Yeah, I know that Robinson sometimes is off by a hair. Still, his book is the most important source of information besides the products themselves. It's about reading technology. The Standard Camera, when it appeared, afforded such a tremendous leap forward or, let me say, significant difference in most respects of what a cine camera is, that one forgets all the other makes at once. The Akeley of same age looks crazy compared to a 2709, Universal, Ensign, both 1914, any other camera including the Leonard-Mitchell which wasn't that slim any more falls off. I think it is impossible that Howell or any other mechanical engineer had invented, designed, drawn and manufactured the camera within a few months, as Robinson writes. That is more journalism than historiography. I have no intent to diminish Howell’s œuvre. I believe he was the man who brought many ideas into working parts. But he didn't have the expertise nor the interest in making the motion-picture camera. Ask someone in the street what a movie camera looks like: still many people outline it with Mickey Mouse ears for the mag. That's the Bell & Howell Standard. Somebody brought its brilliant concept into the fresh little enterprise. Somebody who might have known about Léon Bouly (Léon Bollée?). Somebody determined, powerful, revolutionary, conscientious. Each and every element of the 2709 acts as part of a master plan. It takes time for such a OPVS MAGNVUM, long, long years.

SALVE ! I have a forty-page booklet in front of me with the title Standard Cinematograph CAMERA (sic). Page Two carries the FOREWORD (sic). Sentences Two and Three: “The Bell & Howell Standard Cinematograph Camera is not an experiment. The first Bell & Howell Cameras, built in 1907, are in use today by the side of later models.” Some of you remember. An official text available via this link http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Bell-and-Howell-Company-Company-History.html reads: During its first year of business, over 50 percent of the new company's business involved repairing movie equipment made by other manufacturers. What made the company famous, however, was its development of equipment that addressed the two most important problems plaguing the movie industry at the time: flickering and standardization. Flickering in the early movies was due to the effects of hand-cranked film, which made the speed erratic. Standardization was needed as divergences in film width during these years made it nearly impossible to show the same film in any two cities within the United States. By 1908, Bell and Howell refined the Kinodrome projector, the film perforator, and the camera and continuous printer, all for the 35mm film width. With the development of this complete system, and the company's refusal to either manufacture or service products of any other size than the 35mm width, Bell and Howell forced film standardization within the motion picture industry. In 1910, the company made a cinematograph camera entirely of wood and leather. When the two men learned that their camera had been damaged by termites and mildew during an exploration trip in Africa, they designed the first all metal camera. Others say that the so-called Black Box, the first Bell & Howell camera with wooden housing and black leather finish, was introduced in 1909 (George Eastman House). Jack Robinson in his 1982 company history book tells us that Martin Johnson took the first two BB with him to Africa in 1910. Only after his return “Bell & Howell learned ( . . . ) cameras had been destroyed by termites and mildew.” So about one and a half years time left to develop the Standard which became ready in 1912. There is still less time for Bell & Howell, first and foremost Howell, to develop a film perforator (1908), a continuous contact printer (1911) and more for a “complete system”. I don’t believe it. How did Bert Howell acquire the knowledge about aluminum alloy sand casting as a mechanic absorbed by repair work? Where did that Standard come from?

Between 1960 and 1963. I can tell by the fact that the 200 series projectors were manufactured since 1960 and that the H cameras' housing was modified in 1962-63, available mid 1963.

A pity in the city but also a chance for some venturesome youngsters Let there be chemicals ! (It’s Raining Cans)

I am sure you can purchase non-perforated stock with FilmoTec, I know the people, was their lab client and reseller. Other non-perforated film is, Brian is right, microfilm but there you need to take more than only hundred foot. http://www.fujifilm.com/products/microfilm/pdf/specification_sheet.pdf http://graphics.kodak.com/docimaging/US/en/products/micrographics/microfilm/source_document_microfilms/index.htm?_requestid=7650