Simon Wyss

Aluminium-magnesium alloys, sometimes plain (hard) alum.

Yes, tape simply spalls. PARATAX contains 48 % acetic acid. Mr. Hammann tried it and found it workable although too slow for his taste. It is irritant to the nose but not toxic. It's good to air the place in intervals (and walk two steps anyway) when you do assembly. We sell it in portions of 10 ml and 250 ml. No intent of misuse of the forum !

Shooter comes from the WW II front. Like O. K. for Zero Killed But both explanations are wrong. One could as well point out that shooting pictures of wildlife goes parallel with shooting deer. O. K. were the initials of a German collaborator with the Ford works, an Otto Kaiser, who did the final check and signed for each car that passed. It's a very male world, anyway, so we shoot. Women perceive everything differently. When they have their way you never hear shooter. It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Since thousands of filmmakers have been loading their Bolex with hundred-footers I'd say you can do the same and humbly file out your dexterity with film and camera. There is nothing more ascertaining than to know that everything is properly done. In this respect a Bolex is already almost too automatic. Simply don't forget that you have the right on 4000 frames with one hundred feet. Stop shooting when the counter says 4000, close the camera and let run out.

Hey, Pāl, welcome. Where do you live? Your personal profile could tell more.

♪ Acetate originals to be printed with cement, we have our own (slow binding) product of an organic film cement free from CFC and dioxane. ♫ Everything temporary under pressure sensitive tape with the aid of Rivas: ♪♫ Polyester film welded with Metric Ultrasonic equipment (fresh register plates since the ones delivered with the apparatus seem to come from a backyard workshop somewhere in Japan whose employees have a weakness for Sake).

Double-Eight will offer most possibilities with reversal stock (Fomapan R 100), negative stocks (PX, TX, UN 54), positive stock (PF 2, 7302), and everything somebody puts on a perforator. Since it's 16 mm wide you'll not have any processing problems. Camerawise you'll be almost too well off with all the makes around plus sometimes amazing quality lenses.

I begin to gain the impression that there is virtually nobody of the telecine world who'd know anything about mechanical subjects. A Shadow functions on the continuous film transport principle like a Spirit, so when there is one which produces steady images the others appear to be out of trim. I am now believing that the films are okay and some telecine rollers revolve like the cock on the fire.

Now after some time have I found the source again of my information. I am citing from the manual for the Bell & Howell Standard Cinematograph Camera: “The camera frame consists integrally of but four parts,―main frame, door, turret plate mounting and turret plate. It forms the complete housing of the entire camera mechanism. The main frame is cast in one piece from special alumimum alloy No. 12.” (Page Four) It's good to reread the old things. A mistery arises. There stands black on white: “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.” (Foreword) 1907 ? The company was established in early 1907. Where did a camera come from almost instantly only after Howell, Bell and Mrs. Bell had signed with the County commercial record office? Until today I was believing that a first camera was completed in 1909, the wooden box model. Everything goes so fast. Bell and Howell met in 1905.

Karl: Katherine hasn't mentioned color with any word, and if she did I'd have noticed. I might be a fool but I'm not plain stupid. Jim: There is this by comparison little business of Filmotec, Germany. They offer perforation of alien stock. We have had 2468 unperforated and went about with absolutely satisfying results. In fact, the more modern film develops over two, three minutes while -360 takes around a quarter hour for enough contrast. Anybody can purchase Kodak 2468, send it to Wolfen and use it as replacement for Eastman 7360. In fact, they are similar products but EKC wouldn't bother to even think of new uses of their output. What the film is going on in the U. S. ? http://www.filmotec.de/Dienstleistungen/Ko...tionierung.html

After the discontinuation of Eastman 7360 we chose Kodak 2468, a microfilm direct reversal duplicating stock. For best results we offered internegatives on Gigabitfilm 40. Still another possibility is the use of Orwo LF 2 with a reversal treatment. You see, in the black-and-white field chances are real if not reel.

Do you have anything against the standard 3/4 format?

Don't know about 65-mm KM either but 35 surely was used. Anybody could have had it in 65 from $ 20 k on. IMAX perhaps ?

Too few pictures have been shot on 65-mm Kodachrome . . .

Hello, Ashley Grab a lab: start by scratching some sgraffito into a 35-mm color photo film (5 feet long), take that to a lab (where do you live btw), and ask the manager to print it. There is no better way to find out about people and film. Like Silvester Stallone alias Terminator says: Trhrhusst me, Baby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6UJZtCz1-c

Don't mean to disappoint you but x231 and x222 have not been altered or improved upon since about 1957. There are more modern black-and-white stocks available: Orwo UN 54, ISO 100, Orwo N 74, ISO 400. Ilford Pan F plus, FP 4 plus, HP 5 plus from a certain quantity on in 35 and 16. Fujifilm 71112, ISO 80, up to 1000 ft. All these perforated BH.1866 (35) and .2994/.3000 (16). If not in need of type N perf you can try all the stills photography stocks: Luckypan SHD 100 new, 1000', Luckypan SHD 400 new, 1000'. Efke 25/50/100. Fomapan 100, 200, 400, Fomapan R(eversal). Fuji Neopan 100/400/1600. Russian Polypan F. Gigabitfilm 40 BH.1866, Gigabitfilm 32 HDR KS.1870. Gigabitfilm 40 in 16, perforated along one edge (2.7 mils thickness)

Mechanically, one of the best 16-mm film projectors is one of the Bolex-Paillard S series (S 211/221, S 311/321). They have a straight-pull claw movement with double plain bearing, felt oiling, diagonally acting side guide rails, perfectly accessible gate, and felt oilers for the rest of the moving parts. Another fine machine was the 1938 oil lubricated Diksi Tfp. with 8-tooth feed rollers, straight-pull claw, vertical adjustment by claw up-and-down, quickest removable gate assembly and micrometer focus. Its successor of the 1940ies has still 8-tooth rollers but a different gate assembly. Then comes the 1951 German Siemens & Halske model 2000 with solid mechanics, felt oiling, straight-pull claw of very moderate film acceleration, and not too bad a gate. Only the motor was cheeply sold. Older Bell & Howell projectors offer 8-tooth feed rollers, short gate but the claw too close to the aperture. By some strange reason the 16-mm projectors of B. & H. were built off-standard unlike their 8-mm ones which position the film over the same distance as the cameras (should) do. Cinelabor, the Italian straight puller, has too long a gate. The rest is crap. Believe me, I have made big pictures with substandard film, the difference is when it comes to cleaning gate and aperture of a hot run projector.

After your description it appears to me that you'd encounter the very rare possibility of sabrage, as the technical term is. It is film strips having edges of a snake form due to not perfectly straight running circular knives. It cannot be the perforation because hole irregularities almost always provoke fast movement such as jitter. A figure-8 movement leads me to imagine that the camera's film side guide was overstrained by wavy cut stock, all the more apparent since the image is offset. You can instantly verify that with a projector that positions in conformity with ISO 5768 on which you run some feet of the suspected negative. You observe the film directly how it behaves in the gate. There are camera, printer, and projector constructions which undergo the concept of reference edge and spring-loaded lateral pressure on the opposite edge like the Aaton Penelope ( ! ). In the 16-mm field geometric issues are even more critical.

Have you tried to shoot in clear scale? That may lead to very interesting looks as well. I appreciate any youngster's revolt against normal procedure, that's what I was on 30 years ago. Look, you are confronting yourself with practitioners who are likely to tell you: Shoot the right way first before experimenting wild. The right way is an experience already. That Wikipedia article is a fart in the wind, my humble opinion.

One is certain: no stern loader. You'll have trouble checking and cleaning a stern loading camera. I dismantled a Bolex 155 Macrozoom yesterday. That's a bull of a camera, you could hammer in nails with it but not film seriously. Since the handgrip is not detachable as an integral part housing motor and diaphragm control it will always swing a little on the tripod. Same with Beaulieu 4008 or so, that stupid handgrip is in the way. Please consider that point. A movie camera must be so built that it perfectly rests on a stand. Swivel it about you can always.

Well then we must be speaking of individual affairs. I refer to the Photomec and Arri machines which have brushes. I may be a bit out of touch with the latest techniques in mechanical processing.

Please excuse me for interfering. It is the other way round, rem(oving) jet (back layer) is soot gelatine that is softened in an alkaline prebath, taken off the film base in this very prebath by roller brushes and suction pipes directly adjacent to the brushes. I think there has occurred a small error with the water fans elsewhere in the machines.

The two of us in accord: forget Super-8. Supposed they had named it Mustard-8, would you fall on ? That's what it is, a sausage of a technology with mustard and ketchup over it, ugly and weird, refer to the film's path in a throw-away plastic cartridge, said to have been tested by astronauts with gloves on their hands. Welcome to the land before time and fairy tales sans end. There have been 30 years of 8 mm before Super-Eight, and in the millions. Double/Regular-Eight is miles better, and cheaper

Hey, Chris It's a camera for Super-8 film which comes in 50-foot cartridges. There's a variety of Super-8 raw stock on the market from black-and-white universal over color reversal to color negative films. The pill cell feeds the automatic iris (diaphragm) control that actually needs a 1.35 Volt cell but these original mercury cells are outlawed since 1998. If you insert an alcaline cell of 1.5 V or an other kind of 1.55 V you'll get underexposed pictures. What you can do is 1) have the meter inside the camera adjusted to the higher voltage 2) have an adapter made or bought somewhere (I don't know exactly) to be able to insert 1.4 V cells 3) discard the camera and film with a better and more flexible one Please don't feel offended or take it personally, this Bell & Howell 309 is an absolute mass consumer product. There are cameras which work on 1.5 V cells alone, which have less or no plastic parts, which allow you to change lenses, and more.

Yes, Saul, I think we're close to the thing. I'd have imagined the operator set the speed wrongly after some work. Might have come anywhere in the roll. Good luck, Daniel!