Simon Wyss

I totally agree.

Why cut a man's head ?

Hi, Simon Don't think an airplane's wings are something quiet in the air. They shake and tremble like my grandpa's chin when he laughed.

Exactly. Humbly undergo the blood, sweat and tears of our tradition. It sounds horribly, I know. Look, Michelangelo did not cast cement, he worked on stones.

Has anybody made experience with Gigabitfilm, be it the first one which has 40 ISO, be it the new Gigabitfilm HDR 32 ?

Michael, is that A 2 subject still actual ? I'd love to do the job for the production running a lab with everything you need in black and white. We also have 35 mm printing machinery to cope with P or N type perforation.

Gee ! Per mill. The thousandth part of something. In stead of one-tenth of a percent. I shall let it rest in peace. Promised

Is there anybody around in this country ?

weighing where to move our lab, australia or america or siberia, between grapes and meringue

It's going on my nerves. It's becoming worse week by week. Can the electronic people not take care of picture and sound to be together in, let us say, 10 feet from a television screen or computer monitor ? Youtube is a horror. The advent of sound movies, isn't it 80 years old ? I want lip synch ! Exclamation mark, you lazy lizards everywhere :angry: And the cinema exhibitors, too !

Hi, Aaron As a lab specialist let me recommend you to look at how it was then. In the 20s you'd have had around 25, 32, 40 ISO. The films were not underexposed but mostly a bit overdeveloped. So they had denser negatives. From these they printed onto positive stock, a little underexposed and somewhat overdeveloped. Projected with simple carbon-arc lamps the image was that contrasty but brilliant screen dream. Towards the end of the 30s with sound and colours the cinema became flat. The high-intensity carbon arc light and a new generation of projection lenses came up. You are on forgotten trail. But go for it ! Bring the smaller lights close to the subjects. Try carbon-arcs with their heavy ultraviolet component from far. Mercury vapour lamps were also in use. I fear you cannot simply imitate a part of our history. It will be an adventure.

All the better. I was not assuming such heavy mechanical errors with the magazine(s). Something seems to be really bad with it.

Sometimes 65 mm is used for commercials. As much as I know the original of a Bacardi spot is 65, reduced to 35 CRI (at the time). In the theatres you felt being on that white sand south sea beach. I liked it.

Hi, Ger Is there still time for the decision or are you already tanned ?

There you are at the very point. Work with a flatbed editor is pre-timecode work. You synchronize and edit picture and sound on the table. Each finished reel bears a leader and the last frame of the leader is Zero. The machines are zeroed prior to the transfer and then you get everything in sync on hard disc or tape or whatever. The timecode is a machine-readible feature. It's senseless to look at it. You always edit by what a film is, a series of frames with a first one and a last one. For the rest I recommend The Technique of the Film Cutting Room by Ernest Walter, Focal Press, ISBN 0 240 50657 X.

This was in fact done fifty years ago. The results are poor. Sound quality is far better with a magnetic tape cemented to the film. The tape has already a smooth surface which the rolled-on mass never had. I'd suggest to forget it.

Right - Cinemiracle

I am for a heavy old Mitchell, 65 mm low-speed colour negative, processing in Madrid, Spain, carbon-arc lamps, 70 mm contact dailies, sound dailies on 35 full coat, so that everybody involved might have his share of excitement from early in the morning to open ends, and don't forget the projectionists who will love your prints. It's All About Love. What's the title of the thing, anyway ?

O, 't was fun using my computer once as computer. Didn' t know it calculates 32 decimal places.

Ross, you are so right. Only who is going to enlighten James ?

Bonjour, Jean-Louis Allright, sometimes I am a bit provocative. I know the f*** (ilm)ing Bolex. You know well yourself that many of them are dry in crucial places, that they have an aluminium plate bearing the threads for lenses to be screwed in, that the weight of three lenses may rest on a single central screw and they had to add that rubber-cushioned blocker. You know well that the Bolex bayonet is not a cameraman's thing to clean and lubricate. You also dislike to loosen steel screws out of the aluminium body when there is intercrystalline corrosion. You know as well as I do that the fixation of the reflex viewfinder long prism is made with cork, sometimes with leather pieces, and that there are more half-serious things about her. A Bolex H in good condition is a workable camera, no doubt. The inital question was after image quality across the various models. Bon, il n'y en a pas. They are all alike as to the mechanism. I think the Bolex is so popular simply by the price. You buy an EL and have a 16 mm camera with built-in exposure control. There is nothing the like with an Eclair, an Aäton, a CP, an Arri, a Mitchell, a Berndt-Bach. Only Canon Scoopic has this feature and the Eumig C 16 has a semi-automatic diaphragm control. Pathé ? Beaulieu ? Non. I didn't mean to hurt any feelings towards the Paillard-Bolex H. Mine are very mixed. I shouldn't be surprised if somebody found out one day that the Bolex H is a German design or an American or - who knows - a French.

Wish I could have seen the stock. Now, your Arriflex has a claw tip and magazine sprocket roller to fit the holes of Bell & Howell perforated film (ISO, type N). I have the impression that there is something with hole size, I mean perhaps Kodak Standard perforation (ISO, Type P). If your stock is P perforated it may slip on the magazine's feed roller. Naturally then one of the loops will disappear and the claw begin to hack. You don't see the trouble because it starts in the mag. Try once and pull on the film leaving/entering the mag. Will it slide over the sprockets ? It's Eastman 5222. It's possible that they made a mistake in the perforation station or you simply overlooked the different perf type. It must be stated on the can label. One hole pitch more over 6 ft equals 2.6 permille shrinkage. This is certainly not the the problem.

Disagree Bolex-Paillard cameras from my country are funny things but a catastrophy in maintenance. The design is so poor that light can leak in through the little windows of the counters. They were all luted around the inner blank and should be re-luted after every disassembly. Sometimes you find a black wool thread there. A good camera is a good instrument that you can look after. Take this into account when purchasing one. Every Dollar or Euro or Pound or Rouble is an investment when there's a service. No experienced people around - no values. Same in real estates, you know it all.

A bit late here I admit. Bolex-Paillard H cameras run between 27 and 28 seconds at 24 fps when fully wound up. It is possible to fudge one. That means complete disassembly and removal of the spring stop. Then you will go up to a minute or so with the danger of overtensioning the spring one day which could break it. On the other hand it runs more down which in its turn demands the governor to be well maintained, otherwise no benefit from the action. For longer takes on a spring choose the Pathé WEBO. This camera has always made a minute. Bell & Howell Filmo are easy to tune up. The best I know is the Double-8 Agfa Movex Reflex which appeared in 1964: 2000 frames on one wind, i. e. 83 seconds uninterrupted shoot. The old Ciné-Kodak Special also run more than a minute. On one project I had an old Bolex-H with winding key. Camera on tripod I could retighten all the time without nodding. I think the take was an entire 100 foot spool.

Why does it have to be Super-8 ? If Eight Millimeter, why don't you employ Double-8, there are so many fine cameras with a precision almost like 16 mm. I can offer several Bolex-Paillard H 8 Reflex, small pocket cameras, and more. Forget that plastic trash from the Sixties.