Simon Wyss

The link should be: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...st&p=250981

Hi Chris It looks that you could go pretty close with mirror lenses but you'll have trouble with depth of field since you have no iris to stop the system down. Adding barrels will help. The difficulties arise with the movie camera housing, the protruding bead around the shutter. Depends on the lens's focal length. Short focal length ? RF Rokkor, 250-5.6 If you need a camera with reflex viewfinder but without shutter bead check this.

It is 1.6180339887498948482045868343656 : 1.

Yeah, there has already been exchange on this subject. In my eyes film is the invention between the old and new age (which began around 1894 with final transition in 1967). It bears the signs of expansion as well as those of integration and it occurred in the "summer" of a plutonic round, astronomic-wise, during the couple signs: plutonides in Taurus, 1851-1884 (chemistry), plutonides in Gemini, 1884-1914 (habits), plutonides in Cancer, 1914-1939 (liability), plutonides in Leo, 1939-1958 (participation). What does that have to do with image aspects ? There are esthetic values in the aspect ratios. Let's take the square (1:1). It appears calm, still, solid. An irrational ratio like root of 2 to 1 (1.414213562:1) appears a little uncomfortable. The traditional 4 to 3 ratio (1.33333:1) appears rather dynamic. There are the physiological values with the ratios. From the wide screen systems such as CINERAMA and its forerunner, Fred Waller's dome machine gun trainer, we know that something like 2.75:1 comes close to our field of sight. Okay. CinemaScope was with a curved screen, Todd-A. O. goes with a curved screen. Today almost everything is shown flat. Are there any curved TV/video/computer screens ? Esthetic reasons dominate. The movie experience has entirely changed from social to individual, to say the least. Perhaps the esthetic values (I'm trying to avoid the word laws) have turned cursory, even dictated by non-pictorial deliberations. There are fashions, something comes into vogue. "What, four to three ! What are you talking of ? We're not in the Fifties, boy." So, the production is arranged for cropped 1.85:1 or 1.75:1. Many cinema theatres have a too small Academy aspect ratio (4:3) screen, a mere section within a "normal" wide screen. The exhibitors have no fear to crop an elder picture and actors' faces in close-ups. Decapitated, chin off. Reckless

I think 2008 is really the bottom. When I check the ephemeris there is the great consolation for everyone. On November, 27, 2008 plutonides will be back in their lowest point relative to earth orbit, zero degrees Capricorn. From then on humanity will have the drive again to go upwards, to be constructive for another 152 years or so. End of the decadence !

Ja, biss a Wiener oder net ? Ich bi vo Züri und rede nie, nie, nie Baseldytsch. It's Basel in English, Bâle in French. If you want to be different, give it in latin, Basilea.

To be frank, no, it is not. Carlo only spoke of his B. & H. as the Chaplin camera as a type. Chap's personal 2709 at Christie's is in a bad shape. It wasn't used by Charlie, he was unable even to load it. To me the negatives are far more valuable. These don't show up at Christie's.

I think I got it now. The term is skip printing. That's what the step printer operator would be asked to execute. Nirvana at last !

Okay - Kodak changed PXR and TXR's chemistry so as to comply with permanganate bleach in machines. PXR and TXR are not real reversal films but rather misused negative films. That is why they are made with a grey base. You see, we are entering a complicated story. It is not so very complicated though. Real reversal films have mixed emulsions, one is the high sensitive (and mostly) panchromatic preparation for the temporary negative image, the other one the non sensitized low-speed preparation to yield to final (higher contrast) positive image. Also, reversal films have an anti-halation substrate, a thin layer of finely dispersed silver between the photographic layer and the colourless base. This silver substrate must be bleached and then dissolved away, otherwise you wouldn't see much of a picture when you process to negative. Now 7266 does not have a silver substrate but one of a different composition apt to potassium permanganate bleach baths. To help you I can only say: agitation. The more you stir your bath the better and faster it acts. Enough agitation helps the fluid stream through between spiral and film. Be careful and switch from these films to Fomapan R. That is a lovely and old-fashioned film from Czechia. It's produced in 35, 16, Double-8 and Double Super-8. We processed ISO 100 Fomapan R since 1999. To round off the horrible story let me mention that Kodak deliberately lies what concerns the characteristic photographic curve of PXR and TXR. The graphs are so plotted as to not interfere with the base density which is log 0.23. One gets the impression that the highlights of the reversed film are out of the film base grey. Certainly are the pure whites overcast by the grey base. Only a non coloured base is suitable in projection. When you scan you can correct for that electronically.

Gelatines were not more crudely made 100 years ago. The photographic industry is something at the same time plain and mysterious. To the layman it's fabulously mysterious, to the one who ones absolutely simple. I myself am somewhere in between. Almost every day I discover something amazing that was achieved in the 1960s, 1930s, in 1900, in 1870. Optics, for instance, were top in 1930. Since then no further improvement, believe me. You have CAD, multiple anti-reflex coating, but the knowledge about three, four, five, six elements together with the air spaces is in the hand, or better in the head, of only a handful people. Now in the new age everything is integrated. A lot of little things, subtleties go lost outside the screen. So film, book, the coffee mill with a crank. Yes, nobody wants to work with his hands anymore. Maybe I appear to jump through the subjects, but there is nothing else used for photographic layers than animal bone and skin gelatine. EKC have their own cattle in Argentina. Go google gelatine works across the globe. Sensitization of modern films goes only little with sulphur from the gelatine. There is the boiling method of ripening, there are special chemical sensitizers added, there is the heavy metal method (gold sensitizing), there is even more (we don't know). Something I know is the nitrate method. It brought Kodak one half to one full stop in speed with the reversal cine stocks. Today the layer flakes off the base.

I can process Fomapan R(eversal) 100 correctly. Our lab's site: www.filmkunst.ch

Is it the old 7278 or the new 7266 TXR ?

Excuse me, Frank, for interfering but you hit a nerve with me. Step printing seems to be something odd with you video people. I want to be absolutely polite. The term step printing says nothing about frame rate. It is simply one of the two mechanical approaches to the process of copying a film's content onto another. Step printers can be run slowly, as you suppose, but also at faster rates like 30, 40 or more. Again, in all courtesy, we film folks never use video terms to speak about something in the trade. Is it possible to avoid step printing when you talk about, let's say: a hiccup effect ?

Servus, David Ich kenne mich aus mit den Steenbecken. Praxis mit vielen Modellen, Überholung von Modell 938 (ja, das gibt's), 6000 u. a. Das Wichtigste gleich: Netzspannung richtig einstellen. Wir haben heute in Basel 233 bis 235 Volt. Am Trafo gibt es entsprechende Kabelbrücken. Sobald die Steuerkarten Überspannung erhalten, kann es schnell gehen. Dann Motor und Getriebe pflegen: Lager, Schmierung. Ach ja - man will bald auf 240 Volt gehen. Same in English for those who are open to learn some German: I know my way around with the Steenbecks. Practice with many models, overhaul of model 938 (yes, it exists), 6000 a. o. Most important thing first: adjust for line voltage. We at Basel have 233 to 235 V today. There are wire bridges on the transformer accordingly. When the control cards are overtensioned you can readily have a blast. Then take care of motor and gears: bearings, lubrication. And, oh - they will soon switch to 240 Volt.

He did CIRCUS with one of them, a short. You'll find an article on that production here, July 2008 issue.

Moving images are achieved by an optical trick, you know it. Now, by sustaining and not sustaining the trick you employ already another one. Movies have to do with energy. The words rhythm, pace and impact have been mentioned. What happens when you cut, when you force the spectator to mentally jump from an illusion to the next ? You see, there is your responsibility inside, your power if you want so. For me power and energy go together, energy being the whole subject and power the access. Either you smack your public or you don't, so decide on one shot or interruption before that background.

There is this process called Tetraphony, invented and patented by the German Gerhard Woywod. Recording with four microphones as corners of a tetrahedron built flush with the surface into a ball of about 10 inches diameter. You can set it upon a stand. Reproduction by four speakers also arranged as tips of a tetrahedron. Speakers can be far more apart so as to embrace listeners. You can see-hear a bird in a tree or feel-hear a door being slammed in an other direction. Orientation is very, very precise. As much as I know the patents run out next year. That could be something for the cinema, perhaps IMAX. Still I'd advocate monaural sound. Movies are first for the eyes, then for the ears. The simpler you can keep sound technique the more convenient it goes with the action. That does not mean there should be no room feel or space with the sound but I prefer the inner coherence picture-sound to all outward fuzz. Let's have a drummer in front of us tabouring with two sticks. Why more than one mike ? I'm not a sound engineer and may be up a blind alley. Only, with Perspecta Sound they fooled the kids in the 1950s. It's always mono but one time from a central speaker, then from right or left, and so on. It simply switched to and fro.

Paul When they go into bigger series the alloy is silumin. But - here comes the big but as usual - once the alloy is not very precisely met you can have deterioration. The metals disintegrate. I have seen this with many comsumer products like Super-8 home projectors. There are many more different alloys. It's a question of what the designer wants to achieve, be it ruggedness versus weight, be it advantages with the assembly versus price, and so on. You can probably imagine that it is not the same to build a Mitchell in 1928 or to release an Arriflex 35 BL forty years later. As to the Bell & Howell "Standard Cinematograph Camera" of 1911 I know that it was cast in a special aluminium alloy number 12 . More is not available up to now. Possible they put magnesium in. Chicago, the city of steel and steam, was leading in metallurgy at the time. I still doubt that Howell and Bell were in the position to construct the first all-metal motion-picture film camera. There must have been someone in the background with the necessary know-how. If you look at such a camera body, I mean the single piece freed from everything else, you are amazed by the complicated form it demanded to be cast. It's sand casting, no doubt. On December 1st, 2005, I had the opportunity to see it with a friend of mine who is the master of camera restoration. He has three 2709 entirely restored including carrying box and side viewfinder. He even found that the glossy black lacquer was a Swiss product. He recovered the formula. He has also restored two Mitchell. Gears versus timing belts: Today you have movie film projectors with timing belts. They work, but you don't know when the drop out comes. With solid lubricated gears there is no worry for fifty years. And belts are not more silent than gears. Mitchell had hard paper cog wheels alternating with brass or bronze gears in the "sound" model.

Fine. Thank you all the same

Unfortunately we're not yet ready with CARGO. Please refer to this name and please contact the company here.

Julio, are you also interested in black-and-white print stock ?

Hello, Max I once shot in a cinema and from then I can recommend that you'd light the walls. Most cinema theatres have wall lights, be it some kind of lustres, be it tubes in cavetto. Add front and back light as coming from the booth, why not, and it will look cinema.

James, one major difference between Bolex H cameras is the aperture plate. The older models have a steel plate, blackened between the side rails. 400-ft. magazine models from number 226,001 on have an aluminium plate, anodized. It looks light greyish. Now with temperature variations and differences in film top gelatine the adhesion can change. Second influence is the drive: best image steadiness results with regular drive force. That is why the electrically driven Bolex tend to show better steadiness. Third thing: Bolex H from beginning to number 97,800 have a quicker acting spring loaded claw in conjunction with 192 degrees shutter opening angle. From number 97,801 on they have the slower drag claw (one joint less) and 170 degrees shutter angle. The younger cameras seem to bring better steadiness by the cleverly made claw mechanism. You will recognize a drag claw Bolex by the little eccentric sprocket disc just below the gate. This feature is a loop restorer. It was introduced because the drag claw may slip over a perforation hole with thinner film.

Yes, you are reproducing partly what Belton described. And, yes, Karl, it's always the Illuminati. Didn't they also send people to the Moon in 1969 ? Puzzling they had the recording done at 75 fps and the master tape run at 30.

Anthony I have opened (and closed) many Bolex-Paillard cameras (and projectors). Film jam with a Bolex-Paillard H camera is in most cases caused by either bent side guides or by improperly set feed rollers. These must be so adjusted that the film entering the gate will retain a not too large upper loop when the claw begins to transport, and equally a not too large lower loop when engaged on the lower feed roller. The loop guides must also be properly set. Altogether some tricky work for the novice. Never force anything with an H. Better cut jammed film out of the mechanism than to pull it. Unfortunately, the built-in film knife can only be taken out after having taken out the works. Often it is not sharp. Then you take some scissors and cut the film in the same way the built-in knife does. That is important. Most Bolex cameras are in a bad shape. Governor dry, gears dry, axles not lubricated, rust, sand, dirt. It is possible to quieten a Bolex to some extent by mechanical care. The claw-film noise is harder to dampen. In the end it's an amateur product.