dan kessler

Any 4-perf movement can shoot 2-perf with nothing more than a 2-perf aperture mask installed. You need to mark your start frame at the beginning, and then rewind the entire load after the first pass. Re-thread and offset your start mark for the second pass. Your frames are sorted digitally after scanning. This method has been documented here more than once.

You said, "I'm just wondering, if I can precisely control all other aspects of the design and construction, would stock lenses be good enough to produce a quality projection of a super16 print. " Stock lenses can give you very usable results, but because of their generic design, they are almost always going to be slower in speed than lenses specifically made for the application. So, for projection, that means less light output. You either need to use a more powerful lamp to make up the loss or accept a smaller image that maintains the overall illumination.

With stock lenses, such as those from Edmund, you are not concerned with the tolerances of the elements themselves. All you are doing is machining the barrels, which is not difficult for someone with the tools and know-how, but I get the impression that you don't really have that. For a kitchen table project, though, using toilet paper tubes and scotch tape or plastic pipe fittings, you can still get usable results. One of the easiest and most useful configurations to construct is a symmetrical lens. This is nothing more than two identical achromats arranged back-to-back with a stop in between. Performance will be best when stopped down to f/8 or less. Even singlet lenses start performing surprisingly well when you stop them down enough. Lenses like these were the mainstay of photography for half a century! So, yes, stock lenses can be useful, but since you have no control over the types of glass being used or the curvatures of each surface, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to match the designs found in modern, fast lenses. Like Dom said, there are lots of good, inexpensive lenses already out there.

There was something called a pic-sync, which was basically a synchronizer with a small viewing screen attached to one end, and may have even had a small motor built into it. I think they were more common in Great Britain than the U.S. Been a while since I've seen one on ebay, and I think the seller was asking close to a grand for it.

Probably a reference to a type of motor used on film cameras starting back in the 1970's. Precision speed control was achieved using crystal-controlled electronics. The main advantage was the ability to record synchronous sound without the need for cable connections between camera and recorder, but it would also provide extremely accurate, constant exposure from frame to frame.

I wouldn't know how your specific lens was set up before, but I'm still inclined to think you were provided with two different methods of mounting. Seems like you would have interference issues otherwise.

I have a similar type of attachment. Looks like you have two options here. First, the bracket would allow you to mount it on rods in front of any lens, as long as your rods provide correct centering. Also, you're limited to lenses whose front diameter closely matches the rear of the anamorphic. Second, I don't know of any spherical lenses with a bayonet mount in front, but I'm guessing the bayonet ring you have would allow you to build an adapter for one.

Nothing to be confused about. You were told correctly. 100 feet is a daylight spool, 400 and 1000 foot rolls are not.

must've been murder for dolly grips

Based on that last photo, seems to me the mirrors are out of position. When angled correctly, they would throw images from the side lights out in front of the camera, with the camera lens shooting between them. There might be another component, like some sort of screen, that the rig needs. Or, yeah, the close-up illumination idea.

I have considerable experience with camera building. Tell me, are you already an accomplished machinist, or tool and die maker, or mechanical engineer? If not, then step one is to acquire some meaningful experience and skill in these areas. No chance of success without it.

Hence the rationale for buying and refurbishing rugged old units like this. Best deal I ever scored was an old studio 10k fresnel for $7.00 Yep, seven dollars..

True, that's not the smaller 650 or 1k keg fixture, but it's very possibly a 2k or 5k. Bardwell made those, too. I've got them all. Works like any other fresnel, just as rugged as any Mole.

Corona Del Mar.

When the industry was booming in LA, it seemed to me that fx studios did a lot to expedite the employment of foreign workers. Demand for artists was high, and even in the US, there weren't enough back then. If they wanted someone, they usually got them, no matter where they came from. Besides the tax subsidies, the other reason often cited for the industry's decline was the inherent weakness of its business model. Bidding was intensely competitive and everyone always felt pressured to low ball. As a consequence, even with high profile, big-budget projects, vfx studios were often operating on the edge of financial disaster. They were also dependent on the repeat business from a tiny group of deep-pocketed clients, an advantage the clients often exploited to ruinous advantage. An unnamed executive was once quoted as saying that if he wasn't putting fx studios out of business, he wasn't doing his job. Also, the demographics changed. The global vfx labor pool ballooned, barriers to entry collapsed... it's economics.