dan kessler

Just out of curiosity, is Oxberry still around?  When I saw Oxscan I thought of them, since they used to build

a scanner with that name.  Also a model called the Cinescan, which I actually ran for a short time back in the '90's.

I was active in ham radio in the late '60's, early 70's.

Don't remember any risque QSL cards whatsoever.
There was an on-air code of conduct, too, and
everyone stuck to it, thinking that the FCC might
be listening in and could pull your license.

It was a great hobby for electronics enthusiasts.
You had to pass tests in both theory and morse code
to get licensed.  Building and operating one's own gear
and communicating with people around the world was a
real achievement.

Radio amateurs also had a reputation for civil service,
many times being the only communications link during
natural or man-made disasters.

Unfortunately, the rise of integrated electronic circuitry,
digitization and the internet pretty much rendered it all
obsolete.

"Film at ten"  ?

Why, to show movies on TV, of course, just like the two-projector changeover configuration in movie theaters, except that the images are projected into video cameras instead of onto a screen.  Yep, we watched movies on film in those days, even on TV.

seems like a reasonable guess

I was looking for Polaroids.  That might be the front of a model 95 on the lower left of the still camera shelves in photo #2.

They're dated from 1948 through the '50's.

Don't see any Kodak Instamatics on the shelf, so before 1963.  I'd say 1950's.  Someone with a better memory of

the merchandise on display could narrow in on it. 

If you're pulling everything into AE then there's no need to
matte anything in-camera.  All of your matting, color matching,
etc. can be done in AE, with way more flexibility and control.

In your research have you not yet discovered that the old Technicolor process no longer exists?   All those labs closed long ago.

The images coming out of a Technicolor 3-strip camera were black and white.  The colors were added in the lab by a complex dye-imbibation process, which is why they were so saturated and beautiful, not to mention fade-proof.

Other photochemical processes are single-strip and rely on color layers in the emulsion which appear during development, and although we get good results, nothing equals the old Technicolor process.

That super-8 system is more like a telecine than a film scanner.  It won't be as steady or have the greatest image quality, but it depends on what you need.  Are you just digitizing home movies or something comparable, or do you need the best quality available?

Yeah, sprocketless, I wouldn't even attempt it.  So much harder to engineer successfully, imo.  Precision registration pins and old fashioned sprockets are tough enough to manage.

Like I mentioned earlier, all I need to do is attach an appropriate camera.  I'm in no rush; I'll wait for the right time and deal.

This is not a film  projector in the usual sense.  It is a projector head that was part of an optical printer or process projector, which was a specially built piece of gear for optical effects work in the days long before digital effects.  It was fabricated from heavy steel castings and precision machined.  Portable it is not.  It was built for absolute steadiness, not portability.

"Not difficult to do" needs to be qualified.  If you have the machine tools and knowledge of how to use them, then your efforts are more likely to be satisfactory.  I was spared much time and effort in constructing a transport mechanism by scoring an old projector head off ebay, which in its day probably cost $20,000 to build.  I paid $0 for it.  It is a thing of beauty for anyone who wants to build a scanner, an optical printer or whatever.  I later bought a 35mm pin-reg shuttle from a veteran effects artist, again on ebay, for $300.  I considered that a bargain, and it slipped right into the head I bought for nothing.  My work consisted of modifying the gear train and motor drive and building feed and take-up chambers from scratch.  To build all of this from scratch would've been much harder and time-consuming.  Projects like these can run into months and years.  I've been at this game a long time.

$4000 just for the camera?  Sounds like a machine vision camera rather than a mirrorless or dslr,

neither of which need cost that much if bought used.  Part of the motivation for building is to

hold down costs.

6 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

The easiest way is to make a slow frame by frame scanner which uses a mirrorless photo camera to take the images of the film to its own memory card. The camera is controlled by a wired remote which is hacked so that a sensor in the mechanics can trigger the camera at correct moments.

This type of system works pretty well (I built a crude prototype over a year ago and scanned film with it. The quality was great but image stability was pretty poor and needed extensive post stabilization to be watchable) but you need to have good mechanics and sensor system in it to get reasonable stability for usable results. 

Would love to hear your recommendations on specific cameras for this application.

This is precisely the kind of system I too have been building.  Already have the transport finished,

which was built around an old process projector head with a standard 35mm pin-reg shuttle.

Just need to attach a camera.

On 4/13/2014 at 11:14 AM, Fergus O'Doherty said:

yeah it's 4. But looking at the film shuttle a good machinist could make a 2 perf right? I mean that's how they were made to begin with right ?

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.