Dennis Toeppen

I have 1000' or 2000' (can't remember if it's two cores or one) of 16/8 2R Vision 3 50D that I may be willing to sell for $1.75 per foot. It was perforated by Wittner.

I'm just a hobbyist, but I have had a little experience playing with 200T in daylight (with an 85 filter). Here's a film I shot in 2019 to test some older stock I'd bought on Ebay. Later, I tried pulling this stuff 1 stop and the results were pleasing. The grain was a bit finer. Unless you're interested in the railroad grade, you probably want to skip forward to about the halfway point. Also, I acknowledge that the editing of the first minute could use some clean-up.

The only thought I have is that maybe I wouldn't have had these problems if I'd reverse-wound the stock and left it that way for awhile before shooting, then wound it correctly before shooting. That might have eliminated the curling that I theorize caused my problems. I had big problems running Wittner 200D (estar-based) in my A-Minima. It wouldn't run. So I let it sit for 50 weeks and it worked fine. It just needed a chance to forget its original curl. Think that sounds kooky? Here's the evidence. Film used shortly after spooling (bad): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1uM3Z345fY&t=0s Film used ~ 3 months after spooling (still bad): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz2FCldULtc Ran fine after a 50 weeks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWLgok_tQc I don't know if the Ektachrome problem is due to film curl, but it's the only theory I have.

Here's some 35mm 7285 (Old Ektachrome) processed as reversal: Shot in an Arri 235, which is pin-registered. There were some pretty significant registration issues, and they got worse and worse as the supply side closed in on the core. I sort of imagine the stock was just misbhaving because it had been stored frozen for more than 10 years. I should have used fresh (1/2013) stock.

"That's to keep lens barrel out of frame when using wide angle lens." To clarify, I mean barrels of adjacent lenses.

Hi Again - Do you have ayny samples posted online? Thank you.

That's to keep lens barrel out of frame when using wide angle lens.

Which is 3383? Thanks.

A couple people have requested that I send them these service manuals. They are difficult to email, so I'm posting them on my FTP server. Here are the urls. Anyone who reads this post is welcome to download and use the pdfs. http://suburbs.com/k100/k100x1.pdf http://suburbs.com/k100/k100x2.pdf http://suburbs.com/k100/k100x3.pdf The K100 is my favorite camera: 1) It has an insanely long spring 2) It has a nice bright viewfinder 3) It fits right into a small video bag because it's got no weird or large appendages 4) It's got decent registration - provided you don't buy one with a worn out pressure plate/aperture plate. 5) It's sufficiently sparkly that people think it's cool, but it's not so sparkly that it draws the kind of crowd a Bolex draws. On the downside: 1) It doesn't use B&H finders. The widest K100 finder I've found is 14mm. That gets me pretty close to the 10mm Kern lens I like to use. I just ignore the frame lines and consider the vertical tangents of the circular field of view as left and right edge of 4:3 frame. 2) It sinks if the raft your on capsizes. Long live film! I tried to edit title but site rejected my edit. I am therefore posting with correct title.

FILM WINS

I think you're a couple decades off there, not with age estimates, but with timing of social evolution...but maybe also the age estimates.

I think this would be a good thread for finally deciding which is better, film or digital.

Thanks. What ASA do you meter at, and how have the results been? Thank you.

Has anyone ever tried 3383 as a camera film? I have 3000' of it perfed double 8 and was thinking of trying it in an H8. Thanks in advance for any responses. Dennis

Update: I was able to order two eyecups from Procam for $46 each. These are the OEM eyecups with the smooth transitions on the eyecup rim. Yes, I'm a bit particular. I believe it is genetic.

Howdy, Two questions plague me this evening: 1) Does anyone know where to get original Bolex eyecups? I was going to order a couple from Jesse Chambless, but he has passed away. This is very bad news. He knew everything and was very generous with his time. The eyecups that Calkovsky sells aren't the right shape (they're not cup-like at the eyepiece) and I wouldn't buy anything from him even if they were. 2) Has anyone ever tried 3383 as a camera film? I have 3000' of it perfed double 8 and was thinking of trying it in an H8. Thanks in advance for any responses. Dennis

I just learned about this today. I will miss Jesse. He was always very generous with his time and knowledge. Nobody will fill his shoes.

Yes, that's right. The packing job ruined the pizza boxes. The 12 x 12 x 16 cartons were too thin and I think a maximum stack of 4 would have eliminated crushing of bottom pizza box(es). The crushing clearly occurred during carton drops. I've never had problems with 16mm film shipped in these boxes, because it's much lighter and because the lab rolls have been smaller. But 35mm is too heavy in relation to the strength of the thin cartons.

The original plan was for them to scan. The cost-minimizing way to scan is to build the largest rolls the scanner can handle. They said this meant 1200'. I never really understood that. All DPT scanners seem to be able to handle more than 1200'. But that's my only reference.

There's the solution I was looking for. That sounds perfect. I can't wait to try this tomorrow. I've got some 2000' cans and plenty of cores (2" and 3"). I also found this shortly after posting the saga above. I don't like that only 180 degrees of each side is supported, but the price is right. As you can see, it's made of PPE, so it's archival. The nice thing about this solution is that I don't have to scrounge for free 2000' cans and a truckload of cores - although I think your solution is superior. https://www.printfile.com/product/ap351200-35mm-1200ft-film-container/ Thanks very much for your suggestion.

Picture... What's up with the super low limit on image upload size, BTW? Odd.

Saga... I had 70 x 400' x 35mm rolls processed at a reputable lab. They were spooled onto cores as 1200' lab rolls. Then each 1200' lab roll was placed into a ~2 mil poly bag, then roll and bag were placed into an 11.5" x 11.5" pizza box. A 1200' lab roll is about 11", so there was some play. The pizza boxes are thin 1 ply cardboard. The top and bottom are easily deflected, particularly when containing a 1200' lab roll. These must weigh 10-12# each. Next, 9 boxed lab rolls each were stacked in three rather flimsy 12" x 12" x 16" cartons, and the cartons were shipped via FedEx. Results: Worst carton was burst at one corner, crushed upward about 1" at corner, and box showed clear evidence of having been compressed by a load on top of it. The bottom five pizza boxes had broken at the top and bottom seams. Film in bottom few boxes had unwound a bit. Film in these bottom boxes also showed evidence of "coning". To me, this suggests that I will have both longitudinal scratches and perpendicular scratches. Also, at least one poly bag failed, so shards of cardboard and some dust made it into the bags to serve as grinding media. I'm kind of mad about this. But being mad won't fix the problem, nor will it undo the expenses I've incurred, nor will it return the subjects to the location the were in last summer, nor will it take the subjects out of retirement, nor will it bring back to life the subjects who have passed on. So I'm not dwelling on that. But I do need to figure out how to properly ship multiple lab rolls of 35mm film after processing, so this $*&#* doesn't happen again. It seems like reels are the best way to ensure the safety of film. But putting negs on reels? That seems kind of odd. The negs are on cores when they come out of the lab. Split reels seems like an ideal solution. But do I want to buy 10+ 35mm split reels? I'm sure that would be extremely expensive, if I could even find 10. 1200' lab rolls are slightly too big for 1000' cans. If I have them make 800' lab rolls in the future, that will drive the cost of prep and transfers way up, and they won't be snug in 1000' cans. I really don't know what to do. But I'm 100% certain that I am not the first person to ship processed 35mm film. I'm hoping someone out there can point me in the direction of a good solution. At some point, I need to ship this to get it scanned. Right now, 28,000' of 35mm is unseen. I hope not to destroy it before I see it! At least it's stored at 60F/30% RH. Thanks in advance for any wisdom you toss my way...other than suggestions that I go digital ?

My personal opinion is that you should steer clear of Calkovsky.

+1 for whole picture. what about a gradient on the bottom, maybe 20% at top edge, 80% bottom edge, when you've got weirdness to hide.

There was some discussion awhile back about putting 1R film in 50' GSAP magazines. I just thought I'd share my experience with Russian-manufactured Kiev 50' GSAP magazines, which are designed for 1R. I can sum the results up in one word: Awful. I've tried this at least five times, using different Kiev magazines, which were inspected for working parts/proper operation before loading. They've all produced similar results. Here are a couple tests: Revere 16, which usually produces footage with amazing registration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmVFvfzQOw B&H 200 Pressure plate in magazine didn't cooperate much: https://youtu.be/Co8WFk9ZwiM?t=136 B&H 200 Here's the one time I got lucky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V8Kqx-MKDo So I don't recommend using the Kiev magazines. That's about all I've got to say about that.