Jump to content

Wilford Neumann

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wilford Neumann

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  1. I remember reading something about all of this years ago. I can't believe I forgot. Thank you. Ha, someone ought to change all this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_movie_cameras#35_mm I'm getting more and more reliable sources saying that their shutters are adjustable halfmoons and not butterflies. So with every half rotation of the reflex mirrors, the shutter would make a full rotation? Makes sense! Simon; Hmm. I understand camera designs of today are based on cameras of the past, if that's what you were trying to explain, but what I was really looking for was
  2. I appreciate your replying again! But I fear it's moved away from what I'm questioning. Let's say we have 2 basic groups of modern rotary shutter design: One as close to the focal plane as possible, with reflex mirroring on it's own seperate blade(s) somewhere in front of the shutter; We'll call this "modern focal plane shutter design." Or one neither as close as possible nor too far from the focal plane with reflex mirroring attached to the front side of the shutter. We'll call this "modern non-focal plane shutter design." Since you've established there is negligible difference
  3. Are there any substantial pros and cons to focal plane shutters (with separate reflex mirrors) vs mirror-shutter reflex types? What warrants the 2 different types? While light reaches the film somewhat differently, is there really any d.o.p. concern to be had there? Is actual image sharpness affected? Is having room for a gelatin filter right in front of the film the only real benefit? Is it more of a design concern? Ease of assembly with one vs the other, maybe? Why are there 2 types? Also, was I correct about Panavision's focal plane shutter having to be butterfly to match the rotation o
  4. Alright. Should've been clear: So the focal plane shutter is merely an adjustable rotary disc shutter slightly in front of the focal plane instead of "more than 'slightly'" in front of it. Is that correct? Perhaps, "as close to the focal plane as possible" instead of some general distance in front?
  5. *Seems I can't edit my post. Further, that focal plane shutter would also be an adjustable butterfly type to match the reflex mirrors' rotation, correct?
  6. Wow... I was way off. These were my diagram snd explanation references: http://books.google.com/books?id=HKosIAtCS1QC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA21&ots=2PIJYT1QK1&dq=panavision+focal+plane+shutter&output=html_text&hl=en http://books.google.com/books?id=jaXWAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=panavision+single+blade+focal+plane+shutter&source=bl&ots=PINPwPEgEr&sig=mPcKcuN3wUbD-SBFSqoid_rRo_M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=de4mVLavC42RyAT7w4H4DQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ So the focal plane shutter is merely an adjustable rotary disc shutter *at* the focal plane instead
  7. Hello. I can 't seem to find enough information on the net to understand the way Panavision's single blade focal plane shutter design works. Doesn't a single blade have to move in reverse in order to shut? If so, how does it shut without creating uneven exposure? Just how fast can that blade open/close? Is it instantaneous enough that reverse shutting would't matter? I can't imagine this to be the case. When adjusting "angle" does this alter the speed at which the blade moves in any way? Or is that instead constant, with the difference being a change in how long the blade stays in it
  • Create New...