David Sekanina

I agree Dan. I was mesmerized, but I also fear, should Kodak get into financial trouble again, it might be the end of motion picture color film, judging from the sheer size and complexity of the operation. I don't know what ORWO is truly doing and at what scale.

part two:

I see. For frame by frame shooting you would need a capping shutter - and only works if there is nothing else moving in the shot. This is a silly idea, but if it's a short sequence, shoot it multiple times. The image change has to happen during the 180 degree transport phase of the film, so there's a theoretical 50 50 chance. So when you shoot let's say a 5 second scene 5 times, hopefully in one of the shots, the image change happens during the dark 180 degree transport phase. Yeah it's a crude and silly idea ?

I can confirm, when shooting modern LCDs and OLED screens I had no rolling bar or other artifact like on a CRT. check around the 3m25s mark:

If you struggle for space you might also go with their new EPOS4 Micro 24-5 controller

To fit into an LTR/XTR I'd start with a maxon EC 60 flat pancake motor (or one of their frameless ones, which are based on the flat), with added Hall sensor and MILE 1024 cpt encoder and an epos4 Module 50/5 (to do the silent sinus commutation instead of block commutation of their Escon controllers) and build the rest of the function into a new motherboard that takes the epos module board. No Chinese crap.

Wonderful Tyler, also the music fits perfectly. Looking forward to see the final doc. Did you use the car for the one 'dolly shot' ?

Wonderful Steve! Congrats!

Not from my experience. I've taken apart completely a LTR 7 and partially my XTR prod, and while the layout and principle remain the same, almost every part is different. I've also sold a few of my LTR parts to other LTR owners, and they sometime had to modify them to make them work with theirs. You could ask Charles Pickel on the serviceability of an LTR, he posts here from time to time, and posts wonderful pictures of camera restoration on Instagram.

Thank you Mark, yours is actually a better, more detailed article.

There's a good article in the NYT on how Chapin Cutler of Boston Light & Sound went to great lengths to get all the 70mm projectors for Quentin up and running again. From what I read it was a rather herculean task. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/movies/tarantinos-the-hateful-eight-resurrects-nearly-obsolete-technology.html

Funny, as a small kid, before I understood anything about film formats, cameras and lenses, whenever I saw black bars on our wooden B&W TV, I immediately associated it with "high quality movie production". And years later, I saw Kubrick's "The Shining" on TV (after I've seen it in the cinema) and was befuddled, that after the intro with the helicopter shot of the car, the broadcasted version switched from widescreen to 4:3. I was angry that they butchered the film and wanted to write the TV station to please not do this again. Glad I didn't. Later I found out, Kubrick wanted it to be presented that way for TV.

Fair enough Tyler - say hi to Andrée. BTW I always wanted to interview Danny at cinefacilities and document him working on film cameras (haven't asked him yet). Would you be willing to do the same with Andrée? It's a bit far for me. I think it could be a marvelous short doc and their work deserves to be documented.

wow, thank you Mark ?

Thank you Mark, it was just an example. It's not unique to Tyler or this forum, it happens everywhere. You start to read the answers to a question posted in a forum, and after you read through 47 sometimes totally contradicting answers, you question reality itself ? So I completely understand Dom insisting on accuracy.

Tyler, maybe just phrase your statements differently, like: "I'm spitballing here but the difference in height and width..." You sometimes phrase things in a very assured way, like how hard or easy it is to convert certain cameras to two or three perf - a topic you later learned you gave the wrong information - and to give you credit - later corrected your statements. For me, this results in mistrusting your info - like to this day I don't know if 100ft 16mm film on a core will fit inside the light-tight plastic box without bulging or not. To the point that I will actually try it myself and publish a video to prove once and for all if it does or not. And you might be correct on that topic, but now I'd rather test it myself, which is unfortunate, bc people come here to have their questions answered. So just let us know when you're spitballing, and when you give accurate information from first hand experience. Thanks ❤️

For me it always helps to do a quick full frame comparison - crop factor of roughly 3x So a 8, 9, 12, 16 and 25mm compare to a 24, 27, 36, 48 and 75mm in full frame. So the focal lengths 8mm and a 9mm compare to the changes in field of view between a 24 and a 27 in full frame, which is quite noticeable, although in 16mm it's just a 1mm difference in focal length.

Is Bolex International still re-organizing? What's the status? ?

https://filmplusgear.com/blackmagic-raw-braw-testfile-for-download/

after a 3 second google search (3 clips) https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicraw

Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood you. Maybe I misinterpreted the image too and this isn't an extension tube behind the Schneider Kreuznach lens, but the whole lens itself:

The perforated lead panels inside my LTR were also cut by hand from the looks of them ? Thanks for the image - I can't tell though.

24 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said: .. I suspect it might contain asbestos though it was never tested for it... I can't explain why it would otherwise be so great at insulating sound... The four most commonly used sound dampening materials I came across were: Wool felt (main body) and PU foam with a perforated PU cover (body door) Diamond pattern embossed bitumen based sheets (mags) perforated lead sheets (main body) the heavy bitumen and lead sheets are good for canceling out the low frequency noise of a camera, not great for building light weight cameras ?

Correct, like bellows, extension tubes have no optical element at all.

It's most likely an extension tube, acting like a fixed bellows, allowing a non macro lens to be used as a macro lens.