Charles MacDonald

ALthough the person asking is using Colur Negative, I have noticed that the Black and white stock like Tri-X reversal actually says to use total darkness even for film on the daylight spool. I suspect that the reason is the Black and white stock does not have the Black Coating on the back that the Colour Negative and Kodachrome film does. the balck coating stops a lot of light, and is removed in procesing. AS far as removing the film in the dark, It is easier to take the film out of the Camera than it is to load it, and often you find your shot runs until you hear the film run out! If you take it out in the dark you may save your last shot! My filmo Manual says to set the footage counter to 97 feet when loading, and run off those three feet to get to Zero before you start to shoot. After your reach 100 Ft run off three more feetwhich will take you to the physical end of the roll, The "customer allowance" that John was refering to. If you have bought ends, they may not have the extra for leader, so you will run out at counter 94 if you start with a 100 ft roll.....ALSO ends are often on a core, even if they are less than 100 ft! so you should open the package in total darkness and see if you have a spool to use FIRST! If you have film on a core, you will need to use an adaptor to put it in a camera set up to use a spool. You may be able to get your lab to wind it onto a spool for you. A lot of details for sure!

How close is the reading to what a normal meter says? That will tell you if the meter in the camera needs calibration... The one stop speed below 400 is 200, normaly you find 250 and 320 as the Third of a stop mid values so you would be UNDER exposing by a third of a stop. Negative film is normaly happier with Over exposure, reversal with Under. Will it work for a test to see if the Camera is actually working? I can't see why not.

Super 16 extends the frame the camera records to include the area that "normal 16mm" uses to hold the soundtrack. Their are hundreds of 16mm Projectors that were used in places like schools and such that only show the "main Part" of a super 16 frame, Worse they often will touch the film between that main part of the farme and the soundtrack paortion, which is all image on Super16. The local theatre guy could show a blow up to 35mm, but even if he has 16mm machines (some multiplexes were built that way) they again would expect a soundtrack where the rightmost 1/4 of your super16 picture is. One posibility would be to do a blow down to 16mm from your super 16, but that is likly to cost almost as much as a 35mm Blowup as in each case the lab would have to use an optical printer to copy each frame individually, (same size they can do a contact print.)

Sorry guy you have completly lost me.. the only DX film I know of is for 35mm still cameras, where there are little conductive spots on the film package so Aunt Minnie's Little camera does not have to ask her to set the film speed. From you other posts I Take it that you are scoping out getting nto using film ot make Music videos, and are looking For the cheap way to do things....The cheap way to buy film is to get the leavings left over from Profesional productions - These are called "Short ends" You get them from dealers like "certified film" http://www.certifiedfilm.com/ and others. They buy the film that is left after a project is finished, as well as the film leftin the camera that is not long enough for the next shot, so the unused film gets put back in the can and is sold off cheap. If you are shooting for a living, You probaly can't afford the uncertanty . Example I just respooled A roll of film from e-bay that is marked as 120 ft of Kodak 7245 onto a spool for my Filmo, but I found it had been wound on a Fuji core! Now it may be that it was part of a 1000 ft load, and the dealer respooled it on ot the smaller size core..(1000 ft loads often come on a 3 inch core- 400ft and smaller on a 2 inch) as I think they actually use the weight to figgure out how much film is on a roll.....or perhaps the film :blink: is not what is marked on the can. ???

I recall when some of the network TV shows started to originate in Video back when I was a Kid, I often found the "video look" jarring, as up until then dramatic productions on TV were done on film and the Video looked completly different. "All in the Family" is the one that comes to mind. We probaly are inprinted that TV is live and free, while Film Production is Serious. Newer generations may not perceve that difference.

On my finder turret I have a 17mm, a 1 inch and a 2 inch. I have also found a 3 inch and a 6 inch. Although the old 6 Inch lens I also got off e-bay (an Egleet) needs to be taken apart and re-lubricated as I can barly turn the focus ring. From one manual for a 200 series (which takes the same lenses and finders) they had a finder for each "official" B&H lens. As far as your Camera, I wonder if the 17mm was developed later. The Flange depth (lens flange to film plane) on a C mount is something like 0.65 inch if I recall. that is 16.5mm so it is likly that the wide angle would have had to be a "real" wide angle, where the lens to film distance is larger than the focal lenght. My other play camera is an old Keystone. That is only set up for a 1 inch and a 3 inch. and the finder is so small that you basicaly have to use the rectangle for the 3 inch as a cross hair to aim.

fortunatly My filmo uses the little screw in finder lenses, so at least when you can't quite see what you are shooting you can be resonably sure you are at least in the right ballpark! With the shake that you can get with a 3 inch, I suspect a 10 inch would require setting the Camera in Concrete! Anyway, a "Normal" lens is a one inch, which would be 25.4mm if converted directly. A 17mm is a common wide angle.

I belive that is what the "image management" software is aiming for. You take your digital model and do a transform that emulates the "look" of a given film stock. AS far as resoultion, The ASC seems to be pushing to have 4K accepted as the standard for Theatrical projection. Since Super16 is used to blow up to 35mm now, I would suspect that you might want to eventualy reach that level for Super16 as well. Of course we can hope that 4K is only an intirum standrd as both digital and Film are changing rapidly. Scaning at a higher resoultion and down converting is commom in other digital media - (My wife was a Digital audio compression Guru before she retired) - the math gets scary rather quickly but She has assured me that oversampling in audio actualy removed artifacts of the conversion process away form the desired signal. Not somthing you can casualy measure. The radomness of film grain may be effectivly doing the same thing, but putting defects when they are hard to observe.

The lever on the front f those has two positions, Up for single frame, and down to run. It should automaticaly return to the middle. I think there is a lever to lock it down, for continuous run, You want to release that!

I think you just accept that you have to avoid jams.. Background: I used to do Microfilming, we would use Recordak Imagecapture AHU microfilm on a 2.5 MIL ESTAR base, so we got 215 Feet on a "100 ft Spool". (used to go through 4 rolls a shift) Microfilm normaly does not have perfs. So I think that the 2.5 base is fairly standard. I also got some rather out of date Ektacrome VNF 2239 film form a surplus dealer for some of my home movies. That was also on a fairly thin base. I do have trouble showing the film on my Victor Projector becasue the Gate will not hold the thin film steady, I have more repairs to do on that machine so I will tweek the gate a bit to resolve that, so that I can deal with ESTAR prints. The 2239 was surplus from some place that was using High-speed cameras for crash testing I am told. The crash test cameras shoot at 200-400 Frames a second, and so NEED the ESTAR base, acetate would snap when they started up. I would immagine if ESTAR were to become popular as a Camera Negative, the designers of Cameras would add "shear Pins" to the mechanism, so that the pin would break before the film damaged the machine. The bigest problem with the ESTAR base is that It cannot be Cement spliced, so is typicaly tape spliced. For editing you would have to use an Ultrasonic splicer. which melts the film slightly. Also it builds up static MUCH faster so I suspect you would have to clean the negs on every pass though the printer.

I would guess that would depend on howmuch of a change in exposure you would need, and if changing the appature would cause a shift in your depth of field. The mood you are wanting will determine if you come from "total black" or dim, are you doing forboding, mystery, or just a pasage of time? you may want to use some difuse light to bring out objects in the dark room, which would reduce the need to change exposure as the sun comes up. Your bright may also want to end up OVER bright, depending on the mood. (Hangover very bright- Kids birthday - not too bright) Normal film is shown at 24 FPS, so 20 seconds is 480 frames. divide the number of minutes you will be shooting in real time, and you have an idea of how often you need to shoot. You will want consistancy when the sun is comming up, depending on the latitude, it may brighten up in only a few frames. (of couse something else you can fake, if your wanting tropics you can shorten the transistion, if you want northern climes you can up for shoot rate to make it take longer..

There was another thread on a simalar topic recently and John P at Kodak referenced a document about inspections of "professional Film" . I Would suggest looking for that documnet, printing it out and using a yellow hi-lighter to mark "Motion Picture film" and HAND INSPECTION. You may be better off to send it fed-ex with all the required paper work. they have their own planes and so they have latitude for how they check cargo. IF you do use a shipper, slap the Kodak DO NOT X_RAY labels on all sides. and make "Motion picture film do not xray" the first line in your description of contents.

I undersand that the central part of that lens is relativly free of distortion WHEN you are onlyusing the 16mm Movie frame part of the field. If you put it on a 35mm still Camera, you use more of the field and it is distorted. Note that even the 17mm Metor Zoom I understand will not fit a 35mm PENTAX camera as it sticks out quite a bit into the area that holds the mirror on the pentax. It is also designed to only cover the 16mm Movie frame. (a problem for folks who have converted their K-3 to Super16- they have to avoid using the lens at very wide angle settings.)

Zooms ONLY work "right" mounted directly on the camera. even a tele-converter which works fine with a fixed lens will make a zoom go soft and smeary. Since you have an M42 Camera, there was a "macro takumar" (for a picture see ebay Item number: 7567466153) which focuses very close, there was also a "bellows takumar" (see ebay Item number: 7564469895) which depended on using a set of Bellow to focus, and can get well past 1:1 Both may be hard to find. A belows is somewhat better then extension subes just becuse you can pick any lens to film distance. Another item to get is a reversing ring, using that with a "normal" (prime) SLR lens will get you in the close up range and give better sharpness than the same lens on just an extension tube. You can add extension tubes to the mix. Pentax made the reverse adaptors to fit lenses with both 49mm and 52mm filter threads. You screw the adaptor on the lens like a filter, and then mount the adaptor on the camera.

I wonder if there is that much of a dupe of dupe effect, you are probaly at least one extra generation down when a safety master has been made of a Nitrate original. In many cases the only way we see many of these movies is on TV, where they lose more of the image that has been lost by making a backup. Older film DID have more silver, and you can see that today by just comparing the results from FOMA r-100 which is an oldstyle reversal film, and say Plus x which is a more modern design. The plus-x would win in the grain departmnet but lit just right the foma can look a little "Richer" The older films were alos not always as "pancormatic" as todays films. Again, If you try the EFKE KB-100 Still film (very old style made in Serbia) with a camparable modern film like Still Plux-x 5063 you can see the difference. I would not be surprised if the lens had some filters on it on those sets. A green filter does make a noticable differnce in skin tones, although no one ever thinks to use one. (try it - you may like it) From my own playing with old 16mm Cameras and lenses, the pre-war lenses are much more suceptable to flare. I was shocked at how a little bit of sidelight wiped out the image when using my Wollensak Cine-Velostigmat before I found a Talyor taylor hobson lens for my filmo.. I am sure that the DP's in those days had to take extra precautions to get the best out of them.

TO broaden the question out, is their a book that one can get on wiring for cameras? Tonight I received a 110 volt motor for the filmo, and I was surprised to find that it uses an XLR-3 connector for power. I am used to only seeing an XLR used as a microphone connector. This means I will have to do some circuit tracing before I can even try to see if this motor runs. (and then I have to rig a braket as my FIlmo is a DL.. Having a reference to what connects to what and what connectors they need might be very handy if one is "in the field" and a cable goes south.

Yes, their is proably a Torque spec for the takeup. many Cameras use a spring belt to create the proper touque. Too Much and you will pull th efilm in the gate, too little and you get slack which can jam.

One sugestion, if you can "get away with it" is to shoot some experimental tests after you get what you need to make your main shoot. Just try a short shot at the end of a roll that does not have enough for another take. (you may have to buy the rest of yoru crew a couple more beers) of course you will have to be sure the test shot will get transfered/printed so you can see what it looks like, but I suspect that would notbe a big hastle on a "student" film, part of the reason you are out with a camera is to learn how the media reacts to the controls that are available. Part is to build the confidence to go out and spend the day working hard and trusting you will have something to show for it when you get the film back. Charles, who often figures every shot is a test of something...

Just some notes, I have just finished doing this for the first time. (I have repacked 35mm film for the still camera for years but I just got some ends to try in the filmo, so respooling party on!) 1) I used a split reel and a 400 foot Spool (like the TV news folks used to use in their CP-16 cameras) for the first pass, I put a 5 foot lenth of leader on the spool, and used tape to attche the lead end of the "bulk" roll. That way I avoided tring to find the slot in the 400 Ft spool in the dark. I figured using the spool as insurance, as once the film is on that, It can't get fogged even if there is some light. I did the whole thing in the dark and I don't think I had any probelm that way, I will see when I get a chance to try the film out. (no matter what, - a valid learning experience) 2) after I had the film on the spool, I switched positions and put the 400 ft spool on the feed rewind, (I actually was using the reel arm of a projector as one of my "rewinds" with a hand rewind for the destination, just saves some space in my darkroom/work area. 3) it is hard to judge a full spool. I wound three what I thought were full spools from my 400 ft roll, and said I just have to wind the rest on the last spool. I had way too much, and had to set asside about 20-30 feet on another spool at the end. I am going to have to listen very carelully to find out the end of those rolls. I am calling them 90 foot loads! 4) next step will be to find a place to try one of my rolls and "see what develops" :P

I know I have seen a formula for calulating the size of a roll of fim, given the core size, and thickness of the stock. I suspect It is probaly in the ASC manual. If you are using plain old 5 mil acetate film, a daylight spool is almost 4 inches across (3.615-inch ) . A core is 2 inches across, while the spool is 1 inch at the centre. so you should manage to get at least 50 ft of film on a core to fit inside the space that the spool takes up. Perhaps more if the camera is roomy. My filmo leaves so little room arround the spool taht it is hard to get the spool out. On the other hand my first 16mm camera, an OLD DeVry has at least an inch on all sides of the spool. In many cameras you could use the same principal as is used in "displacement magazines" and allow for the fact that the takeup can occur in the same space that the feed was at loading time. In that case the pair of rolls take up the most space about the time they are halfway though. Mught be worth an experiment. You could ask a still Phtographer for a core from 35mm Bulk film, (spec 401 or 402) which is 1 inch with a 1/4 inch hole. Cut that in half crossways and file it down to the width of a spool, then drill and tap holes for a couple of set screws. the areawith the film slot in the original core is probaly the stongest place. The set screws should be just big enough to engage the keyway of the 2 inch type T core.

Back when I was a young whippersnaper, a TV set with black bars down the side meant that it needed a new 6BQ6GTB Horizontal output tube. :rolleyes: The stores are probaly trying to pervent having to sell off the demonstrator TV set Cheep. Some of the early flat screen sets are quite prone to image burn-in and so If you leave them on for a month with "normal" TV, the sides of the screen will be lighter when you try to view someting in wide screen. I have even seen one dealer include in their TV facts booklet that Conventional Displays. (Cathode ray tubes) are known to last longer than some flat screens. Charles who is wrting this looking at a CRT monitor!

I have seen adaptors that go the other way, to put a M42/pentax lens on a C mount camera.

Maybe 98% of the time, there was that old Elclair that I read about once that was designed to run either 35 or 16. That would Probaly be as easy to convey to super 16 as a run of the mill 16mm camera.and the 35mm lens WOULD cover super 16.

Thanks folks. Sounds like the system parts may just turn up. I should try to get that motor if it is not bid up too high. I can always plug it into an inverter. if Not - 72RPM, another spec to look for when visiting suplus stores. The 12 volt or 24 Volt motor sounds like exactly what I am picturing, although it is probaly a military item and would weigh as much as the Camera. The HL I had actually came from Kineman, unfortunatly it was scratching the film, and gave me several overexposed frames at the begining of each shot. I had bought it with a return privledge, and decided to not risk any attempt fixing those problems myself. It probaly just had slugish lubrication, and something caught in the presure plate. but I did not want to tinker, and perhaps get stuck with a dead camera. I still have a twinge of regret as I have seen a couple of other ones go for more than I bid on the one I had. While I had it here, I did compare the differences, and I would guess that to change over you would be looking at a different housing, or in other words an entire disassembly of the camera. There are several places where one would have to use a milling machine on a DL to Get the holes that the accessories would need. At the factory, this would not be a real problem, as the jigs were already made up, and a visit to the factory for any reason would include a stripdown and readjust. Again Thanks for the detailed info.

The since the Slower film generaly has smaller grain - it may apper sharper also, although so muych effort has gone into improvemnt of Film in general in the last 20 years the comparison is only really valid within the same family of films. (EXR for example) High Speed film, as it is more sensitive also tends to be affected by Heat, radiation, etc. more than slower film. You can probaly get away with longer storage from the slower film.