Charles MacDonald

Many of the 70 series Filmos have a crank port at the side. It is just at the edge of the spring housing, at the lower front. In fact I stated another thread trying to get enough detail to see if I could rig that feture to bypass the spring motor to get a longer run. As usual the group responded with quite a few details if you read that thread you will have more ideas. The regular filmo crank will not get you fully hand cranked, because the Camera's Speed govenor is still active to keep you from cranking faster than the speed setting.

NO!

I am always amazied at the high prices these things go for on E-bay. I have bought a couple of them just for the lenses, and finders. These take a 50 ft magazine, that Kodak used to make. Alan Gordon bought the magazine business for Kodak, and they were still showing magaizines available last time I looked. They want about 30-40 dollars for the 2 minute load, and they expect their magazine to be returned in a month. You may be able to find some out of date film in this format on e-bay. One lad was offering a set of magazines for about 80 buck, with film he said is outdated - but thta he claims is OK. The Camaera was made for Home movies before REGULAR 8 Came out. The magzine is fairly complicated to reload, and requires Double Perferated film, whihc is beoming hard to find as Kodak is emphasising Super 16 Production which requires single perf. As far as use, You stick in a cartridge, door is at the back, whind the camera up. Set the exposure, and here you have a meter, in the EE model, but it probaly only goes up to 50 ASA. Depending on the lens you have you probaly have to focus. Push down on the button at the front, and with luck , the camera will whir. Push up on the button and you can do single frames. Or you can take the finder lens off and put that on a spool filmo.

My Fun and Larning with 16mm FIlm up to now has been mostly with my Trusty FIlmo. (having given up on the Very old keystones) Mine is a 70DL. The filmo has a place where you can insert a hand crank. The Dl does not have any place to attach the AC motor. I did have a HL, that I bought on e-bay but it was scratching the film, and so I took advantage of the sellers return for refund offer. That has a place to anchor an ac motor and also the little door that one can attach a 400 Ft magazine. The instuctions for my DL say I can put in the hand crank, and with the spring motor run down, and the triger locked on, If I turn the crank I can take pictures under the control of the fly ball speed control system that runs the speed with the spring motor. This seems to work, but the camera really needs to be on a "Cement" tripod to do this. The mad scientist in me wonders if one could rig up some sort of geared motor to that opening, and locate it with a braket off the tripod socket in order to get a longer run time. I have been filming my wife running our Dog on an agaility course, and the dog runs the course for just a bit longer than the spring runs the Filmo. I am doing this as "no-budget filmmaking" and my costs are already climbing as I will be soon find myself switching over to ECN and workprints rather then VNF, so A nice $10K camera will likly be forever out of the question. I am not interested in Video. and yes I know I am crazy to even try.

My understanding from somthing I read about Soviet Cinerama is that the Soviet film folks used film perforated KS often in their 35MM camera, so Soviet era camera might need some work even for shooting 35.! Unless you don't mind ordering special order film, and paying a lab to madify their printer. One can convert a 35 to 3 perf, which gives some film cost savings while still giving an image slightly bigger then Super 16. You probaly would have to see an expert in whatever camaera you wanted to start with to find out how many thousand dollars the work would cost. Changing the gate and recentering the lens and finder is a big job, and as has been pointed out the sprokets also have to be looked at to avoid marks in the area that was between the sound track and the gate in plain 16, but 80-90% of the camera does not have to change in the least whne going from 16 to super 16.

When you are doing a negative film, You might be able to get away with that! Their is a prewash that removes the rem jet, a bleach that re-halos the silver, a fix to get rid of the unexposed silver, some washs .. All those steps really go to completion in the reconended time, so If you extend them all, it probaly will not affect the results (much) - I am sure the lab folks will comment if I am being overly optonistic in this regard. You CAN NOT get away with Pulling as then you will be shortchanging some of the other steps.

One thing about super 8 is that most home movies were shot at 18FPS. and regular 8 was at 16FPS. This causes a little unstedyness in the motion. You might be able to do some tricks with your printing or transfer to enulate that effect. SAy shooting at 16FPS, and copying every second frame twice .. 1,2,2,3,4,4,5,6,6,...to get the unsteadyness into the motion. heck you could probaly try shooting at 12 FPS and repeating every frame.

I was picturing the core being turned the wrong way, and loosening up the film, with the posible danger of CINCH marks (or a film Slinky if you try to take it out of the can.) extreme case would have some backfolding which would cause presure fogging.. Emulsion out might not be a big deal depending on the design of the magazine, I suspect that some of them would work just find unwinding from the wrong side. You could rule on that eventuality by taking a small clip of 6 inches of film , and marking it with a pen before you set it down to see what side you marked. Since we are talking about someone is apperently a student here. HE could also cut 6 ft off in the dark, and load it into a 35mm still cassette, shoot s few stills and send it to Dale labs for CD only. If the negatives look OK, the film might work. If he is friendly with a lab, he might even be able to get them to run a fog test on a short snip off the roll.

Actually, I is quite easy to register a domain name with anything you want. A hard to create address would have been something like security.ebay.com The name you gave has notthing to do with e-bay. From the WHOIS server: Domain Name.......... ebaysecuritycenter.com Creation Date........ 2004-11-04 Registration Date.... 2004-11-04 Expiry Date.......... 2005-11-04 Organisation Name.... Deborah Logan Organisation Address. 10131 Ranger Rd Organisation Address. Organisation Address. Fairfax Organisation Address. 22030 Organisation Address. VA Organisation Address. UNITED STATES Admin Email.......... domeniul_meu@yahoo.com Compare to Registrant: eBay, Inc. 2005 E. Hamilton Ave., Ste. 350 2125 Hamilton Ave San Jose, CA 95125 US Domain Name: EBAY.COM I would have my hair stand on end if I got any mail proporting to be from ebay intending to facilitate a sale... and since ebay owns PAyPla they are certin to want you to use paypal to pay.

Your latitude is all on the overexposure side with colour negative films in general. That is why they used to sell 126 catriges of film rated at 200, and had good results when folks used them in instamatic cameras made when the film was rated at 80. AS another datapoint, I did a test recently with a still roll of 5247 that I got back in 1986, ie in my freezer for 20 years. Fog was high, but the image looked full bodied on the film. Oviously such an extreme case is not recomended. This was with normal exposure. As always with anything out of the ordinary, if you can posibly make a test, even if it is to do repeatable work early and try to get the first roll back before you do your "hard to do" shots.

Their are quite a few stange listings on ebay. My favorite are the folks that mix up "Victor Animatograph" with Victor Talking Machine, or talk about the company being names for some sort of Patent Victory. And not because the guys last name was Victor! (my interest in Cinematography extends to older 16mm projectors) PLEASE take the time to report this to ebay. (the suspected fraud, not the Victor thingie) They WILL at least take the auction down so some unknowing person does not get stung. Unfortunatly with free web mail accounts, it is hard to keep these folks away - but something like this may well be reportable ot the authorities.

I think this is where the concept of "liquid gate printing" come from. If the scratches are on the base, and you are shooting from the base, you are shooting THROUGH the scratched film. I would (AS a still photographer mind you) expect that if you could shoot from the emuslion side, and use a VERY WIDE lens opening, you might get the emuslion in focus, and try to get the scratches OUT of focus, and out of the picture. If you can provide a disfusion light source, you may also be ahead. IN stll enlargers the colour heads which are disusion sources, are knon to show fewer negative defects than Condensor heads. For stills you used to be able to gte "edwal no scratch" which is a liguid with an index of defraction simlar to film base. The Liquid gate idea uses the same idea by immersing the film in dry cleaning fluid.

I have been waiting to try the porcess as a posible future project, so I have a Morse, and a LOMO both sitting in the cupboard, waiting for the day I get room in my Hobby schedule to build a replica of a "superior Bulk Film" drying rack. The LOMO looks like the best bet ot actually get some use. It takes 50 ft of film in a reel that resembles a giant still camera tank. It can be set, (I have the "big" model) for 8mm 35mm or 2*16mm, so My plan is to play with regular 8 first. I also have a LOMO sliting unit to separate the film. MY guess having looked but not yet tried the Morse whild be to come up with a processing cycle that includes a pre-soak, or perhaps use a divided first developer. the trick is that you run the risk of the small amount of developer that is actually in contact with the film becoming exhausted before it gets refreshed. The instuctions do say to wind the film emuslion OUT on the tank which _SHOULD_ leave it a little springy, and less likly to wind up tightly. I also get the impression that adding 10 feet of leader at each end might not be out of line.

I thnk that depend son the video camera. Some have a single sensor, particularly any Black and white ones :rolleyes: Now since the vedio camera can be viewed in real time, some of the cheaper ones just adjust the back focus distance rather than have a focusing lens. for the same reason many Video lenses will not bother to have a diaphram. Finaly I have a nice looking video lens that had counted on their being nothing in the way behind the mount so does not have any room for the movie camera's shutter. :o

To clarify the "daylight spools" I have been using a lot of the Black and white reversal film, and it is more likely to fog than the colour negative film. The colour negative has a black coating on the back of the film that is removed in processing. Most of the B&W film does not as I found out the hard way on one of my first attempts to make a 16mm Movie.... In this case, you probaly want to try and be safe. Depending on the exact camera, your effective shutter speed is probaly going to be arround 1/50 to 1/60 of a second on your movie camera at 24 FPS.. Your camera will have a shuter angle, which says how many degrees of the shutters rotation it is open. example a 120 degree shutter gives 120/360 * 1/24 = 1/72 second. If you can't find out the angle from the manual, I would guess that their are a lot of folks here that could give you the fugure with the make and model of the camera. 24 FPS is the speed sound movie projectors run at - silent movies were shot at 16 to 18 FPS, but they then to show more jumpiness. Super 8 consumer cameras also run at 18 FPS. Some folks doing production for video will crank the camera up to the video frame rate of 29.9 fps. Of course that uses up more film. The telecine folks do have methods to transfer at 24 FPS, as that is still the speed used for theatrical movies in North america. (The folks in europe sometimes use 25FPS.) You can pick a range of film speeds to match you project. In the colour negative we have sppeds form 50ASA to 500 to play with. As Movie making is generaly done in a studio, most of the films are ballanced for tungsten light - ie 100T , 500T So to use those in daylight you need a #85 Filter. their are 50D and 250D films that are intended for use in the daylight. I am not sure what film you were shooting in your Canon. Some of the higher speed films will get you above an 1/8 of a second. Common slide films are 100D so they might be in that range indoors.

Their main line is ends and re-cans.

You probaly noticed that the 35mm versions start witha 5, while the 16 and smaller start with a 7 (Someday we will find out what thet first digit means in Kodak-Speak) So for example 7218, and 5218 are both covered on the same datasheet. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.4.16&lc=en Now If you look at th ethread about RGB lab you will find a more general discussion about using still cameras as a analog for Motion pictures.

And the folks timing the final prints, probably can refer to their notes, and if something funny is going on, the workprint, or the cinematographers notes, to get the final to match the desired effect(s)

What happens in the long term? I would think that Bleach bypass would leave you with a "normal" Colour Negative, overlayed with a Silver Black and White negative. The presence of silver should not cause any more instability than the silver soundtrack that used to be on all 35MM prints before they went to cyan tracks. :blink: NOW cross processing - that may leave you with reduced negative life! :wacko:

YES Film is Expensive....but it is also interesting. To give you a few hints.. REVERSAL film is processed and returned to you ready to show in a projector. Black and white reversal film is made by Kodak, as Plus X or Tri X reversal. and by FOMA in eastern europe. JandCphoto http://jandcphoto.com/ sells the FOMA at about 23.99US for a hundred foot roll that will run about 2-3 minutes. expect to spend that much again to get it processed. The kodak is about the same price or a few dollars more. Almost all 16mm cameras will take the 100 ft rolls. Some will take longer rolls. The longer rolls MUST be loaded in the dark. The 100ft "daylight spools" can be loaded in VERY DIM light. I use my darkroom and a safelight myself but that is probaly overkill. The safelight IS NOT "SAFE" for the movie film, but it is a convenient sorce of dim light. Negative film is also available in Black and White and colour. The Kodak B&W Negative films are Plus-x and Double-x. The negative plus x is NOT the same as the reversal Plus-x Negative film must be printed to be shown in a projector or Transfered to video. If you search google for video transfer you will find many folks some of whom will be happy to deleop your negative film and record it on various Video formats. Some of these are compatible with editing them on a computer.

You can probaly do both. If you can't see out the window, you could put paper on the outside. If you can you would want some filter material on the outside.You can get gels that are basicaly ND filters. but since you are using B&W you can just use dark gels. Then put enough light on your subject to balance the effect you want.

There is "Kodak Lens cleaner" and the companion "Kodak Lens cleaning Paper" Danger is that you get too much of the cleaner on the paper and it runs inside the lens. Normal use is to wad up a piece of the paper and add one dropof the cleaner. Wipe the lens, and then dry with the tron off and rolled up edge of another piece of paper. IN Japan they prefer to use a Chamois.

Recalling hat RGB was actually using FUJI print stock to make the slides.

I am reminded that about 20 years ago now, their were a herd of folks with names like "lab47", "apoolo Film and Tape", "cord enterpries", "C&L Labs" who latched on to providing reloaded short ends and printing them as slides as a cheaper alternative to Slide film. Back then the stard print stock was optimised for short term theatre prints and so many folks who thought they were getting a "professional Film" and "Hollywoods secret wepon" actually have a box full of rather redish slides for their trouble. Dale Labs was one of these, although the folks that stated that quickly decided that they should migrate upwards. RGB was another one who was right in the middle of the pack. At the time the Photgraphy magazines quoted "Kodak" as saying - Probaly quite rightly that they considered this an abuse of the product and that it was something that they wanted to discourage. (Shortly therafter they did introduce a longer lived print stock) Having folks that would do the slides from negs trick was quite handy, and I am sure doubly so in preproduction and location scouting. I agree that it is more useful to small folks, as as David has pointed out, the Big guys can very well justify spending a thousand bucks to run a test. (including rentals, a print or two and a 400 ft roll of negative. In fact they probaly can't afford anything less, as a Hidden "gotcha" that is missed by an aproximation "test" Might be enough to result in a $100,000 reshoot when you have to get all the etxras back, fly in the talent, get more street closing permits etc. For someone who is tring to learn of course being able ot run a test that uses the actual same film stock, in an approximation of how it would be used for the price of a sit down meal is an oportunity that will be missed. Shoudl Kodak or Fuji Rush in for that reason.. NO, their target is David and his colleges, who when they decide on a film stock normaly end up buying a lot of it. (Figure if you will even a 5:1 shooting ratio for a 90 minute film, and you quickly get 100 rolls of 400ft 35mm film. Not including special effects, actors with the giggles and so on.) Kodak and Fuji really make their money in the release prints, even though that stock is cheaper, againa ninty minute film takes 8100 ft of film per print (90 munutes at a foot and a half a second.) multipled by the number of screens the movie opens at. NOW if you do want to have a service like RGB used to offer, perhaps their is a business plan that would work. their are many labs that do run ECN and ECP. Their machinery often only runs part of the day. Someone probaly could set up a front end business using the heat splcers that the big still labs use to splice the film together so It would not break in the processor and use the video anayizers and the printers when the lab is not using them to run off slides. Actually one of the disadvantages of the process for a still photographer is a virtue for a movie test, the entire 36 exposures really have to be printed with one light. YOu could probal find somewhere in the LA area where the rents were low enough to set up, and still be in proximity to the folks doing the heavy lifting of running the processing machines. As far as expecting help from Kodak (or Fuji) Kdak just closed their 3500 Eglington plant in toronto. For a time that was the main source of Movie negative in narth america (They have tried to do differnt things with that plant which was built to provide all the film used in canada before NAFTA) The ad for the Auction for that plant and also some capacity hey we closing in Rochester listed a few tons of euipment including 100 Forklifts. The Kodak plant in Australia, and the KodaK Ltd plant at Harrow have also closed recently. If Kodak has any money to spend it will probaly be spent on gaining in the digital realm. Fortunatly for motion pictures having better filmstock to originate on probaly meets that goal. Continuing Making Black and white reversal films in spite of presure to stop using cromium bleach - primarly so folks in Film Schools will think kindly of the Kodak name probaly meets that goal. If you wanted to duplicate what RGB was doing, I owuld not be surprised if Kodal would be happy to provide some introductions to lab managers... I would be shock it they would offer equity investment.

I am sure that is why every time I came back from my French lessons and tried to speak French, my co-workers would switch to using english. I know that I DID pass the test for reading french at the beginers level, but totaly failed the speaking test.