dd3stp233

It is possible to order from Kodak, ECN chemicals, but only in large quantities like enough for a 100 gallons. C41 chemisty is fairly close to the ECN process. I've developed ECN motion picture film with C41 with good results. Since the chemistry is slightly different, the results may not be exaltly as they should. The remjet removal is the only real problem. There is a recipe on the net to remove it easily. Otherwise you could just use some Borax and water mixed and a sponge to rub it off.

Bullet Ballet, I was wondering if anyone has seen this movie and know know anything about how it was shot. The high contrast black and white look of this film does not look anything like other recent black and white films that have come out recently, as far as I know. Since it was filmed in Japan, I assume it was filmed with one of Fuji's black and white filmstocks. Thanks for any info or comments on this film.

The nitrate film I have is 35mm Kodak Nitrate Motion Picture Film Plus-X. The date code on the edge of the developed film indicates it was made in 1946. I shot a couple hundred feet in my Eyemo camera (probably safest since there are no electronics in the camera) The film is not shrunk or warped at all. I don't think it was cold stored either but the film still works and looks good. I do the processing myself with some compensation for some base fog, such as shooting at a lower Asa. Not actually sure because I have not been able to find the original technical info for this film what the Asa it was supposed to be. I attached an image scanned from a nitrate neg. to show how it looks.

There are some good points to shoot polyestar base film. I got some Ilford black and white 16mm film on polyestar base called - P3. It was never commercially available. I could fit 200ft on a standard 100ft daylight spool. After shooting about 6,000 feet of it, I blew a gear in a K3. The gear was made of nylon or something so it wasn't a metal gear. I think if it was made of metal I wouldn't have had a problem. I just put a replacement gear in. The camera actually ran better (smoother and no jams,ever) with polyestar film then running acetate film. Archival stability (est. 10,000 years in sub-zero storage) and resistence to scratching and breakage. I do have some nitrate film too that I've been shooting with. It does have a distinct look to the negatives. Actually quite rich and contrasty but good shadow detail. (nitrate film can last past a 1000 years if stored properly) Also makes a good subsitute for fireworks, if you lite a roll on fire.

There are many ways to cut costs. For example, if you do almost everything yourself (film processing, printing, sound, lighting, sfx, etc) it would cost about 2% of what it would if you payed someone else to to do it. (if you don't count your time for learning how to these things and the time to do them). I did this on a 16mm short (25 minutes), shooting at a 13 to 1 ratio. Total budget was about 1000$ (excluding final print). I am in preproduction for a 35mm feature. I think I could make it for less then 4,000$ with the same techniques.

Still photography is also very useful are learning composition and framing of shots.

How many pixels you can fit into a frame of 35mm (still) film depends on how * many line pairs per millimetre you can achieve with your photography. * * As a reference for his 54 megapixel number, * a paper by William Oliver. Now some parts of the paper are hard to * to understand, but the 54 megapixel number isn't. On a high contrast * subject, a medium speed film like Ektachrome can resolve 125 lp/mm. * Now, it doesn't matter whether your test chart has 125 black lines * on a white background, or 125 white lines on a black background: * you need 250 pixels per millimetre to record 125 line pairs. * * So a frame of Ektachrome film can hold 36mm x 250 pixels/mm one way, * and 24mm x 250 pixels/mm the other way. That's 9000 pixels by 6000 * pixels, or 54 megapixels in all. And scan should have a much higher resolution then the original (for the reasons Filip mentions). Slow speed, high resolution film would be even have a higher number of megapixels. Something else that isn't mentioned is that film is still resolving the image beyond recognizable line pairs. It may be fuzzy but it is still detail so that the actual amount of megapixels would still need to be higher to capture the additional details.

From my person experience, scanning film at 4K never seemed to look good to me. It always looks like it is losing so much information from the original film. It really needs to be scanned at 40K to 400K to really capture the details. I know this isn't cost effective at the present but in order to maintain a certain level of quality, I think this is goal that should be strived for.

35mm films have a higher resolving power then any of the best lenses every made. The highest resolution films can resolve down to the atomic level. Grains are groupings of atoms, which tend to have crystral clusters of about 6 atoms of silver halide. Until digital starts using nanotechnology it will not have a resolving power close to film, I don't think anyone has ever actually calculated the amount of megapixels that would be equivellent to. As for the aesthetic values of color redition and contrast differences between film and digital, that will depend on the look that you want to acheive, not considering expense.

Fuji does make 35mm black and white Neopan film with short pitch perforations for motion picture use. It is not commercialy availible in the U.S. In Asia and some other parts of the world, it is probably easy to find or just contact Fuji on how to custom order some to your location. Svema is another maker of black and white motion picture film, Ukraine-made. There are a few more manufactures but are difficult to find dealers that sell them outside of the areas they are made. If you plan to special order a large amount, you may want to contact other b+w film makers, they may be able to make some short-pitch perforation for you. Such as Agfa.

Thanks Leo, thats what I needed to know.

The lens port is rather small (about 32mm across) and so I can not see much of the shutter blade. The best I can make out is that it is less then 180 degrees and more then 90. I just wondering if some else already had this info. I don't like guessing when figuring out exposures so an exact measurment of the angle is what I need. If someone has the owners manual for one of these cameras, it should be listed in it.

Hello, I have a 1926 Devry 35mm "standard" Model A "lunchbox" motion picture camera. I've searched the internet and there is little information available on this camera. I am planning to shot with this camera soon and wanted to know if anyone could tell me what the shutter angle is for it? (Much easier then taking it apart to measure it). For those of you who aren't familar with this camera, it is one of the smallest 35mm movie cameras I have ever seen. It is the same size as childs lunchbox. Holds an internal 100ft spool of film and is spring driven (55ft on one full wind at 18fps). It can also be handcranked, there is a crank port in the side. Has two viewfinders (non-reflex) with an optional third which actually would be reflex through the lens or filmbase? Neat old camera.

A friend of mine hand built a custom car from the frame of another car. I don't know if it was cheaper but it was definitely faster and better looking then a Toyota. Experimentation is basically where all the new ideas come from. Regardless of if it was made out of necessity or for the pursuit of art or money. If you are satisfied with what's currently availible, you won't have the motivation for making things better. Like a next generation super camera.

The easiest way to build your own camera is use the mechanism from an already existing camera then modify it to your needs. Possibly an old broken camera can be salvaged or canabalized for parts. Note you do have to be mechanichally inclined to do this. Actually I process and print my own film. It costs me pennies on the dollar of what a lab charges. Mix your own chemicals and save even more. A 100ft roll of black and white 35mm negative film costs me about 65 cents to delevope maybe less. 100ft of color costs a couple dollars with the ability to push/pull, cross process, and bleach bypass with no xtra charge. Processing print film costs about the same. It mainly takes a lot of time, to do this yourself, which is something a lot of people don't have. Also by control of film processing some very old filstocks can be used. For instance, by special processing, I have some 60 year old nitrate film that I've been shooting and I can still get usable good looking negatives from it.

If you really want to excell, you cannot have time for anyone not even yourself. The film will become more important then anything. - I would not recommend becoming like this but it is too late for some. Good luck.

Alan Gordon Enterprises at http://alangordon.com/service.home.htm can do eyemo modifications. I do not know what the cost is for that.

Something like over 300 movies have been filmed in or near the Alabama hills near Lone Pine, CA, many of them are westerns. Check out http://www.lonepinefilmfestival.org/movielist.asp for a list of movies filmed there.

I shot a roll of Foma reversal a while back, for a camera test. I really liked the way it looked. Suprisingly good contrast and sharpness. Kind of a classic B+W film look it, deep blacks, nice gradation, supposedly has lots of silver in it. Foma also makes still camera films.

I would say Roger Corman is up there. According to Imdb he produced 366 and directed 55 films, mostly features. Not to mention 29 acting credits, 5 feature writing credits and various other things

It's amazing how many myths people use to support there ideas. The truth is that Professional level high resolution films have a higher resolving power then any of the best lenses every made. The highest resolution films can resolve down to the atomic level. Grains are groupings of atoms, Hi-Res. films tend to have groupings of about 6 atoms of silver halide per grain. Until digital starts using nanotechnology it will not have a resolving power close to film. As for the aesthetic values of color redition and contrast that will depend on the look that people want to acheive. I don't know how many atoms of silver halide fit in a millimeter to answer your question.

Hello, I have a Wollensak 35mm Fastax camera that shoots 2 perf. but I don't know how many frames per second this camera shoots or the shutter angle(it has a rotating prism). If anybody knows this information or how I could figure out the proper exposure without having to shoot 100's of feet of test film. This is one the older moldels with only one speed. Also, does a rotary prism alter the flange to film plane distance. Thank you if advance if anyone can give me any info.

Pushing film will usually make it look grainer, which a DP may want to use to create a look or effect in a particular scene.

The rack over lens option may work out the best. I have a bunch viewfinders and parts from some other cameras that I could use to make it out of. Mainly just need it for focusing and not for viewing while filming. Some of the lenses that I have are not marked for focusing such as a 16mm to 35mm blow-up lens so I could use the camera for DIY optical printing applications. Thanks for the ideas.

The project that I'm working doesn't have a budget to buy or rent another camera. In fact the camera that I want to make reflex is half home built. Made from an old modified Devry mechanism and using a an Abel traffic camera body, I added an m42 Pentax lens mount. It is now a 35mm full frame 4 perf. time lapse camera which operates on a spring wind. I wanted a spring wind because I have to carry it in a backpack to remote places that have no electricity and be light wieght. The easiest way to make it reflex would be to find an m42 pentax mount lens that is reflex like many Som Berthoit lens made for c and d mounts. Has anyone seen such a lens for a 35mm camera in any mount? I could always change the lens mount on the camera, if I could find a lens like that.