Mark Dunn

The '01 speed selector is a completely different design to the '00 so I don't think I can help directly. It uses a microswitch and a potentiometer to detect the position of the selector.

However, I've put a screenshot of schematic of the speed selector from the '01 service manual on my Drive account which may help you. The disc you mention appears to be screwed into place.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KRs4G3kvoEu9dJsJ7cq6SziKW_MMDmzG/view?usp=sharing

If you search on "Bell & Howell Model C" a lot comes up.

brianpritchard.com

is also a good source. Brian is ex-Kodak. He may chip in here if he's still around.

The first shot-to-shot grading cues were Debrie clips- metal staples attached to the film just before the cut, detected by contacts on the printer. Later, the edge of the film was notched to activate a microswitch. By the 70s, the grader created a punch tape with the printer commands and the cueing was by frame count.

19 minutes ago, Stephen Perera said:

? Is it kind of like printing colour in the darkroom where you adjust the RGB 'filters' on the enlarger...for example, setting it at 70 yellow, 50 magenta and 0 cyan.

Yes.

On my 1600 the flipper is held in place by spring tension and it's attached to a shaft running through the stack of switches that make up the selector. If yours is actually loose it suggests that something has come detached.

My speed selector (what you're calling the flipper unit) is held in by a couple of metal claws screwed to the barrel of the selector which dig into the wooden underside of the table. I wonder if the disc is a modification.

It would help if you could post a photograph.

12 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I think $1.25/foot seems awfully high for a timed print if you already have the timing tape. The cost to time was not related to the actual print itself, it was a separate line item.

London prices in 1981 were about £0.25/ft for an A/B roll answer print. The contemporary exchange rate makes that about 60cents. Grading wasn't charged separately but there was quite a high minimum charge IIRC, so the fee was obviously built in.

Maybe quoting  a low footage rate made a lab appear more competitive.

8 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

surely 60m/200ft?

Sorry, 2000ft. Print stock.

I have Agfa print stock cans with the primary marking in metres, with feet after: 610m/200ft.

17 hours ago, Andrea Pievaroli said:

Hi everyone, do you know if www.super8wiki.com website  has permanently closed or if is there a similar website ? Thanks

Still working for me today.

A Nikon-F to C-mount adapter ought to be easy to get, but you may need lens support for all but the lightest lenses. Also, stills lenses are usually rather long for 16mm. A 10mm. isn't considered very wide on 16mm. but it is an extreme wide-angle in the stills world.

There seem to be some inexpensive c-mount lenses on ebay so maybe the budget will stretch that far. You can re-sell them afterwards, or maybe the college will take them on. You can get a long way with a 10, a 25 and a 50 or 75.

17 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What are you talking about? 

Are you instantly defending LaserGraphics instead of listening to the damn audio and hearing the wow and flutter? That effect is caused by inconsistent speed, period. 

So yes, it would be the device that scanned the audio, which would cause the inconsistent speed. 

PERIOD. 

As I said, to my ear the narration is unaffected, only the music has the wow. So it's a problem with the source that's built in to the sound mix.

The end music too- in fact it's just the music. They did a transfer with severe wow and didn't do anything about it.

If it had been the print I think wow that bad would have been noticeable on the narration as well.

ISTR this would happen if you tried to transfer a wild source to mag with the recorder set to pilotone. The speed hunts up and down trying to match a non-existent sync pulse. But it's been.....quite a while.

Sad to think that the producers knew that the film was faulty and still sent it out. Money talks, and they didn't have enough. It's painful to listen to.

Of course the lens would be very long on 8mm, but maybe that wouldn't matter for a test. My thought would be that a modern lens is sharper, but not all that much sharper, and that the limiting factor is a frame smaller than your little toenail. 8mm. can look very good with a modern high-res scan; maybe it doesn't get much better than that.

8 hours ago, Allison Copp said:

Okay you must forgive my ignorance since I just bought it but you're of course right! Incredible news. Thank you for correcting me!

The only modern 16mm. cameras that must have 2R stock are medium-and high-speed, or should I say were, as all that is digital now. The only person to use 35mm. high-speed in the last decade or so has been Christopher Nolan.

No, don't do that again.

Looks like a €100k accident waiting to happen and an insurance company saying, "You did WHAT?"

Note also the fact that, although it's used more loosely in photography and film, the term "stop" refers strictly to the size of the aperture, which varies logarithmically with the diameter. This is why f-numbers have that 2, 2.8 4, 5.6 sequence- the multiple is the square root of 2. This applies equally to the intermediate f-numbers. They arose when mechanical shutters were nothing like as accurate as they are now and a tiny difference in shutter speed was an irrelevance.

I was assuming that Stephen is going with what he has.

Slating was essential when film and sound went from camera to sound transfer to syncing up/editing, all done by different people with no knowledge of the subject or what happened on the shoot. It was a standard to work to. Now all that infrastructure is gone, and it's just you, you can do what you like, you'll remember what you did. Maybe just tap the mic and call out the take number.

Slating is the simplest way, but you don't necessarily need a board- back in the day a hand clap was sometimes used for documentary, and I've even seen a mic tapped with a pencil. Logging is easier with a slate and a spoken ident, but if you don't have a lot of takes you may be able to manage without.

More recently a marker light fogging a frame and a beep on the tape were used, but you don't have the kit for that. You also don't have any sync reference between sound and film, so you will have to line up by hand in post.

The 80A absorbs 2 stops, so you would meter at 25 with the filter on the camera. An undamaged filter shouldn't cause flare and if you use a filter holder you can line up your shot then drop the filter in for exposure.

Gelling the lights will likewise cost 2 stops so unless you have a larger wattage lamp you will need to increase your exposure, but you will be metering at 100.

9 hours ago, Victoria Sagady said:

I dont even fully understand what Flutter is so no clue!

Flutter consists of rapid small fluctuations in the speed of the film transport, many times a second, as opposed to wow, which is a change over a longer period, say a second or so. These would both change detrimentally the pitch of the sound.

I think 3kHz (3000 cycles in American) was chosen as it's about the middle of the range of frequencies that optical sound is capable of reproducing.

I conclude that the residue is actually little bits of shredded gear- so the most important property of the oil is its mere presence. Dwight's photograph of a partially dried-out fibre gear was scary.

To follow up, I'vejust confirmed the correct oil and I'm sure Dwight Cody won't mind me quoting him here.

So I may switch to 75w90 next time.

In the 2016 price list I see 2383 listed at about $600/2000ft. That is only 30 cents/foot for the stock, but there will presumably  be only a handful of 70mm. prints made so the old economies of scale are gone.

It might be a price for replacement only, with neg cutting and grading already paid for.

You can't just connect adapters together, the FFD will be incorrect. The lens will be too far from the film.

You will probably have a great macro lens, though😉

6 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Nikon does not have expertise in making movie cameras and their stills cameras have very questionable video performance

Perhaps this is precisely why they've bought RED?