Mark Dunn

Just tape the black bag down inside the can. Label the can so they know it's not 35mm?

Well there you have it. Remember that 100' on a core, (in a black bag because the box is not lightproof) will not fit in the plastic Kodak box. If you don't need the whole 100' you could just discard the excess film. If you do, I would tell the lab it is short.

Daylight spools scrape on the magazine lid in some cameras- IIRC they sometimes did in the ST. Reading what Baltasar says about spool locks, if you have them, probably not. But noise wouldn't matter for a test anyway.

If they fit they may be very noisy.

It's not- it's a variation on how we were told to do it at film school. Just blip the start button a few times until you see the flyback bar close to the top (or bottom) of the screen. The mirror and film are 180deg out of phase so the bar will record at the bottom (or top) of the screen.

Too bad- you did have it all. Nearly. A pound to a penny it will be going for scrap, unfortunately. Unless, as you say.........

I'm not sure the TRV will be a whole lot better than that, except for the convenience. For much less money you could probably rig a right-angle mirror and have the DV record the image directly. There used to be clip-on viewers for projectors that did this. $100....if you can spare it, maybe.

You can't possibly have even an electronic shutter open wider than 360 degrees, so the limitation is the reciprocal of the frame rate. That sequence was of course shot on film- it's either step-printed- you see each frame more than once, hence the freeze-frame effect- or printed from non-adjacent frames. It may even have been shot on an SLR with a motor drive. You don't need to undercrank to get that effect- that's not how it was done. Undercranking speeds up action, it doesn't slow it down.

Seems to be a composite NTSC output so you would need to convert that to digital to get it onto a PC. In fact in Australia you couldn't even record it on a PAL VCR without standards conversion. If it's a PAL version that would be a bit easier but you'd still have to digitize the signal. otherwise you would be limited to viewing on a monitor with the correct inputs. Manual here https://issuu.com/cinema62/docs/pdf-elmo_trv-16_user_manual_23_page Of course you can't project with it, the image goes straight into the camera. The resolution is pretty poor, lower even than SD. I would want to pay less than $370. About £200, right? It's not a very good way of getting a decent 16mm. image onto a computer. Seems to me that for testing only, an actual projector might suit you better. But they seem to cost more. There's one in NSW on ebay starting at $99 looks ok item number 334626547722

If you don't know about it already, I'm using the "Video Tachometer" app on iPhone. It uses the camera. I got it to set the speed on the Steenbeck, but it might suit you for this job. I use it to freeze the motion of the sprocket teeth but I don't see why it wouldn't work on the shutter. Just shine a light through the lens mount and if you see the gate you have a rough guide. I could imagine drawing a wavy line on some junk film and seeing if the app shows it as stationary. You adjust the frequency on the app until the moving part is stationary, then you have the running speed. It's accurate to 0.1Hz- in our case, that's 0.1 fps of course. You use a torck for illumination, it doesn't use the camera's LED. It's also fun to check the mains frequency by looking at an LED bulb.

The website doesn't mention cine processing at all, but anyway, the post is 12 years old and the OP has not been on the site for 5 years.

kasetė cassette, tape, cassette tape, magazine, dark slide

This one, but in home-movie style. The later ones are 16mm- I expect he dropped S8 like a hot brick when there was the money for 16. https://dicksmithadventure.com.au/canyoning/

Looking at the rigs, it's possible that the lenses could shift laterally- what's called "cross front" in stills photography, presumably to avoid overlapping fields of view- the "double images" referred to. I suspect there wasn't room in 35mm. for the tilt you suggested.

Oh this would definitely be at the long-term homebrew end of the spectrum.

Hmm. Maybe the redundant Cintel I've seen lurking alongside the 35mm Steenbeck I helped refurb isn't such a pile of junk after all.

On my first film shoot since college (a LONG time ago) a few weeks ago, the oldest person on set except for me (62) was the focus puller. I assumed he was over 50.. Everyone else was under 40, some under 20, and this is in actual film. Point being that there appeared to be no-one under 50 with the skills of a first AC.

The one on the Allbids link was a b/w processor, and it's huge compared with what you seem to have. That's why I wondered if you have it all- drying box and the rest.

I could link you to them........but you'd still have to download. Hmm. Maybe the rustbelt needs some WD-40. Top 2 plates for picture, bottom 2 for sepmag sound. You also use the right-hand mag sprocket for comopt and (very rare) commag (stripe). But I did have one commag job, and it more than paid for a brand-new stripe head. Pretty intermittent work as I have no contacts in the industry (well, I do now, but not many, and I don't know how to exploit them) and it's a pretty rarefied specialism. By definition no-one needs me again, because they view the film, take it away to scan, and...........that's that. '19 was my best year, right before you-know what. '21 picked up then nothing for 18 months till the 16mm. show I mentioned.

I had the 8Z adapter type, on a rotating locking mount so it still worked with a rotating filter thread. It vignetted below about 15mm. on a short zoom so yes, primes would have been better. Still not very convenient, and I only ever shot a few carts with it. The last time I used it was for some stills to advertise it on ebay. It was quite decent, with well-controlled flare. Now, of course, I'd probably just crop down a wide angle. That's Techniscope, right??

This is never mentioned and I think it's because it's not possible. I've just had a quick measure and I don't think you can get the flange of an M42 lens close enough to the focal plane.The putative adapter would push the lens further out. The lock collar would have to come off.

Not sure you can do ECN-2 in a bucket? Maybe in Australia when it's really hot..........

Have you got all of it? You've certainly got the feed end and the controls in the photograph, but it seems to me the tanks ought to be a couple of meters long at least. Still, AU$63?

Wow. Former Kowa 'Scope user in Super-8 here. I let it go a few years ago during one of the periodic lens crazes to finance a replacement DSLR. It did that, but didn't really keep up with inflation. Still have a couple of 'Scope 50ft. reels for some unrealised 80s epic. Of course now I could desqueeze them in Lightworks.

Not sure what else you want to know. Yes, that looks like a Nikkor to me. Maybe a 24 or 28? They also used a 2C for MOS. There's an ASC picture of Gary Kurtz with a hard-front 2C with a Panavision lens on it- I don't think it's an anamorphic so that would be from AG as well. https://ascmag.com/articles/beyond-the-frame-american-graffiti