Mark Dunn

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

Eh? 1937, 1954, 1976 or..........? Really, decades ago there probably wasn't this modern fixation on lens types. I wonder if, 'Scope aside, whether they could have made much difference when the entire film-to-print process was completely standardised, with one OCN, one process and one print stock. I also wonder if it's now because, with the uniformity of digital imaging, the only way to get any differentiation is with the choice of glass.

dead link

It's a good "ball-park" figure though, as I think you folks say. I was never in the business in the film era, only a student. You'd never put neg on any sort of machine, only workprints. I had a client recently who was revisiting a 1996 BBC project for a new show. He needed to shoot his original Tx print being run on the Steenbeck. Unfortunately the BBC had disposed of it and archived the workprint instead in error. It even had the burnt- in timecode. It suited the aesthetic of the new show, but unfortunately the footage didn't make picture lock. The casualty rate of the scenes featuring the Steenbeck on shows I'm hired for is pretty high, about 75%. But I just think of the money- poor editing decisions aren't my problem?. But I have my revenge: I'm actually on screen in my latest show. I have instructional videos on the Steenbeck for clients on my Youtube channel, tinyurl.com/londonsteenbeck but they're pretty utilitarian. I'll think about some more now you mention it.

Well the odd white speck's bound to be there with neg, it was always more noticeable than black dust on reversal. And of course it's bigger on S-8. A bigger quibble is that there was (I think) a shutter problem with the camera they used outside, causing a bit of flicker, and the occasional frame jump. That slightly luminous (read: flare) was always a Super-8 thing. Good primes could have helped with it, but I don't know if many were made, let alone used.

Jack's problem may be the XL shutter. I noticed with my XL that it could be pretty blurry at 18. I'm sure someone knowledgeable here will chip in with a procedure if it's possible. If they don't you should probably conclude that it's not a good idea.

I wonder if it would be worth pointing out that it can't possibly be "processed locally" because no lab in NZ actually does it. But considering the ignorant tone of the email, probably not. Looks like you'll have to ship it.