Mark Dunn

Yes, it has. Train to Elstree & Borehamwood and a short walk.

If you think about it you'd just get a yellow tint because the film can record the colours. B/W film can't, so the yellow filter just has the effect of darkening the complementary colour, namely green, and blue to some extent, but not as much as with a red filter, which is what you'd use to darken a blue sky. Yellowish tones would be lightened. Have a look at one of your basic photography books.

'Camp Freddie, everybody in the world is bent.'

Now that we are stuck with digital TV many older 16mm. shows look awful, as if someone has painted-by-numbers on grass, skies, walls, any area of similar tone. Even some classic films look are affected, with smoke particularly bad. I can't forgive the broadcasters for what they've done to 'The Adventures of Robin Hood'. It's worse than VHS. Terrible.

Gosh. You fellows need some distance selling regulations. They're heavy-handed here, but no trader here behaves like that, law or no law.

What you need is a projector for instant gratification.

How about Stanley Kubrick's wheelchair?

If it's a fairly fresh crack, I might try Araldite, or even glass right around the section in a sort of C shape.

Archive practice is to store reels on their sides, not standing up, to avoid sag. So I do. Alas some of my Moviechrome 40 from the early 80s is showing fungus now. From what I read it seems to be a risk for that stock. It's always been kept in whatever passed for my office at the time, so just average domestic conditions, complete movies in plastic cases or just the cardboard boxes some of the reels came in. The plastic boxes all have slots in the flaps. The 50' reels are in a cardboard box. Alas every Kodak print made before the 80s is going to fade; it's built-in to the process of the time. Originals will be fine.

What really gave 70mm. the edge was that because so few were needed, 70mm. prints were made straight from the 65mm. neg, not via the intermediates Dirk mentions, as the 35mm. prints of the same film, or release prints of a film shot in 35, would be..

The drum camera used a stationary strip of film inside the periphery of a drum about 8' in diameter. The image was reflected off a spinning mirror rotated at high speed by compressed air and focused onto each frame by a separate lens, thus giving a very high apparent framing rate. Only a hundred or so frames were exposed at a time. The framing rate for moving film has always been much more limited, a few thousand per second, limited by the strength of the film base. As far as I can see each Rapatronic took a single still image so it wasn't a cine camera as such.

The Elmo, in common with virtually all Super-8 cameras, was meant to be used with tungsten stock filtered for daylight so the default position for the 85 is in. What you hear is the filter swinging out of position- if you look carefully through the lens you should be able to see it moving. You may also notice the orange colour. Assuming you can't replace the switch, or work it with a pencil or something, you will only be in difficulty if you need to use a daylight stock- even then you could tape the cartridge so the filter is retracted. There's a manual here http://www.apecity.c...acro_manual.pdf

Surely you have a choice about that?

i can't think of anything other than a Bolex conversion.

I think he means trousers.

A red safelight is fine for b/w paper. The point is that the amber filter gives a brighter light whilst still being safe with paper, even though Multigrade paper has its sensitivity extended beyond the red to allow for the filtration which gives the variable contrast. I wouldn't use one with lith film, though, as it is a fair bit faster than paper, a few ISO against a few tenths.. But as you say, nothing at all for camera film. Sorry to be picky. Haven't used the stuff for years but hope I still know how it works. More spiders in the darkroom than there should be.

Stills reversal film has been discontinued but AFAIK MP Ektachrome 100D has not. They haven't stopped making E6 chamicals either.

No printing there, though.

You're not. Der. Helps to read the post. It's one thing to be old-fashioned but another to be plain forgetful. I'm 52, you know.

No doubt someone will tell me, but why not cut the neg and have a conventional contact print?

If those markings are in Cyrillic they're actually RRZ and ARZ, if that helps.

Mrs. Bono would need to use her full name and so would Mr. Hewson.

I would say go with your choice. We still have a 4:3 TV and it is a pleasant surprise to see 4:3 transmitted correctly, proper big close-ups and all. Not so pleasand to see it wrongly letterboxed, though. You'd have to monitor its presentation like a crazy person Stanley Kubrick. I have here a copy of his letter to projectionists for 'Barry Lyndon'. Ten very specific instructions including 'AR to be 1:1.66 and in no event less than 1:1.75'.

If the perfs are wrong but it's emulsion-out, then it is tail-out on the spool. Just wind it directly onto your take-up reel. Then use the take-up reel as the feed reel. Then after projecting it, wind back onto another 50' reel. Or if you don't have a spare reel, run the film off into a pillowcase to protect it, fix the tail to the 50' reel then wind it back on using the projector, keeping the emulsion out.

Do I detect the faint sound of axle-mounted flat circular object innovation?