Mark Dunn

Not that fast but quite possibly 20 or 22. I wish I could remember the reference. That's a studio setup so the light sources are all phoney- the light from the flashgun isn't the bulb going off, it's a studio light reflecting in it- but it wasn't unusual for the flash not to be synchronised to the shutter at all. You set the shutter to B or T, opened, fired the flash, then closed. The dark slide was to prevent any stray light getting in. You'd lift it just for the flash. Typically you'd hold it much closer to the lens, obviously without touching it to avoid vibration. The technique is called "open flash". I was using it until recently in the studio- for some reason my DSLR wouldn't trigger my 1980s-era studio flashes using the usual lead. Something to do with resistance, according to the manufacturer of the flash. Getting a wireless release solved the problem, so now I don't have to draw the curtains. Edit: just noticed- see the two plugs hanging free between the camera body and the cable-release gizmo (which may be a clockwork timer)? I think they're the flash leads- the flat cable looks the same. It's not plugged in to the lens at all. I've even used the dark slide as a shutter to time a long exposure. 1-2-3-4-5 etc.

I think these are what we call jeweller's or precision screwdrivers. The ones on my desk have the parallel tip. But as Steve says they should be as near the full width of the screw as possible. These are good German set screws, not the stuff you use for carpentry. If you don't already have a set you can buy single ones like this (I'm guessing on the size) https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/screwdrivers/3232339 A cheap jeweller's set may not go wide enough. You're saving a good deal by going DIY, so money spent on good tools is never wasted, within reason.If the screws seem very tight, a little bit of oil or WD40 may help.

The first few feet would nearly always be slate anyway. It would hardly even show on a pic-sync or Steenbeck and would soon be on the floor. It's only nowadays you want to use every frame. I'd suggest that the "fold" idea doesn't really account for the fault appearing in shots made a short time apart. Overnight, yes. But only on the first shot of the day.

I think you will need to post some scans so the forum can see what's wrong.

I believe you can buy a voltage converter in which you insert a modern battery. It's the same size as the mercury battery. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/173341286026

If you're competent, and it's for your own use, this is something you could easily, and safely, make up from scratch with a brass or porcelain lamp holder, plug and length of 6A 3-core flex. From the quoted wattage I assume it's for tungsten photofloods or photolamps.

I would be tempted to tackle this myself- you can undo the flat-headed screws and use emery paper to clean the parts of the arms that you can't get at with the wire brush. Then re-paint with matt black enamel.

How did I manage to miss that! Maybe it should be "Soviet" then.

Well, I assume all the camera factories actually were in the Russian SFSR, as opposed to one of the others? If so, then continuing to call it "Russian" seems appropriate. It would also continue to cover equipment made after December 25, 1991 (there must be some!), when the USSR ceased to exist and the Russian SFSR became the Russian Federation.

I would just run a drop of CA (superglue) in between and press the surfaces together until it bonds.

This camera came in at the tail end of the film era so it could just be that no-one thought it worthwhile to produce an aftermarket controller for it, assuming it would have been possible to do so. What about just switching on, letting a frame click over, then switching off, once every few seconds as required. Or doing it with the Arri wireless controller in the manual. Or, if you can work out the remote socket pinout, wire up your own switch.

I found a manual here through the wiki page https://cameramarket.eu/data/pdf/cameramarket_arri 235 manual.pdf page 60-61 'Frame Rates' It would as you say be 1/8 at 45deg. shutter at 1fps, but if you shot at a higher rate (1/64 at 8fps?) I don't know how a speed adjustment in post would work out.

Tbe manual says the 235 runs down to 1fps, that's 30 seconds for your sequence. Or you could shoot faster and have options in post. Maybe you can even speed adjust your existing 8fps sequence. As to an external controller, no specific knowledge, sorry. The manual doesn't mention one.

I don't recall where I read this but the common idea of a standard 16 is quite wrong, there was much more variation. In fact for big pictures notes to projectionists went out instructing particular scenes to be played faster- Ben Hur (1925) comes to mind. Something much closer to 20 seems to have been widespread- and of course exhibitors would sometimes speed up shows in order to squeeze in an extra house. Speaking of a bonus, Kodak increased the Super-8 running speed to 18 just to sell more film. Allegedly. If you're talking about more recent 8 or 16mm, from battery or even clockwork cameras, I'd expect it to be much closer to 16. BTW did you know that the Star Wars light-sabre was a redressed Graflex flashgun like Weegee's?

As your commenter says, shutter timing. The film is moving during exposure. At one point it recovers, so something is loose as well.

On set at The Darkroom in Kentish Town for Def Jam Records/Academy Films Film on the Steenbeck and......the first time for me in 32 years....film in the camera too. I'll let the sharp-eyed identify it if there are enough clues. Not sure how I landed the supporting role really..........might have been the black shirt and glasses. Pesto and halloumi on ciabatta for lunch. Very North London.

I believe it was always planned that way. At a time when travel from the farthest parts of the Commonwealth was measured in weeks, even four months was too soon. So it was 16 months.

As it's on both rolls it's most likely to have been caused by the camera, unless you used the same mag for both, in which case it could be that. Can you see it on the neg? It's away from the perf so that's the side of the film path to check. It would only be fixable at great expense so you'll have to crop it out.

That's right, because films are so expensive that it would take too long, but I'd say the term "film-maker" belongs to someone who doesn't necessarily, but could do every job, for better or worse. Who understands them all. Maybe Kubrick, or John Cassavetes. Most film workers don't aspire to that, perhaps because they prefer to work regularly. But I'm sure most have their own "projects". My two pennorth (today that's about the same as 2¢) is that an editor is closer to the film-making process than anyone else, possibly including the director. He's not a frustrated film-maker- he is one. I've probably contradicted myself there.

Oliver, who started this thread, seems to be active on the forum- so you could ask him what he used. The other problem is that film does shrink with age, but unless your film is more than about 10 years old it shouldn't be a problem. None of the film I handle on the Steenbeck is less than 25 years old and it has all shrunk by much more than the difference between long and short pitch. But of course that's not relevant to unexposed film unless it is very old.

The film should be long pitch- .3000", 7.620mm, not the .2994/7.605 used at normal speeds. If it's 2994 it may shred. I don't know what the OP of this thread used.

There is one, but it's the block below, after the sprocket, with the wires. Unless Marco has the control box for the timing lights they won't work anyway. The frequency would be 1kHz for speeds above about 100pps and 100Hz below. I think the block above the film is the prism for the oscilloscope trace. You cam compose quite accurately if you line up the red mark on the sprocket with the white line on the gate block- both visible in your third photograph. As Steve says, the eye will focus almost anywhere, especially if you have good visual accommodation, unless you use the focusing film. I found that drawing a line on the frosted side helps as well. You can use a sharp pencil if you don't want to mark the film permanently. I believe your threading path is correct, but as the WF14 was intended for 400' spools it may not run well at high speeds with a 100' load. But I would think it would certainly be OK at up to 1000pps. Make sure the spools are in good condition and not bent or damaged in any way. Make sure the switch to the right of the timing block is working- it is held closed by the film edge and cuts off power when the film runs out. Otherwise the camera will not stop. unless you switch it off.

That's correct, the emulsion faces the lens. You compose and focus before loading with a piece of frosted focusing film threaded around the sprocket and held taut with elastic bands around the reel spindles. Line up the right-angle prism in the sprocket with the gate, then close the lid and compose through the finder. Focus, then fix the focus with tape on the lens barrel, then thread the film. You can make a focusing film by sanding down a piece of clear film about 20 frames long until it is translucent. Fold over and punch the ends for the elastic bands, then draw a thin line with a fine Sharpie on the sanded side so that the eye has something to fix on for focusing. Your threading path looks OK but I can't be sure as I can't see enough of the camera. Are you sure you have a framing camera? Some were modified for synchro-ballistic photography and don't have a prism at all. If the gate mask has a narrow slit rather than a 4:3 gate mask, you have one of these and it won't produce individual frames at all. But ours were WF3s with 100' capacity- I think the WF14 is 400'.

Perspective.

Under UK law it would have been the 1911 Act, so 50 years after the death of the longest lived of the directors. So it could just still be in copyright. In the US it would depend on whether it was registered (likely) and renewed after 27 years, I assume. But it's decent of you to be scrupulous about it. It's a rare virtue. As you may know the Coronation was held off to June in the hope of good weather but it rained all day. The BBC outside broadcast looks very dingy (as do most kinescopes of that vintage!) but the Rank colour film is pretty spectacular.