Mark Dunn

This designation is for a UV filter, not the lens. 52mm. is the diameter of the filter thread.. The lens details will be inscribed on the front, behind the filter, but it's likely to be a 50mm, a so-called "standard" lens.

You can buy 77mm. screw thread lens hoods. They don't seen to be expensive. A flexible one may be useful.

Above a certain professional standard, the equipment used has very little bearing on the look of the image. Art direction and post-production and grading are much more important. In the days of film no-one ever asked whether a particular movie was shot on a Panaflex, 2C, Caméflex, BNC or whatever. They might have asked which filmstock was used, as this might have had some relevance, but the choice was always quite limited, and before about 1980 there was none, except between manufacturers.

Selective darkening of a blue sky isn't what an 85 is for- it's to correct a film balanced for artificial light to daylight, and it won't have quite the effect you desire; as you say it affects the entire image. In digital photography I would darken a blue sky by increasing the saturation of the blue channel, or preferably by reducing the luminance. There's a limit to how much you can do this without affecting the rest of the scene. But the most effective way to end up with a deep blue sky is to start with one.

This is an occupational health and product safety rather than a specific film industry question. Generally the EU has the best regulation in this area and follows the precautionary principle. The UK is similar at the moment as it inherited EU legislation. Also generally, the US doesn't adopt the precautionary principle- you have to prove something is harmful, rather than the manufacturer having to assess the risk of harm. VOCs in particular are much more closely regulated in the EU and the definition is far wider. In the west it's usually assumed that China has very poor domestic standards, but of course its exports have to meet the standards of the importing country.

It would- this used to happen in reverse when some US material was shown on UK TV. A frame was repeated each second and it was quite noticeable.

I was still using VNF in chrome cans in 1991.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. This would be why anamorphics can be a bit huge. Those of us with prescription spectacles and slight astigmatism can demonstrate the effect to ourselves by removing our specs and rotating them. If you're fortunate enough not to need them, maybe ask an astigmatic friend, one who won't think you're weird.

Rewind. https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/mark-jenkin-bait/

I can't help with dimensions on pedestal-type 01s as mine is a frame-type ST1600 and I have added larger castors. However, the 2013 Steenbeck brochures give the tabletop height as 80cm. for a number of different models. Phil Clark at the Cinema Museum in London, which does have 01s, is a member here so you should be able to PM him.

The Locam actually ramps up to full speed in a bit under a second, so only about 20ft. is wasted.

As Simon says, the brightness of the filament does not vary very much on a 50hz supply. I have shot at 10,000pps with tungsten lighting and the flicker was not noticeable. If you want to check it, you could try high-speed video on your phone, or an app such as Video Tachometer set to a high frame rate. The difference between a 180 and 170 degree shutter is insignificant.

I am assuming your example was scanned at 25. 24fps is, or was, the frame rate for cinema presentation, 25 for 50Hz PAL TV transmission (that's broadly UK and Australasia and whichever countries the UK supplied with equipment). Americans, and they countries they supplied, still shot at 24 for TV as it suited NTSC at 60Hz. It's a simple calculation, at 40 frames/foot there are 16000 frames on a 400' roll. So 16 seconds maximum at 1000pps.

The "stripe" is on the non-sprocket edge nearest the door and is the entire height of the frame, so the filter slot would be my choice of culprit. But I agree they should all be dealt with- if they haven't leaked yet, they will when you get some light coming in from a suitable angle.

A CP-16R, IIRC.

Sorry- runtime for 400' @1000pps is about 15sec, not 30.

Yes, they do, because they're projecting at 25fps. But there are 40 frames of 16mm.film to the foot, so the camera is running for a bit over 4 seconds. I've checked the ramp up for the 500pps Locam and it's about one second. If you're to assume that your Hycam takes 2 seconds to get to 1000pps, this will use about 50' of your 400'. The camera will then run on for about 30sec. It's one roll per shot, you won't get down from 1000pps with the film intact. The Locam will stop and start- we never tried it above 200 but the manual says it's fine. Above 500pps we triggered both camera and event with a sequence timer, with few exceptions.

8mm. prints were usually made 4-up on pre-perforated 35mm. wide film or 2-up on 16mm. and slit afterwards. Conventional edge codes would presumably have impinged into the image area so wouldn't be used, and the positioning would mean that most of the prints couldn't reproduce them. Do you have some edge-marked prints? The one Super-8 print I have, a Tom and Jerry cartoon, has a clear rebate in any case, a by-product of optical printing.

The battery sleeve (between your fingers, the bit with the protruding pin) is the negative.

I'm not familiar with the attachment, but could you clamp it on with a cable tie/zip-tie? These come in various sizes and are a few pence each. You would tighten it up with pliers and snip off the surplus plastic.

Yes. Older alkalines are occasionally leaking. I don't remember it happening, say, 30 years ago, but I may just be encountering more old batteries- they are turning up when tidying so they would be up to 20 years old. They don't corrode their casings as the zinc-carbon ones used to- they just leak clear or translucent fluid. I was surprised too, and more than a little annyoed as I've had to refurbish appliances because of it, and once a battery terminal has started to corrode it never really stops however much you clean it. So it's an ongoing process- they really need an alkaline wash, I use sodium bicarbonate solution.

That's normal. With a lens or a body cap fitted the mount should be lightproof. Then the only place light can enter is through the rear element of the lens. The internal surfaces should be painted matt black to prevent any reflections. I would still cap the other lenses though, or use a body cap if there's a vacant mount.

It's not very price sensitive at £4000!

My grandmother was still using adapter plugs to power appliances from light sockets until about 1975, when I became confident enough at 15 to install some modern sockets on the skirting boards to augment her pre-war round-pin outlets. There'd be less of an overheating problem with our 240V supply, of course. I still have a couple of those adapters. Won't be using them. We have a lot of sockets; you can't have too many socket outlets in a house.

Well they sure weren't putting the flares on in post? This would still have been 5247 at 100ISO- I don't know if '47 was pushed. Famously the whole of "Barry Lyndon" was pushed +1 but that was the predecessor stock '54. Lots of lights methinks. Though my 1981 Panavision catalogue has a 40-250 anamorphic at T2.8.