16mm VistaVision

[r***@gmail.com]

I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

thanks

[Peter]

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.

So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.
So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.

It would seem like a difficult thing to do with a typical claw movement.
An intermittent mechanism might be easier to modify since you'd just need
to double the size of the sprocket.

It might also be possible to take a 16mm pin-registered claw movement,
remove the claw, and add a microprocessor-controlled stepper motor
driving an intermittent sprocket. The stepper positioning does not have
to be perfect because the pin does that job for you.
--scott

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.
So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.

It would seem like a difficult thing to do with a typical claw movement.
An intermittent mechanism might be easier to modify since you'd just need
to double the size of the sprocket.
It might also be possible to take a 16mm pin-registered claw movement,
remove the claw, and add a microprocessor-controlled stepper motor
driving an intermittent sprocket.  The stepper positioning does not have
to be perfect because the pin does that job for you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

i've asked around and no one seems to know who or when a 16mm VV was
made. a few suggested that a 16mm Mitchell would be the easiest to
FrankenVision.

[Steve Kraus]

Post by r***@gmail.com
i've asked around and no one seems to know who or when a 16mm VV was
made.

I presume you mean a double frame? Is there any evidence anyone ever did
this?

I do know of a special venue (a science museum) that had a couple setups of
triple frame 16mm. Both ran vertically. One was a reduction from 65mm
(shot turned on its side) and was showing a tall narrow image. The
other...not sure what the source was; maybe 35 Scope...used a prism to
project a widescreen image.

And time once again for a plug for my imaginary format Vista-8 which was to
be triple frame Super 8.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com
i've asked around and no one seems to know who or when a 16mm VV was
made.

I presume you mean a double frame?  Is there any evidence anyone ever did
this?
I do know of a special venue (a science museum) that had a couple setups of
triple frame 16mm.  Both ran vertically.  One was a reduction from 65mm
(shot turned on its side) and was showing a tall narrow image.  The
other...not sure what the source was; maybe 35 Scope...used a prism to
project a widescreen image.  
And time once again for a plug for my imaginary format Vista-8 which was to
be triple frame Super 8.

Triple 8 is interesting, post some spec details.

[Steve Kraus]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Triple 8 is interesting, post some spec details.

It was just an imaginary format and the only specs were that it would be
S8, horizontal running, triple frames, and I'm sure I envisioned it as
purely a shooting format, for blow-up to 35mm, probably Scope AR.

[r***@gmail.com]

project a widescreen image.  
And time once again for a plug for my imaginary format Vista-8 which was to
be triple frame Super 8.

interesting concept but if you want to directly project onto a screen,
you'd be hard pressed to get a big image without some expensive
optics. scanning would seem to be fairly easy and not too grainy if
you shot with a good stock.

[Peter]

Post by Scott Dorsey
It might also be possible to take a 16mm pin-registered claw movement,
remove the claw, and add a microprocessor-controlled stepper motor
driving an intermittent sprocket. The stepper positioning does not have
to be perfect because the pin does that job for you.

Assuming you started out with a Mitchell 16mm movement (I'll get into
the specifics later), you would enlarge the aperture above the present
aperture, retaining the location of the "big pin" as the reference for
the new aperture and the old movement.

Now, Mitchell's 16mm standard movement [ * ] is 2R and is good to 128
fps, whereas Mitchell's 16mm sound movement [ ** ] is 1R and is good to
32 fps.

If you double-cycled the movement, but single-cycled the shutter,
thereby getting 2 perfs per shutter cycle, you would be limited to 64
fps for a standard movement, but only 16 fps for a sound movement.

Essentially, whenever you ran 24 fps, in "new money", the movement
would really be running at 48 fps, in "old money".

At 48 fps, you really do need two pulldown claws, which the standard
movement has, but the sound movement does not, and you also need the
"big pin"/"little pin" registration scheme which the standard movement
has, but the sound movement does not.

The sound movement appears to have two registration pins, but the
outside pin is a dummy pin, used only to guide the entire registration
pin assembly. This pin does not project into the film at all, it just
clears it.

The sound movement guides the outside edge of film at the top of the
movement. This is isn't as good a system as the standard movement, but
it works well as the movement components are all hand fitted, and the
movement is limited in its speed.

So, I think you do have some hope, provided you are satisfied with 2R
film, and with a Mitchell standard movement as a start.


[ * ] "Standard movement", meaning Mitchell's 2R high-speed movement,
intended for sound shooting when housed in a blimp, but not otherwise.
This movement is found on the rackover-type Mitchell 16s.

[ ** ] "Sound movement", meaning Mitchell's 1R adjustable pitch
movement, intended for sound shooting without a blimp. This movement is
found on the reflex-type Mitchell 16s, both double-system and
single-system.

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by Peter

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.
So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.
--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

And back in the sixties, here in Australia somebody invented a format
referred to as
"Half Sixteen" in which the standard 16mm frame was split vertically,
run on its side and
thus created a significantly higher quality(than 8mm) format of
moderate wide-screen aspect ratio.
Running costs were also half of 16mm.

Regards,
Peter Mason

[David]

I seem to reacall that Pathe had a Webo camera that did some thing like
that, but be carefull I once had a Webo that was made for the short lived
DIN standard, it had the claw on the oposite side and you could only use
double perf film or everything was back to front.
David

Post by Peter

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.
So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.
--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

And back in the sixties, here in Australia somebody invented a format
referred to as
"Half Sixteen" in which the standard 16mm frame was split vertically,
run on its side and
thus created a significantly higher quality(than 8mm) format of
moderate wide-screen aspect ratio.
Running costs were also half of 16mm.

Regards,
Peter Mason

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by David
I seem to reacall that Pathe had a Webo camera that did some thing like
that, but be carefull I once had a Webo that was made for the short lived
DIN standard, it had the claw on the oposite side and you could only use
double perf film or everything was back to front.

Wasn't that the 4.75MM format. Does anybody know the aspect ration of
this format.

Regards,

Post by David

Post by Peter

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.
So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.
--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

And back in the sixties, here in Australia somebody invented a format
referred to as
"Half Sixteen" in which the standard 16mm frame was split vertically,
run on its side and
thus created a significantly higher quality(than 8mm) format of
moderate wide-screen aspect ratio.
Running costs were also half of 16mm.
Regards,
Peter Mason

[R***@theatresupport.com]

Post by Peter

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

Incredibly enough, someone tried that in the '50s.
So, at least one example was contstructed, probably by a small
specialty house in L.A.

I met with a fellow who was quite an advocate of 16mm and wide format.
He lived in Essex NY and his name was Richter. IIRC, he worked for
Kodak for a while. If anyone would have tried something like this, he
would have either been the one or been associated with the attempt.

[Scott Norwood]

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

How would this be better than 2-perf 35mm? It would give less image area
and would still require optical printing to produce a usable print.

[Peter]

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

How would this be better than 2-perf 35mm? It would give less image area
and would still require optical printing to produce a usable print.

Best to stick to a gauge (35mm) for which necessary services can be
obtained easily.

Also, best to stick to a format (4-perf, possibly 3-perf) for which
necessary services can be obtained easily.

Intentionally selecting a gauge (16mm) for which services are becoming
more sparse over time, and, most particularly, a format which demands
optical printing to obtain any useful output, just doesn't make
technical sense. Doesn't make economic sense, either.

Such a format may have a high "Wow!" factor, but that's just about it.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

How would this be better than 2-perf 35mm? It would give less image area
and would still require optical printing to produce a usable print.

Best to stick to a gauge (35mm) for which necessary services can be
obtained easily.

Well, for both 2-perf 35mm and 2-perf 16mm, the film can be developed
and contact-printed on standard equipment. Timing is actually easier
with 2-perf 16mm... the lab just needs to know to change timing on even
frames only.

Assuming you have both the camera and the projector and you're not trying
to do any opticals, both formats come out about the same.

Post by Peter
Also, best to stick to a format (4-perf, possibly 3-perf) for which
necessary services can be obtained easily.

Again, contact printing works fine no matter what your frame height is.
As long as you stay entirely on film and don't do any effects, any are fine.

Post by Peter
Intentionally selecting a gauge (16mm) for which services are becoming
more sparse over time, and, most particularly, a format which demands
optical printing to obtain any useful output, just doesn't make
technical sense. Doesn't make economic sense, either.

16mm isn't going away any time soon. If anything, the push for HD seems to
be making 16mm more popular right now.

But I agree that the last thing we need is another format.
--scott

[Scott Norwood]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Well, for both 2-perf 35mm and 2-perf 16mm, the film can be developed
and contact-printed on standard equipment. Timing is actually easier
with 2-perf 16mm... the lab just needs to know to change timing on even
frames only.

How would you project 2-perf 16mm? It would be way easier to modify a
35mm projector for 2-perf pulldown than to modify a 16mm projector to
run sideways with 2-perf pulldown. The major disadvantage to 2-perf
35mm would be sucky sound quality.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by Scott Dorsey
Well, for both 2-perf 35mm and 2-perf 16mm, the film can be developed
and contact-printed on standard equipment. Timing is actually easier
with 2-perf 16mm... the lab just needs to know to change timing on even
frames only.

How would you project 2-perf 16mm? It would be way easier to modify a
35mm projector for 2-perf pulldown than to modify a 16mm projector to
run sideways with 2-perf pulldown.

You get an Eastman 25, you put an intermittent sprocket in there that is
twice the diameter, so the film is pulled down two perfs each time the
sprocket advances. You turn the machine on the side, you cut the gate
to twice the height, you put a new lens barrel on there so you can fit
a lens with twice the coverage. You'll need to defocus the condenser
too. Oh yes, and of course the other sprockets will need to be enlarged
too, unless you're going to change the gearing.

Post by Scott Norwood
The major disadvantage to 2-perf
35mm would be sucky sound quality.

It'll be running at half normal speed, which is still a little faster than
16mm runs at. Did I mention that magnetic sound was the solution to all
your sound problems?
--scott

[s***@aol.com]

Or...use a Kinoton FP38E. Leave it in 35mm mode and you will get 2-
perf 16mm.

Kinoton also makes VistaVision versions of their projectors.

As for sound...DTS...same digital quality, even when running 16mm.

Steve

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Dorsey
Well, for both 2-perf 35mm and 2-perf 16mm, the film can be developed
and contact-printed on standard equipment.  Timing is actually easier
with 2-perf 16mm... the lab just needs to know to change timing on even
frames only.

How would you project 2-perf 16mm?  It would be way easier to modify a
35mm projector for 2-perf pulldown than to modify a 16mm projector to
run sideways with 2-perf pulldown.

You get an Eastman 25, you put an intermittent sprocket in there that is
twice the diameter, so the film is pulled down two perfs each time the
sprocket advances.  You turn the machine on the side, you cut the gate
to twice the height, you put a new lens barrel on there so you can fit
a lens with twice the coverage.  You'll need to defocus the condenser
too.  Oh yes, and of course the other sprockets will need to be enlarged
too, unless you're going to change the gearing.

The major disadvantage to 2-perf
35mm would be sucky sound quality.

It'll be running at half normal speed, which is still a little faster than
16mm runs at.  Did I mention that magnetic sound was the solution to all
your sound problems?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[that VistaVision guy]

Or...use a Kinoton FP38E.  Leave it in 35mm mode and you will get 2-
perf 16mm.
Kinoton also makes VistaVision versions of their projectors.
As for sound...DTS...same digital quality, even when running 16mm.
Steve

DTS charges .95 USD per foot for 35mm, what do they charge for 16mm?

[Scott Dorsey]

Or...use a Kinoton FP38E. =A0Leave it in 35mm mode and you will get 2-
perf 16mm.

As I recall, you can also do 2-perf 35mm with these machines just as
easily too.

It is just amazing how versatile you can make a projector by replacing
mechanical stuff with software. What the original poster really wants
is a camera designed in the same way.
--scott

[that VistaVision guy]

mechanical stuff with software.  What the original poster really wants
is a camera designed in the same way.
--scott

bullshit, there are more ways and cameras available than what people
in US believe, the russians build cheap, nearly indesctructable, good
optics, 35mm cameras. this forum is NOT for closed minded people in
the US but to ellicit opinions and ideas from anyone, anywhere, who is
interested in avant garde filmmaking instead of digital. the french
basically invented movie cameras, where do you think the word
illuminate comes from? google Lumiere.

when the astronauts needed something to write with in zero G, NASA
developed a ONE MILLION $ ink pen, the russian solution, use a $0.05
pencil.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by that VistaVision guy

mechanical stuff with software. =A0What the original poster really wants
is a camera designed in the same way.

bullshit, there are more ways and cameras available than what people
in US believe, the russians build cheap, nearly indesctructable, good
optics, 35mm cameras. this forum is NOT for closed minded people in
the US but to ellicit opinions and ideas from anyone, anywhere, who is
interested in avant garde filmmaking instead of digital. the french
basically invented movie cameras, where do you think the word
illuminate comes from? google Lumiere.

You're missing the whole point of my statement. The Kinoton system
allows you to basically change the entire format on the fly. You want
3 perf, 2 perf, 2.5 perf, no problem. You push some buttons. You want
to run at 27 fps, no problem. You push some buttons. Everything can
be changed.... even in the middle of the reel with the film running.
It's all done in software. The film is pulled down and the shutter is
turned by stepper motors under software control rather than with mechanical
linkages.

The OP wants a camera like that, so he can play with different formats.
Hell, I want a camera like that too!

Post by that VistaVision guy
when the astronauts needed something to write with in zero G, NASA
developed a ONE MILLION $ ink pen, the russian solution, use a $0.05
pencil.

Having used Russian cameras for years, I will say many good things
about their simplicity and ruggedness. But I don't know what that
has to do with the ability to change format.

In a lot of cases you lose versatility when you lose complexity. Like
the Pentax copies made by Zenit, where they dropped the lower shutter
speeds because the second shutter mechanism was seldom used and complex
to build. Or the Russian copies of the Bolex mechanism where they dropped
the variable shutter angle.
--scott

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by that VistaVision guy

mechanical stuff with software. =A0What the original poster really wants
is a camera designed in the same way.

bullshit, there are more ways and cameras available than what people
in US believe, the russians build cheap, nearly indesctructable, good
optics, 35mm cameras.  this forum is NOT for closed minded people in
the US but to ellicit opinions and ideas from anyone, anywhere, who is
interested in avant garde filmmaking instead of digital.  the french
basically invented movie cameras, where do you think the word
illuminate comes from?  google Lumiere.

You're missing the whole point of my statement.  The Kinoton system
allows you to basically change the entire format on the fly.  You want
3 perf, 2 perf, 2.5 perf, no problem.  You push some buttons.  You want
to run at 27 fps, no problem.  You push some buttons.  Everything can
be changed.... even in the middle of the reel with the film running.
It's all done in software.  The film is pulled down and the shutter is
turned by stepper motors under software control rather than with mechanical
linkages.
The OP wants a camera like that, so he can play with different formats.
Hell, I want a camera like that too!

Post by that VistaVision guy
when the astronauts needed something to write with in zero G, NASA
developed a ONE MILLION $ ink pen,  the russian solution, use a $0.05
pencil.

Having used Russian cameras for years, I will say many good things
about their simplicity and ruggedness.  But I don't know what that
has to do with the ability to change format.
In a lot of cases you lose versatility when you lose complexity.  Like
the Pentax copies made by Zenit, where they dropped the lower shutter
speeds because the second shutter mechanism was seldom used and complex
to build.  Or the Russian copies of the Bolex mechanism where they dropped
the variable shutter angle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I don't want to change format on the fly, just run the film and mount
good glass on the front end. it's the glass that makes the image.
all of the accessories that PV and Arri put on their cameras is just a
load of crap. forget all that video tap and junk electronics that
requires me to lug around a car battery or doesn't work because of
rain, heat or cold.

a small simple camera that can hold 400ft loads, can bolt on either
Leica or Canon's long lenses, just run 24fps, big wide 16mm frames
with registration, that always works. i'm not looking for a swiss
army knife that does everything for everyone, but a meat cleaver, does
one thing and very well.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by that VistaVision guy
I don't want to change format on the fly, just run the film and mount
good glass on the front end. it's the glass that makes the image.
all of the accessories that PV and Arri put on their cameras is just a
load of crap. forget all that video tap and junk electronics that
requires me to lug around a car battery or doesn't work because of
rain, heat or cold.
a small simple camera that can hold 400ft loads, can bolt on either
Leica or Canon's long lenses, just run 24fps, big wide 16mm frames
with registration, that always works. i'm not looking for a swiss
army knife that does everything for everyone, but a meat cleaver, does
one thing and very well.

Well, then go out and get a Bolex H-16 and give up the notion of using
a nonstandard format. It can produce some really stunning images.
--scott

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Well, then go out and get a Bolex H-16 and give up the notion of using
a nonstandard format.  It can produce some really stunning images.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

nonstandard format is the objective, i've already looked at the bolex.

it seems there are two hardware solutions

1. take a Mitchel 16mm camera chop it up and spend lots of time and
effort mechanically

2. modify a 4-perf 35mm movement for 16mm film gauge.

and one software and hardware solution

1. reinvent the wheel with a software and stepper motors and get rid
of most of the mechanical linkages

[that VistaVision guy]

as for post-process, usual lab can develope 16mm film and i'm
developing my own 4k x 4k scanner with stepper motor to scan any
images from 16mm or 35mm film gauge.

[kevin willoughby]

bullshit,[...]
when the astronauts needed something to write with in zero G, NASA
developed a ONE MILLION $ ink pen, the russian solution, use a $0.05
pencil.

Please don't use expletives when you are wrong.

The "ONE MILLION $ ink pen" is an urban legend. NASA never spent huge
sums on pens. See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1 for details.

Incidentally, the "russian [sic -- it was the USSR, a bit bigger than
just Russia] solution" is not without its problems. Ever stop to think
about what sharping a pencil would do in zero-gee spacecraft? Graphite
filings wandering into the innards of complex electronics could cause
short circuits. In the high-oxygen environment of an Apollo spacecraft
on the pad, a pencil would, if ignited, become a small blow-torch -- the
famous Apollo Fire demonstrated that many ordinary items would burn very
vigorously under spacecraft conditions.

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by kevin willoughby

bullshit,[...]
when the astronauts needed something to write with in zero G, NASA
developed a ONE MILLION $ ink pen,  the russian solution, use a $0.05
pencil.

Please don't use expletives when you are wrong.
The "ONE MILLION $ ink pen" is an urban legend. NASA never spent huge
sums on pens. Seehttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1for details.
Incidentally, the "russian [sic -- it was the USSR, a bit bigger than
just Russia] solution" is not without its problems. Ever stop to think
about what sharping a pencil would do in zero-gee spacecraft? Graphite
filings wandering into the innards of complex electronics could cause
short circuits. In the high-oxygen environment of an Apollo spacecraft
on the pad, a pencil would, if ignited, become a small blow-torch -- the
famous Apollo Fire demonstrated that many ordinary items would burn very
vigorously under spacecraft conditions.
--
It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

this from someone who posts with an INVALID email address. Post on
topic or go elsewhere.

the post was in align with the topic, a simple solution, not a complex
overdesigned and so what the pencils didn't cost a million dollars,
they cost $127 in 1960s about ~$5000 in today dollars.

as an aside, pencils don't need to be sharpened smart guy, they have
been made to unroll/unwrap like a grease pencil. grease doesn't
'float' around in zero G it sticks to the object written on.

in a 100% O2, many things would and could ignite that normally
wouldn't, again rant elsewhere

[Derek Gee]

Post by that VistaVision guy
bullshit, there are more ways and cameras available than what people
in US believe, the russians build cheap, nearly indesctructable, good
optics, 35mm cameras.

Based on my experience with Soviet 35mm still cameras made from 1950-1990
they don't. Optics are reasonable, but the build quality is terrible. They
can't hold a candle to the US, French, and Japanese cameras I have that
were built in the same time period.

My camera repair guy has told me he's worked on many of the Russian cameras
and he asserts they are the worst. I'm guessing you're referring to the
Krasnogorsk-3 movie camera, which has a reputation for ruggedness, but I
can't vouch either way for.

Post by that VistaVision guy
the french
basically invented movie cameras, where do you think the word
illuminate comes from? google Lumiere.

Only if you exclude the American and English guys working on the same
problem at the same time. IIRC, LePrince was first (1888), followed by
Friese-Green (1889), Dickson for Edison (1891), and Lumiere (1895).

Post by that VistaVision guy
when the astronauts needed something to write with in zero G, NASA
developed a ONE MILLION $ ink pen, the russian solution, use a $0.05
pencil.

Completely untrue. See this URL for details:

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Derek

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by Derek Gee
Based on my experience with Soviet 35mm still cameras made from 1950-1990
they don't.  Optics are reasonable, but the build quality is terrible.  They
can't hold a candle to the US,  French, and Japanese cameras I have that
were built in the same time period.

who is talking about using something that old?

Post by Derek Gee
My camera repair guy has told me he's worked on many of the Russian cameras
and he asserts they are the worst.  I'm guessing you're referring to the
Krasnogorsk-3 movie camera, which has a reputation for ruggedness, but I
can't vouch either way for.

Post by that VistaVision guy
the french
basically invented movie cameras, where do you think the word
illuminate comes from?  google Lumiere.

Only if you exclude the American and English guys working on the same
problem at the same time.  IIRC, LePrince was first (1888), followed by
Friese-Green (1889), Dickson for Edison (1891), and Lumiere (1895).

you are incorrect.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-film-formats

Etienne-Jules Marey was first in 1888 with 90mm film gauge.
Prince 1888 with 54mm
Reynaud 1888

[Derek Gee]

Post by that VistaVision guy

Post by Derek Gee
Based on my experience with Soviet 35mm still cameras made from 1950-1990
they don't. Optics are reasonable, but the build quality is terrible.
They
can't hold a candle to the US, French, and Japanese cameras I have that
were built in the same time period.

who is talking about using something that old?

1990 is OLD?? Even the Krasnogorsk-3 movie camera was discontinued many
years ago.

Post by that VistaVision guy

Post by Derek Gee

Post by that VistaVision guy
the french
basically invented movie cameras, where do you think the word
illuminate comes from? google Lumiere.

Only if you exclude the American and English guys working on the same
problem at the same time. IIRC, LePrince was first (1888), followed by
Friese-Green (1889), Dickson for Edison (1891), and Lumiere (1895).

you are incorrect.

Nope, try again.

Post by that VistaVision guy
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-film-formats
Etienne-Jules Marey was first in 1888 with 90mm film gauge.

Marey is a Chronophotographer - a pre-cursor to cinematography. I
deliberately excluded him and Muybridge, et al.

Post by that VistaVision guy
Prince 1888 with 54mm

There IS no "Prince", it's Louis Le Prince just as I posted.

Post by that VistaVision guy
Reynaud 1888

He invented the Praxinoscope and in 1888 developed a way to project the
moving drawings (Theatre Optique). He did not work with a camera until
1896.

Derek

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by Derek Gee
Nope, try again.

Post by that VistaVision guy
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-film-formats
Etienne-Jules Marey was first in 1888 with 90mm film gauge.

Marey is a Chronophotographer - a pre-cursor to cinematography.  I
deliberately excluded him and Muybridge, et al.

in an age where anyone can call themselves a filmmaker, even if they
work purely in the video domain, chronophotography or time lapse is
still using film base to caputre events sequentially in time ergo the
only difference between chronophotography and cinematography is the
time base on sequential frames. adding a projection element for
'cinema' for nomenclature is trivial.

Post by Derek Gee

Post by that VistaVision guy
Prince 1888 with 54mm

There IS no "Prince", it's Louis Le Prince just as I posted.

of course it is the same. I didn't see a need to put subjective
infinitives on the nom.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Derek Gee
Based on my experience with Soviet 35mm still cameras made from 1950-1990
they don't. Optics are reasonable, but the build quality is terrible. They
can't hold a candle to the US, French, and Japanese cameras I have that
were built in the same time period.

They're actually kind of fun, and while the quality of the machining and the
quality of the metal is really awful, the cameras themselves are really quite
functional and work well.

I really like my old Zenit-22. It's a 1950s Pentax made with the worst
quality pot metal you can imagine. They stripped all of the features off
that they could....there is no more auto-stop-down so you have to flip a
ring on the lens between composing and shooting, and all the lower shutter
speeds are gone. But the thing takes phenomenally good pictures... there
is very little mirror bounce and the lenses are top notch.

Post by Derek Gee
My camera repair guy has told me he's worked on many of the Russian cameras
and he asserts they are the worst. I'm guessing you're referring to the
Krasnogorsk-3 movie camera, which has a reputation for ruggedness, but I
can't vouch either way for.

The Krasnogorsk-3 has some really godawful design features, a lot of which
have to do with the film path design. I don't know where it got a reputation
for ruggedness at all.... it is no Bolex in that regard. But the better
Russian movie cameras like the Kinor and Konvas models are actually pretty
well-designed. The metal is still poor quality and the casting jobs poor,
but the hand-machining is pretty good and the lenses are surprisingly sharp.
--scott

[that VistaVision guy]

well-designed.  The metal is still poor quality and the casting jobs poor,
but the hand-machining is pretty good and the lenses are surprisingly sharp.
--scott

the lenses/glass is the most import aspect of the image. everything
else is just accessorizing and bloated.

the russian konvas have a decent reputation because of the glass that
can be bolted on to them.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by that VistaVision guy
the lenses/glass is the most import aspect of the image. everything
else is just accessorizing and bloated.

It's a lot of it, but there is something to be said for image stability
too.

Post by that VistaVision guy
the russian konvas have a decent reputation because of the glass that
can be bolted on to them.

The movement... it ain't no Mitchell...
--scott

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter
Intentionally selecting a gauge (16mm) for which services are becoming
more sparse over time, and, most particularly, a format which demands
optical printing to obtain any useful output, just doesn't make
technical sense. Doesn't make economic sense, either.
Such a format may have a high "Wow!" factor, but that's just about it.

any decent lab in will process 16mm stocks, there are current TV shows
still shoot 16mm. students at local film schools shoot miles and
miles of the stuff.

[r***@gmail.com]

i forgot to take into account when you combine frames you get the
interframe area 0.162mm back

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com
i forgot to take into account when you combine frames you get the
interframe area  0.162mm back

3 full R16 frames 12.71x22.50 mm , 286mm^2 , 1.77:1, no squeeze or
anamorphic non-linear DOF
2 full R16 frames 12.56x15.00mm , 186mm^2, 1:19:1

so maybe best solution is 3xR16, no sound.

[Derek Gee]

Post by r***@gmail.com
any decent lab in will process 16mm stocks, there are current TV shows
still shoot 16mm.

There are? Which one(s) are shooting in 16mm?

Derek

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Derek Gee

Post by r***@gmail.com
any decent lab in will process 16mm stocks, there are current TV shows
still shoot 16mm.

There are? Which one(s) are shooting in 16mm?

Chuck is. Burn Notice is. The Shield is. I think these are all Super-16
but the lab work is the same. These are the first three I came up with
on IMDB.
--scott

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com
any decent lab in will process 16mm stocks, there are current TV shows
still shoot 16mm.

There are?  Which one(s) are shooting in 16mm?

Chuck is.  Burn Notice is.  The Shield is.  I think these are all Super-16
but the lab work is the same.  These are the first three I came up with
on IMDB.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

some flavors of Law and Order

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by r***@gmail.com
some flavors of Law and Order

Apparently Cops also. I found this out the other day when Colorlab called
to tell me that of the five gunsight camera magazines I sent them, two of
them had lost the loop and the film wasn't printable. They let me know
that they do the gunsight mags for Cops as well and that three out of five
is better than they manage, so I shouldn't feel too bad.

I assume that's real 16mm, not Super-16, if they are using gunsight cams
for anything at all. You could probably file them out and make it 1P to
do Super-16 but I can't imagine the film would stay flat in the gate.
--scott

[Peter]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Chuck is. Burn Notice is. The Shield is. I think these are all Super-16
but the lab work is the same. These are the first three I came up with
on IMDB.

The sitcoms (and, the early Brits, Morse, for example) are generally
using Panavision "Elaines".

The Shield uses Arris.

[r***@gmail.com]

2-perf 35m, requires special gating, special camera, expensive optical
conversion and 35mm film processing. anamorphic lenses, etc. PL or
PV, mounts that require hellishly expensive rental of glass.

VV 16-mm, massive negative area, 186 mm^2

use off the shelf Nikon/Canon or holy of holies Leica the best
lenses on the planet and will blow away any anamorphic lenses IMHO
double 16mm frames WITHOUT sound are 12.4 mm x 15.0mm, area of 186
mm^2 1.2:1
WITH sound 12.11 x
14.25, 172.57

2-perf 35mm 9.47 x
21.95 207.86mm^2 2:3:1


i basically want to shoot, dev, and project my own films without
relying on others. i can take a cheap 16mm projector and chop it up
for projection or for conversion. can you do the same with 2-perf? i
don't think so, labs will charge you a bomb to optically convert 2-
perf to academy. optical printing is about $2/'ft, scanning maybe .50/
FRAME if you're lucky and the lab manager likes you.

now 3xR16, yields a natural 1.85:1 ratio....

Post by r***@gmail.com
I'm interested in knowing what would be the least complicated camera
to modify (MOS and sound) to get 16mm VistaVision.

How would this be better than 2-perf 35mm?  It would give less image area
and would still require optical printing to produce a usable print.
--
Cool Home Page:  http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote:  Penguins?  In Snack Canyon?

[Peter]

Post by r***@gmail.com
2-perf 35m, requires special gating, special camera, expensive optical
conversion and 35mm film processing. anamorphic lenses, etc. PL or
PV, mounts that require hellishly expensive rental of glass.

Mitchell made kits for its cameras, priced at about $7,500.

You can find them on ePay, occasionally, for under a grand.

2-perf uses standard lenses and the optical center is the same as
Academy, if you have a Mitchell Techniscope kit (I do).

"Back in the day", the widest prime was about 18mm, which was
equivalent to 36mm in anamorphic.

As the 2-perf aperture is centered within the Academy apertue, at least
on Mitchells, any lens which covers Academy also covers 2-perf.

2-perf can be contact printed, but the best finish is DI or Technicolor
"Direct-to-Matrix" or Tech "Selective Printing".

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by Peter
2-perf can be contact printed, but the best finish is DI or Technicolor
"Direct-to-Matrix" or Tech "Selective Printing".
-

actually i'm working on my own DI scanner, taking an off the shell
photo scanner, 7200dpi. we're currently running through the design
now for the controller. most labs are outrageously expensive for DI,
anywhere from .50USD/FRAME to .75USD/FRAME, which is bullshit. my
costs so far are $250 scanner, $40 stepper motor, $20 used film
synchro, $25 for motor controller.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by r***@gmail.com
i basically want to shoot, dev, and project my own films without
relying on others. i can take a cheap 16mm projector and chop it up
for projection or for conversion.

No, you can't. Cheap 16mm projectors are claw mechanisms. NOT easy to
adapt.

You could adapt an Eastman 25 or some other intermittent mechanism without
too much machine shop work. You'd have to get LaVezzi to make you a special
sprocket, but it wouldn't be a massive project. Problem is that Eastman 25s
are not cheap and neither is LaVezzi.

Post by r***@gmail.com
can you do the same with 2-perf? i
don't think so, labs will charge you a bomb to optically convert 2-
perf to academy. optical printing is about $2/'ft, scanning maybe .50/
FRAME if you're lucky and the lab manager likes you.

Actually, it would be easier to modify a 35mm projector to show 2-perf 35
than it would be to modify a 16mm projector to show 2-perf 16. There
is no optical printing needed. 35mm short ends are also a lot cheaper and
easier to find today than 16.
--scott

[Ultrascope]

Back to the original question:

The easiest 16mm camera to modify for your double-frame format would
be an animation camera which uses a sprocket to advance the film and
registers by putting it on fixed register pins. Such cameras can be
found on eBay now and then, usually they were used to record computer
data. Oxberry and Forox made several models.

Since separate (stepping?) motors are used for shutter, film advance
and gate/register pin operation, it would be easy to make a new gate
(easily accessible) and create a new control circuit for the different
motors. Many of these cameras already have Nikon mounts or can easily
be converted.

Unfortunately, you will not get this type of mechanism up to sound
speed, so unless you want to do animation or time-lapse work, you'll
need another solution.

Changing even a simple camera movement is a major job because it
requires absolute precision. Unless you are an expert yourself in
precision metal work and machining or have the budget to pay an expert
for many hours of work, I would advise to forget about it and make
your movie instead of inventing new formats.

IMHO the double-16mm format does not really make sense in terms of
economy because the processing/printing/stock cost for 35mm 2-perf are
comparable.

For the money it takes to convert a vintage camera (unless you want to
slaughter a new Arri 416 ;) ) you can buy a used 4-perf Konvas with
a set of excellent lenses, be it spherical or anamorphic and a lot of
short ends and recan stock.

But I guess it depends on the nature of your film project. Maybe you
have a workshop and precision tools to deal with this type of work and
can do it yourself as a fun project without having someone to pay.

I'd ask the camera conversion pros like Les Bosher or Bruce @
Arandafilm before starting such a task:

http://www.arandafilm.com.au/

http://lesbosher.co.uk/

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Ultrascope
The easiest 16mm camera to modify for your double-frame format would
be an animation camera which uses a sprocket to advance the film and
registers by putting it on fixed register pins. Such cameras can be
found on eBay now and then, usually they were used to record computer
data. Oxberry and Forox made several models.
Since separate (stepping?) motors are used for shutter, film advance
and gate/register pin operation, it would be easy to make a new gate
(easily accessible) and create a new control circuit for the different
motors. Many of these cameras already have Nikon mounts or can easily
be converted.
But I guess it depends on the nature of your film project. Maybe you
have a workshop and precision tools to deal with this type of work and
can do it yourself as a fun project without having someone to pay.
http://www.arandafilm.com.au/
http://lesbosher.co.uk/

i would avoid these guys, they are hideously expensive, in an age
where most will be digital in 3 to 5 years, these people should be
promoting the use and modification of film cameras for avante garde,
not charging a bomb for simple CNC work.

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Ultrascope
http://www.arandafilm.com.au/
http://lesbosher.co.uk/

i would avoid these guys, they are hideously expensive, in an age
where most will be digital in 3 to 5 years, these people should be
promoting the use and modification of film cameras for avante garde,
not charging a bomb for simple CNC work.

i've actually talked with les on the phone a few times previously.

[<<LV>>]

Post by r***@gmail.com
now 3xR16, yields a natural 1.85:1 ratio....

---In addition to 2-P 35mm, Technicolor's patent for Techniscope
includes 3xR16.

That would have likely had to have cameras made from scratch.

---Leo Vale

[Peter]

Post by <<LV>>
---In addition to 2-P 35mm, Technicolor's patent for Techniscope
includes 3xR16.
That would have likely had to have cameras made from scratch.

Hey, a small specialty machine shop in Santa Monica made a 3x35mm
movement (12 perfs per frame) for the aborted single-film Cinerama, but
the movement would not run "at speed", then being 26 fps.

[Ultrascope]

Scott Dorsery wrote:
You get an Eastman 25, you put an intermittent sprocket in there that
is
twice the diameter, so the film is pulled down two perfs each time the
sprocket advances. You turn the machine on the side, you cut the gate
to twice the height, you put a new lens barrel on there so you can fit
a lens with twice the coverage. You'll need to defocus the condenser
too. Oh yes, and of course the other sprockets will need to be
enlarged
too, unless you're going to change the gearing.


What about the rotating shutter when the mechanism runs double speed,
wouldn't you have to change gears anyway to compensate for that?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Dorsey
You get an Eastman 25, you put an intermittent sprocket in there that
is
twice the diameter, so the film is pulled down two perfs each time the
sprocket advances. You turn the machine on the side, you cut the gate
to twice the height, you put a new lens barrel on there so you can fit
a lens with twice the coverage. You'll need to defocus the condenser
too. Oh yes, and of course the other sprockets will need to be
enlarged
too, unless you're going to change the gearing.
What about the rotating shutter when the mechanism runs double speed,
wouldn't you have to change gears anyway to compensate for that?

No, the idea is that you don't run the mechanism at double speed. The
motor runs at the normal speed, the shutter runs at the normal speed,
but because the sprockets are larger they pull down twice as much film
with each revolution.

The key to making all this stuff work smoothly is to keep reciprocating
parts running as slowly as possible. Pulldown claws are easy to build
for Super-8 where you need to pull down only 3.5mm at a tug, and they are
possible to build for 16mm with a 7.6mm pulldown. but when you are pulling
more than 15mm on each frame you have a whole lot of mass moving back and
forth. Notice that you'll never see 35mm projectors with claw mechanisms,
and the few cameras that use them feel like holding an unbalanced washing
machine in the spin cycle.
--scott

[Peter]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Notice that you'll never see 35mm projectors with claw mechanisms,
and the few cameras that use them feel like holding an unbalanced washing
machine in the spin cycle.

Don't all modern 35mm (and 65mm) cameras use a claw mechanism?

Or, were you thinking about a primitive claw mechanism which moves up
and down on parallel bars, operated by one cam, and is moved in and
out, operated by another cam (Bell & Howell, and many others)?

Surely, production cameras which employ a claw mechanism, in the most
general meaning of the term, also employ a drive system which reduces
and controls accelerations within that mechanism, to reduce sound and
vibration generation (Mitchell, Fox and others).

I cannot think of a single camera which uses a Geneva movement for
pull-down, with the possible exception of specialized kinescope cameras.

The reason for using a Geneva movement for projection is lower print film wear.

But, this comes at a much higher cost than a claw movement.

[Ultrascope]

Post by Peter
I cannot think of a single camera which uses a Geneva movement for
pull-down, with the possible exception of specialized kinescope cameras.

There's a single exception: Automax 35mm cameras use a Geneva
movement, but they do not run faster than 16 fps, I assume because at
higher rate registration will suffer.

http://www.automaxcamera.com/about.htm
(click on "Technical Specifications")

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter

Post by Scott Dorsey
Notice that you'll never see 35mm projectors with claw mechanisms,
and the few cameras that use them feel like holding an unbalanced washing
machine in the spin cycle.

Don't all modern 35mm (and 65mm) cameras use a claw mechanism?

Whoops, I meant to say "high speed cameras." Big goof there.

Post by Peter
Or, were you thinking about a primitive claw mechanism which moves up
and down on parallel bars, operated by one cam, and is moved in and
out, operated by another cam (Bell & Howell, and many others)?

This is the typical 16mm mechanism, and it doesn't scale up well
because there is a lot of mass moving back and forth and no counterweighted
mass to compensate for it. I think the Eyemo uses this, and it is indeed
hard to keep the thing from jumping out of your hand. But no, it is a
far cry from the Mitchell movement.

Post by Peter
I cannot think of a single camera which uses a Geneva movement for
pull-down, with the possible exception of specialized kinescope cameras.

Most of the high speed cameras do this for the same reason that the kine
cameras do.... it's a smoother movement at high speeds.

Post by Peter
The reason for using a Geneva movement for projection is lower print film wear.

Not necessarily. The Geneva has a whole lot of perforations engaged at
the same time because half of the the sprocket teeth are engaged. This
means each perf carries a smaller fraction of the force. But there's no
reason you couldn't make huge pulldown claws with a dozen teeth on each,
other than cost.
--scott

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by Peter

Post by Scott Dorsey
Notice that you'll never see 35mm projectors with claw mechanisms,
and the few cameras that use them feel like holding an unbalanced washing
machine in the spin cycle.

Don't all modern 35mm (and 65mm) cameras use a claw mechanism?

Whoops, I meant to say "high speed cameras."  Big goof there.

Post by Peter
Or, were you thinking about a primitive claw mechanism which moves up
and down on parallel bars, operated by one cam, and is moved in and
out, operated by another cam (Bell & Howell, and many others)?

This is the typical 16mm mechanism, and it doesn't scale up well
because there is a lot of mass moving back and forth and no counterweighted
mass to compensate for it.  I think the Eyemo uses this, and it is indeed
hard to keep the thing from jumping out of your hand.  But no, it is a
far cry from the Mitchell movement.

Post by Peter
I cannot think of a single camera which uses a Geneva movement for
pull-down, with the possible exception of specialized kinescope cameras.

Most of the high speed cameras do this for the same reason that the kine
cameras do.... it's a smoother movement at high speeds.

Post by Peter
The reason for using a Geneva movement for projection is lower print film wear.

what about using a movement from 4-perf 35mm? and modifying the
sprockets for 16mm film gauge?

[that VistaVision guy]

No, the idea is that you don't run the mechanism at double speed.  The
motor runs at the normal speed, the shutter runs at the normal speed,
but because the sprockets are larger they pull down twice as much film
with each revolution.
The key to making all this stuff work smoothly is to keep reciprocating
parts running as slowly as possible.  Pulldown claws are easy to build
for Super-8 where you need to pull down only 3.5mm at a tug, and they are
possible to build for 16mm with a 7.6mm pulldown. but when you are pulling
more than 15mm on each frame you have a whole lot of mass moving back and
forth.  Notice that you'll never see 35mm projectors with claw mechanisms,
and the few cameras that use them feel like holding an unbalanced washing
machine in the spin cycle.

when i shot my film on 8-perf 35mm, the camera used a Mitchell
movement with 3 pin registration, it ran at 24 fps, but essentially
24fps in VV 8-perf land is 48-fps in 4-perf land. so the motor is
essentially running at twice the speed to pull twice as much film
across the an aperture that is twice is big. the shutter is also
twice as big.

so it seems the only thing to keep 16mm VV from smearing is to make
sure the movement pull across the correct frame size with
registration.

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by Peter

Post by <<LV>>
---In addition to 2-P 35mm, Technicolor's patent for Techniscope
includes 3xR16.
That would have likely had to have cameras made from scratch.

Hey, a small specialty machine shop in Santa Monica made a 3x35mm
movement (12 perfs per frame) for the aborted single-film Cinerama, but
the movement would not run "at speed", then being 26 fps.
--
CinemaScope®: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!

who? can you post their details?

[that VistaVision guy]

Post by <<LV>>

Post by r***@gmail.com
now 3xR16, yields a natural 1.85:1 ratio....

---In addition to 2-P 35mm, Technicolor's patent for Techniscope
includes 3xR16.
That would have likely had to have cameras made from scratch.
---Leo Vale

well then 3 S16... and crop in post

[j***@gmail.com]

I'm working on a similar project now myself. This is an oold thread but I hope you made progress on this project. Email me back directly or reply back if you found any good info on building 16mm vista vision.

***@gmail.com

Thanks,