|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak to discontinue their last colour reversal lines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009
|
posted 12-13-2012 05:37 PM
Feeling Negative?
http://www.feelingnegative.com/
Also...
http://www.retrothing.com/2009/12/diy-a-retired-kodak-chemists-dream-machine.html
You're looking at a homemade film coating machine created by a retired Kodak Australia employee. Plastic goes in one end, and finished film comes out the other. It sounds simple, but it's the technical equivalent of a JPL engineer deciding to build a rocket ship in his garage.
When Kodak's Australian Kodachrome lab operation shut down, the Unnamed Chemist was able to get his hands on some vital bits and pieces to help build his dream machine. Still, many additional parts and thousands of hours of fabrication were required.
Nevertheless, imagine the freedom of being able to manufacture your own version of the classic Kodachrome film emulsion. Just remember that processing your new film will be every bit as convoluted.
The fellow who took these photos reports, "The last year or so [2007] has been mainly taken up with trying to remove the problem of uneven layering of the emulsion that shows up as regular 'banding' pattern on the finished product. The problem had been isolated to the drive roller, and was assumed to be gearbox chatter. A *lot* of time and expense was used to track this down, and eventually a high-res stepper motor and drive all but removed the problem. The banding that is left is due to the coating roller by the looks, being a high-speed unit running on low speed the bearings will need to be either replaced or maybe we could get away with repacking them with a light oil rather than grease.
Thank you for the interest, I thought it was far too interesting to be left in the dark in a garage. While the builder uses the net for research rather than "social" uses, I will endeavour to get him into the forum, it looks like it will be one he will enjoy."
As of November, 2009, the machine remains under development.
Flickr: DIY Film Coating Machine
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-16-2012 07:25 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Believe it or not, this guy is even making 9.5mm reversal film by this method! I had no idea that there were still people shooting on 9.5 until in around 2004, I was in desparate need of 9.5mm supplies (leader/spacing and splicers, mainly) for the archive I worked in, which preserved large quantities of the stuff. He was an absolute life-saver.
I saw somebody using a 9.5 mm camera in Oxford about a year ago. About ten years ago I bought some 9.5 stock from Grahame to try out the several 9.5 mm cameras which I have. Unless things have changed since then Graham does not actually slit and perforate. The stock is produced in France, I think by a man working on his own, by perforating and slitting 35 mm professional slide film which was supplied to him by Fuji in either 1000 foot or 300 m unperforated rolls. Grahame was buying the film in the resulting 9.5 mm rolls which were supplied on a 9.5 mm core which seemed to be a standard Kodak 16 mm one turned down, and selling it as 50 or 100 foot camera spools, 50 or 100 foot reloads, 50 foot 'Webo' magazines and the short reloads (10 m?) for 'Baby, P and H type chargers' so he could supply film for just about any 9.5 camera. He was also selling the long rolls on a core for anybody who wanted a larger quantity. The wide variety of camera loading systems was always a problem for suppliers of 9.5 mm film stock.
I have cameras using p and H type chargers and 'Webo' magazines. At the time three stocks were available, Provia and Velvia daylight and RTP II tungsten. Fuji no longer make RTP II but I'm not sure about the other two. The quality was very good, even from the little 'Prince' camera of which large quantities remained after the demise of Pathescope, and which were sold for many years for I think £5 each. They were available new well into the '70s.
Other than the high-end spool loading ones film transport seems to have been problematical with all of the loading systems, and jams were frequent, a pity because the cameras themselves were quite nicely built.
9.5 mm prints were produced by Pathescope 3-up on 35mm stock with three rows of 9.5 mm perforations plus two rows of almost square ones down the edges of the strip for transport and registration in the printer. I can't remember the designation for this type of perforation. I think only black and white prints were made in this way, and some of them, including the early ones with notches titles were very good.
After production of these prints ceased somebody at Walton Films had the idea of producing them in a different way, and of producing a 9.5 mm version of any title which they offered in 16 mm economically in the very small quantities which would be required. The perforation pitch on 9.5 is almost the same as on 16 mm, just a few thou less. They built a machine which could take a 16 mm print, register it by the normal perforations, punch a set of 9.5 ones in the centre and then slit off the edges. Projectors could handle these prints with slightly long perforations, and with a bit of shrinkage over the years they may be standard by now. Some of the prints made in this way were in colour and do not seem to have faded; I think they may have been Kodachrome dupes. A small amount of picture was lost from each edge, which was mainly noticeable on titles. These prints are easily recognisable as the frame extends right to the edge of the strip, and the frame bar is much narrower than on normal 9.5 mm film, I suppose a some picture must also have been lost at the top and bottom of the frame, but this did not seem to be noticeable. These prints were still being sold well into the '70s at least. I've even seen one sound print produced in this way, with part of the original 16 mm VD track remaining on the edge of the print, and of course the picture reversed as the print had to be flipped over to get the track on the left edge.
Apart from the original silent and sound formats there were a couple of very rare others. In the late '50s '9.5 Duplex' was an amateur widescreen system. It took a specially perforated stock and ran it horizontally through the camera, exposing half of the width. The film was then flipped over and the other half exposed, as with standard 8 mm. After processing the film was slit to two 4.75 strips. This system sold very badly, and I believe that the unsold equipment was converted to the standard format. I've seen one duplex projector, but no camera, or film.
Heurtier made projectors for both optical and magnetic sound, and also made a stereo magnetic version, using stripe on both edges. I've never seen one, they must have been extremely rare if indeed any were ever sold, but they were listed in the catalogue. The same firm also produced a triple gauge, standard 8, 9.5 and 16 mm, projector, the 'Superti'.
There was even a proposal for a 'Super 9.5' format. It was to actually be 11.66 mm, slit from 35 mm with no waste. The idea was to keep the standard frame height but to increase the width in much the same way as was done with Super 16. The intended purpose was for widescreen television production, rather than blowup to 35 mm, as was the original purpose with Super 16. I did read a paper on it to the extent that my limited knowledge of French allowed. Unsurprisingly, the industry showed absolutely no interest in the idea. This was at about the time that portable video equipment was starting to become available, 16 mm was well established for television production, and 9.5 mm was about as widely used as it is today.
9.5 has been a remarkable survivor, but it's easier to improvise with film than it is with digital systems.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-16-2012 10:06 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
Was/is there any provision for sound-on-film with 9.5mm?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, the impression I got was that 9.5mm was probably more successful as the "home video" format of its day than as an origination medium for amateur filmmakers. High end projectors were marketed to the upper middle classes, who would rent complete feature films from Pathescope's wide rental infrastructure. From back issues of their publicity magazine, Pathescope News, from the '30s and '40s I've seen, I get the impression that there were probably at least dozens and possibly hundreds of local dealers around Britain, who would rent prints to projector owners, either in person by walking in to their stores, or by mail order. I have two of these 9.5 feature film prints: one of Windbag the Sailor (1936), and the other of Odd Man Out (1947). They're no umpteenth generation, high contrast reversal dupes, either: in particular, the detail in the midtones in the night shots in Odd Man Out gives the digitally restored version on BD a run for its money.
quote: Stephen Furley
I've even seen one sound print produced in this way, with part of the original 16 mm VD track remaining on the edge of the print...
Yup - all the 9.5 optical sound prints I've seen are VD as well. I presume that this is because if you get edge damage or shave a bit off in the cutting down process, a VD track will still survive. Shave the edges of the modulation off a VA track, though, and the results will be pretty gruesome.
I don't know if they still do, but for a long time a company called Buckingham Film Services would convert an Eiki NT series 16mm projector to run 9.5, by replacing the sprockets, spindles and gates and realigning the optical (and, if it had one, magnetic) pickups. Back in the early '00s, I bought one for the Northern Region Film and Television Archive and got a local engineer to fit an Elmo-style CCD assembly in place of the lens to make a crude telecine. It was the only thing we could afford until the MWA Flashscan came along, but was remarkably successful, even with moderately shrunken stock.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-16-2012 02:34 PM
Scott,
What you described is the 'Notched title' system which I mentioned earlier. The intertitles were printed on just a couple of frames. A notch was cut into the side of the film to stop the mechanism and a mechanical timer re-started it after a few seconds. The notch was not level with the frame to be held, but displaced as with a soundtrack. The notch was an odd shape, if you were to take a rod about 5 mm in diameter, round off the end into a hemisphere, and then hold it with the rounded end pointing down at about 45 degrees and move it in to the edge of the film, that's about the shape of it. The notch did intrude into the picture area, but since it was not the title frame which was notched it was only seen briefly on screen. Temporal data compression was around a long time before MPEG! You are correct about the heat problem; the early projectors had a very low power bulb, not much bigger than a torch (flashlight) bulb, and the film could withstand the heat from this for a few seconds. It was the more powerful lamps in later projectors which killed the system. The original Pathe 'Baby' projector took a cartridge containing I think 10 m of film, though a larger size, and arms to take spools, were introduced later. The film runs at almost exactly the same speed as 16 mm, so such a short length of film would have given a very short running time without this system.
Leo is correct about the format originally being more a 'home video' format than a 'home movie' one' indeed, I think the projector was launched before a camera was available. Most projectors seem to have been rather flimsy compared to 16mm ones from the likes of Bell & Howell.
The 9.5 mm system was sold in the US, but was never as popular as the Kodak 16 mm and 8 mm formats. It was very widely used in mainland Europe, and was quite popular in the UK. It was introduced at almost the same time as 16 mm, one was 1922 and the other 1923, but I can't remember which was which.
Silent prints and projectors are far more common than sound ones; sound projectors were very expensive in those days. The Pathescope SON was the original sound projector, but the sound head was strange, and rather problematical. Heurtier also made sound projectors and sound bases to fit under silent ones. Bolex made a H9 camera, very similar to their H16, but they seem to be quite rare.
The soundtracks on 9.5 mm prints are quite narrow, about half the width of those on 16 or 35 mm. I was told by somebody who used to work at the lab they were usually made by optical reduction from the original 35 mm tracks rather than being recorded, and that the tracks on some of the prints are actually negative. As with the original 35 mm sound format the space for the track was created by reducing the frame area on the left, so the picture area became almost square. Unlike 35 mm, the frame height was never reduced to restore the original aspect ratio. 9.5 mm sound projectors have a movable metal slide to mask off the track area when running sound prints. Mannetic sound was also introduced later, but was rare. Within the last ten years or so there was a company still offering a mag striping service for 9.5 mm film.
Unlike 16 mm, camera originals are normally spooled emulsion in for projection, so the spools turn anti-clockwise on most machines.
I'm not aware of any 9.5 mm arc projectors, other than at least one, and probably a handful, of the Buckingham conversions which Leo mentions being of Xenon machines. 9.5 mm never really moved out of the home, in the way that 16 mm did to be used in education, training, television and various other non-theatrical applications. Pathe did introduce a 17.5 mm format, Pathe Rural, some time after 9.5 mm. This was unlike other older 17.5 mm formats, it was similar to 16 mm, but with smaller, almost square perforations, not much bigger than Super-8 ones. The corners of the frame were rounded, enabling the frame to fill almost almost the full width of the film, except for the track area on the left. Strangely, the sound advance was 20 frames in some countries and 26 frames in others. I've only ever seen one projector, and the owner had fitted an extra roller to enable him to run either type of print. The illumination was incandescent, and not very bright, but probably adequate for village halls etc. where it was intended to be used in small communities which did not have a cinema. The format was quite popular for a while, but was suppressed by the Nazis who did not like the idea that people could be watching non-approved films. I think they destroyed most of the equipment, and the format was not revived after the war.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-18-2012 10:34 AM
quote: Stephen Furley
The format was quite popular for a while, but was suppressed by the Nazis who did not like the idea that people could be watching non-approved films. I think they destroyed most of the equipment, and the format was not revived after the war.
Do you have any primary source references for this? The only things I can find after a quick look on my bookshelf and the web are this research paper, which suggests that Pathé Rural was a victim of mismanagement within Pathé in the late 1930s more generally (if my reading of the French is correct), and this:
quote: Here
Le format 17,5 mm « Pathé-Rural» est interdit par l'occupant allemand. Tout le matériel doit être converti au format 16 mm.
My translation: The 17.5mm Pathé-Rural format was forbidden by the occupying Germans. All the 'materiel' (hardware? films?) had to be converted to the 16mm format.
If the Nazis wanted to suppress small gauge film because they didn't want, for example, Resistance propaganda to be distributed, why did they allow 16 but not 17.5?
About a decade ago I stumbled across a War Office file in the (British) National Archives, containing reports from the Allied-occupied Agfa factories immediately after the liberation, where British and American scientists discovered that the Nazis had been sinking a big R & D effort into developing safety film. The Nazis clearly had some sort of plan as to what technologies they wanted to allow and what not, though I haven't got to the bottom of it as yet.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic