From the RT article (pp. 18-19) on tonight's prog.:
'... granted the BBC ... access to the film reels that is digitised
together with the ... (BFI). ... wanted the footage to be seen publicly, except to say: "... puts the archive in the public domain...'
I wonder: anyone know if this means the full archive, or just the sections used in the 75-minute slot tonight (so probably about 70-72 by the time trailers etc. are stolen)? There are references to "400 reels", but it
isn't clarified whether those are the 4'10" ones you got back from Kodak
etc. for standard 8* (which would still come to over 27 hours), or whether they're bigger reels.
(*Less IIRR for super 8, certainly if sound, though I get the impression they're mostly not sound film.)
It'll be interesting to see if correction for colour fading has been
applied. (Some of the stills in the article suggest probably not - they
have the characteristic look of old colour film material - but those may
just be stills for the article and the movies _have_ been tweaked.
On 29/05/2022 16:07, NY wrote:
I think the films that the Duke of Edinburgh shot were 16 mm rather than
8 mm. I'm not sure in what lengths 16 mm was generally available.
I think Super 8 reels were 50 feet. I'm not sure about Standard 8. Was
that also 50 feet (or rather 25 feet of 16 mm that you turned over half
way through)?
Standard 8 is 80 frames/foot and Super 8 is 72 frames/foot. So those
equate to 80*50/18 = 3 m 42 s for Standard 8 or 72*50/18 = 3 m 20 s for
Super 8 @ 18 fps silent, or 2 m 47 s / 2 m 30 s @ 24 fps with sound.
That's assuming Std 8 is 50 fps.
Home produced standard 8 was 16 fps, give or take the tolerance on the governor on the spring drive. The 3 bladed shutter on the projector gave a flicker frequency of 48 per second, which was enough to convince your eyes that it was a continuous light source.
Sound film for standard and super 8 tended to run at 24 fps.
I think the films that the Duke of Edinburgh shot were 16 mm rather than
8 mm. I'm not sure in what lengths 16 mm was generally available.
I think Super 8 reels were 50 feet. I'm not sure about Standard 8. Was
that also 50 feet (or rather 25 feet of 16 mm that you turned over half
way through)?
Standard 8 is 80 frames/foot and Super 8 is 72 frames/foot. So those
equate to 80*50/18 = 3 m 42 s for Standard 8 or 72*50/18 = 3 m 20 s for
Super 8 @ 18 fps silent, or 2 m 47 s / 2 m 30 s @ 24 fps with sound.
That's assuming Std 8 is 50 fps.
You're right. I'd forgotten that Standard 8 was 16, not 18, fps. Did any consumer Std 8 cameras have electric motors (as Super 8 cameras had), orwere they all clockwork-with-governor?
It's interesting: when we had all our 8 mm films digitised, the Standard
8 films looked sharper than the Super 8 ones. I wonder if the Super 8
camera had a slight focussing error, or whether the coarser, more
visible grain for Standard 8 (more magnification needed for smaller
frame, assuming same film stock) led to the *appearance* of a sharper
image. The final film that dad shot was in the late 1970s, on Ektachrome
160 rather than Kodachrome, and the grain on that was horrendous - like
a moving coloured-pencil sketch :-)
'... granted the BBC ... access to the film reels that is digitised
together with the ... (BFI). ... wanted the footage to be seen publicly, except to say: "... puts the archive in the public domain...'
I vaguely remember that Dad used Kodachrome, which had a very fine grain, though the Kodachrome blue skies were a tad distracting. Fuji wasn't too
bad, though, for an E6 process film.
Dad never got into taped video and I didn't start making moves until I
could get an editing video recorder, and even them, I never made more than
a few. Stills are more my scene.
On Sun, 29 May 2022 16:44:00 +0100, NY wrote:
Did any consumer Std 8 cameras have electric motors (as Super 8 cameras
had), or were they all clockwork-with-governor?
I have an electric Std 8 one up in the loft somewhere, Japanese name,
bought from Dixons.
Did any consumer Std 8 cameras have electric motors (as Super 8 cameras
had), or were they all clockwork-with-governor?
Not single 8, was it? That used the same film format as standard 8, but pre-slit - came in a two-reel cartridge. Only one maker - I think it was Japanese, might have been Fuji; I believe it used a different base
plastic as well.
It's scary to see how much has changed: road layouts, streets which are now one-way in the opposite direction to previously, one section that was pedestrianised soon after we shot the film, shop names that no longer exist, still a few old-style pre-Warboys road signs.
I noticed a weird triangular perforation in this shot which the telecine operator had zoomed out to show the normal rectangular perforation but
also a triangular "hole" in the black unexposed border though which the
scene could be seen - and yes, what was visible through the "triangular window" (Play School!) did change as the camera panned.
https://i.postimg.cc/9Qgt9sv2/vlcsnap-2022-05-31-12h33m07s158.png
From the RT article (pp. 18-19) on tonight's prog.:
'... granted the BBC ... access to the film reels that is digitised
together with the ... (BFI). ... wanted the footage to be seen publicly, except to say: "... puts the archive in the public domain...'
I wonder: anyone know if this means the full archive, or just the sections used in the 75-minute slot tonight (so probably about 70-72 by the time trailers etc. are stolen)? There are references to "400 reels", but it
isn't clarified whether those are the 4'10" ones you got back from Kodak
etc. for standard 8* (which would still come to over 27 hours), or whether they're bigger reels.
(*Less IIRR for super 8, certainly if sound, though I get the impression they're mostly not sound film.)
It'll be interesting to see if correction for colour fading has been
applied. (Some of the stills in the article suggest probably not - they
have the characteristic look of old colour film material - but those may
just be stills for the article and the movies _have_ been tweaked.
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:t74uqm$bn8$1@dont-email.me...
I noticed a weird triangular perforation in this shot which the
telecine operator had zoomed out to show the normal rectangular >>perforation but also a triangular "hole" in the black unexposed
border though which the scene could be seen - and yes, what was
visible through the "triangular window" (Play School!) did change as
the camera panned.
https://i.postimg.cc/9Qgt9sv2/vlcsnap-2022-05-31-12h33m07s158.png
This one from 1926 shows it even better: twin-perf film, unexposed
border down either side apart from a vaguely triangular hole in the
right border with picture showing through.
https://i.postimg.cc/KjrvSSng/vlcsnap-2022-05-31-12h41m45s188.png
This one from 1926 shows it even better: twin-perf film, unexposed border >>down either side apart from a vaguely triangular hole in the right border >>with picture showing through.
https://i.postimg.cc/KjrvSSng/vlcsnap-2022-05-31-12h41m45s188.png
Very odd! Both suggest a triangular hole in the mask in the camera; one wonders why.
I wonder why the BBC chose to show some films zoomed out so you could see
the perforations and borders. A brief excerpt every so often reminds the >hard-of-thinking that this is archive material, but some films were shown >entirely with perfs, as opposed to just a few seconds at the beginning.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:10:38 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
I wonder why the BBC chose to show some films zoomed out so you could see >>the perforations and borders. A brief excerpt every so often reminds the >>hard-of-thinking that this is archive material, but some films were shown >>entirely with perfs, as opposed to just a few seconds at the beginning.
Sounds like another of those stylistic affectations that the director
thinks is "cool", or something. I really wish they wouldn't. A
television programme is supposed to be about its subject matter, not
about the technology.
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:PQ+jThTCGjliFwrF@a.a...
This one from 1926 shows it even better: twin-perf film, unexposed
border down either side apart from a vaguely triangular hole in the
right border with picture showing through.
https://i.postimg.cc/KjrvSSng/vlcsnap-2022-05-31-12h41m45s188.png
Very odd! Both suggest a triangular hole in the mask in the camera;
one wonders why.
Here's an even more intriguing example. In colour, from some time
during the war. The image through the triangular hole is darker than
the main image and has a magenta tint to it. Also, the unexposed
borders of the film are actually lighter (and magenta) than the darkest >blacks in the image. What optical feature of the camera could cause
that? Unless the edges were uniformly fogged slightly when Kodak were
adding the edge-printing of the film ID - but that wouldn't explain the >triangular window with image visible through it.
I wonder why the BBC chose to show some films zoomed out so you could
see the perforations and borders. A brief excerpt every so often
reminds the hard-of-thinking that this is archive material, but some
films were shown entirely with perfs, as opposed to just a few seconds
at the beginning.
The twin perfs confirm what I first thought, that it is either 16 or 35
mm rather than 8 mm. But then the image sharpness alone confirms that!
could have been at various stages: I know standard and super 8 used
reversal film, but would home movies on 16mm have used it, or a negative/positive process?
I wonder why the BBC chose to show some films zoomed out so you could see >>the perforations and borders. A brief excerpt every so often reminds the >>hard-of-thinking that this is archive material, but some films were shown >>entirely with perfs, as opposed to just a few seconds at the beginning.
I've only watched about 20 minutes so far. The irritating thing to _me_ so far is the occasional bit where they show it projected onto a screen, to remind you of the "home movie" nature (or even, I suppose, these days,
that it's film at all) - fair enough, but they'd not got the screen and projector lined up properly, so some of the image was on the screen box
and the wall behind. Any even incompetent amateur would have fixed that.
The twin perfs confirm what I first thought, that it is either 16 or 35 mm >>rather than 8 mm. But then the image sharpness alone confirms that!
As I said, I've only watched ~20' so far, but all I've seen has been one
perf hole per frame - was 35mm ever made like that?
...they'd not got the screen and
projector lined up properly, so some of the image was on the screen
box and the wall behind. Any even incompetent amateur would have
fixed that.
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
...they'd not got the screen and
projector lined up properly, so some of the image was on the screen
box and the wall behind. Any even incompetent amateur would have
fixed that.
You haven't been to many village hall lectures. :-)
...The one thing I remember (so probably they _did_ get all the
image on the screen or I'd have remembered that!) was the huge reel(s?);
I think it was a 16mm print, same as I used to show as school
projectionist on film nights, but I think they'd got it all on one reel
(or big ones, at least) to reduce the number of reel-change intervals (possibly to 0).
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 09:19:26, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:Granted I haven't, but I think if I did - certainly to one as out as
...they'd not got the screen and
projector lined up properly, so some of the image was on the screen
box and the wall behind. Any even incompetent amateur would have
fixed that.
You haven't been to many village hall lectures. :-)
that! - have had - politely I hope, and ideally in private, e. g. at the
tea interval - a quiet word with whoever seemed to be in charge of the projector.
Actually, I can only remember going to one thing in a village situation
that involved a projector, and that was a commercial situation, so
probably doesn't apply; it was where a travelling cinema company came to somewhere that didn't have a cinema (Barnard Castle!), and showed a film
(I think it might have been "The Towering Inferno") in some village
facility. The one thing I remember (so probably they _did_ get all the
image on the screen or I'd have remembered that!) was the huge reel(s?); I think it was a 16mm print, same as I used to show as school projectionist
on film nights, but I think they'd got it all on one reel (or big ones, at least) to reduce the number of reel-change intervals (possibly to 0).
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
...The one thing I remember (so probably they _did_ get all the
image on the screen or I'd have remembered that!) was the huge reel(s?);
I think it was a 16mm print, same as I used to show as school
projectionist on film nights, but I think they'd got it all on one reel
(or big ones, at least) to reduce the number of reel-change intervals
(possibly to 0).
There was a similar set-up in Wrington in the early 1970s. The feed
spool was huge and was mounted on a floor stand behind the projector,
but the take-up spool had to be mounted on, and driven by, the
projector; so its size was limited.
I wondered what the operator would do when the take-up spool was full,
so I watched carefully. As the cue dots appeared, a splice went through
the machine, the operator caught the splice coming out and tore it
apart. Then he let the loose end feed onto the floor while he removed
the full spool and mounted up an empty one. Finally he picked up the
loose end, threaded it onto the empty spool and the show continued
without interruption.
Presumably he then spliced up the films at home, ready for the next show
the following night in another hall. At the end of the hire period,
before he could return the films to the distributors, I imagine he would
have to splice back all the leaders and trailers he had initially
removed.
Granted I haven't, but I think if I did - certainly to one as out as
that! - have had - politely I hope, and ideally in private, e. g. at the
tea interval - a quiet word with whoever seemed to be in charge of the projector.
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:1psxjc8.a88h1e1lfo0hsN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
...The one thing I remember (so probably they _did_ get all the
image on the screen or I'd have remembered that!) was the huge reel(s?); >>> I think it was a 16mm print, same as I used to show as school
projectionist on film nights, but I think they'd got it all on one reel
(or big ones, at least) to reduce the number of reel-change intervals
(possibly to 0).
There was a similar set-up in Wrington in the early 1970s. The feed
spool was huge and was mounted on a floor stand behind the projector,
but the take-up spool had to be mounted on, and driven by, the
projector; so its size was limited.
I wondered what the operator would do when the take-up spool was full,
so I watched carefully. As the cue dots appeared, a splice went through
the machine, the operator caught the splice coming out and tore it
apart. Then he let the loose end feed onto the floor while he removed
the full spool and mounted up an empty one. Finally he picked up the
loose end, threaded it onto the empty spool and the show continued
without interruption.
Presumably he then spliced up the films at home, ready for the next show
the following night in another hall. At the end of the hire period,
before he could return the films to the distributors, I imagine he would
have to splice back all the leaders and trailers he had initially
removed.
The ultimate in large reels was the IMAX projector at the Bradford >Film/TV/Photography. There was a viewing window into the projection booth
and the reels were about 10 feet across, laid horizontally on a one-sided >platter, and I think the film fed from the centre of the reel though I may
be imagining that. The take-up was a similar arrangement. It was mesmerising >to watch!
There are lots of fascinating youtube videos of Imax projection
systems. They don't all show the centre-feed arrangement, so maybe
it's a recent invention to avoid the need to rewind after every
showing, which must have been a fairly onerous task with such
collossal spools. The usual arrangement seems to involve about a mile
of leader film going in loops round dozens of pulleys all round the
room - anything to mimimise the number of times they need to get the
forklift out to move any of the spools.
I was so in awe of the dead sharp, rock steady perforations and
picture frame, but then I thought it was all too good to be true, and
the that effect was added afterwards. Who knows?
"Dave W" <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >news:gjts9hhrkgkfd74pg13ak4gelmo28lmdfc@4ax.com...
I was so in awe of the dead sharp, rock steady perforations and
picture frame, but then I thought it was all too good to be true, and
the that effect was added afterwards. Who knows?
Funny you should say that, because I wondered the same thing at one
stage. Odd that they would also add the strange triangular "window"
through the unexposed film border.
I did see a few cases where the perforations weaved around while the
picture remained steady, which suggests that some image-stabilisation >software was being used to compensate for camera shake.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:11:40 |
| Calls: | 6,661 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,403 |
