Jump to content


Photo

Single perf 35mm


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:08 AM

Hello good folks,

I was reading the single perf thread in the 16mm forum. I got to thinking about my old Arri IIB and how it only used one row of perfs and wondered why not ask Kodak to disengage one row of perforating punches so that 35mm negatives could be produced with only one row of perforations. This seems like the best compromise to achieve 2.39:1 framing on spherical lenses, maximum film real estate, and 3-perf film and lab savings over 4-perf. Here is an illustration of what kind of framing could be achieved:

Attached Images

  • 3perfsingle_perfscopeframe.jpg

  • 0

#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:13 AM

Trouble is you do need two sets of perfs to keep the film flat and steady in the camera gate .
  • 0

#3 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:24 AM

A roller type pressure plate like on a Mitchell and enough room on the non perf side of the stock for a pressure rail would handle all of that just fine.
  • 0

#4 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:28 AM

Mmm maybe but need to be convinced , copyright it and then send it to Arri . Although maybe to late now to copyright it . :unsure:
  • 0

#5 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:43 AM

Sadly, American patents cover designs and not concepts. As well, Arri could modify their scanners to accommodate the framing and easily justify 6K scans of the larger image area. Certainly modern computers and drives could handle the improved data sizes. Now, we're talking a justification to stay with the better film quality instead of shooting in cine-vid.
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:52 AM

Sadly, American patents cover designs and not concepts.



I see never mind shame . Your idea is the same as S16 , i just think if it was possible to do it with 35 mm it would have been done by now i am sure its the registration and steady ness thing .
  • 0

#7 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:00 PM

A roller type pressure plate like on a Mitchell and enough room on the non perf side of the stock for a pressure rail would handle all of that just fine.


Hi Paul,

Remember an Arri 2 is not the steadiest camera in the world, however a Mitchell that uses register pins on both sides of the film is the standard that all other cameras are judged by.

Stephen
  • 0

#8 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:19 PM

Hey Stephen,

I thought about that too. My Mickies pull down on one side but register on both. My thinking is that the far registration pin could be removed on my cameras and still leave one for registration. That might be enough. As well, a modified registration pin mechanism could be made to pin twice on the same row. That would take care of diagonal registration. Since the camera would have to be re-geared, re-cammed, re-cut aperture plate, a whole new pressure plate made and the Nikon lens mount moved over, a modified registration pin mount would be just another cost on the list. Though, I wouldn't sink that much money into an MOS camera. My point is, I think the mechanicals for converting a newer Arri or its like are completely doable. Guys like Bruce McNaughton eat this kind of challenge for a light lunch.
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:26 PM

Hey Stephen,

I thought about that too. My Mickies pull down on one side but register on both. My thinking is that the far registration pin could be removed on my cameras and still leave one for registration. That might be enough. As well, a modified registration pin mechanism could be made to pin twice on the same row. Since the cam would have to be re-geared, re-cammed, re-cut aperture plate, a whole new pressure plate made and the Nikon lens mount moved over, a modified registration pin mount would be just another cost on the list. Though, I wouldn't sink that much money into an MOS camera. My point is, I think the mechanicals for converting a newer Arri or its like are completely doable. Guys like Bruce McNaughton eat this kind of challenge for a light lunch.


Hi Paul,

It's quite doable but registration will suffer especially at higher speeds. Satisfactory results are probably possible to 50 fps. On a Mitchell 1 registration pin is full size the other is thinner. David Stump modified a camera to have 2 full size pins. He said it was the steadiest camera he had ever used!

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:40 PM

Hey Stephen,

OK. So... what do you think? Extreme 35 (X35)? Bigger image, easier to use lenses, scope framing, 3-perf savings? Could you work this way?
  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:46 PM

Hey Stephen,

OK. So... what do you think? Extreme 35 (X35)? Bigger image, easier to use lenses, scope framing, 3-perf savings? Could you work this way?


Hi,

Most zoom lenses just cover S35, they won't cover X35. Don't know about primes but I think there will be issues.

Stephen
  • 0

#12 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:52 PM

While I'm aware of the prejudice against Nikon and Canon Glass, the tests on my Nikons came back beautiful.
  • 0

#13 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:56 PM

It would be a lot of work for a little more image area. It gets you a price/performance point between super 35 and VistaVision or 65/70, but so close to S-35 as not to be worth the effort.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#14 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:59 PM

I'm not suggesting converting every camera and projector on the entire planet. Just a few cameras and an Arriscanner. What effort? Image improvement does matter. Otherwise everyone would have already ditched film and gone cine-vid.
  • 0

#15 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:14 PM

As a test, you could shoot Vista or 65, and matte out an image exactly the size of your proposed system. That would give you an idea what it would look like, much easier than special ordering stock and modifying a camera.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#16 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:18 PM

Hey John,

I've never gotten a price on stock and lab for 65mm. I'm guessing it's a bit pricey. Vistavision is 8 perfs per frame. Those costs are very comparable to X35's 3-perf costs.
  • 0

#17 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:22 PM

I've never gotten a price on stock and lab for 65mm. I'm guessing it's a bit pricey.

Yes, I was thinking of it just as a way to do a test, so you could look at something before you decide to modify a camera.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#18 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:35 PM

You know, while my old gord-gears are grinding away... Why do we need perforations anyway? Get rid of the perforations and you could go scope framing on a 35mm strip and use up no more than 4 perfs in vertical space per frame. You could put tiny digital registration marks down one side and precisely register over rubber rollers driven by a blimped, micro step stepper motor. That kind of transport technology was well worked out back in the video tape transport days of engineering. How precise does it need to be anyway? If there was a tiny cross-hair exposed in the frame line just under each frame, then the scanned image would be registered in the scanner or even the computer as a macro of all scans. Damn, that's a real improvement in image area with no greater cost in stock and lab than regular 4-perf. I wonder if Arri could make that kind of camera work?
  • 0

#19 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 01:58 PM

OK. I did up an illustration. It shows the new frame in red and a possible cross-hair exposure and registration punch-outs .

Attached Images

  • 4perf_digidrivestock.jpg

  • 0

#20 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 April 2008 - 02:04 PM

Macro 35 (M35).
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

Glidecam

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

The Slider

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets