Topic Closed

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Upload your random pictures (Page 12)

This topic comprises 101 pages: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  99  100  101

Author Topic: Upload your random pictures Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 12-29-2002 07:35 PM                     quote: Paul Cassidy wrote: quote: Okay, I'm a little embarassed now because the picture has been photoshopped. It was flipped vertically before uploading. The installation actually looks like this: The projectors are angled upwards. I don't understand. The projector is upside down. So wouldn't the projected image be upside down? EDIT: No you have to be kidding. Look at the location of the exhaust tubing!  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-30-2002 11:00 PM                     quote: Imax originally did their pull down in two steps although some of the later cameras do it in one step. Unlike a projector it only has to go through once so any strain the film and perfs is getting is only a one time deal. Mark: I've never seen an Imax camera that does multiple pulldowns per frame except for some animation/process cameras that did 3 5-perf pulldowns for each frame. I think a special camera with multiple pulldowns was made for the Chronos time-lapse photography (not by Imax) but can't say for sure. The older cameras I saw a lot of (which as far as I know were the original type used for Tiger Child) use a Mitchell style movement with the claw engaging 3 perfs per side and pull down 15 perfs. They numbered the cameras sequentially when I was there, cameras #1 to 5 or 6 were identical movements and the high speed camera (60fps or thereabouts?) worked the same with some fancy metalwork in the claw arm. A later design equipped with a beryllium (!) claw could hit 100fps+ but sounds like a psychotic lawnmower with no muffler while doing so, and the engineers tended to be fairly distant if someone tried it with the case open. (although very stiff and light, beryllium is a highly toxic metal. Its dust and vapour are extremely unhealthy to breath or contact. Beryllium is the only material specifically forbidden in the Formula 1 engine rules) The perfs used for pulldown are not badly stressed at 24fps but show visible damage at high speeds. A loop will last quite a while at 24 but explodes into confetti in very little time at 100fps.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2002 11:20 PM                     David, You may be right on that being the Chronos camera. I do remember that it can't even make 24fps although I believe they tried to get it there. The pull down in that camera is by toothed chain. So its possible that because they have the time between exposures for a loooong pull down, that they would do it in multiple stages. I do remember that I read someplace several years ago that the very first 15 perf Imax camera did pull down one complete frame in two strokes. Its not unreal to run a movement at that speed, since the film only sees one pass. There could also be some advantages to doing that large of a pull down in two strokes. Mark  |  IP: Logged John Hegel Expert Film Handler Posts: 166 From: Lake Mills, Iowa Registered: Sep 2000 posted 12-31-2002 01:15 AM                        Anyone else have fish in their theater? These were at the former Mills Theater.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 12-31-2002 04:02 AM                     About a year and a half ago, someone from the camera department (Colin Gardiner?) at Imax showed me how to load the 2D cameras. There were three models in the building and all three used 15-perf pulldowns. I wasn't paying enough attention to the guts to notice anything else like how many perfs were clawed. I was amazed that the film was able to run through the mechanism with all of the twisty-turns it had to make, particularly the model with the separate feed and takeup magazines. Unfortunately, all of the 3D cameras were out on rental at the time.  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-31-2002 08:46 AM                     This has certainly strayed from any relevance to forum pictures... I can't imagine a system of running a multiple pulldown camera that isn't a mechanical nightmare - or all electronic. The Imax cameras (except the double strip 3D camera which uses synchronized motors similar to a Kinoton E projector) have a bunch of sprockets & toothed belts, how would one arrange the movement to pause - ie pulldown twice and then wait during exposure? Constant running would give a very short exposure window and stopping/starting the pulldown cams would cause a vibration nightmare. With animation, time lapse, or process cameras there's lots of time to do pulldowns and the machinery is stopped during exposure. The 3D 2-strip camera isn't too bad to thread. The whole front opens up and the film paths through the gates is then accesible. The feed paths are complex though! I can't remember the number of sprockets and twists but it's a few. I think any camera operator with 35mm experience could figure out a 2D Imax camera. I doubt if anyone could get the 3D one working without specific training. And I have a new digital camera and maybe I'll upload a new forum picture someday soon.  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-01-2003 08:58 AM                        Dave said... quote: This has certainly strayed from any relevance to forum pictures... But then Dave then went on with stuff about 3D cameras, Imax etc. and then did not post a picture. So I'll try and give this picture thing a go with some very POOR pix!! I'll buy a real camera one day, promise. But 1.0 , 1.5 , 2.0, 5.0 mega pixels where do you decide what is too little and too much and strike a balance at the price. Me! Me with a beer, no never. My Cat !! My car! Its a Ford Laser KF 96 hatch My House. Just Me and Mum live here. One of the dodgy projectors I have to work with. 2 x 5 tier Cinemecannica CNR 35 With Milk crates to reach top plate So there you go! Bill  |  IP: Logged Matthew Peters Expert Film Handler Posts: 179 From: Glen Waverley, Melbourne, Australia Registered: Nov 2002 posted 01-01-2003 08:09 PM                     You can never have enough PTR’s  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-01-2003 08:19 PM                     The original Jacobson camera used for Tiger Child and parts of North of Superior used a scissor type movement that pulled 7.5 perfs per stroke  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-01-2003 08:21 PM                     Geez, one media cleaner would do the job of 100 PTRs in a row.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-01-2003 09:05 PM                     Apparently, one can never have too many (mostly empty) 70mm film cans.  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-01-2003 10:19 PM                     Bill Shaw says it's 2 x 7.5 perfs: (and I believe him) http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1998/54/jan_story/jacobsen_story.htm but I've seen and threaded a number of the original style cameras and I just can't remember them doing 2 pulldowns a frame, something I can't imagine missing. Obviously I never threaded the remains of camera 1... did the design change to a 15 perf pulldown or has my memory failed me (yet again)?  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 01-01-2003 10:36 PM                        Is the pause between the 2 pull downs per frame enough see or even feel -- or would you only know by looking at the innards of the mechanism?  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-02-2003 09:52 AM                        Guys, SERIOUSLY I thought this thread was for uploading dumb pictures of ugly mugs (heads of people) and other stuff. NOT discussing stuff. So here are couple more pictures to scare you... This was My Favourate Cinema 4 'plex' (1984-1991) Im the the Dude in the Blue shirt, not the fat guy (training) He gave up and became a train driver, even fatter now I have no idea what I'm doing there with 6000's Oh, Yes I do, we used to do CHANGE OVERS in '85 So I guess I must be rewinding. BILL  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2003 11:11 PM                     Dave, It may well have been the ole Jacobson camera that I read about. I remember reading a article about him a few years back, just don't remember where I read it......wish I could find it though. It wasn't the article written by Bill Shaw. He was quite the prolific camera engineer!! So many unique cameras from one guy....geez! Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 101 pages: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  99  100  101

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.