|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Transfering VHS to 35mm/70mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-13-2005 12:04 PM
quote: Brad Miller
regular 8mm cameras did not use cartridges.
There were a few that did, but they were never very popular. They looked rather similar to the Kodak 50 ft 16mm magazines, but smaller, with two apertures through which the film was exposed. These were covered by a metal shutter, which was opened by turning a square pin between them.
I've used the 16mm magazines in Bell & Howell cameras a few times; they wotk ok, but are difficult things to load in the dark.
By far the worst gauge for odd loading systems was 9.5mm.
The original Pathe Baby camera took a 'charger', which held about 30 ft. of film, and looked something like a Fuji Single-8 cartridge.
After this they brought out the 'P' type charger, which was similar, but slightly larger. Later still came the 'H' type charger, which was smaller again, by having the take-up roll expand into the space vacated by the feed one, a bit like a miniature Arri 400 ft. 16mm magazine. None of these systems used sprockets, they just drove the take-up core, and the claw pulled the film off the feed roll.
The Webo-A camera was quite nice, I've got one, but it took a 50 ft. magazine which was, I think, unique. It was a rectangular thing, rather larger than the chargers, and the intermittant movement was built into the magazine, not the camera.
Some cameras took 50 ft. or 100 ft. daylight loading spools, which were exactly like the 16mm ones, but narrower of course. Even the square hole was the same, rather than the fitting that 9.5mm projectors use. There were even one or two models which took large rolls on a standard core, like 16mm.
All of these systems were used by Pathescope, and there were other makers who used their own systems; the Midas combined camera/projector for example took something totally unique.
All of the chargers and magazines were re-useable, and today you can still buy 9.5mm stock to re-load them. Unfortunately, all of them seem to be very prone to jamming.
How on earth this situation came about, I don't know, but I can just imagine the problems of a not very knowledgeable 1950s nine-fiver going to his local photographic shop and trying to buy film. The gauge could give good results, but much of the equipment, especially the projectors, was badly designed. There are still active 9.5 film makers, and a society for them, Group-9.5. web page I used to be a member, but dropped out when I was too ill to get to meetings, and now I just don't have the time.
They don't only screen 9.5mm film, but also 8mm, Super-8, 16mm, 17.5mm, 28mm and 35mm. That's not a bad range, is it? I think they've also demonstrated the very short-lived 9.5mm duplex widescreen format, but I haven't seen that. It was a system using horizontally running 9.5mm film with special perforations, which was passed through the camera twice, and then slit into two 4.75mm strips for projection.
The fact that 9.5mm is thill with us over four decades after Pathescope ceased to exist says something about film: It's a simple technology in which it is possible to improvise. For example, the slitting and perforating of camera stock is a one-man operation carried out somewhere in France. It is actually made from Fuji unperforated 35mm slide film, and the total quantity produced is very small. It is imported into this Country in 500 ft. rolls, and can be bought in that form, or as short reloads for chargers and spools. Just a few rolls are imported each year, and I don't think much more is used in France. It would be difficult to support obsolete digital systems on that scale.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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