Need help getting performance from Eastman 4-x negative.

[slashmaster]

Photographic density or opacity is the opposite of transparency. How much light a given area lets pass through. It’s generally given as logarithmic value.

The aluminum attachable base plate screws into the camera thread and catches the body. There are threads besides the one now occupated, a congress and a ¼".

The CKS doesn’t have registration pins. Single claw, originally in the +3 position but with later magazines +5 (perforation hole counted down from optical axis where claw leaves film). DIN ISO 69 says +3.

The Filmo is a very good camera. The gate and crucial parts are made from nitrited steel. No wear. Gate is well designed. Claw +3. You can oil the mechanism.

Professional cameras for 16-mm. film? Berndt-Bach Auricon (+3), Ciné-Kodak Special, Mitchell 16 (+1), Arriflex 16 (+1), Eclair NPR (+3), Cinema Products (+3), Aaton (+3), Panaflex-X 16.

The Paillard-Bolex H-16 and H 8 have an inverted film side guidance. Contrary to DIN 69 that defines the right-hand film edge as reference edge, as seen from behind camera towards lens, the fixed side rails are on the left and the spring acts on the right side. But there are still weirder concepts of lateral film guidance, don’t worry about. Even some modern 35-mm. film cameras are designed with flaws and bugs.

Oh ok, so photographic density is the lows and transparency is the highs of the dynamic range of the film?

What's a congress? Is that the adapter to go from the 1/4 thread to the bigger one?

I didn't know the arri was +1 position. Maybe I don't want one now, because if I want the best registration, the projector and camera should match right? The Bolex counts as +3 right? Super 8 is almost always -1 right? I wonder what the double super 8 version of the bolex is? By the way I think the spring that pushes the film sideways is way too stiff on a bolex. Don't you?

[Mmechanic]

No, density and transparency are applied to the whole image, either one or the other.

International Photographic Congress of 1889 where the ⅜" Whitworth thread was recommended as standard base screw thread for cameras

Arriflex 16, 16 M, 16 BL: +1
Arriflex 16 SR, SR II, SR 3, 416: +3

Yes, for best image steadiness camera, printer, and projector geometry should match. There are +1 projectors, for example the Bell & Howell Filmo and Filmosound.

Bolex-Paillard H-16: +3. With models from #100,401 on there’s a leaf spring right next to the claw.

Super-8: ‒2

[Simon Lucas]

Can someone please explain the significance of the + and - numbers in this thread?

[slashmaster]

No, density and transparency are applied to the whole image, either one or the other.

International Photographic Congress of 1889 where the ⅜" Whitworth thread was recommended as standard base screw thread for cameras

Arriflex 16, 16 M, 16 BL: +1
Arriflex 16 SR, SR II, SR 3, 416: +3

Yes, for best image steadiness camera, printer, and projector geometry should match. There are +1 projectors, for example the Bell & Howell Filmo and Filmosound.

Bolex-Paillard H-16: +3. With models from #100,401 on there’s a leaf spring right next to the claw.

Super-8: ‒2

Oh ok, it is possible to get + 3 arri's.
I just checked all my super 8 projectors and camera's. You're right! They are all - 2.

What do you know about regular 8? Just checked my Bell and Howell and seems to be a + 3. Is regular 8 almost always + 3? If not it would explain the bad registration some of my films get...

Have you ever had the chance to play with anything that records optical sound?

[slashmaster]

Can someone please explain the significance of the + and - numbers in this thread?

The + number is for regular 8 and 16mm and refers to the number of frames the claw is away from the picture gate. If you have a camera and projector that both have +1, you'll get better registration than if you're camera and projector have +3 because if your film shrinks unevenly, it's amplified over fewer frames. But what's probably more important is that whatever the camera was for that film is what the projector is, because sprocket hole spacing isn't always 100% perfect.

The - number is for super 8 because the claw is above the picture gate. I think it is almost always - 2.

[Simon Lucas]

Can someone please explain the significance of the + and - numbers in this thread?

The + number is for regular 8 and 16mm and refers to the number of frames the claw is away from the picture gate. If you have a camera and projector that both have +1, you'll get better registration than if you're camera and projector have +3 because if your film shrinks unevenly, it's amplified over fewer frames. But what's probably more important is that whatever the camera was for that film is what the projector is, because sprocket hole spacing isn't always 100% perfect.

The - number is for super 8 because the claw is above the picture gate. I think it is almost always - 2.

Thank-you. Good to know.

[Mmechanic]

What do you know about regular 8? Just checked my Bell and Howell and seems to be a + 3. Is regular 8 almost always + 3? If not it would explain the bad registration some of my films get...

Have you ever had the chance to play with anything that records optical sound?

With Double-Eight/Regular-8 it’s also +3. I’m right now repairing an Eumig C3 that positions ‒4.

I have made sound negatives with my own recording apparatus. I began with a half professional, half improvised device in 2005.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... g_2005.jpg

If I only had my lab back, then I’d probably be able to perfect that new sound camera.

[slashmaster]

What do you know about regular 8? Just checked my Bell and Howell and seems to be a + 3. Is regular 8 almost always + 3? If not it would explain the bad registration some of my films get...

Have you ever had the chance to play with anything that records optical sound?

With Double-Eight/Regular-8 it’s also +3. I’m right now repairing an Eumig C3 that positions ‒4.

I have made sound negatives with my own recording apparatus. I began with a half professional, half improvised device in 2005.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... g_2005.jpg

If I only had my lab back, then I’d probably be able to perfect that new sound camera.

The Eumig sounds like it can't have too good of registration but the turret looks good.

That's great you did that optical sound! How does it work? Got anymore pics? Is it a light going through a lens shining on the film with a valve between lens and light that you made out of a chopped up speaker? I've been thinking about trying to use a monitor going through a lens but I think that wouldn't be bright enough unless it was going through very slowly. What speed film is that in that pic? How does it sound? Did you simply modify a projector to build this?

[Mmechanic]

A bombardment of questions, so:

The snippet is positive film, the cheapest lab stock. Positive stocks have about ISO 10, sound negative films are slightly more sensitive, say ISO 12 or so. I knew there were a few problems to be solved, scattered light for instance as one can see with the fainter double exposure. The only picture I have kept, a cell phone shot. Basically, one old method can still produce excellent results, that is the Kerr cell from 1875. Early sound recordings were made with it and fresh prints off such negatives can sound astonishingly fine. My system needs a little secrecy about it. Its main asset though is not the linear frequency response but complete elimination of stray light. And, no, I didn’t modify a projector, it’s a recording device in its own right that runs exactly parallel to a magnetic film player.

[slashmaster]

A bombardment of questions, so:

The snippet is positive film, the cheapest lab stock. Positive stocks have about ISO 10, sound negative films are slightly more sensitive, say ISO 12 or so. I knew there were a few problems to be solved, scattered light for instance as one can see with the fainter double exposure. The only picture I have kept, a cell phone shot. Basically, one old method can still produce excellent results, that is the Kerr cell from 1875. Early sound recordings were made with it and fresh prints off such negatives can sound astonishingly fine. My system needs a little secrecy about it. Its main asset though is not the linear frequency response but complete elimination of stray light. And, no, I didn’t modify a projector, it’s a recording device in its own right that runs exactly parallel to a magnetic film player.

Yeah, did that fainter double exposure go into your picture area? Just looked up Kerr cell, I'm trying to understand it. But if you're doing this only to get a good variable density soundtrack, wouldn't a polarized filter be all you need? Been trying to figure out how to get better sound out of my projector. So far I've balanced the flywheel slightly better than the factory..