Anno 2200: Hand-cranked!? projector showing YOUR K40!

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Post Reply
User avatar
S8 Booster
Posts: 5857
Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
Real name: Super Octa Booster
Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
Contact:

Anno 2200: Hand-cranked!? projector showing YOUR K40!

Post by S8 Booster »

Just imagine.

According to Kodak they now expect propely stored BW film to last 500 years and Colour film up to 200 years based on ageing characteristics up to now.

Just imagine that your films can be projected on, worst case, an ultra simple hand cranked home made projector.
Even with sound that might be.

Also there are excellent mechanical wind up cameras around and they may last just as long properly managed.

Back to the future?

The way film was shot and projected a 100 years ago may be valid for the next several hundreds of years.

http://www.theasc.com/clubhouse/inside/beg.htm


Image Image

R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
Carlos 8mm
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:24 am
Location: going bald!
Contact:

Re: Anno 2200: Hand-cranked!? projector showing YOUR K40!

Post by Carlos 8mm »

S8 Booster wrote:Just imagine.

According to Kodak they now expect propely stored BW film to last 500 years and Colour film up to 200 years based on ageing characteristics up to now.

If I´m not wrong, Kodak will change the acetate base of all their film stock in the next years. I think that the new film base will be polyester, like Fuji Stock. (Correct me If I´m wrong).

S8 Booster wrote: Just imagine that your films can be projected on, worst case, an ultra simple hand cranked home made projector.
Even with sound that might be.

Also there are excellent mechanical wind up cameras around and they may last just as long properly managed.

Back to the future?

The way film was shot and projected a 100 years ago may be valid for the next several hundreds of years.

This shows you that we´re in a very critical technological era . The digital systems could be cheap, flexible, but all these advantages go against the Image quality. I hate from the deep of myself all these Hyper-compressed video images. Sometimes I wish to return to the U-Matic era, or better, 16 mm Auricon camera´s era. :(

Digital technology for audio recording was a great advance, but a greater resolution in bits and higher sample fequency must to be necessary to be next to the analogical audio quality. (Of course, It´s very easy to deceive the ear instead the eye.) :?


Carlos. (Uncompressed) :wink:
User avatar
wahiba
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 9:24 am
Real name: David
Location: Keighley, UK
Contact:

Post by wahiba »

:lol: It is part of the human condition that the era just past was always better than the present. No doubt future image makers with their micro-bio storage devices will be reminising about the great days of digital tape.
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html
User avatar
S8 Booster
Posts: 5857
Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
Real name: Super Octa Booster
Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
Contact:

Post by S8 Booster »

Still the film material can be viewed by simply adding aproperiate light bursts while there (in 2200) probably exists no "recordings" from 2003 and if there are the data (analog or digital) will have to be processed to see.

So, handcranking and a candle light + a condenser lens (or two?) is = all it takes to watch moving images.

Approximately.

R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
mathis
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:56 pm
Location: München
Contact:

Re: Anno 2200: Hand-cranked!? projector showing YOUR K40!

Post by mathis »

Carlos 8mm wrote: (Of course, It´s very easy to deceive the ear instead the eye.) :?

Carlos. (Uncompressed) :wink:
i would say it is far the opposite!
Post Reply