time lapse / animation with your 35mm still camera

[Patrick]

Here's a fun thing to try but I don't know how cost effective it would be. It partly depends on whether facilities exist to make a 35mm movie reversal print from 35mm negative still film. Basically, the idea would be to use a tripod mounted SLR still camera like my Canon AE1 to do time lapse and / or stop motion animation - shooting required frames with a cable release and manual exposure. A movie print would then be made and the film projected. The results would be very impressive in terms of quality and at the same time being an interesting experiment.

Though I can see two shortcomings with this. Firstly, a frame of 35mm still film is not the same size or proportions as a frame from 35mm movie film. Hence, the gate of the movie projector would probably crop the image quite severely. Additionally, as 36 exposures is the maximum number of frames in the average roll of film, this would limit the screen time of the shots from this roll to less than a second and a half. Of course you could try and rewind and load film between rolls, making sure that you keep the camera rock steady during this process. For time lapse, this would mean that you could only do long interval times (one frame every minute) like for flowers opening up and movement of shadows etc. Though with the Canon F1, there is a bulk film back available that allows a large amount of film to be loaded which can expose a maximum of 250 frames.

For the stop motion sequence in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, a Nikon SLR camera was used that had been modified to accept a movie magazine. Regardless of this acheivement, it would be interesting to see if a similar thing can be done with using still film in the camera as the negative.

[aj]

That would be viable method.

According to this Nikon pro magazine one Rolling Stones videoclip was shot using several F3 and F4 cameras with 250 exp backs. With a good powersupply 4 fps can be sustained and shots of 60secs are possible.

I am still wanting to film the nightsky. Just built a simple barndoor startracker. Now have to fix a steppermotor to it. Filming can simply (not thinking of the sky-movement) be done with NIZO and their B with open shutter function. Another idea would be to use a F3 with MF-4 (250exp). There is still plenty choice of high speed reversal films etc. After exposing the 35mm one could use a S8 with a macro-option and film frame by frame from the 'slides' to make a projectable film.

[Alex]

I researched this idea a long time ago. I wanted to get the modified Nikon with the motorized pin registered back and the 250 frame load. There was a hiccup in the process, I can't remember what it was.

I think the 250 frame load could not be pin registered, or the camera would not do time-exposure, I don't remember but it was quite frustrating.

[Daniel]

Hello,

The Original Camera Negative could be scanned on a prosumer flatbed scanner (or so) at 2K, 4K or even more resolution. Once all post-production process are finished (final editing or conform, color enhancement ...) the sequence could be recorded back to 35mm film through Arrilaser or Celco's digital printers.
The issue is that you need to know which is the final aspect ratio (1:1.85 , 1:1.66 etc) so that you frame correctly. Some area of the image is then cropped with letter-box during the conformation.

Regards,
Daniel

[Actor]

Though I can see two shortcomings with this. Firstly, a frame of 35mm still film is not the same size or proportions as a frame from 35mm movie film. Hence, the gate of the movie projector would probably crop the image quite severely.

Not only that but the standard SLR still camera pulls the film 8 perfs per frame while a 35mm movie camera and projector pulls the film only 4 perfs per frame, so the projector would alternately project the top and bottom of the frame. Alternately, a vista-vision camera/projector has the same aspect ratio and pulldown as a 35mm still frame. 35mm projectors, vista or not, are very expensive (ten of thousands of dollars) so one might as well dream.

There is an alternative. Although rare, half-frame 35mm still cameras do exist. I used to own one, a Canon. It took 72 frames on a normally 36 exposure cassette. It was stolen by burglars, dammit!

These half-frame cameras do show up on eBay occasionally. One of these would be just the ticket. A regular 35mm projector would project the film normally.

Additionally, as 36 exposures is the maximum number of frames in the average roll of film, this would limit the screen time of the shots from this roll to less than a second and a half.

With a half-frame camera you have 72 exposures. Plus animators normally double click the shutter anyway, meaning animation is 12fps, not 24fps. If you postpone this frame doubling until the print is made (or telecine) then your movie would last 6 seconds.

Of course you could try and rewind and load film between frames

Why between frames? Don't you mean between rolls?

For time lapse, this would mean that you could only do long interval times (one frame every minute) like for flowers opening up and movement of shadows etc.

Not necessarily. Using a beam splitter and two cameras very carefully aligned on the same effective optical axis you could load one camera while the other is filming. Speeds as fast as one frame every two seconds might be possible.

Even better than a beam splitter would be a fixture to hold a mirror which could quickly switch the optical path from one camera to the other, thus avoiding the loss of a stop.

It would be great to try K-62 and K-200 for this. Imagine, 35mm movie Kodachrome on the big screen.

Another possibility, 35mm scanners are available and relatively cheap. Could one of them be interfaced with Dodcap or CaptureMate?

[Patrick]

All very good suggestions. Aj, that is really interesting that Nikons were used to shoot a Rolling Stones videoclip.

This has given me another idea - shoot your timelapse or animation on slide film, scan it, convert to movie files and then burn to DVD for playback. Of course, the developed film should not be cut into individual frames and mounted as mounts can vary slightly with their placement of the borders around the image. It should ideally be one long, continous strip of film. Alex, you brought up a good point of the need for a registration pin. Then again, I have got more than adequate time lapse and stop motion footage with a super 8 cartridge so I would think that a 35mm still camera would provide at least the same amount of acceptable steadiness, if not more, but obviously not as good as a 35mm movie camera.

[Patrick]

Woops! I meant to type 'inbetween rolls', not frames!

'Animators usually double click the frame'
True, I use two frames when I do animation. Though the norm for time lapse is one frame every so often.

'35mm projectors are usually very expensive.'

Actually, I have discovered that you don't always necassarily have to fork out a fortune to purchase a 35mm movie projector. On the second hand market, I have noticed compact size 35mm movie projectors (not the great big ones used in most cinemas) going for AU$400 - $600 or more.

Those half frame camera sound a like a cool idea. I have seen some of those at camera fairs. Though I would of liked to use the image area of full frame 35mm cameras to get the optimum in resolution. Additionally, as half frame cameras are made for the general snap shooter in mind who prefers convenience over quality, I would imagine that the lenses may not exactly be outstanding. Using a 35mm SLR like a Canon or Nikon would not only allow one to use very high quality optics but such cameras would also give you full manual control over exposure and depth of field etc. But as you say, the SLR's application is not viable if the super expensive Vista Vision is the only projector that would be useable.

[Alex]

I remember now, the 250 frame back could not be pin registered. I liked the idea of 240 frame shots, which equals 10 seconds.

Crest Lab in Hollywood was doing vista vision transfers at the time, but without pin registration, I didn't like the idea of sitting in a room at $600 bucks an hour with poorly registered film.

[aj]

I remember now, the 250 frame back could not be pin registered. I liked the idea of 240 frame shots, which equals 10 seconds.
.....

F3 and F4 are absolute top of the bill cameras.
Do they have poor registration?

[landsberger]

Forox made high speed pin register 35mm systems as did Marron-Carel.

Occasionally they come up on ebay but they are on the large side!

I believe that they also took at least a 400ft magazine.

Maybe one of them could be converted to do what you want.

[christoph]

F3 and F4 are absolute top of the bill cameras.
Do they have poor registration?

jeah, top of the bill *still* cameras ;)

registration is a non-issue there, so i doubt that a lot of engeneering work has been put into this point... on the other hand, sometimes i try something and it works much better than theoretically it should, so who knows.

the bigger issue with this whole idea is that the frame size is completely wrong for standard 35mm projection, which means you have to go through very expensive postproduction steps. everybody seems to be talking about 2K (or 4K) scans these days, but i guess nobody really paid for it, or they would think twice about it. recording it back to film is not cheap either!
if you really want to go the digital route, i'd suggest getting a digital photo camera, which will also elliminate the problems about changing mags.
if you go for the optical route, modifying a cheap 35mm movie camera (or renting a decent animation camea) sounds like a much better idea to me.

++ christoph ++

[filmfan]

One thing you can do to simulate time lapse photography with 35mm slides is, shoot a series of photos and then use two 35mm slide projectors with a dissolve unit. That way you could blend one image into the next. It may not be the same as motion picture film, but it would look nice.

[Alex]

I remember now, the 250 frame back could not be pin registered. I liked the idea of 240 frame shots, which equals 10 seconds.
.....

F3 and F4 are absolute top of the bill cameras.
Do they have poor registration?

Once I knew there were pin registered versions, I figured there was a reason. 10 years ago, high resolution video frame manipulation (done after the transfer) required expensive digital devices like a "Harry". It would have been cost prohibitive to smooth out the transfer on a Harry. And if I then decided to zoom in and change the composition, I'd have to do the video frame manipulation again because I wouldn't be able to zoom in on the video version, I'd have to zoom in during the actual film transfer.
So every pass would require working on a Harry.

I liked the 250 frame concept because the camera was relatively small. Although the frame aspect was all wrong for television, I envisioned being able to retransfer the same scene several times by "zooming into different parts of the film frame". In essence one 10 second shot could yield 3 or 4 different looks.

So my (1) ten second shot could theoretically have several different compositions on the final transfer.

[aj]

I remember now, the 250 frame back could not be pin registered. I liked the idea of 240 frame shots, which equals 10 seconds.
.....

F3 and F4 are absolute top of the bill cameras.
Do they have poor registration?

Once I knew there were pin registered versions, I figured there was a reason. 10 years ago, individual high video resolution frame manipulation required expensive digital devices like a "Harry". It would have been cost prohibitive to smooth out the transfer on a Harry. .....

As I read here in a local camera collecters magazine about a F2 with locally designed and installed pin-registration mechanism. This was mainly aimed at scientific usage. Also it could come in handy with stereophotography it was mentioned.

Just shooting the frames/sequence as you like and transfering it by using single frame and macro seems the logic thing to do. Onto S8, 16mm or even digital. A F3 offers a multitude of lenses and types of films.

[Alex]

There was a company in Texas that offered the pin registered mod, but they told me they could not do it in conjunction with the 250 frame film back mod that was also available at that time.

If you know of a 250 frame SLR back with pin registration, I would be very interested in knowing more about it.