SHUTTERLESS!

[audadvnc]

Another possibility for variable streaking may be to mount the unmodified camera on a vibration table or high-speed eccentric motor assembly. That way you can adjust not only the amount but also the direction of the streak.

I believe that the "wormhole" effect in Star Trek 1 may have been accomplished like this, albeit in optical processing.

[Mitch Perkins]

Another possibility for variable streaking may be to mount the unmodified camera on a vibration table or high-speed eccentric motor assembly. That way you can

Spend a lot of money...

[mattias]

ha, i thought i was the arrogant asshole around here. :-)

/matt

[audadvnc]

No need getting touchy, now. If you've got a useful app for this technique, I'd love to see it.

[Mitch Perkins]

No need getting touchy, now. If you've got a useful app for this technique, I'd love to see it.

Touchy? You mean like -

"This sounds like the worst idea I have ever heard.

Why don't you just take the lens off and take a wire brush to it to get that "soft focus" look? Or throw the camera, loaded with film cartridge, into the oven at 425 degrees for an hour, for that "reticulated" look? Because each of these great ideas wrecks a perfectly good camera.

And for what? A one-trick-pony effect. It's not worth it." -dad

As for the apps, try doing something other than gazing lovingly at your own posts in this thread. The info is all there.

[Mitch Perkins]

ha, i thought i was the arrogant asshole around here.

/matt

Not sure who you're designating as your successor. If it's me, I certainly give back what I get. ~;?)
Sorry to see you have a moronic stalker here - I was going to jump in on behalf of all decent humans, but Rick tells me posts like that just get deleted. Nice.

Cheers,
Mitch

[mattias]

If it's me, I certainly give back what I get.

me too. that's what makes you infamous. making stupid remarks that set people like us off doesn't. :-)

/matt

[timdrage]

hmm, how about replacing the opaque shutter disc with a ground glass?

Interesting idea, but what for?
If you could extend the motor shaft you could put one out front for that DV shallow DOF trick...?

Maybe you could replace it with a multi-coloured clear disc for psychadelic colour strobe effect!?

"This sounds like the worst idea I have ever heard.

...etc
Haha, strange how as soon as people hit the internet, "That isn't really something that interests me, I don't personally need it" becomes "I don't see any use for that, therefore noone could ever possibly have a use for it and they're idiots for even considering the idea!!!! I demand proof that this isn't stupid! And no, those examples proving it isn't stupid don't count!"

I'm gonna give it a go with my next expendable £1 car boot sale camera... what a fool I must be!

[Mitch Perkins]

I'm gonna give it a go with my next expendable £1 car boot sale camera... what a fool I must be!

Hmmm, if the cam is cheap enough, it doesn't matter whether the shutter is integral to pull-down movement; just cut away all or most of the shutter instead of removing the whole thing.
So it need not be the Nikon, but I was blown away by the fact that removing a total of 11 screws enables one to pull it right in half.
Happy experimenting to you, sir.

Mitch

[mattias]

hmm, how about replacing the opaque shutter disc with a ground glass?

Interesting idea, but what for?

...but still leave a sector open just as in the regular shutter disc. it would flash the film without streaking (so much).

/matt

[timdrage]

Aaaah, clever!

[sonickel]

Mitch, could you please post an example of your shutterless work, say a short clip?

I'm not understanding how it could be possible to shoot shutterless S8 without the whole thing being a blur, but seeing the results would be more persuasive.

Love the idea though

[MovieStuff]

I'm not understanding how it could be possible to shoot shutterless S8 without the whole thing being a blur

The reason that it works is that the film requires a certain amount of exposure just to register an image. This is called reciprocity. If the image being projected onto the film isn't there long enough, or with enough intensity, this is called reciprocity failure. For instance, let's say you calculated that a time of one second is needed for correct exposure. If you were to perform two half-second exposures, that would work okay. Even if you performed four 1/4 second exposures, that would also work okay. But, if you were to perform 1000 exposures of 1/1000th of a second each, the image would suffer from massive underexposure, if you actually created an image at all. This is an example of "reciprocity failure". No single exposure was sufficient to "kick" the chemical reaction necessary to create an image. Therefore, even though 1000 exposures at 1/1000th of a second add up to 1 second, the film would be dark.

So, if one exposes film to light quick enough, no exposure takes place. How long the film is exposed to the light can be controlled by more than just the shutter or the iris. It can also be controlled by how fast the film is moved into the path of the light, left there, and then removed. While the film IS being exposed to light during movement in the camera, that image is not allowed to collect in one spot during transport and, thus, reciprocity failure protects the film as long as it is moving rapidly. But, once the film stops, it is stationary long enough to allow the chemical reaction to kick in and an exposure is registered on the film. Then the film is yanked out of the path of the light at the same speed it was brought in. Reciprocity failure protects the film on the way out, as well.

Now, if this were to take place in broad daylight, the film would be completely over exposed because the amount of light hitting the film is enough to register, even with the film moving. But, if this were to take place in a dark setting, only very bright lights would register on the film. If they are bright enough, they'll create streaks while the film is moving. But, if their intensity is not enough, reciprocity failure will protect the film until stationary and then those lights will create an image on the film. Under correct conditions, it is 100% possible to create perfect imagery with no perceptible blurring without a shutter of any kind. The only thing controlling exposure is the length of time the film is stationary.

Now, if this is hard to get your mind around, consider still photographers that do time exposures of freeways at night. If the exposure is long enough and the lens is stopped down enough, all the cars whizzing by will dissappear and the only thing that will register on the film will be the apparently empty freeway. Why? Because the car passed off the film surface so fast that reciprocity failure protected the film. In the meantime, the stationary image of the freeway continued to build up until it was visible. So it doesn't matter if you move the cars past the film or the film past the cars. If the image isn't allowed to collect on the film long enough, the cars will dissapear. Likewise, if a shutterless movie camera can move the film past the gate fast enough, it only registers targets of a certain illumination and no blur during the actual move of the film.

Hope this helps.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Sparky]

I don't think it has anything to do with reciprocity failure, but merely that the period of exposure while moving is fairly insignificant relative to the period of exposure while stationary.

Mark

[MovieStuff]

I don't think it has anything to do with reciprocity failure, but merely that the period of exposure while moving is fairly insignificant relative to the period of exposure while stationary.

That is 100% true. But the idea I'm trying to get across is even a point of light bright enough to normally expose the film won't do so as long as the film is moving. The film IS being exposed continually but the light isn't being allowed to collect long enough to kick the chemical reaction. This is a distinction over a mere difference in duration where the film starts out in darkness, then exposed for X amount of time, and then back to darkness. For all practical purposes, underexposure and reciprocity failure could often be seen as the same thing but, in this case, the film is in light the whole time but an exposure doesn't result. Reciprocity failure isn't the mechanism that creates the shorter duration but, rather, a result.

Roger