[Frameworks] seeking double perf film

[Myron Ort]

Another thing that could be explored is multiple exposures advancing  
the film by one-half  (16mm) frame, eg. one double-8 sprocket hole at  
a time, then either splitting or not splitting.
I have to admit there are still techniques here which I never got  
around to exploring. There are actually quite a few combinations and  
permutations utilizing the Double8mm/16mm transconvertability.
I hate to see perfectly good weird techniques go unexplored and of  
course it has already been "shown" that every conceivable technique  
has its metaphorical analog right, I mean, if it is manifestable in  
the physical world it had its origin somewhere in the human brain.
It is the extension of BillyBitzerism to infinity.

Myron Ort



On Jan 25, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Sean Weitzel wrote:

> I know this is getting off topic in terms of seeking double perf  
> stock but I thought it would include well in this thread. My cousin  
> taught me a neat effect easily achievable with R8 stock. Load your  
> R8 camera and shoot the first half of a roll in ordinary fashion.  
> Reload in preparation to shoot then 2nd half of the film but turn  
> the camera upside down and shoot the 2nd half of the roll with the  
> camera inverted. At this point you have two options, 1. take the  
> roll out and have it processed but left unslit. Thread and project  
> on a 16mm projector and you will see a grid of 4 frames two on the  
> left are two adjacent frames of one scene and the two on the right  
> are two adjacent frames of another scene.
> The 2nd option would be to take this existing exposed unprocessed  
> roll of R8 (now at the head of the roll) and load it into a 16mm  
> camera. The resulting processed roll of film projected on a 16mm  
> projector would yield a grid of 4 frames as described above with a  
> full image covering all 4 frames double exposed on top of it. Very  
> cool effect.
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Myron Ort <zeno at sonic.net> wrote:
> There is double perf 16mm, and Double 8mm which is double perf 16
> with an extra set of sprocket holes such that if split it becomes
> Reg. 8mm.
> Yes Double 8mm could be shot in a 16mm camera or in a Reg.8 mm camera.
> Then it could be spit or not split, yielding several possible
> "special effects":
>
>
> 1. shot in Reg. 8 camera, not split= frame quarters seen, one side
> upside down unless anticipated in shooting.
> 2. shot in 16mm, then split = flicker effect, alternate frame
> quadrants.  See example below.
> 3. shot in 16mm camera, projected one sprocket displaced= half screen
> effect, horizontal split, top and bottom of frame.
> 4. shot in 16mm camera, double exposed in 8mm camera, then split. Any
> number of possible variations or possible multiple exposures with
> this kind of thinking.
> 5. who knows what you might come up with.
>
>
> Here is a film that was  double 8mm film stock shot in a 16mm camera,
> meant to be used simply as 16mm, but I accidentally slit  it, so
> there ended up two rolls (the two halves) of Reg. 8
> with the flicker effect of alternating quadrants, then, after
> telecine,  I juxtaposed the two halves side by side in "chronological
> shooting order"  in fcp, yielding this double screen effect with the
> rather mysterious
> connections between the two halves. Note that one half of the split
> double 8mm had to be telecined as A-wind, the other half B-wind in
> order for this to properly work out.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
> v=l4cNZLv5o9M&list=UUhNv2f1M4EKeyTB68E_n5dg&index=8&feature=plcp
>
> Myron Ort
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Steven Gladstone wrote:
>
> > On 1/23/12 6:21 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
> >> double perf versus double 8mm
> >
> > I always thought you could shoot double 8mm in 16mm, and when it was
> > processed you would just have an extra set of unused perfs (might  
> be a
> > problem with frame lines if you were off by a perf.) I never  
> tried it,
> > so I might be wrong, but I thought the perfs were the same size.
> >
> > On another note. I have a Redlake Hycam, and would really be  
> happy if
> > someone wanted to come take it off my hands. While I'd prefer a
> > 501C for
> > tax purposes, in the end I'd like it to go to a good home that
> > would use it.
> >
> > I'm located in Brooklyn, N.Y.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steven Gladstone
> > New York Based Cinematographer
> > Gladstone films
> > Blog - http://indiekicker.reelgrok.com/
> > http://www.blakehousemovie.com
> > http://www.gladstonefilms.com
> > 917-886-5858
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20120125/6c18a067/attachment.html