What camera's can use the 200' cartridge?

[Konton]

Here's that diagram: http://www.super8mm.org/manuals/economy%20drive.pdf

------------------
Konton the Grey

[#Pedro]

Hey guys!

The main reason for me, thinking about a 200 ft mag are the probs with the Kodak carts and to try different film stocks, which Kahl is offering in Germany. Up to now, there is also the K25 in silent AND STRIPED available.

The point of a economy mag without sprocket drive is the film chanel design, in order NOT to force the claw/gate section with the full or the take up reel.

Therefore I would appreaciate very much some fotos or pics of the old Kodak 200 ft cart FROM INDSIDE.

When using the sound section of the camera, the pitch roller would be enough to separate the take up reel from the claw section. The point is the free movement of the full reel, that must not affect the claw in any way, and perhaps the isolation of the take up reel from the claw when using the multispeed option of the Beaulieus (shooting with slow motion/undercranking with sound film). With multispeed, the pitch roller is not pressed to the capstan.

So, perhaps someone of you could be successful in receiving the empty cart back from the lab, to shoot some fotos and email me!

Pedro

------------------

[ulrichsd]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Konton:
There are times when being able to shoot for 10 minutes at a time is useful. Look at how long some of the shots in UNBREAKABLE lasted. I admit if you are shooting a commerical or like the way a Michael Bay film changes shots every 5 seconds then I'm sure you don't need this. But I like options.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just don't think this is a very valid argument. I haven't seen Unbreakable since it was in the theater, and though it does seem to have some longer single shots, I would seriously doubt any shot lasts over 2.5 minutes *without* a cut, or even more than 1 minute for that matter.

In fact I would be hard pressed to find any film that has a single shot with no cuts that lasts over 2 and a half minutes. Can anyone name a movie, other than a porn-flick of course that has a such a scene?

------------------


[This message has been edited by ulrichsd (edited December 21, 2001).]

[Ronson]

"In fact I would be hard pressed to find any film that has a single shot with no cuts that lasts over 2 and a half minutes. Can anyone name a movie, other than a porn-flick of course that has a such a scene?"

Hitchcock's ROPE.

That film appears to be one long, unedited shot, though there are a couple of cleverly hidden edits in there.

The opening shot of TOUCH OF EVIL.

The opening shot of THE PLAYER.

Any Paul Thomas Anderson film will contain some very long takes, though I don't know if any top out past 2 minutes or so.

Others?


------------------

[eddie]

beginning of slackers
beginning of 12 Angry Men

------------------

[Konton]

Hi ulrichsd, you must be a Michael Bay fan. I liked ID4 and The Rock as well. Not Armogeddon though. I own The Rock on DVD. But as some of the other member have shown, there are many movies that have a single shot with no cuts for over 2.5 minutes. Pulp Fiction and Unbreakable are the two I think of the most. The opening of Unbreakable when Elijah is first born lasts over 5 minutes with no cuts. The director uses the mirror help change perspective. I'm amazed how well it flows. Nice for drama's but not great for an action flick unless it's Jackie Chan and you want to be sure he is doing all the stunts.

------------------
Konton the Grey

[This message has been edited by Konton (edited December 21, 2001).]

[Supa-eight]

What about Boogie Nights? The Player was just about the sadest excuse to use a long take. They reference Touch Of Evil too much and it's not nearly as cool as Orson Well's opening shot.

So Pedro I do have a 200' cartridge that I requested back from the lab after processing, which came back yesterday. What kind of format do you want the pictures in? If there is any space on the web someone could give me I could post it on this forum so everyone could take a peek. Who's got some upload space?

------------------

[ulrichsd]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Konton:
Hi ulrichsd, you must be a Michael Bay fan. I liked ID4 and The Rock as well. Not Armageddon though. I own The Rock on DVD. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL... Aghh! I'm being misrepresented! I never said I always like constant cutting to different shots!

And I agree with you that it is nice to have the option to film long sequences, but I don't think its necesary. Since most super8 shooters are on a budget, it isn't economical to try and shoot shots that use 200 ft/10 minutes of film per take. One problem or mistake while filming and you start over? I think I'd just add a subtle cut. In my *opinion*, a 5 minute scene with 5 cuts, or about one per minute, will have about the same feel and pacing of a scene that is 5 minutes, with no cuts. Just my opinion however.

I don't have anything against Bay's directing style, just the movies he's directed. The Rock was OK, Armageddon was entertaining but cheese, Pearl Harbor was disapointing but only because it had such a lame plot. I didn't think Independence Day was directed by Bay, so I checked and it was directed by Roland Emmerich. Anyway, I thought the movie was pretty boring, not to mention unoriginal.

And maybe I'll buy Unbreakable. I liked it even better than Sixth Sense, but I've only seen that once.

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ulrichsd:
[B] ..."Very rarely will anyone need a shot that lasts over 2.5 minutes and it isn't that hard to open the camera and pop another roll in. "

(Matt Pacini resonds):
I agree with the comment about length of shots, in Lost Tribes, I only had one shot that I ran an entire roll out before it finished, and I shot 250 rolls.
But I have to disagree with your seconds statement.
It's not "hard" to do anything, but it's a waste of time and quite tedious to always be having to change film, especially if you have to rip off your blimp or barney to change film. It really slows the shoot down, and it takes everyone out of the moment almost constantly, because the roll has to be marked, stored in the proper place, then another roll taken out of the film storage, etc. If you're shooting a feature, this is quite a pain in the ass to be doing this any more than you have to.

This is the prime reason there are long rolls of film used, and the second reason being, that it's also even mroe of a pain to edit, when you have a zillion little 50 ft rolls of film and you're logging all the footage, trying to keep everything straight.
No bid deal for you guys who are just shooting a few rolls at a time, but picture me with those 250 rolls of film!
It would be a miracle and a pleasure to have 10 minute rolls to shoot on, let me tell you...

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Konton]

Didn't mean to misrepresented. My bad. Sorry. But whenever you talk about cuts in a movie I think about Bay's commerical pacing. I know you don't mean something do drastic, but that's what I think of. Anyway . . .

The nice thing about a 200' reloadable magazine made in conjunction with a cartridge is that you can change film as easily as with a 50' cartridge. Let's say you had 3 of these 200' reloadable magazines. Load them all up the night before, and while you are shooting the next day if you start to run out on one 200' magazine you can just pop in the next. If they are all exposed, then you need to readload again. It would not be as bad as with a 16mm camera where you have to rethread each time you change magazines.

Also I have to agree with Matt. I have trouble logging 5 50' reels, let alone 50. But that's just because I'm lazy and have lost all my long term memory (not to mention short term).

What was the point of this thread again?

------------------
Konton the Grey