-
Okay, is there a mathmatician in the house?
Long ago, a buddy of mine had a Fuji single 8 camera and we used to cram about 30 feet of Eastman film into his used single 8 cassettes. 30 feet was about all you could fit because the Eastman film was thicker.
Now, it occurs to me that since single 8 is still being made and is only about one third the thickness of Eastman film, then some industrious person could perhaps load Fuji single 8 film into a (new, jitter free) standard super 8 cart. The question is: Just how much extra film could be loaded? I mean, if the film is only a third the thickness, wouldn't that mean you could have a third more film? Or would that mean two thirds more film?
Just imagine, a standard super 8 cart with about 83 feet of film. That would be about about a continuous 4 minute run (I think). Anyway, while some have tried having Fuji film perfed and loaded, the perfs seemed ragged but Fuji apparently does not have that problem and I would imagine it would run smoothly. The only questions are A) will the thinner film run correctly and B) the footage counters will go bonkers.
Hmmmmm. Anyone got a phone number for Fuji? [img]smile.gif[/img]
Roger
-
Ahhh! My brain just exploded. What if we could load Single 8 film into a 200 cart?!!!! That would (I think) give you an extra 132 feet or so. Yippeeee! 332 feet or about 15 minutes per load. (again, I'm estimating in my head and am terrible at math so this could be totally wrong)
Roger
-
IF the film were exactly a third of the thickness, then you could spool twice as much again than the thicker film. If in this case we "know" that 30' of Eastman film fits in a 50' cart, and again we "know" that the Fuji film is precisely a third of the thickness of Eastman, then the immediate figure that springs to mind is 90', but this is not taking into consideration other factors, such as the tightness of spooling; spooling is never super-tight, and probably shouldn't be either, in which case some margin should be allowed for the extra spacing involved - perhaps 10', so I would say 80' on a 50' reel and 320' on a 200' reel, which would hypothetically render you with a 15 or 16 minute shooting reel, as you say. Sounds good to me. Is it possible to reload a 200' cart though? Perhaps you could adapt one? Good luck - sounds worthwhile trying.
Lucas
-
Theres no free lunch, baby!I
I bet the lab would charge you more, if they did not screw it up!
-
Sure, they'd charge you more, but that's not the issue.
The main use for this, apart from the ability to do "Catch-22-esque" openning sequences (unlikely really, huh?) and the ability to shoot more scenes without changing cassette, is the possibility this opens up for making editless projection prints for longer films, using the workprinter as a filmprinter. Just think - you could make a 15 minute film for projection with no edit tape, by transferring from the spliced film, and have it soundstriped without jolts or seams - cool, huh?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
we used to cram about 30 feet of Eastman film into his used single 8 cassettes. 30 feet was about all you could fit because the Eastman film was thicker.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
This means that 30 feet of Eastman has the same volume as 50 feet of Fuji. That volume is:
V = T x L x W
where V is the volume, T is the thickness, L is the length and W is the width. If we use [E] to indicate that a variable refers to Eastman film and [F] refers to Fuji film then
V[E] = V[F]
or
T[E] x L[E] x W[E] = T[F] x L[F] x W[F]
now W[E] = W[F] = 8mm so we can divide them out
T[E] x L[E] = T[F] x L[F]
Call this Equation 1.
From Eq 1 we get
T[E] = T[F] x L[F] / L[E]
and
T[E]/T[F] = L[F]/L[E] = 50'/30' = 1.67
meaning Eastman film is 1.67 times thicker than Fuji.
now solve Eq. 1 for
L[F] = (T[E] x L[E]) / T[F]
or
L[F] = (T[E]/T[F]) x L[E]
L[F] = 1.67 x 50' = 83.3 feet
for a 200 ft cart
L[F] = 1.67 x 200' = 333.3 feet
Using a more conservative T[E]/T[F] = 1.5
L[F] = 75' for 50' carts
L[F] = 300' for 200' carts
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 31, 2003 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Actor ]</font>
-
Wow. My head hurts from reading that. And to think in my ignorance I simply divided 3 into 50 = 16.66 x 2 = 33.33 + 50 = 83.33 feet. But then again, I'm lousy at math. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Roger
-
Roger,
If you can load only 30 ft. of Kodak film into a Single 8 cartridge let?s do a little bit of mathematics:
50 ft ________ 100%
30 ft_________X= 30 ft x 100% /50 ft= 60 %
This means that Fuji polyester base stocks loaded into Super 8 50 ft cartridges can give 40% more time to filming (Fuji?s base is 40% narrower than Kodak base).
So running at 24 fps:
50 ft of Kodak film: time of shooting: 2?30"
70 ft of Fuji film stock= 2?30"= 150" → 150" +( 40%= 60") = 210"= 3?30" → 1 minute more of shooting at 24 fps. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
At 18 fps (50 ft): 3?20" = 200" → 70 ft: 200" + (40%= 80")= 280" = 4?40" of shooting. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
My two devaluated Argentine Cents [img]wink.gif[/img]
Carlos.
