tomspielman

Did not see it in the theater I'm afraid. Let me ask you a question. Would iMAX movies look as good if they were shot on 35mm? Anyway, you're comparing movies viewed from a long distance away to stills being viewed from within a few feet. Very different things. A typical movie theater screen is anywhere from 45 to 65 feet wide. Let's assume for simplicity that the screen is 50 feet wide. The average distance from the screen in a movie theater is about 1.5 times the width of screen. So in this case people are sitting an average of 75 feet away. How far away are you from your computer monitor when you're looking at a pic or how far away do you usually stand from a 16 x 20 print mounted on a wall? Plus in movies the frames are moving by at 24 or 48 frames per second, - which hides the flaws you would notice in a still. You don't have to believe me. It sounds like you have access to both 35mm and medium format cameras. Shoot a roll of the same type of film in both and have decent scans or largish prints made. You'll see the difference.

I shoot both 35mm film and 645 and I can easily tell the difference even on a computer display (after scanning). I have a largish monitor and I can display what would be close to two or three 8 x 10 portraits side by side. The dye clouds/grain will be pretty evident in the 35mm photos, while practically invisible in the 645. Mixing 35mm and 645 in a slide show on that display, it would be very apparent in most photographs which were shot in which format, - if the picture was up for more than a second or two. Why do you think I bother with 645? Would a casual observer notice the difference? Maybe not, unless I had two photos of the exact same thing right next to each other in the slide show. That's just a computer display. Now imagine a slide show on someone's TV. 40" to 65" TVs are pretty common. 35mm would not look nearly as good. Most of the prints I do are in the form of a photo book I make for my wife on an annual basis. It's an 8 x 10 book and most pages have anywhere from 2 to 4 photos on them. 35mm is just fine for that. Even for an 8 x10. You can see some grain but that's not necessarily bad. If I want a print to put on a wall, it's probably going to be from a medium format or digital camera. But what if I had a really great picture from a 35mm camera? Sure, I might put that on a wall too, - but more for quality of the content than for the quality of the print itself, - if that makes sense.

Sorry, I probably should not have used the term "distortion" since that has a particular meaning when it comes to lenses, but what I was talking about is what you referred to as "exaggeration" when it comes to perspective. FOV is not just a pedantic discussion in this case. It's central to what the OP wants to do. They want to expose the 35mm film at a much larger frame size that what would be exposed in a 35mm camera. 55mm is still 55mm but it's not a normal or standard lens they way he intends to use it, - not like it would be on a 35mm camera.

It may or may not do what you want. 55 mm is a wide angle lens in medium format so there will be some distortions in perspective. That might be exactly what you're after, but it won't be the same as shooting a 55mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Unless the reason for doing it is to include sprocket holes in the image, - there are people doing this.

Not all commercial scanners are drum scanners though. And many rely on a gate or something to apply pressure to the edges of the film to keep it flat. I think you're right. Your best bet is to check with the lab.

One reason I've seen for people exposing 35mm film in a medium format camera is they want the area around the sprocket holes exposed as well. Is that part of what you're after? I think most people doing that scan themselves. The typical 35mm film holders won't work.

Don't forget versatility. There were soooo many more accessories available for 35mm systems. Not just lenses but fast motor drives, high capacity film backs, telescope and microscope mounts, etc. And maybe it's doesn't have to be this way, but working with medium format in my opinion is a much slower and deliberate process. It takes me more time to focus for example. I'm not saying that's bad, but it does mean that there's some situations where I don't want to use a medium format camera. Quality isn't just about the size of the film. An out of focus or missed shot is a bad outcome. I say this as a fan of medium format film cameras. But I shoot about twice as much more 35mm film and 10 or 20 times as many digital images.

Alan is much more of an expert on this than I am. But I have tried processing Kodachrome in B&W chemistry and it does work. As Alan said, expect it to be fogged. And getting the remjet off is a pain. I don't remember where the roll I tried came from. I do buy expired film now and then and it might have come in a box with some other film I actually wanted. :) Or it may have come with a camera. Are these family photos? If so, then the good news is that if the photos were exposed well, then people will be recognizable. But the pictures probably won't be the best. I think I kept one out of the 24 exposures I shot. Some developers work better than others on fog and there are anti-fog agents you can buy that might help: Benzotriazole I've never used one and wouldn't know how to do it properly. But I'm sure the information is out there. If these are rolls that haven't been shot I'd over expose them a stop or two.

I don't think the intent was to produce the greatest bird movie ever or to run an proper research project: Based on the pictures from her site, it looks like people from the community were involved in the processing of the movie. Whether her participation in the project turned out to be valuable or not, - you'd have to ask the people who are responsible for the project. Personally I think it's interesting that you can produce a developer from seaweed, and it was an interesting enough concept that the BBC chose to air a segment on it.

I'm also skeptical but that's what a senior product manager at Epson claimed: Epson V800 vs V850 — The 5 Differences and Which You Should Buy

There is some reason for hope. If I were them I'm not sure that I'd go with the 850 if I was going to sell only the one model. An "830" makes more sense to me. I believe the only physical difference between the two models is better optical coatings on the 850. I've heard that those coatings allow for faster scans since there's less processing that the scanner has to do. So there is a firmware difference. Other than that I think it's just the extra trays and full version of Silverfast. Maybe they provide a discount coupon for that instead and save the people who don't want that some money.

It's listed as out of stock on Epson's site but not discontinued. But assuming it is discontinued I wouldn't hold my breath for a V900. They have virtually no competition in the high-end flatbed scanner market and I would think it's a pretty small market anyway. So not a lot of incentive for them to invest R&D money into a new scanner model. The market might be small enough in fact that they decided it wasn't worth producing two separate but very similar models.

Take roll A out of the camera and put roll B in. Process roll A and dry it. Film those steps with B. Process Roll B. Splice sections of rolls A and B onto the same reel. There could have also been multiple cameras used. The video equipment was used by the BBC crew that was interviewing her about the process. You're seeing the results of her work, - not the BBC Countryfile episode, which I'm guessing would have been longer than 7 minutes. Yes, they would have had to process the film 50 ft at a time. I doubt the spring powered camera shown in one shot could even hold a standard 100 ft can of film. But the length of 16mm films aren't limited to what can be shot on a single magazine. Was any of it shot of on video or is that just speculation? Again it might have been, but to my untrained eye it all looks the same, Scratched film produced by a bad developer. And if you look at the film blowing in the breeze it's not hard to figure out where it might have gotten scratched. I don't think it's sound film. She captured the sound separately and added it to the final product, - which was digital. It does bring in another opportunity for fakery. Were those bird sounds from the same birds that were filmed? As to why do it? There's a little more background here. There are lots of reasons why people do things that aren't driven by cost savings or ecological impact.

I came back to this thread and wondered what happened to the Pixii discussion. Ended up learning about a useful technique. Seems like there might be a bit of luck involved in getting shots like this, - at least for me.

That is a good idea. Even better would be decide ahead of time what you would like done with them. If there are people you know would enjoy having certain cameras, you should record that somewhere. If there's a dealer that will give your wife a fair price for the rest, that would help her too. She probably doesn't want to sell them individually but having a good idea of what they're worth is valuable information. A friend of mine's mother put little tags under all her knick knacks indicating who should get them when she's gone. She did that a good 15 years before she died. Unless finances are tight, it often feels better for someone who is grieving to give a precious belonging away to someone who will appreciate it. But sometimes the things that are precious to us may not have any intrinsic value to those we leave behind. I think in my case, my wife or kids would get better use out of the money my camera equipment could bring in. As much as I like my OM-1, I don't know of anyone else personally that would want it. But I'm sure it could be sold for $150 or so. I think I got the latest one from Goodwill. And it more than likely ended up there because the owner died and the family donated it. So my last recommendation would be to get rid of anything that's not working. That way your family knows that what's left will have value to someone.

What makes you say that? You might be right, but I'm curious. I wasn't into super 8 for the quality of the end results. It started as just a fun idea. There's an old home movie of my brother and I as toddlers doing somersaults in the front yard, or rather, attempting to do them. My brother still owns the place and I thought it would be entertaining to film my brother and I doing somersaults in the same spot 50 years later. Yes, we could have done it with a phone. Would it have been as "cool"? Not by a long shot. I could have also post processed a digital movie to look like it was shot in Super 8. But I had way more fun doing it the way I did it. And I kept playing with Super 8 for awhile after that because I enjoyed it. The same reason I shoot 35mm and medium format films. I don't find pushing a button and having the camera or phone do all the work as fulfilling. Whether someone else finds the results worthy of viewing isn't really the main point. But if all I care about at the moment is getting a good picture, I'm more than happy to use a digital camera.

Some other organic options: yumyumsoups

Not sure what that is but I've seen similar looking 16mm cameras: By Okorok - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Kinokamera Krasnogorsk-2.jpg - Wikimedia Commons (my apologies to the moderators for posting a picture that's not my own, - hopefully the attribution is sufficient) Smallish 16mm cameras aren't that unusual. It was THE amateur format before 8mm was available. That developing tank can only hold about 50 ft of film so a camera with a larger magazine wouldn't have any value. And the old 8mm cameras (which weren't that big) shot 16mm film, the spool was just flipped over after it ran out, then the film was spilt during processing.

They birds and everything after are 16 mm. It could that it was all shot on 16mm, just using a 2nd camera. Remember though what you're looking at is digital, - it was scanned and inverted. It's a long story but up until a few years ago I had completely dropped film in favor digital just like most everybody else. My first foray back into film was not 35mm or 120, but Super 8 movies. My time with Super 8 didn't last very long because it's outrageously expensive. It had always been my plan though to reduce the cost by processing it on my own, - which I learned (or relearned) to do with still film. What held my back with super 8 was the lack of a good processing tank. The only ones readily available are old and from the Soviet Bloc. You can find them for inflated prices on eBay. In fact they show one in the video. Kodak no longer makes sound film for Super 8 and probably not 16mm either. If you want sound now it's got to be captured using some other means and then synced with the film. What she did is capture some background sounds and then add that to the digitally captured movie. You can see how badly out of sync the voice is at the end of the film. Anyway I don't think it's a fake, - not all of anyway. :)

Or just download a light meter app for your phone. They're accurate to within a 1/10th stop of an actual light meter, and probably at least as good as as a functioning meter on an FTB. I've used an app with cameras that don't have meters or to double check exposure on cameras with meters I don't particularly trust.

I've hopefully have a few more decades but the lesson is not lost on me. My wife was an only child. Her mother loved to buy things and hated to get rid of anything. After her mother died, it fell to my wife to deal with all the possessions. It was a difficult, difficult undertaking. Every nook and cranny in that big old house was filled with stuff. Some of it never used. After awhile my wife didn't care what it was or what sentimental value it might have had. The quickest way to dispose of it was the route she took. Now she regrets not holding on to a few things but at the time it was just overwhelming. So when may camera collection started ballooning, I too decided it was time to cull the herd. So I'm keeping a DSLR, a nice compact digital, and an underwater digital. For film cameras, one medium format range finder, an SLR, and a waterproof 35mm. The DSLR will likely get replaced with a micro 4/3 system at some point. The SLR kind of picked itself. I've probably owned 5 or 6 Olympus OM-1 cameras. Every time I sell one, I miss it and get another. So while a more modern SLR would be nice, I guess I just like the simplicity of the OM-1 and can live without the others. Aside from figuring out that the OM-1 was the SLR I most wanted to hold onto, I also learned that most cameras are replaceable. So if I were you I'd find a new home for your spare F1s and Fs. If an F or F1 that you keep breaks and you really want another, there is nothing stopping you from getting one. My camera buying habit has not been cured. It's just that when I buy one, another has got to go. One camera I'm having difficulty parting with is my Nikonos. I rarely dive but it is such a cool camera, especially the lenses and the depth of field pincers that move when the aperture setting is changed. But I don't use it so it's going to be on eBay in the next couple of weeks. If I really, really miss it, I can always get another.

I'm not really familiar with this camera but it may not need sprockets to advance the film. Medium format cameras don't use sprockets for example.

The movie:

Probably was right clawed until the... accident