8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | register | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » 9.5mm Forum   » How best to prepare 9.5mm for scanning?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: How best to prepare 9.5mm for scanning?
Guy Burns
Junior
Posts: 10
From: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
Registered: Apr 2017


 - posted April 28, 2017 10:50 PM      Profile for Guy Burns   Email Guy Burns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm in Tasmania and completely new to 9.5mm. As part of a much larger project I need to:

• view 25 reels of 9.5mm film on 7" reels
• cut out the pieces I want, and splice together onto one 7" reel
• send that reel, and a few smaller ones, for scanning.

Scanning will be done at 2K on a FlashScan.

The films will never be projected, only scanned.

What I'd Like
I'd like to buy a film viewer, splicer, and splicing tapes for 9.5mm films, but I think I'll have a hard time finding those items and getting them to Tasmania. Hence my questions as to alternatives. When answering my questions, please remember I'm new to this. I've never seen a viewer or splicer in real life. I can only judge by what I've seen on the net.

Background and Questions – Film Viewer
I will be viewing and splicing 9.5mm films just this once. I don't need to see all the image on the screen; I don't require ease of use or speed. I simply want to get a rough idea of what's on these films, then cut and splice.

To emphasise this point: I went through about a dozen reels of 8mm film last year, before I knew that 8mm viewers even existed. My partner stood at one end of a slide light box (she was the feed reel), I stood at the end end (I was the take up reel), and every now and then I would stop, hold down the film on the light box, and look at what was there. I wanted to get an idea if the entire reel was worth scanning. There was no splicing. Then the films, on their original reels, were sent for scanning on a ScanStation.

With this new batch of 9.5mm films, however, I expect most of the stuff to be worthless to me. i.e. 25 reels will be edited down to one reel at most. So I need to do things differently.

A – Could an 8mm film viewer be adapted to view 9.5mm films, simply by making the rollers larger? If not, why not?

B – The image on 9.5mm film is much larger than on 8mm film, so would a modified 16mm viewer be a better option?

C – Do film viewers have claws to pull the film through, like a projector, or does the film move freely like in a tape recorder?

D – Assuming a modified viewer is suitable, I'd like to know the names of three models that are readily available on the second hand market, and that would be considered quality viewers.

Background and Questions – Splicers
I have never spliced. I imagine cutting the film is easy: use a pair of scissors. It's the splicing that may be complicated without the proper 9.5mm equipment.

These films will never be projected. Even the family who owns them are not interested in having them scanned to see what's on them. But there are historic snippets here and there that I want – such as colour film of the Queen's visit to Tasmania in 1954. So… when I cut and splice these films, the end result only needs to be suitable for running smoothly through a digital scanner. That means sprocket holes are not required for film transport – but they must be there for the scanner to detect. The scanner has to see the sprockets, and then calculate when to take the photo for each frame.

The film that is left on the original reels? Well, as long as the film is in one piece – even if not projectable – that's fine. i.e. I'm not concerned about sprocket holes being covered by splicing tape. Should I be concerned?

E – Given that a digital film scanner smoothly pulls the film through the system – and does not require sprocket holes (except for photographic timing), what would be the most reliable and easy-to-use method for splicing: tapes or cement?

F – Could an 8mm or 16mm splicer be adapted for use on 9.5mm?

G – How fiddly is it to splice film by hand?

H – What size and brand of splicing tape? 8mm? 16mm?

General
Basically, I need some guidance from people more knowledgeable than me, about how to approach this project. If 9.5mm equipment for viewing and splicing is readily available – and economical – I'll go that way. Otherwise, I'll have to make do, and that's where I need help.

Any suggestions as to the best way to prepare 9.5mm film for scanning, links to articles and so on, would be most appreciated.

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted April 29, 2017 05:19 AM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As your project appears to be a one-off it does seem unnecessary to spend a lot of money on a viewer and a splicer (tape or cement.)

I suggest that the use of a loupe (eyeglass) to view the shots and a bottle of cement (with single-sided razor blade) will do what you want.

Go to a jewellers with the spool of film and buy the loupe most suited for your needs. They are quite cheap.

A bottle of film cement is also cheap. Film can be joined by hand, cut the film a sixteenth of an inch either side of the centre line of the perforations. With the razor blade gently scrape off the emulsion on one piece of film to provide a base to base join. A slight dampening of the film will assist the scraping. Apply cement with a small brush and hold both pieces securely for about a minute.

Good luck to you.

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Sills
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1423
From: Weymouth,Dorset,England
Registered: Oct 2012


 - posted April 29, 2017 10:01 AM      Profile for Terry Sills   Email Terry Sills   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Guy
You can buy 9.5mm cement splicers and the cement quite reasonably on eBay.
If you have difficulty I'm sure I can help you out there. As for a 9.5 viewer/editor, they do become available rarely but fetch high prices. 8mm viewers/ editors would not work simply because 9.5 is obviously wider than 8mm, so it wouldn't sit in the gate and so focusing would be impossible. You could use a 16mm viewer/editor as long as you don't expect to be able to wind 9.5 film through it, because the sprocket is not suitable, but you would be able to view single frames. However 16mm viewers are not cheap, so the solution that Maurice suggests is a cheap alternative if you only want to view the odd frame.

 |  IP: Logged

Guy Burns
Junior
Posts: 10
From: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
Registered: Apr 2017


 - posted April 30, 2017 04:53 AM      Profile for Guy Burns   Email Guy Burns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the responses.

I think I'll need a viewer because it is very time consuming, and involves two people, to view a film manually. And you have to turn sideways to see the image, and be ever vigilant that film doesn't end up all over the place.

With about 10,000 feet of film to go through, I'm pretty sure I need some kind of proper viewing arrangement. But I'm open to other suggestions.

Two Observations
Are the following observations correct?

1. Using an 8mm viewer to view 9.5mm film is out of the question for two reasons:

(a) the film won't fit in the focussing area – it would stick out – so focussing would be impossible.
(b) even if focussing were possible, a 9.5mm frame is much larger than an 8mm frame so the image would be significantly cropped.

2. Using an 16mm viewer to view 9.5mm film would work, but to view a particular frame, the film would have to be:

(a) temporarily arranged so that it bypasses the sprocket
(b) hand wound to the chosen frame
(c) moved into the gate area, then focussed.

Ques
I don't know how viewers work (maybe someone could briefly enlighten me). I have a pretty good idea of how projectors work because I fixed an old Eumig several years ago. So bear with me…

Using a 16mm viewer, why couldn't I just remove the sprocket (or somehow bypass it) and run the 9.5mm straight through the viewer? I assume that doing so would cause the image to be blurred when the film was moving – but that's okay. I'd just stop every 20 or 30 frames for a peek.

Basically, I want to be able to sit at my desk and have a look at maybe 5% of the frames on each reel, without having to bother my partner or worry about film ending up everywhere.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted April 30, 2017 05:19 AM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Good 9.5 viewers are hard to find and expensive. There are viewers that can be used for several gauges but you need the adaptators so it doesn't help. I would suggest to look for a 9.5 projector rather than a viewer but the trouble is that you live far away from France and UK where reasonnable prices can be found, so the shipping would make the projector (they are heavy) expensive. Maurice's solution ( a manificent lens or a projector lens) is the cheapest but if you want Something more comfortable I'm affraid you will have to invest some money.

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Sills
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1423
From: Weymouth,Dorset,England
Registered: Oct 2012


 - posted April 30, 2017 05:26 AM      Profile for Terry Sills   Email Terry Sills   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Guy
The sprocket on a viewer drives the shutter mechanism so that the image is as it would be when projected. Without the sprocket/shutter you would have to view each frame separately, otherwise it would just be a jumble of unrecognisable frames as you wound the film through. Unless you could find or make a 9.5mm sprocket that would fit as a replacement of the 16mm sprocket then a viewer is a waste of time. The other problem you would have is that 9.5 reels don't fit on the 16mm reel arms of the viewer. Have you thought about buying a 9.5 projector and doing it that way?

 |  IP: Logged

Guy Burns
Junior
Posts: 10
From: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
Registered: Apr 2017


 - posted May 01, 2017 12:23 PM      Profile for Guy Burns   Email Guy Burns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks everyone, for all the helpful suggestions. Now I've got some thinking and searching to do.

 |  IP: Logged

Guy Burns
Junior
Posts: 10
From: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
Registered: Apr 2017


 - posted May 02, 2017 04:28 AM      Profile for Guy Burns   Email Guy Burns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Before I lash out and buy anything, I thought I'd ask here.

Is the Ensign Universal Splicer a robust and reliable unit that will help me splice 9.5mm films?

Here's one: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/282456430585?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

What do you do about new blades? Would a modern Stanley-type blade fit?

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted May 02, 2017 06:29 AM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An excellent buy. It's a cement splicer.
It doesn't use cutting blades, each half cuts the film when brought down over the film.
To remove the emulsion you can see the rough edged blade (in the left of the main picture) which slides back and forth until the required emulsion has been removed.

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Sills
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1423
From: Weymouth,Dorset,England
Registered: Oct 2012


 - posted May 03, 2017 02:41 AM      Profile for Terry Sills   Email Terry Sills   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would agree that it's an excellent cement splicer, but not an excellent buy at 45$.
You should be able to get one at half that price. Another one to look for is the Marguet tri-guage which is generally accepted as the best cement splicer.

 |  IP: Logged

Guy Burns
Junior
Posts: 10
From: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
Registered: Apr 2017


 - posted May 03, 2017 07:30 AM      Profile for Guy Burns   Email Guy Burns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Right! Looks like it's going to be the Marguet. And it's my lucky day – there's one in South Australia, with original box and instructions, delivered for $35 (about £21):

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Arguet-Colleuse-Marguet-French-Made-Film-Splicer-for-8-16mm-Film-Boxed-/182557716958?hash=item2a8149b1de:g:JnsAAOSwcgNZCVrZ

Is this the sort of machine to get me started?

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Sills
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1423
From: Weymouth,Dorset,England
Registered: Oct 2012


 - posted May 04, 2017 02:00 AM      Profile for Terry Sills   Email Terry Sills   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes that's the one. Now you need to look for a bottle of Hama film cement. Don't be tempted to buy an old product as it does degrade over time and won't work. Shouldn't be a problem.

 |  IP: Logged

Guy Burns
Junior
Posts: 10
From: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
Registered: Apr 2017


 - posted May 31, 2017 08:45 AM      Profile for Guy Burns   Email Guy Burns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for all the help. I didn't go ahead with the purchase of the splicer – because I was talking to another family member about the films I've borrowed and he said there was a 9.5 mm projector and a couple of splicers that should have been with the films.

Sure enough, after a bit of searching a Pathescope GEM projector and a Marguet splicer turned up.

I got the projector working again with Nitrile 0-rings for belts, and am now trying to use it as an editor. That leads to a new question for which I'll start a new thread about inverted images.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2