8mm Forum: 800ft s8 reel [rare?]

This is topic 800ft s8 reel [rare?] in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008577

Posted by Dimitris Mpakirtzis (Member # 3897) on September 21, 2013, 12:01 PM:

Hello, I discovered that 800ft reels are rare on the net, do you know any eshop having stock? I want 2 pieces. I am interesting in something like gepe or posso quality with case...

Thank you in advance.

Dimitris

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 21, 2013, 12:57 PM:

They aren't really rare, just a little underappreciated because they don't fit all the 600 foot projectors out there.

As far as I know, Gepe still makes their 800 Foot reel.

They have a distributor in Athens:

Gepe Distributors in Europe

Boutopoulos Trading & Technical Co.
29, Eratosthenous Str.
Athens
Greece

Tel: +30 (210) 701 53 60

Laser Colour

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 21, 2013, 12:57 PM:

You can find 240 meters reels but the regular sellers sell them around 25 euros.

Posted by Dimitris Mpakirtzis (Member # 3897) on September 21, 2013, 01:18 PM:

Thank you Steve, GEPE 800FT is out of stock in the company's site, Greek distributor doesn't import s8 reels, I just emailed a question about the future production of the specific type. You mean 800 projectors of course, not 600, right? Do you know 800 reel compatibility issues for the bauer t610 [specific company's product]? Just to know and to save money...

Dominique, thank you for the info.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 21, 2013, 01:46 PM:

What I mean is an 800 foot reel will fit an 800 foot (or 1200 foot) capacity projector, but a 600 foot machine: no way!

Super8wiki says Bauer T610 is good for a 240 Meter Reel and there are pictures of it on the 'net with the Gepe/Elmo 800 footer, so I would say you are good to go!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 21, 2013, 02:51 PM:

Paul Foster can supply Super 8 spools in 800'.
http://www.fosterfilms.co.uk/accessories.htm

Posted by Dimitris Mpakirtzis (Member # 3897) on September 21, 2013, 03:08 PM:

Ok Steve, it is clear...

Maurice, thank you, I have the Galactica in two reels and I want to make merge to 800ft long.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 21, 2013, 03:55 PM:

As Steve says, many projectors have a 600 feet (180 m) limited capacity. What is possible to do is to use a long play unit. This upgrades the possibilities of the projector and allows to use up to 2400 feet(720m) reels.

Posted by Michael Wright (Member # 1387) on September 22, 2013, 05:09 AM:

Steve, I can think of at least one exception to your rule. Some sankyo 600 feet sound projectors will take a 800foot supply reel and with a very minor modification will take an 800 feet take up as well. Cheers. MIKE

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 22, 2013, 06:08 AM:

I did say "all the 600 foot projectors out there.", therefore I did allow for exceptions.

"If the facts are on your side, pound the facts,
If the law is on your side, pound the law,
If neither is on your side, pound the table." [Big Grin]

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 22, 2013, 06:36 AM:

I readed several times (so I guess it was not a mistake) on this forum a plural number (600, 800...) followed by the word foot. I always thought that the plural of foot was feet. Is there a kind of exception when it is about measuring ?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 22, 2013, 07:11 AM:

That's an interesting point (never thought of it before!).

But this is all correct:

"How much film does a 600 foot reel hold?"
"600 feet, of course!"

I have absolutely no explanation either. English vocabulary and grammar get messy sometimes. (There's no reason why the plural of "foot" shouldn't be "foots" in the first place. It just isn't.)

I work with a bunch of guys from Siberia. First of all they are Russian speakers (of course), second of all they are metric 99% of the time.

"How much cable will we need to reach the extraction straight"
"300 feets"

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 22, 2013, 10:33 AM:

Maybe it's American English.

Posted by Michael Wright (Member # 1387) on September 22, 2013, 04:51 PM:

Like Steve said English is very irregular. In England foot is often the plural of foot! It's not correct, but everyone uses it. MIKE

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 23, 2013, 12:06 AM:

Thanks for the precisions.

Posted by Jon Byler (Member # 3933) on September 23, 2013, 12:42 AM:

I think the use of foot instead of feet is when referring to another object, like an 800 foot reel. I have never heard a reel refered to as a 500 feet reel. Just like with metric it would be a 240 meter reel, but the length of the film is 240 meters.

I think it has to do with referring to the meters themselves, or whether one is primarily referring to the object, whether one uses plural or singular form of distance unit, regardless of whether using the English or metric units of measure. I think this is the same in german, at least that's what sounds right in my head. No idea with other languages. Enlgish and German coming from the same historical/linguistic roots, it wouldn't surprise me if Latin based languages and others had a different way of dealing with this stuff.

Posted by Raymond Glaser (Member # 1766) on September 23, 2013, 12:55 AM:

Why do we measure horses in "HANDS" instead of "FEET" ???

I mean, afterall... horses have four feet (or is it foots?)--- they don't even have any "HANDS"

Just something to ponder ...

Posted by Dimitris Mpakirtzis (Member # 3897) on September 23, 2013, 02:11 AM:

Jon is right about the "meter", "meters" usage...

We can say that "I have to drive 30kilometers" and this is distance, that means that someone has measured the distance in the past, no more, no less than that.

The usage of meter in "240 meter reel" has another meaning, "meter" here describes a property [capacity] of the reel, using the reel we can handle no more than 240 meters of film. That's the difference. 240 meter reel = it is possible to use film 240 meters long in this reel, no more, less yes, bur no more than 240m. if it was not possible to use less than 240m, then the "240 meters reel" could[?] be right.

"meters" is noun

"meter" is adjectival in "meter reel" ... [i used google to find the word adjectival, I hope to be right...]

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 23, 2013, 04:08 AM:

In French it would definitly be always plural. "Une bobine de 60 mètres." (bobine means reel)

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on September 23, 2013, 04:18 AM:

quote:

In French it would definitly be always plural. "Une bobine de 60 mètres." (bobine means reel)

Because in French you never pronunce it anyway .... [Wink]

Just kidding.....

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 23, 2013, 04:42 AM:

That's why we pay so much attention to the spelling [Wink]

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 23, 2013, 05:02 AM:

At times there is nothing as strange as our use of English. We can use feet or foot and mean exactly the same thing.

At times Americans do not understand certain English expressions or colloquialisms. I was on a Caribbean cruise a couple of years ago and was seated with some Americans. I was chatting and in the conversation mentioned the words "chaps" and "blokes".

One American leaned over and asked:- "Maurice, what's the difference between a chap and a bloke?"

It's always been acknowledged that the English language is the easiest to learn, but the most difficult to speak properly. Perhaps that applies to the British as well!

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 23, 2013, 05:47 AM:

Actually English is one of the hardest languages to learn, especially as a second language.

A lot of languages have standardised pronunciations: if you see it in print, you know how it's pronounced.

-yet in English we have this:

Through
Though
Rough
Cough

English also contains more words than most languages, mostly because of all the different cultures that contributed them. This makes it harder to learn, than again it has a lot of shades of meaning. It also means English speaking people aren't shy about adopting new words (or even just making them up), so English is very adaptable.

Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on September 23, 2013, 05:50 AM:

I can’t claim to be an expert, so am happy to be corrected on this by more knowledgeable persons, but I think it is down to the use of foot as either qualitative or quantitative. The same confusion exists in English with the use of “fewer” and “less”, fewer being quantitative, ie; referring to numbers or countable units, and less referring to mass.

An example would be; fewer cars means less traffic, or, fewer people means less of a crowd. It is common place to see less being used when to be correct it should be fewer, as in; 10 items or less.

Feet is the quantitative plural form of foot and is used where you are dealing with countable units, ie; how many feet? or, two feet make a pair. Foot on the other hand is a qualitative measure where you are referring to the plural of foot as a whole, ie; 600 foot reel, or; this room is 22 foot long.

Has that helped, or made things even more complicated? [Confused]

Mike

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 23, 2013, 05:53 AM:

An American visiting in England asked at the hotel for the elevator.The portiere looked a bit confused but smiled when he realized what the man wanted."You must mean the lift," he said."No," the American responded. "If I ask for the elevator I mean the elevator.""Well," the portiere answered, "over here we call them lifts"."Now you listen", the American said rather irritated, "someone in America invented the elevator.""Oh, right you are sir," the portiere said in a polite tone, "but someone here in England invented the language."

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 23, 2013, 06:52 AM:

In the US a "lift" is something people put in their shoes to look taller!

Years ago I had my first morning of being unemployed and I was e-mailing back and forth with a UK 8mm Forum Member about how I planned on putting my career back together. I wrote "Step one is have my oatmeal." He wrote back "What do you use the oatmeal for, porridge?"

-once again: here "porridge" is something fictional little girls steal from families of bears!

(In real life nobody steals food from bears! It would be better, if not slower, to starve!)

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on September 23, 2013, 06:58 AM:

And how do you call "porridge" in the US ?

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on September 23, 2013, 07:14 AM:

Very funny, Dominique!

Anyway I second all those who have already mentioned quality Vs quantity. In fact one should also consider that two heads are better than one but there are "3-head cassette decks" around. In this case too the word "head" is kept singular" because it refers to a quality or characteristic (i.e. adjectival use) of the piece of appliance involved.
Whilst on the topic of spelling, another thing that I keep noticing is the use of "they'are" instead of the possessive adjective "their", or "it's" instead of "its"; these features keep coming cosistently, no matter it is Brit-English or Am-English... Maybe the English language (as the Italian language) is losing some self awareness on the part of its (it's?) users (?) [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on September 23, 2013, 07:48 AM:

quote:
Whilst on the topic of spelling, another thing that I keep noticing is the use of "they'are" instead of the possessive adjective "their",

This is something that I see a lot, "they're" being the contraction of "they are",it's surprising how often it's used instead of the possessive adjective "their". I had wondered if it was an example of American English, but have come to realise that the same rule is applied on both sides of the Atlantic, but misapplied just as often on both sides too!

Mike [Cool]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 23, 2013, 08:38 AM:

Here we call porridge "oatmeal". I suppose if you go out to breakfast at a place with carpeting on the floor, napkins on the table and no visible cash register they might actually call it "porridge", though! (Could double the price!)

The "there", "they're" and "their" thing makes me cringe!

-even worse when I catch myself doing it!

Hear! Hear!...Here?

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 23, 2013, 08:57 AM:

Doing porridge is Cockney rhyming slang for doing a spell in prison.

Posted by Jon Byler (Member # 3933) on September 23, 2013, 10:44 AM:

Here in the deep south, if you ask for a coke at a BBQ place or small meat and 3 type restaurant, or many fast food places for that matter, they will ask you what kind of coke you want: coca cola, pepsie, sprite, dr. Pepper? Wierd, but quaint.

I hope we don't start doing that with all hot cereal. What kind of oatmeal do you want? Oh, cream of wheat, thank you.

When we were in school, grammar was punishment, do we were all very, very well behaved. I didn't learn the difference between an adjective, noun, or verb until taking German in high school.

Anyway, I hope our friend Dimitris found what he was looking for [Wink]

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on September 23, 2013, 11:50 AM:

Overheard whilst on a cruise ship with many passengers from the southern states of America, by a lady who had been conversing with a british couple from Northern England, to her companion. "Why don't they speak English?" to which her companion replied "I think the answer is in the word English". Ken Finch. [Smile]

Posted by Dimitris Mpakirtzis (Member # 3897) on September 23, 2013, 12:19 PM:

Jon, I think that the Greek and the German languages have the same structure... [Big Grin]

but I can't remember which one is the oldest... [Wink]

No, I have not found what I am looking for, hunting continues ...

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2