Tweet
Having researched further in my library of cinema technology publications, I can only confirm what I have said previously that the track is a multi bilateral mono track reduced from the original 35mm negative. As such they would be readable by an 8mm optical sound projector. It would be impossible to produce a twin solar cell to cover such a tiny track width, hence a separate track on the other side of the film for the dual language prints. Had very fine fibre optics been available in those days stereo may have been a possibility. As I have previously stated, multi bilateral tracks were used for noise reduction and could be up to 12 tracks on 35mm film. They were also known. As Tobis Klang tracks. Optical slit scanning does have limited high frequency scanning so on 16mm and 9.5mm it is about 10kcps on 35mm a bit higher. The finer the scanning slit, the higher the frequency. Frequency test films were available to enable projectionists to adjust focussing of the slit. Hope this answers your questions Winbert etc. 😉
-
-
Sounds about right to me, although when I get this scanned I will grab the audio tracks from the film.Originally posted by Winbert Hutahaean View PostComment
-
I was told it is (or it was?) cheaper to obtain super 8 optical sound prints from 35mm, than magnetic ones. The obvious reason is that there is (or was? I don't know if a machine that does that still exists) only one "easy" maniupulation. That explains why companies like Les grands films classiques released optical sound prints for the individuals.Originally posted by Ken Finch View PostComment
-
I am not sure if today's domestic scanner can grab that super tiny "picture" that can be transcribed as sound. Otherwise, an 8K film scanner for 8mm would be readily in the market now.Originally posted by Bill Hauss View Post
But that type of scanner may be available for industrial level (perhaps owned by NASA or such hi-tech lab), however the price would be astronomical.
cheers,
winbertComment
-
But wouldn’t 6.5k be sufficient?Originally posted by Winbert Hutahaean View Post
And even many DIY solutions are already at UHD now:Comment
-
Leaving now the question is the 1970s film printer was capable to print on that tiny space that is trully readable ?Originally posted by Joerg Polzfusz View Post
It is a similar situation if we are typing on normal 12 fonts of Arial and we print the text by reducing one-tenth of it original size. Our printer might be printing something but when we see it through a microscope the result is hardy readable or not at all.
Cheers,
WinbertComment
-
From further research I discovered that the topic of optical sound on 8mm film was discussed at length in the old forum. Mention was made that 8mm optical sound projectors were produced by the japanese companies of Toie and Elmo. Because of the tiny size of the sound tracks the maximum high frequencies able to be reproduced were obviously lower than those of the other gauges. Obviously the sound quality was not as good as magnetic stripe which superseded it. It is well worth checking the old forum for further information on this or for that matter any other topic that members of older generations discussed. 😉Comment
-
I have quite a few Japanese 4 track optical film prints I've purchased from foreign sites! I've mostly just overscanned the film and used AEO-Light to scan the optical tracks.Comment
-
Comment
-
An absolutely fascinating topic📽️✨Comment
-
I did a LOT of work with soundtracks (I'm a retired sound editor) and this is a reduction of a MONO 16mm or 35mm optical track. The precision needed for Dolby Stereo Optical is extreme--not only does the sound volume need to be carefully monitored during final mixing to make sure each optical "trace" doesn't collide with each other, but film weave is also an issue--even in 35mm. There's simply no way this is a quadraphonic optical track in super 8, let alone stereo! Believe it or not, in the early 1980's there was only ONE optical sound camera in all of Hollywood that could make Dolby Stereo Optical soundtrack negatives! (I know this because I had to hand-deliver the 2 track Dolby Stereo mag film master to that facility in North Hollywood at 2am on a Sunday morning, with only a 90 minute window--and if I failed, "Rhinestone" (Dolly Parton, Sylvester Stallone) would not open in theaters that Friday!!) I can't find the quote now, but I remember that there was only one type of recorder, a Westrex made in the 40's I believe, that could create two phase-aligned "traces" for Dolby Stereo, and those units were as scarce as hen's teeth. Originally RCA built a stereo optical recorder, but it was for 16mm and apparently Dolby did tests using that unit for their R&D.
Since then new optical sound cameras have been made that will simultaneously record Dolby Stereo Optical, Dolby Digital, SDDS, and DTS time code (which is along the inside edge of the Dolby Stereo Optical track) on soundtrack negative film. Knowing all this, I don't know how in the world any facility could create such a technically intricate Super 8 stereo or quadraphonic optical track, even if reduction printed from a 35mm sound negative. ANY weave in the Super 8 projector (or any stock flaw) would create havoc with track reading, separation, and volume levels.
I personally find it astounding that a Super 8 mono optical soundtrack can sound as good as it does, knowing the precise printing and lab work required.
In short, it's a mono track!Comment
Comment