|
|
Posted by David McCall on 10/10/45 11:45
"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:3tidnY-489Vzm9jZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>
> "David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4j71g.5698$_w6.3481@trndny09...
>
>> I'll buy that BetaSP is better than 3/4", but the ONLY thing better
>> about 3/4" over 1" was the weight of the equipment, and perhaps
>> the convenience of a cassette.
>
> I admit it. I got carried away.
>
> 2" quad was at least equal to 1",
>> except that you needed an engineer close at hand to clean and
>> tweak the machine every time you changed a tape. 16mm was
>> one of the best consumer formats ever developed, but it pales in
>> comparison to 35mm for robustness.
>>
>> 16mm a consumer format? Yes it was early on. As was 3/4" and
>> DV. They all just turned out to be "good enough" for the professional
>> market to adopt them.
>
> I just did a short memorial video for a friend. We used some 16 mm
> footage that had been converted to VHS long ago, but not enough long ago
> that the Ectachrome hadn't faded to blah. Conversely, a few years ago I
> helped to put together some historical footage of sailing in chicago. We
> had reels of Kodachrome from the '30s. The Kodachrome was still wonderful
> looking. (I suppose it could have been another formulation, but I seem to
> recall that that was the designation on the film boxes the reels were in.)
> There were lots of those wind-up 16 mm cameras about in the 30s and 40s,
> both Kodak and Bolex.
>
Not to forget the ever popular Bell & Howell 70 series.
A friend of mine in high school had a 70DR that had
been his fathers home movie camera. We had a lot of
fun shooting the 100' loads (~3 minutes) and sending
them off to the lab for processing.
When I got to Vietnam in 1969 guess what they gave
me for a camera to document our better activities
over there? That's right a Bell & Howell 70DR.
David
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|