http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_film

It is "Double 8".

I've never seen it, but from the descriptions, it has twice the number of perforations, but they are the same size as normal 16mm film. Thus, in theory, a 16mm projector should be able to play it, although you wouldn't be able to make sense of the images.

However, if someone else can confirm that this film can be played in a 16mm projector, I'm pretty sure I could convert it for you. Keep in mind, I'd have to charge double the going rate because of all the work in post. If you are interested, send me a private email.

My guess is that if you viewed the film on a 16mm projector, you would see four images: two right-side up, one above the other, and then two upside down. To convert this to video, I would capture it using my frame-by-frame technology that I've written about before. I would then take the resulting four images and, using an AVISynth script, cut them into individual frames, and then, in the script, assemble them into two movies. The upside-down movie would then have to be flipped and reversed, but that, of course, is trivial.

I have done a LOT of conversion of football film from the 1960s and, being a former football player myself, I have a lot of fondness for these old game films.

Finally, FWIW, if you click on this link, you can see my latest film restoration project. This is another kinescope restoration. You can go to the YouTube site to read my notes on how I did it. Here is the URL of the video below, in case you want to read these notes:



I just watched this, and the YouTube quality is pretty bad and almost completely masks all the improvements. Oh well ...

In case Bob (farss) is reading, this is a performance from Australia.

That was a trip down memory lane.
All the kine material I'd worked on was from copies of the original 16mm. As you might image the copies were of nothing like the quality of the material you had to work with. Not only was the image blown out and had grain on grain but the optical track was very sad.


Back to the original problem. The film I think is Regular 8 that wasn't split.

Bob.

The description given doesn't match unsplit 8mm. As I read it, this is a speciality format where half the gate was masked (say the bottom half) giving a frame suitable for shooting a football match. So it is a 16mm equivalent of 2-perf pull-down 35mm, or spherical equivalent of shooting with a 2:1 anamorphic. The projector may have had a masked gate to match. Given that most of this material was shot for match review (training) the special format would have halved film costs while keeping adequate resolution.

Whatever the film format or how it is arranged, if it can be projected in a 16mm projector, I am reasonably confident I can do the transfer for you, as long as my 2x charges aren't a problem. Again, the only reason for that is that I will have to write some special software and spend quite a bit of time in post production to create usable footage.

The resulting resolution will be (probably) roughly equivalent to 8mm (i.e., a little soft and fuzzy), although if Serena is correct and this is actually two frames per 16mm frame instead of four frames (as is the case with Double 8), then the resolution won't be too bad (somewhat equivalent to SD video).

"Techniscope" --- knew that back there somewhere in my memory was the name given to that 35mm format!

It would seem that if this could be transferred using an HD camera, the result shoulc be at least equal to an SD transfer.

Please let us know how this comes out. I've never seen this format in the million or so feet of film I've transferred.

I have vague memories of this format from Uni - we only ever shot full 16mm but were told about this way of shooting. As Serena says, half the gate was masked - I think vertically, then at the end of the reel the spools were swapped, and the second half was shot on the other unexposed side of the filmstock..

Like Ralph, I'll be very interested to hear how this comes out.

I'd love to know what this is too!
Part of the description would indicate unsplit R8, the other exactly what Serena is decribing. A single frame grab would have helped.

Bob.

As a little kid back in the 60's I used to shoot regular 8mm film with a Keystone camera that used a magazine with 25 feet of 16mm film, perforated for 8mm projection. I would shoot 25' and then flip the mag and shoot another 25'. The lab would process and split the film down the middle and splice the film as a 50' reel. Cool huh? Movie was pretty expensive in that era for a 14 year old kid so I would charge my actors a buck to be in my movies...don't know why that never caught on in Hollywood??

Anyway I do remember a Bolex camera that shot 8mm film on a reel of 16mm film. Pretty much doing what I described on my Keystone camera. I think this is what you have. Maybe there is a lab around that would do the split and splice but don't know of one. I used to shoot the High school football teams but we used a regular 16mm Bolex and could process and screen normally.
Hope this walk down memory lane helps....
mp

Hello Jack,
it appears that if it is transferred to digital - the hard part is done...
_ _ _
I would load the whole thing - use the pan and crop to isolate the top half that works fine to the size we want - render it by itself... so now you have the top half as a complete avi (or whatever).

The bottom half would work in a similar fashion...
Pan and crop the original - then run it backwards which should bring it to forward motion, correct? The audio should also play backwards before the reversal of the video, but should play forward once the clip is reversed... no? Does the inversion cause the motion and audio to once again get backwards? hmmmm...

Perhaps I don't understand the format well enough...
Did it include audio?
So the projector for viewing that format would play the film in both directions; forward to watch the first half and then backwards to view the second part... kinda cool... unless the operator had to physically undo it and reverse the reels... that might get old in a hurry. . .

Where am I going wrong?

I'll go take a peek at the wiki...

Until that time... Earl J.

Here is the likely suspect that shot the film on Ebay....


http://cgi.ebay.com/Bolex-H8-Rex-4-Professional-8mm-Movie-camera-Mint_W0QQitemZ370251068569QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?hash=item5634aef499&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

one seller said the film was still available for the camera so I would assume processing is too.

mp

Just a quick update, mostly for Serena.

I just got off the phone with Jack, and the film is exactly what Serena described (two images per frame, one upside down). This will therefore be trivial to deal with (compared to the Double 8 film).

The film grain, however, sounds like an issue. We'll see what develops ...

@SWS,
that Bolex looks like a grand toy for an amateur film shooter . . .
and the price is very reasonable - except there is any lense on it.
It might be one of those places where the lure you in with the low cost of camra bodies and jack up the prices on the lenses. . . (grin)
I'm not saying those guys do that... but it may be difficult to shoot 8 mm without a lense on the camera, you think? (grin)
The film, these days, along with the price of developing, might cost so much as to be out of reach for anyone not independently wealthy from the start... (sigh)
It is a cool looking camera, no doubt ... it doesn't appear as though it was used on any cowboy movies on location. . . it appears in excellent shape - I'd love a camera with adjustable speeds and single frame capability - that would be fun to play with - except for the film and developing! I would imagine storyboarding, staging, and lighting is paramount in film production - once exposed, the film can't get rewound, wiped clean, and used again. . . (sigh)

So, maybe the digital video cameras I own now are just what I need... although not all I want... (wink)

Until that time... Earl J.

My very first film job involved shooting an operation for a doctor who wished to present his technique to a medical convention. He provided me with his dual 8 Bolex, outfitted me with scrubs and took me to the OR. The operation was setting a broken arm with pins instead of casting. My worst moments were changing film i.e. turning the roll over and rethreading, and shooting the electric drill going through the patient's arm. I had had no practice with either. Not being a life threatening operation the doctor checked my threading and all was well. It was an exciting job for a kid just out of college more than fifty years ago. The film is normally split by the lab after processing.
Ralph