Mixing to 35-mm film

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I read an interview in Tape-Op magazine where Dave Fridmann was saying
he would mix Mercury Rev's stuff to 35-mm film. He said that back in
the 50's jazz records would be mixed to 35-mm film, as it was the best
fidelity available.

Does anyone know anything about this? What kind of equipment would
one use for this?


jonathan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Have a look at the following....

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rabruil/mercury.html

Rgds:
Eric

"Jonathan York" <jonathan@entersol.com> wrote in message
news:68317fd2.0411020842.553289a7@posting.google.com...
> I read an interview in Tape-Op magazine where Dave Fridmann was saying
> he would mix Mercury Rev's stuff to 35-mm film. He said that back in
> the 50's jazz records would be mixed to 35-mm film, as it was the best
> fidelity available.
>
> Does anyone know anything about this? What kind of equipment would
> one use for this?
>
>
> jonathan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

in article SQQhd.29182$mZ2.939512@news02.tsnz.net, Geoff Wood at
geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam wrote on 11/2/04 2:01 PM:

>
> "Jonathan York" <jonathan@entersol.com> wrote in message
> news:68317fd2.0411020842.553289a7@posting.google.com...
>> I read an interview in Tape-Op magazine where Dave Fridmann was saying
>> he would mix Mercury Rev's stuff to 35-mm film. He said that back in
>> the 50's jazz records would be mixed to 35-mm film, as it was the best
>> fidelity available.
>>
>> Does anyone know anything about this? What kind of equipment would
>> one use for this?
>
>
> Sounds an incredibly expensive excersize to me. Maybe is was good quality
> back trhen, buut would not have been by the 1960s !
>
> Forget it.

I disagree Geoff

Mag film is superior to tape on many ways.

Thicker backing (3 mil as opposed to 1.5 mil on polyester base) reduces
print through. Thicker oxide increases headroom. 90 ft/sec (18 ips) speed
increases high freq headroom without getting into head bump issues that 30
ips brings.

Three-track head tracks are 200 mils wide, the equal of half-inch 2-track
tape. 4-track is 150 mils wide, and 6-track is 100 mils wide, where 8-track
1-inch or 16-track 2-inch are 70 mils. (For point of reference, 24-track
2-inch tracks are 43 mils wide.)

Mag recorder isoloop drive is inherently free of flutter and speed accurate
from head to tail of reel.

All the Command records engineered by Bob Fine (Persuassive Percussion etc.)
in the mid 60's were recorded on 4 track mag film recorders. I wouldn't
question Bob's chops.

A MagnaTech MR10035 35mm mag film recorder can compete toe to toe with the
finest analog tape recorders.
Got room for a 7' high rack?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 02 Nov 2004 20:37:58 GMT, yoshida <michaelyoshida@zaentz.com>
wrote:

>Most likely it would have been recorded on a MagnaTech Engineering (MTE) recorder running 35mm mag at 24 frames per second using a standard three track head. It would have been roughly equivalent to tape on 1/2 track heads running about 18 ips.

I hadn't thought about the editing problem presented by sprocket
holes until I read the article quoted earlier in this thread. Quite
a serious restriction.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20041102152727.01439.00000010@mb-m18.aol.com>,
KevinHalpin57 <kevinhalpin57@aol.com> wrote:
>could it be because 35mm mag was 3 tracks and Mag stock was superior to tape
>stock at the time - i think mag also ran at a faster speed than the tape
>machines at the time so it ws probably quieter

35mm mag runs something like 17 ips, so it is not that much faster. But
the wider tracks are a big deal, and the flutter was lower than most
tape transports of the day. You can now get as many as 6 tracks on a
35mm fullcoat, but going to the older 3 track format gives you better S/N.

Get the Osipov State Balalaika Orchestra recording on Mercury. They did
a brilliant job with the CD reissue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <7rego01rrsvt9ircuu5jtfqpk3o1985hoh@4ax.com>,
Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02 Nov 2004 20:37:58 GMT, yoshida <michaelyoshida@zaentz.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Most likely it would have been recorded on a MagnaTech Engineering (MTE) recorder running 35mm mag at 24 frames per second using a standard three track head. It would have been roughly equivalent to tape on 1/2 track heads running about 18 ips.

>I hadn't thought about the editing problem presented by sprocket
>holes until I read the article quoted earlier in this thread. Quite
>a serious restriction.

On 35mm, there are four holes per frame so it's not that bad. On 16mm,
there's only one per frame and even voice editing can sometimes be an adventure.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."