On 11/07/07, Steven Smolian wrote:

> One of the underlying questions is- who had 35mm equipment? I suppose
> such recording was possible in Hollywood, using, say, a Foley stage
> and individual 35mm tracks- however many the recorder was set up for.
> I have a vague memory of a chamber group being recorded this way.
> Editing alternate takes would be a nightmare since the spockets would
> be in different places for each take. I'd say they would have to have
> been "direct to film." It's too likely a fun idea not to have been
> tested.

One sprocket hole is 1/96 second, which is tight enough for most
editing, I would think.

> One advantage to 35mm film- one strip thereov- was the possibilty of
> using wider tracks to reduce signal to noise. Even though I worked for
> Everest- street salesman- I never understood why they used that
> unvinyl which went noisy after a limited number of plays, much faster
> than vinyl. That kinda cancelled the s/n advantage of the tape.
> All playback comments refer to the records when current. Each pressing
> formula ages differently and, when played back today, will have about
> 50 years of chemical reaction with the world which will have created
> differences among them that were of no consequence when they were
> fresh.

Don Cox
[log in to unmask]