1959 SCOPITONE JUKEBOX “For Sale “

[@Whosback1]

Glad to see. I remember seeing one in action in the 60's . But most did not believe me. LOL

[@mpirron1]

And they were correct in doing so.

[@bfpsa64]

These are awesome pieces of jukebox history. There is one for sale close to me that I am trying to go look at. It is a little different model, the ST36. Nice video.

[@mpirron1]

they is always one perpetually for sale on ebay, at least every time I have looked for the last, I don't know perhaps, 6 years

[@tarstarkusz]

Is there any way to get better prints? They are red-shifted. I didn't even know 1959 film would do that. I thought it was 60s and 70s color Kodak film

[@efalsst23]

Not sure though it’s for sale and whomever can pick another 10 from my stock on top of the 36 in the jukebox

[@johnm2012]

Any photographically made print from that era would have suffered differential fading of the dyes. The only process that is substantially resistant to fading is the Technicolor process, which was mechanical in nature, rather than chemical, and used azo dyes, which are much more light fast than chromogenically produced photographic dyes. I would like to have got a better view of the projection mechanism as the back of the machine is far more interesting than the front. As a child I had a toy 8mm projector which showed the same vertical smearing because it lacked a shutter to blank the screen during pulldown. This is obviously a 16mm mechanism and I'd be surprised if it wasn't equipped with a shutter so maybe it's stuck in the open position or out of sync with the movement.

[@tarstarkusz]

@@johnm2012 I think it's the shutter on the camera doing that. I did a frame by frame walk through and some of the frames looked great. I have color 8mm film I shot in the 80s that still looks fine.

[@johnm2012]

@@tarstarkusz Yes, I can see that there would be an interaction between the projector shutter and the electronic video camera shutter that would appear as banding. I'm not sure why it's manifesting as vertical smearing though. Your 8mm film is almost certainly Kodachrome which differs from the film used in this machine in two ways. Firstly, it's a reversal film, which means it's the exact same film that ran through the camera all those years ago. That makes it unique, one of a kind, and quite unsuitable for use where multiple copies are required so a negative-positive process needs to be used in those cases. Secondly, Kodachrome, though chromogenic, was a non-substantive process, meaning that the colourless dye-forming chemicals that react with the oxidised developer were not incorporated into the film itself, as they are in other reversal (such as Ektachrome or Fujichrome) and in all positive-negative processes (such as Eastmancolor). Instead, Kodachrome is essentially three black and white emulsions with different spectral sensitivity stacked onto a common base that was developed in a very complex process, with a colour development step for each individual layer, using three developers, each containing a dye-coupler specific to its layer. This allowed a much greater choice of dye-couplers, which could be chosen for their properties of producing accurate and fade-resistant dyes. On the other hand, substantive processes that incorporated the dye-couplers into the film emulsion have a more restricted choice because chemicals have to be chosen that can be anchored in place so that they can't diffuse and migrate. The upshot is that Kodachrome has more stable dyes than other reversal films and than negative-positive films. They are especially resistant to fading if kept in the dark. The fastness of Kodachrome dyes is much better than other photographic dyes but not as good as Technicolor azo dyes.

[@mpirron1]

Stop it already that is fake shit and you know it, who is responsible for these lies? You?

[@horndoggreg]

How much i must have it

[@mpirron1]

I got you brother! Demo Unit never in some smokey joint looks brand new almost just built. $6500, shipped anywhere CONUS