Scott Bullock

Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects" was shot on Super 16 and looked wonderful. Ironically, I was watching a DVD tonight called, "AC/DC No Bull -- Plaza De Toros De Las Ventas, Madrid" which is a live AC/DC concert from 1996 that was shot on Super 16. The cover for the DVD even states, "Filmed live on Super 16mm film"! It looks (and sounds) magnificent!

Arri makes some good, portable light kits also. Like Lowel, there are many different styles, sizes, and price ranges. Check around online; I've seen kits vary widely in price range so it's worth your time to spend some time looking. Ebay can be a good source, and B+H Photo is fairly priced in my experience.

This entire film was shot on Super 8 using Kodak 500T film. This streaming sample isn't at full resolution, obviously, but I'd say in many places it is indistinguishable from 16mm. It certainly has more character and warmth than DV, IMHO. Yes, Super 8 has less resolution than 16mm, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's going to be of concern to the viewer. The original "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was shot on 16mm and is by far a better film than its "slick" 35mm remake, so resolution isn't really a factor with regard to a film's acceptability, IMHO.

It's my understanding that the 35mm Kodachrome slide films are currently the only way in which Kodak is releasing those types of reversal stocks. It's been discontinued in Super 8, but apparently the infrastructure is still there for 35mm still enthusiasts, at least for now.

ASA 64 and ASA 200? Are you positive that they weren't showing you 35mm slide film?

I've experimented with as many Super 8 cameras as I've been able to get my hands on and the conclusion that I've come to is that it's almost always better to spend a little more money to go with a proven, tried and true camera. I've owned Nizos, Brauns, Sankyos, Bealieus, and many other brands that are too numerous to mention here. The cameras that I've had the most consistency with were the two high-end Canons (814 XL-S, 1014 XL-S) and the two high-end Nikons (R8 and R10). Yes, they are more expensive than most every other camera out there, but when you are holding one in your hands and are viewing the footage that you shot with them, you'll know where that extra money went. A lot of people swear by the Bealieu cameras because of their ability to switch lenses, and certainly many arguments can be made for the use of Bealieu cameras. I owned a Bealieu 4008 ZMII at one time but promptly got rid of it when I realized that the lenses on my Canon 814 XL-S and my Nikon R10 absolutely blew away the Angenieux lens that was on my Bealieu. I also had a lot of success with two different Elmo cameras that I owned, the 612S-XL and the 1012S-XL. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

Both the Minolta Autopak D10 and the Canon 814XL-S have been sold. The Canon 1014XL-S is still available for parts or repair (read original description). Thanks to everyone who showed an interest in these cameras. I hope I was able to answer all of your questions. For the two people who purchased the cameras, please put them to good use! Thanks.

Does anyone have any experience with anamorphic adapters, especially the "zoom through" type (like the one Panasonic makes for their little HD cameras) that can be attached to the end of the lens? I'm trying to find one that would be compatible with my Canon 1014 XL-S, which has a filter thread of 67mm. If you know of anything like this, know of a good one to use, or have experience using them, please let me know.

I agree completely. Like I said in my earlier post, I've used Cinelab many times and have always been pleased with the results. I will continue to use them in the future and will be turning clients in their direction. While the producer and I got a bit stressed on our last project, in the end everything turned out great. And I will say this, Cinelab has been a lot more professional than other places, which shall remain nameless, that I've used for Super 8 processing and transfer in the past.

Hi John; I've used Cinelab on numerous occasions and feel that you folks do a wonderful job, especially given that I've never supervised any of the transfer sessions. I also feel that you folks are very informative and helpful when dealing with you over the phone. My only complaint is that on the last job I did where your lab was utilized we were up against a deadline and for one reason or another our film processing and transfer kept getting bumped back. This was the first time that I had used Cinelab for Super 8 processing and transfers, every other time it has been for 16mm projects. Anyway, I know that you only do Super 8 on certain days or whatever, but I remember the producer and me sweating pretty heavily regarding our deadline, and that the producer kept calling you guys almost everyday and getting a "we're going to do it tomorrow" kind of answer. We both sort of felt that our project wasn't taking precedence because it was Super 8 instead of 16mm or 35mm, which was a shame considering that we bought a package deal from you that included stock, processing, and transfer. In the end (following a few days of sleepless editing sessions due to the untimely turnaround of the processing and transfer), everything turned out great and I'll be sending other clients to Cinelab in the future. But I do remember thinking at the time that if it had been an equivalent sized 16mm or 35mm project the turnaround would have been much quicker. That being said, I do think you folks do a wonderful job and I will continue to use your services, but is there any way to speed up the turnaround for Super 8 projects? I mean, if it were to be labeled "urgent" or something?

Is Frame Discreet set up to transfer color negative? I didn't think they were, but I could be wrong.

Like I said, that's just my take; it doesn't mean it's true. But I ask you, why wouldn't an "artist" or "Writer of Light" concern themselves with "technical particulars"? That's every bit as conceived a notion as the one that I admittedly created. In other words, it assumes something that you don't know to be true because there's isn't really an answer. Take a filmmaker like Stan Brackhage as an example of one extreme. He was absolutely the epitome of a "hands-on" filmmaker, and there's no question that he knew how to "write with light and motion" and was/is considered an "artist". However, I wouldn't personally consider him as having been a "director of photography" but would have no trouble at all calling him a cinematographer. In all fairness, and in most cases, it's just splitting hairs, really. For all intents and purposes I truly believe that "cinematographer" and "director of photography" are synonymous and that the title simply boils down to the individual's choice.

The Minolta Autopak D10 has been sold. That Canon 814 XL-S is a really nice camera, folks. :)

Here's how I've always distinguished between the two (and this is just my opinion), if in fact there is any real difference: A cinematographer and a director of photography essentially know the exact same things, but a cinematographer is more "hands-on" in his/her approach to shooting whereas a director of photography can delegate a lot of his/her jobs to other people. So, the cinematographer is almost always doing their own camera operation, focusing the lenses, changing lenses, attaching magazines, etc., and perhaps also bearing the lion's share of the lighting work, and probably isn't afraid to touch a c-stand or set up a light on his/her own. A director of photography, on the other hand, might not operate anything other than a light meter, and maybe not even that, because he has a camera operator, an assistant camera operator, a 2nd assistant camera operator, and is working with a gaffer who has beneath him/her, electricians, grips, etc. There could be a great number of variations between these extremes (hands-on vs. hands-off) and a lot of it may have to do with union rules vs. non-union shooting, I'm sure. End the end, both are responsible for making sure that the film is properly photographed, and both know the means to that end, but at the end of the day, the cinematographer is going to have more grit under their nails. Again, that's just my opinion.

Hello all; I'm reducing the price on the Canon 814 XL-S to $425.00 USD and the price on the 1014 XL-S to $300.00 USD. The Minolta Autopak D10 is currently ON RESERVE for someone for another 24 hours. Thanks

Attention Kevin Masuda: I've received you private messages, please check yours, or email me at zodiacslayer13@aol.com. Thanks

I've decided that it's time to clear out some of my stuff, so if you are interested in any of the items below, please email me at zodiacslayer13@aol.com. 1. Canon 814 XL-S -- $450.00 This camera is in excellent shape. It's been a workhorse for me, but I've got other Super 8 cameras so . . . <sigh> . . . :( . . . this one is going to have to go. The optics are as clear and scratch-free as the day it rolled off the assembly line. There are some scratches on the body from normal use, but optically, electronically, and mechanically this camera is flawless. It comes with a lens hood, sky filter, and lens cap. If you are a collector or just want it, I'll throw in an original Canon boom microphone as well. That's a modest price for this particular camera; I saw one go on eBay a couple of days ago for about one hundred dollars higher than my asking price. 2. Canon 1014 XL-S -- $325.00 (OBO) Yes, the price is correct. This camera is mechanically and electronically very sound, but the front element has some flaws and the body itself has seen better days; there are quite a few dings and dents and the paint is worn in places. Also, there seems to be a problem somewhere in the viewfinder or viewing system because when you look through the eyepiece everything appears slightly hazy. I do not believe that it's the lens itself because the front element is not THAT bad. I think the problem might exist at the prism or somewhere in the viewing system. You can still see well enough to focus, and at first it just looks like the lens is taking a massive hit. I've tested this camera for function and everything works great except for the needle inside the viewfinder that signifies how much film is left; it no longer works, but the counter on the side does. I've never film tested this camera, so I don't know if this "haze" affects the image. I bought it to use for spare parts for another 1014 that I have but I've never needed it. I'm essentially selling this camera for the same reason I bought it: parts. That said; it honestly wouldn't surprise me if this camera actually created decent images. Use it for parts, use it as a crash camera, or make some repairs and use it daily; I'll leave that to you. 3. Minolta Autopak D10 -- $225.00 This camera is a gem and, like the 814 XL-S listed above, it's going to be a shame to see it go because this is one awesome and loaded camera. This camera is flawless in every respect; mechanically, optically, and electronically. And the body only shows the most minimal signs of use. Just check out the basic specs on this camera: Lens: 7 - 70mm, F1.8; auto and manual zoom with 5 (!) speeds; frame rates of 8, 12, 18, 24, 32, 50 & single frame; variable shutter; exposure compensation; auto/manual exposure, exposure lock. This camera achieves its higher frame rates via an accessory motor that is INCLUDED with the camera. It will also take an intervalometer motor, but I don't have that one. The camera comes with an original fitted case (good condition), and an instruction manual, which is exhaustive and even includes depth of field charts! This camera is a real beauty and will accommodate ALL of the current Super 8 stocks being made. If you are interested in any or all of these cameras, please email me at the address provided above. I'll be happy to answer questions and provide photographs to those seriously interested. I'd rather sell these cameras to someone with an honest interest in cinematography, filmmaking, and Super 8 in particular, which is why I'm listing them here for awhile before putting them on eBay. Email me and we'll work out payment and shipping details, but suffice it to say, I can take payments through Paypal and prefer to use the USPS for shipping. If you are outside of the US, you must pay me through Paypal in US dollars and accommodate your own customs, taxes, etc., or whatever applies to you. I'm not a retailer or motion picture rental supply house; I am a semi-professional (sometimes I make money, sometimes I don't ;) ) filmmaker who takes his equipment seriously. I can assure you that I've described these items as they are. The only camera here that I haven't personally used is the Canon 1014 XL-S; the other two cameras have been used, cared for, and maintained by me personally. None of these cameras have ever been in need of repair and they work as they should and make wonderful Super 8 images. If you took the time to read all of this, I thank you.

Thanks for the replies. If I find that the prism block has gone south on me, I wonder if it would be possible to use one from another Super 8 camera, or if it would have to come from another 1014 XL-S. Any thoughts about this?

Hello all; Does anyone know where I might be able to find some spare parts for a Canon 1014 XL-S? Specifically, I'm looking for a prism block and a front element for the lens. I'd also be interested in obtaining a junked 1014 to use for parts. Thanks

This is not what I've been told by authorized Bolex technicians nor is it what I've discovered in my own usage of reflex Bolex cameras. A non-RX, 'C' mount lens needs to be re-collimated for use on a reflex Bolex; the flange depths of a regular 'C' mount lens and an RX 'C' mount lens are not the same.

Thanks for the reply, Alain. If you decide to sell some of those additional items separately let me know because I'd be very interested in obtaining a spare motor for my NPR. Thanks again.

I'm interested in that spare Alcan crystal motor you listed . . . how much are you asking for it? Send me a private message if you'd like. Thanks.

I believe the AR style lenses can be used on a reflex Bolex as long as the lens is properly shimmed. For definitive answers to those raised in this thread, contact Dieter Schaefer at ProCam. He's a factory authorized Bolex dealer and service technician. Ph. # 928-708-9901 Email: bolexusa@yahoo.com

Absolutely! That is why I shot the stuff the way I did; the director wanted a very shallow depth of field to show that the character was more intently focused on herself than the world around her. In my particular instance, it was all about capturing what the director wanted in order to express the character's emotions photographically.

If I could do over I wouldn't have added more ND, I would have added a polarizer into the mix with the ND 1.2. This would have required me to open up the lens 6 stops instead of just 4, which would have had me shooting pretty much wide open.