Sean McHenry

I recently acquired a dead B&H MS45 Super 8 camera. The handle and trigger mechanism are toast. Looking to buy an old scrap one to mix and match parts. Not looking to spend too much but I know these are fairly rare compared to Canon 814AZs and such. If you have an MS45 laying about collecting dust please contact me with a price you would like to see. Please use the e-mail address below as I seldom check the PM board here. Thanks, Sean McHenry Sean(at)DeepBlueEdit.com

Actually, it came with one. Tried hand cranking it over today but for some reason it wasn't catching on the shaft. I'll look more into that when it comes back. I have heard of the lap dissolves and such using it but I'll be doing all that in Avid most likely. I would however like to play with varying the speed randomly. It's boxed and ready to ship up to Bernie finally. I was hoping to have it out today but we just finished the live ESPN feed here and I think I missed my chance to hit the post office before it closes. There's always tomorrow. I guess I'll shoot some Super8 Tri-X till it comes back so I'm not Jonesing too much for film. Thanks, S.

Hey folks. Just noticed this on the Bolex issue. In single frame mode I saw there is a secondary claw at the feed side of the gate. Is that supposed to hold the film steady or assist in any way? It feels like it should be spring loaded as there is some play in it but it's loose right now. I can apply slight pressure and bring it down to the film plane and it will stay where I put it. From the angle of the hook in it it looks like this is supposed to keep the film from sliding backward toward the supply reel when the claw moves up to grab the film. I'm thinking this may be the culprit. What do you folks think? You know the part I am talking about? Forgive my not knowing what this piece is exactly as this is my first 16mm camera and it isn't mentioned in the manual that I saw. Sean

Chris naturally makes a good point. I agree. It makes sense that if someone wanted more than one and was more than a hobbyist, he would want to single source through a company that would hold responsibility for it's product, much like any rental house. I just wish it had been another company that more of a majority of film people got along with. If their customer service is better on their cameras then it might be a good deal. I have heard the smiling faces on the other end of the long distance phone line - but then again I am still arguing with said company about my damaged film, months later, and without resolve. But for the record, I see Chris's point and it's a good one. Sean

As a member of the local Columbus chapter of the international Indie Club, one of the arguments I pose to people who are shooting MiniDV (or any flavor of the DV25 or even DV50 Codec) is that they have generally become so used to running the camera all day long it's gotten silly. With tape being $7 at Wally-Mart for 60 minutes running time, I could shoot for weeks straight on DV for the cost of my last 6 minute epic in Super 8. It's the shooting ratio that kills people. I know folks that have shot for a 60 second spot and brought in 4 tapes - full. What the hack is going on there? The MiniDV crowd has gotten so jaded using cheap stock that their ratio is off the charts. That makes for sloppy direction and probably makes real actors tired quickly doing 37 takes of each shot. I am a huge advocate, to the point of being annoying to the group at times, of shooting at least one project on film. Any kind of film. I have even been buying old regular 8 cameras off Ebay, checking them out and passing them out as door prize raffles to members of the group to encourage shooting film. The Digital advocates keep falsely pointing out that all the big name DPs and Directors of pop Hollywood stuff are shooting digital, to which I say maybe they are, and that's fine - but - they all (for the most part) were raised on film methods and know that the image capture device is only part of the equation. I have been preaching that if they realize the expense of shooting film and do a film project or two, it can only make them better Directors and DPs. If nothing else, it gives you some shooting ratio discipline. Besides, a real movie fanatic may not realize what they are seeing but the contrast ratio (latitude) of film is so much higher than digital there is no comparison. That's one reason I hate digital projection so far. Anyway, push for film where you can, especially on first projects. Yeah, there's a fear factor of focus and exposure plus lab mistakes but that goes with the territory, and means you need people around you that know what they are doing too. This movie stuff isn't as cheap as people would have you believe in magazines. If you're Robert Rodriguez and you have friends with gear, etc. I suppose it can be cheaper but it still takes real capitol, something I have yet to aspire to. I'm happy doing a mix of film and video shorts right now, but that's by choice so far. Really, I'm just getting into film after 26+ years as a misguided youth Engineering in US television broadcasting, but my still photography background applies mostly here in motion pictures. Sean

And that explains why I ask you guys. Someone is always around to bounce things off of. I appreciate the responses. So what I hear then is it shouldn't be a terribly hard thing (possibly) to fix and I might be able to find the issue myself. That's good news indeed. I will look it over at the shop today and see what I can find out on the claw/gearing sync idea. I'm pretty sure the pressure plate was in the right position as, like others have said, I don't think I can actually get the back on the body if it's out of position (unless it's broken I suppose). I did the nose grease thing someone mentioned in an earlier "how to" note before running the test roll. I asked the lab to return the original metal reel and box and they out did themselves. They sent me 6 Kodak boxes and 8 extra reels. I love those guys so far. They also thought ahead of me and sent me a roll of unexposed film someone sent through processing to use as test film and leader. Bonus! Now I have a roll to load and check out the loops with. ColorLab NY was the lab. So far, much better service than Pro8mm (but I won't rehash that here - wrong forum anyway) I'll print this out and play at the shop with it today but I will likely send it in to Bernie in the end because one never knows where their Ebay find came from or when it was cleaned last, even if I do find the issue with the shutter. The one thing that sticks in my head is that there is a clean break between frames and it looks like the shutter is opening clean and at the right timing, it's just staying open too long, into when the claw starts pulling. Especially since it looks overexposed a tad, or actually a full stop or so. I was using a Minolta Autometer IV on cine setting (24f) and setting the lens directly with those numbers. All the shots are the same as far as looking a bit overexposed, at least I think so.So even if the film were sitting still, it looks like it's hanging open too long. Just a thought. Thanks again guys. I'm sure Bernie will have a thought or two as well, then off it goes for a bath. The camera came with a Som Berthoit 17.5 - 70 that I already had Bernie realign. That's the lens I used and it seems flawless now. Very smooth. I guess I should put a few dollard into the body as well and have a good setup I can count on for a few years. Overall, If the camera can be fixed up, this wasn't a bad buy for the $200 or so I paid for the whole setup. It came with a Cookwe and Switar prime but it's missing the 75mm prime. Thanks again, Sean

Hello folks. Took the Bolex H16 and a roll of Kodak 250D out for a spin finally last weekend. As I have been doing with new cameras, I had the lab send me the negatives rather than do a TC on it simply for cost savings right now. The roll I got back has a vertical smearing to the frames. I am including a picture which is a scan of a few frames I did on my HP 35mm Negative scanner. You can clearly see the dress of the young lady is smearing downward into the subsequent frame. My question would be this, is this telling me I need a cleaning and the shutter is hanging open too long and the claw is advancing the film before it is closing? Or, is the shutter opening too early or late? I am leaning toward the first answer because there is a clean upper and lower edge to each frame showing me the shutter seems to be opening at the right timing, but hanging open a bit too long. Notice too that it does seem over exposed which would also indicate to me the shutter was hanging open too long. Is this an issue that can be easily fixed or am I looking at a dying camera here? I sent this same image to Bernie but he has real work to do and it may take him a day or so to find time to get back on this one. No problem there,. I respect Bernie and the amount of time he has to answer questions like this. I do however have the camera body packed up and ready to send to him tomorrow. My last question is one of camera settings. It is my understanding that the "I" and "T" settings on the Bolex body are Interval and Timed. I shot this in the "I" position thinking this was what the manual was saying was correct for normal shooting and that the "Timed" was for single exposure where I wanted to control the duration the shutter was opened for. Was shooting in the "I" position correct or could that have been the issue? Thanks everyone. When I can't find an answer, I turn to you folks. Sean McHenry

So that's where all the 814XL-S cameras have been going. I wonder how many of these they have lying about? My Ebay 814XL-S was under $300. Sent it to Bernie at Super16Inc and he cleaned and lubed it as well as new foam seals for under $200. Total - $500 or so and, don't the 814XL-S, it's big brother, and all other upper line Canon cameras already handle all ASA ratings you can throw at it? According to the Wiki, it handles everything. NOTE: I just saw that this is actually the 814AZ, not the XL-S. That puts it out of my range for sure. My 814AZ ran me $120 and ran perfect. In fact, I bet most 814AZs are running pretty good if they were halfway maintained. Those are tough cameras. As for recalibration, not sure hiow they would calibrate for a single ASA, like 64, without fiddling with the rest of the ASA range. Sean

As you can tell by the date on the threads that this has been going on for a while now. I cut the reels together and sent them to Justin Lovell in Canada. He did a nice job of transferring it but he also tells me the damage is quite obvious. Now that I have had the DVCam tape back for a while and sucked into the Avid, I locked the audio to the picture and did a rough cut anyway. I lost several cutaway shots and alternate takes so this piece is sadly as good as it will get at this point. You are all welcome to see the results here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5270269431691201563 If you watch about 3:30 into the piece, you'll see some of the damage I had no choice but to use. We are still pursuing a resolution, still. I'll let you all know when the smoke clears. Sean

Well, that's T type film and I was looking for 250 D type. Loose a stop and back to 250? Yeah, that could have done it and left me at about 250 D. Then again, here was a company offering 250D. Not sure I get your point. I don't want to have to do filters if I don't have to. I know a lot of folks shoot on stages and that's fine for most production work but I was shooting early dusk, outside. Went with what I thought would be the best match. Even took the Minolta AutoMeter IV out to the location to see what fell in the ranges I was looking for and 250 seemed about right. Plus, higher ASA, generally higher grain. S.

Just thought I would point this out too. From the back of the Pro8mm package that the /05 film comes in: "Prepaid Processing Policy: Processing is included if processed before the process by date. Unused prepaid processing will not be refunded under any circumstances. The return of any film to us for processing or any other purpose will constitute an agreement by you that if any such film is damaged or lost by us or any subsidiary company, the maximum liability to us will be the replacement of an equivalent amount of unexposed film and processing. Except for such replacement, the handling of your film by us without warranty or liability even if the damage or loss is caused by negligence or other fault" Seems like I should be getting some replacement film then, don't you think? Sean McHenry.

I wanted to get a lot of opinions on the subject so I posted a similar thread at Filmshooting.com. Theirs is a much more heated version of this thread: http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/...p=165409#165409 Sean

On part one above, I am not knocking them for changing their methods, in fact, from now on when you receive a retuning set of Super8 films from Pro8mm in a double packaged envelope, you have my sacrificed film to thank for that. I even mentioned in one of my last notes to the folks there that if this situation helps someone in the future get their film back in better condition, that's a good thing. On the second idea, in my very first contact I mentioned it would be nice if they would voluntarily take back the reels, re-spool them, check how bad the damages are and clean them while doing that, at their expense. My suggestion was flat out ignored. One other thing and then I guess I'll leave the topic alone. Sympathy for the situation seems to be running hot and cold on this topic. I am still amazed that just because "it's always been that way", that doesn't, and never did make it right. That's like saying everyone just accepts the chances that their project will possibly be ruined like this. I don't understand that. Back 30 or more years ago when film was being sent to the labs, in couriered pouches or even by US mail, you could mark something as "Fragile" and that probably meant something more than it does today. With the massive amounts of cargo on semi trucks and the way packages are routinely handled, (I worked for UPS for a very short time in College unloading trucks so I know how this works) you can't get the quality of service you used to. I know that. Being as how I know what can happen to a package, everything I send out of my house or work (I'm a broadcast television engineer) is packaged very safely. Maybe it is wrong of me to think this way but it's really just common sense. Just because it's always been that way doesn't make it the right, or certainly the best way. The world would be a lot different if we did everything the way we did 30 years ago. Sean

Well, I admit to not being in a hurry and choosing a lesser expensive route. I didn't know it would take 6 days until I received the tracking number, which I had to write and ask for. From speaking with Pro8mm, I was told DHL was their only carrier as they were dropped by UPS because they didn't have the amount of packages that were needed to stay with them. Another service wasn't an option. I would hope it shouldn't matter what mode of transportation you select, I think you have a reasonable expectation that air, ground, 2-day or 6, shouldn't matter to the condition of the object on arrival. As I have said elsewhere, I just wonder where the line in the sand is? If I had 16mm in for processing, does that return in a paper envelope? Does 35mm? Then why this treatment of 8mm? What if I were working on a big budget piece and had chosen 8mm for aesthetic reasons? If this were a project for MTV, would I expect the same paper envelope? I would hope not. I don't want this to sound like it's aimed at you. Not my intent at all, just frustrated, still. Thanks, Sean

Yep, sucks a lot. All told that tiny shoot only ran about $250 or so total but that's a cunk of personal change I sure could use elsewhere. Not to mention we'll never be able to duplicate that crew and cast again. Timing just won't let it happen. The other dilemma is that I was going to go back and shoot some wide shots for inserts here and there and that would have required picking up at least one or two more rolls of the same stock. You can see why I might be a bit gun shy on doing that. Might take the whole piece to B&W and shoot the cutaways on Tri-X or maybe Pan-X and compensate in the Avid for the different stocks. If only Kodak would release a higher speed daylight negative film, I'm sure some folks would use it. I sure would. As it is, I may abandon Super 8 for the better selection and greater number of labs in 16mm. I have 100' rolls of 250D available and in the fridge now for the H16 Bolex I just bought. I'll be doing a camera test with one roll in a week or so. I am glad you had good results with them. I would be interested to find out if anyone else has had questionable shipping with them. Every other lab I have dealt with, even the smaller labs put their film in smaller boxes before returning it, like Dwayne's does. Pro8mm had nothing around the reels. Sean

I won't post the whole bloody mess here but if you are interested in what just happened to my first Super 8 film project, please pop over to my Blogs on the subject at the following link: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...logID=287448077 This is not rumor or thrid party information. This happened to me. The brunt of it is, I bought 5 rolls of Pro8mm/05 film for a very short film project and the lab didn't properly protect the returning film. It was crushed on the route home. The film was sent back on plastic reels in a paper envelope inside a single light weight DHL envelope. It spent 6 days on a semi with other much larger and heavier packages getting abused. You can see the pictures and read the whole thing here. What makes me the most mad is not potentially loosing this project but their initial non-admission of guilt in not packaging the returning films correctly and not offering to even replace the damaged film stock. Please read the blog before doing any further business with Pro8mm and then decide for yourselves if this is just wrong. Attached here are 2 pics of some of the damage. See more in the blog. Thanks, Whining over, Sean

I wouldn't need any adapters as I will probably be letting go of it on Ebay this weekend. I can't find a good use for it so I'll get it moving around to someone that can. Nope, no coupling of any sort on the back of the lens itself. I think it's one of the last of it's breed. Nobody seems to know what the little beast really is. You're all welcome to bid on it this weekend if you like. Thanks for all the info. Hopefully it will bring enough into the bank to pick up a decent 75mm, or maybe a reflex Bolex? Not holding my breath on that one. Sean McHenry

Speaking of smallest aperture, it goes down to f32. I have seen only one other reference to this lens, but no other images of it. Must be an odd bird. The other 90mm Kilfitt Kilar's seem to be f2.8 macro's. Maybe I'll put it up on Ebay this weekend and see who bites. Maybe there is some special niche it filled for still photographers? Thanks folks, Sean

I was hoping that tube was actually 2 or 3 pieces and there really was an extension piece in the middle but no, the tube as you see it in the pics is one long solid tube. The adapter in the other pic looks like it might go from the lens segment itself to a bayonet mount. That's cool in that maybe this lens would be of use to someone. I can focus down to millimeters in front of the lens so I could use it for super tiny macro stuff, like shooting animation with really really tiny matchstick men or something. Still, rather have the correct 75mm for the camera. I am willing to trade for the appropriate lens... Thanks for the info Mark and everyone. Sean

Thanks Charles. Robert mentioned maybe tossing in the cans and reels if I have him re-spool the film at his shop, if I understood him right. That might be the way to go. In the meantime, I found someone with some Kodak stock on 100' daylights he's letting go of for $9.95 each plus S&H. I picked up 5 the other day and will probably use that to test the camera out, until I can figure out how to cut this other stock down. Robert, let me know if I have that right and we'll talk turkey. Thanks, Sean

Well, it's got a larger mount on the other end of the tube. I'll try posting a few smaller images so you can get a bit of a look at it. I saw that same website where that image comes from of the other lens. I would think it would say Makro or Macro on it someplace but it doesn't. It is mostly black with silver adjustment rings. See pics. The tube is C mount only on the one end. From what I have seen of other similar models, it may be a longer tube for some other camera model. These parts all fit together and it looks like there is some sort of filter holder that goes between the lens hood and the first element when you screw the hood on. So it goes like this, lens hood, filter holder ring, lens, tube with C-mount on the smaller end that attaches to the camera. Let me know if anyone recognizes it. Thanks, Sean

Hello again experts. I received a Kilfitt Kilar 1:3.5 / 90 lens with my Bolex H16 I bought on Ebay a few weeks back. I am thinking, from what I have been reading about standard Bolex lenses, this is not a normal lens to come with an H16, especially since the viewfinder is set for 15mm, 25mm and 75mm. It came with a Switar 1.8 16mm (Close enough to 15), a very clean Cooke 1.4 25mm, the Pan Cinor 17.5 - 70 zoom and this oddball 90mm. My first clue on the 90mm is that I can't focus anything through the critical focus on top any further away than about 3 feet. Makes me think it's for a camera with a different film plane focal point? The lens is marked out to infinity naturally but it won't go past a few feet in focus. Anyone know what I have here? I did find a few web sites mentioning the Makro versions of Kilfitt 90s but this isn't marked as a macro type. As the lens comes apart in several sections I was wondering if maybe the last section, a tube with no elements might be replaceable and different lengths for different cameras, and maybe this tube was wrong for this camera. My final guess is, whoever had this before I did simply picked up the wrong lens along the way. Now I'm wishing I had a 75mm for it. Anyone have a spare 75 they won't beat me up over? I'll trade this oddball 90. Thanks folks. Sean

I thought the emulsion was different but it makes sense that it was easier all along to just coat the entire base with emulsion than to only coat the normally used section of it. Maybe I am thinking of magnetic sound film like in Super8 where you can't expose over the stripe area. Anyway, I think this is good news then as I found someone with what is being sold as Super16 stock for quite a reasonable price. I think I'll pick up a few rolls for the H16 then, till I get the rest re-spooled. Thanks everyone. Lot's of learning to do on 16mm. Sean

Rob, could you e-mail me direct at Sean(at)DeepBlueEdit.com ? Thanks, Sean

I would still like a copy of the manual but I sent this to Bernie for a good look. Hopefully it's nothing serious. Sean