David W Scott

Really? Is the Black Creek facility totally gone? Is Monogram larger or smaller digs?

Super 8 is not discontinued at all. Kodachrome has been cancelled across the board, but there are lots of other stocks to shoot in Super 8: Ektachrome 64T colour reversal Tri-X 200 ASA B&W reversal Plus-X 100 ASA B&W reversal VISION2 200T colour negative VISION2 500T colour negative You can read about these stocks here: Kodak Super 8 stocks Many cheaper cameras can only meter stocks that are 40 or 160 ASA. (The camera makers didn't bother making them compatible with other speeds because for many years, 40 and 160 ASA was all you could buy.) It's unclear whether your GAF can meter other ASA film correctly. For an untested camera, I would recommend you shoot the Tri-X. It is the film that is the most compatible with every camera out there. Plus, no futzing with filters or daylight/tungsten switches. If your GAF has manual aperture control, and you have an external light meter, then you could shoot any of these stocks -- but shooting a test first is advised. In your situation, I would stick with the Tri-X and have fun. You can always order direct from Kodak (see above). I don't know where you are posting from, but in Toronto there are a couple of retail stores where you can buy Super 8 cartidges -- West Camera on Queen St. W, and Henry's on Church St. Good luck!

Apparently, all Nizo's except the Compact series are supposed to be OK. See Kodak's 64T notch page and Super 8 Wiki's E64T page What I don't have is a list of every camera considered to be a "Compact".

How much of the saturation and contrast is determined by processing practices, as opposed to film stock? Obviously, given comparable processing, different stocks will have different characteristics. But is it feasible to alter the processing of a stock to achieve significantly more saturation and/or contrast?

I shot most of my tests with 85B on the lens. On one shot of a colour chart, I shot with the 85B and then the internal 85. I can't see any difference between the two. BUT -- To date my E64T tests have been processed by a lab using VNF chemistry. (They will be switching to E6 once people stop giving them VNF to process.) The result is a blue cast on the whole roll, especially in the shadows. This may be evening out the detectable difference between 85B and 85. I will be shooting one more test in the next month, to be processed E6. I will try the 85 vs 85B again. Will you be projecting or transfering to video? I have seen the telecine of a whole roll of E64T (E6 processed) shot with just the internal 85. The 200 degree difference in colour temperature is very easy to correct, and the footage looked great. Of course, the 85 in different cameras could be different colout temps, especially after 30 years. So, if I was being cautious, I would say use 85B for projection, 85 or 85B for telecine. Dave

Clive, are you able to provide negative transfers? Or are you working on it? Seems like Rank isn't the only game in town for neg. I've seen good neg transfers from a film chain and a Sniper. Dave

Sorry Clive, I should have known better. I think of you and Roger as manufacturers, and put MovieStuff in the list because Freya reminded me otherwise. Any other neglected services? I'd like to have a good list to share with folks.

Here's a good list to get you started: 3516 Bono Labs Cine Film CineLab Exclusive Flying Spot Frame Discreet Brodsky & Treadway MovieStuff Pac Lab Photo Plays CinePost Pro8mm Yale The prices will vary wildly across these vendors -- but you can find a reasonable price for any kind of transfer (Rank Cintel, WorkPrinter, or old-school film chain). Good luck, Dave

I saw the film in '95 or '96 with my fiancee. It was at the Princess Court (arthouse) in Kingston, Ontario. It made such an impression that we decided to honeymoon in Havana in 1997. On the taxi ride in to the old Hotel Nacional, my new wife and I kept pointing out parts of the city that reminded us of "I Am Cuba". Overhearing us, a white-haired gentleman introduced himself. It was Harry Tanner, the A.D. on "I Am Cuba". He talked about the film and gave us tips on where to eat and how best to enjoy our time in Havana. It was truly an honour, and a striking bit of synchronicity. Harry was originally from Canada, and moved to Cuba. When we met him, he had moved back to Toronto, but had come to Cuba to visit with his kids (who stayed in Cuba.) He was saddened by the experience with "I Am Cuba" because the film was banned for so many years.

You can also try the good folks at Exclusive Film & Video: Transfers (to film or to video) at Exclusive

Hey Evan, your footage looks great! Are you matting for widescreen in post, or did you modify the camera to shoot Super/Ultra 16?

I'm sure you can find cheaper solutions, but the standard Beacktek is pretty pricey in Canada ($479 CDN): Beachtek adapter at Vistek I struggled for years with XLR-to-miniphone adapter cables. They really don't cut it in the field - those mini plugs are notoriously flaky. They provide a very small area for electrical contact, and when the springs in the socket get weak, you get more and more problems with hum and dropouts. This is especially problematic when you only have one shot at getting the sound (i.e. a wedding, an event, documentary, etc.) I am gun shy about using any camera that doesn't have XLR connectors right on the body.

Definitely go for option 1. In your budget range, it's the only way to get video AND audio that will be acceptably professional. You say the first thing you want to shoot is an industrial video... that is exactly what these cameras were designed for. I know it doesn't record DV -- but as mentioned, you can add a cheap $250 miniDV or Digital8 camcorder and use it as the recording deck. That said, S-VHS looks better than you think. If you bump your first-generation S-VHS to DV, you can still edit easily without generation loss. Generation loss is what killed the usefulness of S-VHS as a post-production format. Think of the advantages of this camera compared to your other options (including buying a new 1-chip MiniDV camera): -- 3 CCDs. Let me repeat. 3 CCDs. There is no substitute. Anything less has smeared colour that won't hold up to editingor post processing. -- Decent lens. That's a real piece of glass hanging off the front of the GY-X3. Any MiniDV camcorded you could afford will have a pathetic semi-automatic lens, crippling the image quality even before it gets recorded to MiniDV. Also, a full size lens like that makes it MUCH easier to manually focus. -- Big sharp viewfinder. The full ENG-style viewfinder will make it much easier to manually focus. If you are being paid for a gig, every shot MUST be pin-sharp. The low-res screens on little MiniDV camcorders make it very difficult to judge focus. -- Shoulder mount. Much more stable for hand-held use. Also, undeniably more professional look for the clients. (I know that's shallow, but clients notice if you use a PalmCorder instead of the big iron.) -- XLR audio input. I can't overstate HOW IMPORTANT this item is. Adding it to a MiniDV camera costs $500. It's necessary, to use any microphone better than a $10 radio shack mic. Plus, balanced XLR cables can be run for long distances with no loss in signal or interference -- very important when you need to put the camera at the back of the room, and put a microphone on a podium at the front of the room. Plus, you can always take the XLR feed off of the audio guys mixing board if you are shooting at a live event. I think this JVC camera only has composite video out, which is fine. But you won't really see the full fidelity of what is recorded on tape until you play back in a deck with S-Video connections. Of course you can always add that later, keeping your eye open for ANY cheap S-VHS VCR, because they will all have S-Video out. My suggestion might be different if you were comparing the GY-X3 to a good DV camera like the Panasonic DVX-100 or the Canon XL 2. But for your budget, the GY-X3 is a steal. You'll be able to shoot like a pro, with good picture quality, and learn how to operate a real camera. Invaluable. Good luck.

I use a cute little Noris Record D projector. It comes with two complete assemblies of gate and sprockets, one set for Super 8 and one for Regular 8. It's not an instant solution to switch between the two, but it provides perfect registration for both formats. The projector even has a little spot to store whichever gate/sprocket module you aren't currently using. The Noris projectors are cheap, and produce a nice (if small) picture. They use a very effective spring loaded pressure plate. The Noris Record D also has a nice variable-speed control.

My batteries are a couple of years old -- they are 1800 milliamp hour. I wouldn't get hung up on the mAh rating. I believe it is only an indicator of capacity, not of current handling. So, 2500 mAh should let you shoot for 125% of the time that 2000 mAh would give. Current should be comparable, but I haven't tested.

I am using NiMH AA's in my cameras, very happily. I have never found NiCad's reliable, so I had previously resorted to Alkalines. However, I don't like hurting the environment or my wallet with disposable batteries. Once I switched to NiMH batteries for other high-draw use (my digital still camera), I tried the NiMH in my Super 8 cameras, and haven't looked back. Obviously, the voltage difference might be a factor for your cameras, affecting the light meter or even the frame rate. But realistically, alkaline batteries drop to 1.2 volts pretty quickly under heavy use, and continue to drop as they are expended. The nice thing about the NiMH is that they hold that 1.2V right up until they die. I use the NiMH in an Elmo Super 106, with 4xAA cells, and an AGFA Movexoom 10, which uses 6 cells. With 6 cells, the cumulative voltage drop using NiMH's will be substantial, so I tested the AGFA with both Alkalines and NiMH. I used fresh alkalines, metered at 1.56V each, and NiMH measured at 1.3V each. Despite the difference of 9.36V total, vs 7.8V total, there was no change in exposure metering, and no difference in operation of the camera motor or functions. Regarding how hot the batteries get -- NiMH cells will get quite hot when they are charging, and when they are discharging. That is completely normal. However, it is recommended to NOT RECHARGE your batteries as soon as they are depleted, and while they are hot. Let them cool down before you put them in the charger. Similarly, DO NOT PUT FRESHLY CHARGED batteries into use immediately. They are hot coming out of the charger -- take them out and let them cool down before you pop them into your camera and start running.

Darn it, no one wants to make a camera for the true indie. Anyone buying one of these so I can steal it? I have to make a feature on the weekend.

Having shot with both, and owned the Bolex, I lean towards to K3. I am assuming that you are really looking for the basics -- a sturdy wind-up camera with one decent zoom lens. You can't add as many accessories to a K3, but out of the box, it's more usable than the Bolex. Image quality is about the same, and if you get the M42 mount K3, you can put some interesting lenses on it. I find the Bolex fiddly, slow and uncomfortable to hand hold. I also prefer the viewfinder in the K3. Now for the caveat: Make sure that the K3 is clean and in good operating shape before you buy. You don't want to have to sink money into it having it overhauled/polished, etc.

According to this list, only the Beaulieu's and the Russian Quarz can set the ASA manually: E64T exposure compensation

When you form a corporation and file a name, it is up to you to have done the due diligence to ensure that there isn't a similar/identical name to yours. Of most concern is whether the other businesses are operating in your field, and if they are operating in the same jurisdiction as you. Sounds like these guys are in the same field as you. Not good, especially if you hope to do any business outside of your town/state/country. (And with the internet, who doesn't?) Besides, you really want the .com It makes it so much easier to get traffic. I'd pick a new name :(

I wondered the same thing when I read that article. David, I understand what you are saying about shallow/deep focus -- that makes a lot of sense. But the article suggests a difference in the behaviour of the neg. The way it is phrased, it claims that density is affected by F-stop, regardless of correct exposure. I believe that is true for exposure length (i.e. shutter angle), as dictated by the film's reciprocity characteristics. Is there anything about F-stop (beyond the DOF issues David mentioned) that would affect density/colour of a negative?

I don't think you have to spend $1000 to get a good field recorder. Take a look at the Marantz PMD660: PMD660 I haven't used it, but my favourite podcaster does. (Michael Butler, the Rock and Roll Geek Show) It sounds pretty good, and he likes it. Short battery life seems to be an issue for all of these recorders, but the Marantz uses AA's so you can keep feeding it more batteries. The MicroTrack has a non-replaceable battery, so when you're done you're done... until you charge it. That would be a deal killer for me. On set, you need to have the ability to keep it running. Not having an interchangable battery is inexcusable. Also, the Marantz has real XLR's and standard phantom power.

Since when has popularity or name-recognition had anything to do with quality? If that were true I should quit filmmaking now! :lol: Thanks for the excitement about a good movie, Benny.

A friend who directs music videos always uses his PowerBook for the on-set music playback. (Hooked up to a big Peavey speaker of course.) He lays down the music track in Final Cut Pro. That has a number of on-set advantages -- it's easy to jump around to markers set on the timeline, there is no waiting for a CD player to spin up, and he can quickly set a playback speed in percentage. You just calculate the rate needed for a shot, i.e. shooting at 48 fps, set the playback speed to 200%.

Super 8 Guy's website with video tap for Canon