David Leugers

Yeah, I'd love to still be able to shoot S-8mm sound film. To me it was the greatest format for home movies. Archival beautiful images with sound, what was not to like? It blows my family away when I project a Kodachrome sound film taken of family I shot 30 to 40 years ago. Talk about a time machine.

The Bell and Howell JAN 16mm projector has a version that can record to as well as play back from magnetic striped film. It has a separate unit that attaches to the projector via cables for recording. Very well made. International Cine Equipment Co (ICECO) in Miami may still be able to provide such a setup with a synchronous motor powering the projector for exact 24fps film speed. I purchased mine from them years ago.

I found it to be a breath of fresh air. I felt the fine cinematography made the film easy to look at freeing your mind to really pay attention to the details of the story. I felt the look and tone accented the bizarre nature of real spy work in that nothing is like it seems on the surface. A glacier-slow chess match played out over continents by players who win or lose often hinging upon their ability to keep their personal secrets hidden. Nasty business.

The spring that drives the camera is very, very dangerous even if you have a jig and are familiar with handling it. A fully wound spring, such as in a situation where the camera was wound up but will not run, is a bomb looking to go off. A bomb made out of a long flexible Ginsu knife. I once had the misfortune of having a fully wound spring jump the containment ring tool and it was incredibly violent just like an explosion. It blew apart the camera jig snapping steel shafts and gears and anything else in the way. Fortunately I had a fraction of a second to jump back pulling my hands away to protect my face when I saw the spring start to move on its own. I was lucky and only received bad bruises and minor cuts to both hands. I will not mess with them. You may and you might never have an issue. With all the Filmos out there with good spring motors, why take the risk? Besides, you can use an electric motor with many of them. If a Filmo is gummed up from lack of lube and use, some good penetrating light weight oil at first to break the mechanism free, then apply good camera oil very often does the trick. Good luck!

I had this type of experience once with a customer who had many rolls of S-8mm he had shot in Vietnam when he was in the Army during the war. I have never seen such gate hair, to the point it was becoming solid black blobs around the entire picture area. I believe it was actually emulsion that was shedding itself adding more and more with each cartridge. It was sad to see such rare images practically ruined. I had to balance how much to zoom in to maintain a decent image quality while eliminating as much as possible the distracting edge cartoons...

I have to make a correction here. Although is has long been stated that the 332d FG never lost a bomber to enemy aircraft, new evidence surfaced in 2007 that refuted this claim. The 332d did, in fact, loose 25 bombers to enemy aircraft during the course of it's service. Despite this, they still had one of the finest operational records of any fighter group during the war.

 

This was not new evidence. This was known from the start of the myth that was published in a magazine article during WWII. On the day the writer was covering the story of the Red Tails, they lost 12 bombers but he wrote that they had never lost a bomber they escorted. This must have been due to war time propaganda, maybe meant to encourage more black Americans to become pilots. As such, I don't have a problem with it for that reason. However, everyone who flew in the European theater knew that claim was false. Embarrassingly, so do the members of the 332d, yet this is repeated every time by them and the media. I think it detracts from their rightful place of honor as Americans who fought in the war. To be singled out and held up on a pedestal without legs is an affront to the others who did the same and more. Hyperbole and exaggerations aside, the 332d flew mostly ground support and there is not one single ace (five confirmed kills) among them. They were credited with destroying about 150 aircraft including those on the ground. Those are facts one can look up. There in only one story of any US fighter shooting down a Me262 jet in actual air-to-air combat that I know of, and that was by a P-51 pilot who made a lucky shot and he was not in the 332d. I don't doubt the 332d shot down three Me262's while they were out of fuel and trying to land. This was how almost all of them were destroyed in the air and with the 332d flying ground support they would have been in position to take the advantage. No disrespect meant to any of the Red Tails, it took huge amount of courage just to climb into one of those planes and go off knowing you could get killed and they deserve the proper credit for doing so. Never get your history from Hollywood, they never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

I think you pulled off the "old school" de-aging of actor John Noble very well and the overall look let the viewer know that this was not set in the present time as a typical episode. You must have been under pressure to pull it off, but it must have also been fun to accomplish.

A Super-16mm projector is not that big of a deal. ICECO, the last manufacturer of the JAN 16mm projector has offered this conversion. The B+H JAN is probably the best for such conversion, but I would suggest that any projector with a large barrel lens (52mm) would be a candidate, provided the film path rollers etc. can be made S16 safe. Of course, you will not to able to show R16mm sound films with it, but S16mm projection coupled with separate sound shown double system would be awesome and way better than an optical sound track could ever offer...

The Ang 15mm C mount lens I have is one of my favorites. Sharp as a tack. The one in your hand may vary. Shoot some tests with it and see if you like it and performs to your satisfaction. The only thing that matters is your opinion based on experience and not reputation of brand name.

Although I am usually against any remake, I had to go and see this one (any well made western is worth viewing :D ). I enjoyed it, but I have to say it does not equal the original. It is different enough to qualify as a new take on the subject, and the cinematography is of course, first rate, but it has only Matt Damon replacing uber-turd actor Glenn Campbell as an improvement over the 1969 version. If Jon Voight had played the Texas Ranger instead of Campbell, I think even that comparison would favor the 69 version. The death of Moon in the mudhut played by Dennis Hopper in the original is a good example of what I am talking about. I am a big fan of the Coen

brothers, but I can not see why these very original film makers would want to do a remake, especially of such a good original?

I say give me something new.

Jordan

Scroll down to the topic ? Where can I find/buy 16mm CARTRIDGE film ?

for some good current info on the subject.

A few years ago the U.S.Government surplused a zillion new 16mm projectors. Search "new 16mm projector" and you'll get a bunch of listings. I snagged a B&H JAN last year for $300.00. Currently Kinneaman wants $700 for new JAN's, $450 for B&H 2585's, and $250 for Telex's. What's nice about the JAN's is they use a Geneva mechanism pulldown (no claw but rather an intermittant gearbox driving a sprocket) just like movie theater 35mm projectors.

 

 

I have never seen, read, or heard about a JAN with a Geneva movement instead of the claw mechanism that is on all of my JAN projectors - including a new one I purchased from ICECO (Kinneman). That said, the JAN is one heck of a projector and one of my all-time favorites. The easiest on film I have come across. And the easiest to clean. The overhaul manual requires 2000 passes with a test film strip with no wear...

Matt

I would rule out the projector. It looks to me from what I can tell by the video, that the

problem is likely in the processing of the film. Even if the film stock was outdated, I have

never seen any problem like that, but I have seen similar problems with processing errors.

I saw the original Tron several times in theaters. It had that quality so few films have of portraying the story in a dream-like pace and visuals. Vertigo

had the same effect on me when I got to see the restoration on the big screen.

Looking forward to seeing the new one, hope it has the magic.

I can't believe "Burn Notice" switched from its wonderful film images over to video. The first new episode so recorded lost a great deal of the signature look of the series and was at times, painful for me to watch. At least, it was obvious to me it was now shot of video. Anyone know for sure?

I wouldn't classify this as a "little horror gem" and please, do not remake this. If you insist, please tell me how being shot in color and maybe digitally would better serve the subject and which two actors are you going to get to one-up Bette Davis and Joan Crawford? Would it be a better film? Probably not which is why I hate remakes. The only one I know for sure that was better than the original was "The Maltese Falcon" starring Humphrey Bogart. I love the film too for what it is, and don't need a pale imitation, thank you. Now maybe "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlette" would make for a decent horror flick remade for today? Lots of opportunity to add lots of gore and in color... just my two cents!

Shooting 16mm 50ft magazine film today if more of a hobbyist endeavor, but it sure

can be fun. Getting beautiful 16mm images with a camera the size of S-8mm cameras

is kinda cool. No fiddling to reload the camera, you just pop in another mag and shoot

away. Problem is, the work you have to do to reload your own magazines. Not that

big of a deal once you invest the time to learn how. Also, the cost of shipping magazines

back and forth to the lab is way too expensive. Best to unload the mag and place the film

(with rubber band or tape to keep from unwinding) and place it into one of Kodak's 100 ft

16mm black plastic cans with a sticker placed on the front to denote to unload in darkroom only / 50ft magazine load. Please return the core with processed film. Works for me.

I like the B+H models and Kodak's Royal Magazine camera is a black leather beauty with some great lenses.

I finally gave them a try and I'm glad I did. R-8mm Plus-X shot with my trusty Bolex H8 came out superb. High quality processing and super clean at a great price. How great? For the 25ft roll, I was charged for 25ft of 16mm B+W reversal processing.

With postage the total was $6.50. I slit it myself and mounted it on a 50ft reel. Nice to be able to save this way. Most labs gouge on the slitting and mounting charges for R-8mm and DS-8mm film...

Digital switch was briefly considered at the beginning of this season. Its very nice to shoot film though!

gm

A very wise move, IMHO. The great look of the cinematography of this show shot on film is what

caught my eye to start with. I have actually stopped watching some popular shows that are digital because of the look. Maybe it's just me, but often times the actors look horrible. Maybe more natural or ordinary, but I see the same poop in the mirror every morning... :)

Peeling away the veneer in closeups doesn't help. I view it like in the '60s when color film finally took over and B+W almost died out. Like arguing the benefits of digital today, color film had its proponents, but actors never looked better on the big screen when filmed by master cinematographers in B+W. Not saying shows should be shot on B+W, but I see digital as another step down instead of making the experience for the viewer more memorable.

Before buying the Eumig(or any projector for that matter) always run a test reel of film through it to check out all the functions. The Eumig is a great machine, but be wary of examples that do not advance the film through the gate properly. A common and fatal flaw is to have one of the teeth of the claw broken off - the bottom one if for the film going forward and if it is missing, the projector is just a source of parts for a good machine at that point.

I am a huge fan of the show ever since the first episode aired. Love the cinematography, stay with film!

Me too! Very accurate in the sense of danger for the stunt pilots. I remember reading about famous aerial cameraman Dwyer who said that he personally filmed fatal crashes of pilots trying to get the shot for a film - I believe the number was 9 of them if my memory is right. Directors

always wanted more...

Terrific film all around. Check out Robert Ryan in "The Set-up" by director Robert Wise.

Rick thanks for sharing this! Too bad it Super 8 Today didn't make it to press. I for one miss that mag. I have seen a few of Maddin's films and I have been impressed.

I love his use of real B+W stock instead of desaturating color negative.

I think a lot of potential users of DS-8mm get either concerned about the technical aspects such as loading the film or feel the larger cameras and increased weight will

make filming difficult. All Bolex H cameras and the Canon DS-8mm camera have auto loading

feature which makes loading so simple and fun no one should be deterred by this. With just a few tries one will immediately become an expert loading the camera. The weight issue can be a hidden bonus. For instance, shooting DS-8mm you tend to use a tripod more often which will result in much better footage under most circumstances. Your audience, even if just family, will appreciate it. I have never felt uncomfortable hand holding a Bolex, but hand holding the Canon to me is a real treat. The balance and feel is just right and it has the best viewfinder around. I can shoot the best hand held footage with a Canon DS-8mm than any S-8mm camera I have shot with (and I have used many). The longer

shooting time (100ft versus 50ft) and the real savings make it not only the best image capable system for S-8mm film making, but also the most economical.