David Leugers

Will I don't know that much about the K-100, but I have recovered from the same problem with a B+H 70 by using the hand crank to manually run the camera forward a little bit and then the spring motor could do its thing. I seem to recall that the K-100 has an input shaft for a hand crank? Hope it helps.

Man, way too hard! I did think of your challenge in a different light. I chose the combination of film, director and cinematography that came together in such a way to elevate all three into something truly unique or special. I came up with my choices by voting with my money, those films that met the criteria and where I had paid money many times to view the film in a theater. The champs are: Gone With the Wind The Wild Bunch Apocalypse Now

My experience with DS-8mm has been with the Canon and Bolex DS-8mm cameras. I have never shot with a Pathe but I am glad there are still those out there that use them. I have shot with R-8mm Bolex H8 cameras for over thirty years now, and always had interest in shooting DS-8mm. Once I got my hands on the Canon and Bolex, I sold off my entire collection of S-8mm cameras. While shooting S-8mm cartridges are fun and easy, and there are great cameras around, for me it made sense to standardize on roll film cameras. I love the mechanical brilliance of the cameras and the feeling of craftsmanship when using them. The Canon is a sure joy to use and the best hand held camera I have ever shot with. The Bolex is capable of producing the utmost in image quality. If you have the lab process your film as 16mm and you slit the film yourself, the savings in film costs are substantial over cartridge film. With the huge bonus of the step-up in image quality, what is not to like with DS-8mm?

Yale DOES NOT process Fomapan anymore. Like just about every lab around, they finally threw in the towel due to the problems with getting good reliable results without ruining their chemicals, so I was told. If I were shooting a feature in B+W and didn't want to use Plus-X or Tri-X, I would much rather shoot Orwo UN54 than Fomapan. Orwo looks great without all the problems of Fomapan.

Doesn't sound like you actually owned or shot film with a DS-8mm camera. If not, too bad. Although you have to put up with the size and weight, the results can be impressive. Once I finally owned a DS-8mm camera (Canon DS8) I started selling off my S-8mm cameras. I have since acquired a beautiful Bolex H16 Rex-4 converted to DS-8mm with a hard front single lens mount. After seeing the results I got with this camera using an Ang 8-64 "C" mount zoom, I sold off all my S-8mm cameras. I still like S-8mm and I am not a snob about it, but for me the proof is on the screen. And the robustness of the cameras are a huge plus to me. I felt sickened every time I had a S-8mm camera die on me. The Canon 1014XLS in my experience is over rated. All I ever heard about this camera was how perfect it was. Mine was much noisier than I expected and its registration, frame rate, and image quality sub par to my Elmo 1012 SXL.

Matthew, don't get rid of your Sankyo. You can use it when your Elmo gives up the ghost. And it will at some point and odds are the Sankyo will still be going strong. The Elmo was a great camera and I loved using mine, but it doesn't have a good track record for long term reliability. Good luck.

It may have something to do with the way they can write off and depreciate the video equipment quicker, as it becomes obsolete in just a few years, then is thrown away and there is no cost for routine service. My experience would suggest that those controlling the money prefer the purchase of new equipment. It may be different in the academic world, but what I have seen is that the real graft in the business world is through purchasing. Kick backs seem to be the norm. Budget wise, my experience has been that once an asset is purchased, money for its upkeep should be much easier to justify than the purchase of new equipment. It is a real shame the "educators" are depriving the students by eliminating the film experience. I whole heartedly agree that R-16mm can look great 16:9. No need to toss those great old cameras...

Lumet's "12 Angry Men" is a great film. I wonder how Director Lumet could explain how it would have been advantageous to have shot it in HD video if it were available 50 years ago? Perfect example of basically a one location film with a limited number of cast. No special effects of any sort. Just great drama hugely benefited by the great B+W cinematography and camera work. I think the video look would have broken the timelessness of the film.

Tim, that is one of the issues, but I would think that someone would have a processing tank (a Morse?) that could handle 100ft of 35mm... kinda like the chicken or the egg. Why go to the trouble to set up for T-Max development, if it is not a good choice for a film stock, or is it not a good choice because of the lack of development services? I for one love Plus-X in all its forms: reversal, negative and still film. One experience I had with still film was in attempting to create a negative with my Canon 35mm of an antique photo in a museum of an ancestor of mine. I tried on two occasions using T-Max 100 and never got what I was after. I shot it a 3rd time with Plus-X and it came out perfect, same lighting, camera and lens. I was very surprised.

How about someone with a 35mm camera, even an Eyemo, shoot a 100ft roll of T-Max as an independent test so we could see if it would indeed make a great B+W movie stock?

I wish I still had an article about this quite a few years ago about how Kodak had done a lot of experimenting with T-Max to see if they could release it as a movie film. As I recall the results were very disappointing. Plus-X looked better and there was no advantage to using T-Max emulsions according to Kodak. I am a huge, huge fan of all B+W film stocks. Each has its own look and use. I am disappointed with Fomapan. It can look great, but there have been so many problems I just can't bring myself to shoot with it anymore for anything other than a basic camera test. 4-X gets a bad rap, but I still have some in my freezer and a few 100ft rolls of 16mm I shot this year came out looking great. Great available light film. It looks surprisingly good transferred. I have not had any printed and I feel that making a print would increase the contrast enough to give it more snap when projected. Plus-X and the old Agfa 25 ASA B+W reversal in R-8mm produced some of the sharpest looking 8mm film I ever shot. Just beautiful projected. I often think the general film going public really misses out on not seeing true B+W films shown on the big screen. For thirty years all we hear is how B+W is not "commercial". I go out of my way to see any B+W film. A true junkie. Robert I envy you doing it "old school"! I love cutting on film, but can't afford work printing and making prints.

Two things about the Quarz = (1)unscrew the zoom lens and clean the outside surface of the lens half that is inside the camera body and then clean the backside of the removed lens. The gunk on those two surfaces makes for most of the soft image resolution. (2) screw the auto exposure. Use a light meter and set exposure manually for happy results.

This of course is not the same as "flashing" a film stock. I had this happen to me once and the film exhibited random static marks throughout the roll making the footage pretty unusable. Maybe for some advante garde or experimental fim... With the costs of developing these days, I would personally either pitch the film or at least do a short test to see if it can be used for the purpose you intended. Whenever rewinding film stock make sure you ground both rewinds and make sure you are not carrying a static charge.

I have never watched this film, especially after seeing a skit on the old Second City TV show where prison inmates desparate for some release from their dire situation were offered a trip to a theatre to see a movie. When they found out the movie was going to be "Yentyl" they all said no and went back to their bunks! I just figured it must be really bad... :rolleyes:

Tim you might try WMBerg There are others such as SDI.

The film "Roger and Me" which was filmed in the 1980's on regular 16mm film was shown on an HD channel with the image cropped to 16:9. It looked fantastic on my HD plasma TV. With the newer and improved filmstocks, I would not hesitate to shoot R-16mm for a video distributed film. Of course all costs being equal, who wouldn't opt to get the extra quality of S-16mm? The question is if any extra costs are worth it for a particular project.

If that is your plan, and it is a good one, then I would suggest you getting either a Bolex H-8 regular 8mm camera or a Canon DS8mm or Bolex modified to shoot DS8mm. This will provide more of a learning experience getting you ready to shoot 16mm. You will learn to thread roll film (no cartridge to pop in like S-8mm) and to set exposure using a light meter. You will also be accustomed to using a camera the size of 16mm since those cameras I mentioned are actually 16mm cameras that use double run 8 or S8 film. Just a thought!

The Elmo 1012SXL is a great camera, capable of some very nice images. It has a very good lense on it. However, be aware that this camera is known to be fragile. I owned one and loved it until it malfunctioned. After wasting several hundred dollars on two attempts to get it repaired (from a very reputable Elmo repairman,,,) I had to scrap it. I have heard others experiencing the same thing. If the camera is in good working order as you say and you can get it cheap enough to where you are willing to take a chance on it = go for it. I liked using mine very much, but good luck.

Way too many great cinematographers to pick out, but I would go see a film just because photography was by Conrad Hall. I'd like to mention Joseph August who seldom gets mentioned these days. His masterful B+W photography was legendary in his day starting in the silent era and all through Columbia's golden era. He invented the zoom lens and other techinical improvements. His strong and beautiful images never got in the way of the story telling. A good example for any cinematographer to follow.

16mm old school editing, I. E. cutting workprint with final output a 16mm composite print is the most fun one can have making films. Good to hear that one can still work this way, if you have the money. The issue of sound may be a bit blurred here. If one is making a print to travel around with and show on the sides of barns in Montana, optical sound isn't such a bad compromise. Sure it can be bad, and not nearly as good as a digital soundtrack synced to the film, but I have witnessed many showings of 16mm films with optical sound that sounded very, very acceptable. The key is to have a first rate transfer of your sound master to an optical printing master and the most overlooked aspect is the projector showing the film. It is amazing the difference a good projector can make to the overall sound quality. Things I look for in a 16mm projector are: Gentle on film, excellent sound reproduction, and finally light output. Kodak discontinuing color reversal print film was a terrible loss...

I think David Mullen's assessment was dead on. The only thing I can add is the distracting lack of credibility in the aging of Matt Damon. He affected no discernable difference in his voice, mannerisms, or walk. His change to his looks basically consisted of some slight greying of his temples. He even wore the same glasses it seemed. Alec Baldwin, for instance, definitely looks different and comes off as being the age he is playing depending on the year. Minor flaw to a good film. Could have been better with more of an "edge" to it. The film print looked fabulous on the big screen - worth seeing it there instead of on your TV. David M. Leugers

"Death to Smoochy" So terrible I had to force myself to sit through it all just because I couldn't believe the film could be that bad. It was.

This is probably no help, but years ago I had my jammed Filmo repaired by the guy who used to operate as Eso-S in Kansas City. He used to sell all kinds of film stocks and supplies. He repaired my camera and it still purrs today. As I recall, the cost was extremely reasonable. Don't know how to contact him, or if he is even still around. Does anybody know?

I am the proud owner of an Arri M and it is an incredible camera. I enjoy using this camera more than any camera I have ever owned. So much so, that I think about selling off some of my other equipment so that I can buy an Arri S to compliment it.

Deepak, are the films then shown in the 4:3 aspect ratio of regular 16mm or are the images cropped for more of a wide screen presentation? Very interesting that features are being shot on regular 16mm. Me too! I like to use one of my B+H Filmo 70DR cameras with some fast film stock to be free to roam and shoot. Lots of fun!