Patrick Cooper

I am planning to use some Fuji Eterna 250D for a 16mm project in the near future. I was quite impressed by a high res music videoclip I saw online which used a combination of Fuji 250T and Kodak 250T films - shot on 16mm. The 250T segments looked very clean and fine grained. Bear in mind that this was the tungsten version of this film so theoretically, the daylight version would be finer grained (though probably only slightly.) However, I am puzzled by a number of peoples' comments on this forum about the graininess of Fuji's stocks, including 250D. Are you in fact referring to the current Eterna 250D or the older 250D? Someone once described Fuji's 250D as being way too grainy for their tastes. I have also watched a sample of 250D on Fuji's demo dvd - the one which features mock army games in a forest setting and this footage looked remarkably fine grained. Then again, that particular footage was shot mostly on 35mm so that is not a true representation of how it would look in 16mm. There is another website where I saw stills from 16mm Fuji 250D film and these stills didnt look particularly grainy at all. There seems to be quite a difference between what I see from samples of this stock and the kind of descriptions that people write about it. Are there any people here who would actually defend Eterna 250D as a fine grained stock?

Thanks - that makes perfect sense. However, could this be a problem when doing time lapse?

Today, I took out my K3 (with no film in and it) and fooled around with it a bit. I looked through the viewfinder and noticed that a little over half the viewfinder was black! This was really bizarre. I wound up the camera to see if that would make any difference and I looked through the viewfinder again and it was normal again. Have other K3 owners experienced this at all? If so, do you know what causes this unusual phenomenon?

Hmmm...what actually is a framing chart? That's the first time Ive heard of those. Another related question - if you were using a colour chart, grey scale or grey card, does it actually matter if such reference cards are out of focus? I was planning to position the card relatively close to the lens so that it appears large in the frame while the lens is focussed on the subject behind it.

Thanks for the information. These Kodak colour seperation guides sound ideal - combining a grey scale and colour chart on the one sheet. "You should shoot chips once again just a quick second or two at each change in lighting..." The plan is to shoot this entire project under natural sunlight - the majority of it will be filmed in late afternoon light. However, there may be some filming done in overcast light. Would a change from late afternoon (direct) sunlight to overcast light necessitate the filming of these colour guides again?

I am planning to expose some 16mm colour negative film with telecine specifically in mind. I am going to overexpose the majority of the footage by half a stop. I recall someone on this forum recommending that if one deliberately overexposes neg film, it's best to film a grey scale at the head of the film which will help the telecine people get the 'exposure' right at their end. I have heard elsewhere on this forum that it's also recommended to film a colour chart at the head of the film which will make colour correction easier at the telecine stage. Should I film both a grey scale and a colour chart at the beginning of each film reel or would only one of these items be sufficient? If both are required, would it be best to film the grey scale first and then the colour chart or would the order not matter? Additionally, how many seconds (duration) per grey scale and colour chart would be required?

Receiving a camera as a gift is always nice! Well done. If you are considering getting onto 16mm later down the track, I strongly recommend getting a manual exposure super 8 camera at some point. Getting a 35mm still film slr is also a good way to get aquainted with photography concepts such as exposure and depth of field and will make the transition to 16mm cine work easier. A 1970s slr like a Canon AE1, Pentax K1000 or Olympus Om2 are good models for learning the basics of film photography which will also apply to 16mm.

"If you shoot negative you have to either Scan it or have a print made..." That is correct but I was referring specifically to the cost of developing only (minus telecine.) With the project I am considering, the film will be telecined anyway so telecine costs would probably be identical regardless if I shot reversal or negative. I do know that there are some labs that offer both developing and telecine 'in-house' but I'm not sure at this point whether I'll be choosing this route. Thanks for the listing of the labs though they are in the US whereas I am in Australia!

Firstly, I'm curious as to why you purchased a fully automatic camera if you are interested in using manual exposure? I take it you got a good bargain with your camera and you have stated that it is in good condition. However, with a lot of super 8 camera gear being sold for low prices these days, it is possible to obtain a versatile camera model with full manual control for next to nothing. Once at a flea market, I bought a Chinon camera with full manual exposure control, single frame, macro, power / manual zoom and slow motion for $15. "Shooting reversal you have the option or benefit of being able to view on a projector with the added cost of telecine." Telecine is not essential if you are shooting reversal. If you choose to go the reversal route, you may well decide to use projection as the only means of viewing your films. Or you could choose to transfer them as well. With negative film, however, you must either telecine them or get a reversal print from them. Most people telecine negative film and I only know of one lab that can make reversal prints from super 8 negative and that is Andec in Europe. "the most expensive does guarantee a good image." That is certainly true of film stocks but the most expensive films will not necessarily give the best image quality. For example, Kodachrome 40, while we had it, was the cheapest super 8 film stock and yet had finer grain than Ektachrome 64T, Vision 200T and Vision 500T. However, I do know that the 200T is remarkably fine grained for it's speed but wouldnt be quite in the same league as a 40asa reversal film. On the other hand, 200T has superior exposure latitude over the contrasty Kodachome stock. "if i sent my exposed cartridges to a lab like niagra custom lab would it come back as a positive print or a negative print." That depends on the type of film that you exposed - whether it was reversal or negative in the first place. If it was a reversal film and the lab in question only handles negative films then they would likely return the exposed film to you unprocessed. If you exposed a negative film and the lab only handles reversal film, then they would return the exposed film to you unprocessed. If you expose reversal film and the lab processes reversal, then you will receive a reversal film. If you expose negative film and the lab processes negative film, then you will receive a negative film.

So far, all of my filming has been on reversal film (mostly super 8 and a little 16mm.) However, I am planning to shoot some negative cine film in the very near future. This question relates to the 16mm format in particular. There is an one online source that suggests that developing of negative film is cheaper than reversal. Is this generally true for 16mm or does this differ from lab to lab in which case some labs would charge the same amount for the length of film, regardless if it is negative or reversal?

Yea, I knew they not only stopped VNF processing but they threw their VNF machine out. I had one 16mm Ektachrome 7240 film developed by them a few years ago. Odd that they don't splice leaders onto the films.

That reminds me of the time I was about to get a Bolex and one guy I knew was quite interested and was wondering if he could make a short film with it. I think he was assuming that it could record both vision and sound. This same person refers to spring driven cameras as 'wind up video cameras.'

Thankyou! They stopped processing reversal? Damn, Ive just finished off some 16mm Tri-X.

I looked up Film Plus in the Australian White Pages online and the closest matches I could find were Film Australia and Film Crew Victoria etc. Last time I searched for this business over two years ago on the same website, their name and details came up. Are they actually still in business?

Very good points - especially about people going through a mental process of "elimination" of things they know. Although most people aren't too familiar with movie cameras, I would think that the rectangular shape of the K3, the black colour and the rounded curves on the top which contain the film spools would appear reminiscent of movie cameras with 'mickey mouse' film mags as seen on tv and the cinema. Additionally, still cameras are usually not as rectangular or as large as movie cameras seen on the screen. Once I was filming with my K3 at a harbour and a photographer there mistook it for a 35mm movie camera....at least he was closer with his guess!

When I took my K3 to the Victorian ski fields a few years ago, I got more than a few interested looks from observers. What I found really bizarre was that a few people thought that my 16mm cine camera was a still camera. There was even one guy who asked: That's a still camera, isn't it?" And other people remarked about my 'big camera' and the 'photos' that they assume that I take with it. To me, the K3 looks like a classic movie camera design. You could almost partly forgive people for mistaking super 8 cameras for video cameras (which has happened to me a number of times.) Though I'm confused why anyone would think that the K3 resembles a still camera. Have other K3 users here experienced the same type of assumptions from observers?

Other quality lenses in the M42 mount to look out for are Zeiss.

"...it was the fact that our 7240 was VNF, not that it was reversal, which made it grainy. Is that true?" Generally, reversal films are finer grained than negative films of the same speed. That is unless you're comparing a really old reversal film with a modern negative film.

I know of some people who have mounted Nikkor 35mm format lenses on an Aaton. Do Aaton cameras have a different flange focal depth to Arris?

"M42 IS a screw thread." Exactly. And they can be a nusiance.

In the movie 'The Life Aquatic' with Bill Murray, the (mock) vintage documentary footage within the film was shot with an Ektachrome reversal film stock.

Thanks for the information. So an adapter wouldn't compensate for the difference in flange focal depth? I use m42 mount 35mm format lenses on my Krasnogorsk 3 and focus is generally fine but screw thread lenses can be a nuisance.

With an early Arriflex model like a 16S or SB, is it possible to get adapters that allow 35mm still photography lenses to be mounted on the camera? If so, would there be any collimnation issues to be addressed?

Here's a clip containing super 8 Ektachrome 64T transferred with a Workprinter. http://members.cox.net/bradydag/64T%20test.wmv There are quite a number of people who offer transfer services using Workprinters. Though bear in mind that the quality is dependant on the operator as much as the equipment.

"The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure." With regards to frame rate, the Workprinters and Snipers transfer at single frame. So with computer software applying speed changes, the 'look' of the original frame rate of the footage (16, 18 or 24 fps) can be more or less maintained. Sure, some frames will be doubled or tripled but this is what happens with a Rank transfer also. Additionally, transferring at single frame means no flicker and no blending of frames which can plague many low end transfers. However, I do admit that exposure latitude will be a problem. As for artefacts like grain, sure there will still be plenty of that in the transfer! "My point is that you are still limited to what the video camera can shoot, irrelevant as to whether it is shooting the original scene or a projected film." With a Workprinter or Sniper, you're not shooting a projected film!