Patrick Cooper

Thankyou for your replies. They look like good resources. With regards to the Van Eck site, whereabouts do they have the 'belt kit' for Eiki? I found the Eiki link in the film projection category and I see some spare parts available for individual models, including drive belts but don't know if that's different to the 'belt kit.'.

Or pull perhaps. And just to confirm, the DL, DE, DR and HR all have that ability to lock the release? I'm not really familiar with the chronological order of the models. I'm just assuming that the highly advanced HR would be one of the last models produced.

Ah good to hear. I guess you push the same knob again to unlock the release? With my Canon 1014E super 8 camera, I used to have a remote release but that's no longer in my possession. These days, I use the running lock which allows me to have both hands off the camera while it's filming.

Thankyou for the additional information. Would you have any tips on filming with the Bell and Howell on a tripod without transferring vibrations and unnecessary movement to the camera? I don't suppose there's a running lock like on some super 8 cameras where it continues to run by itself until you stop it? To be honest, I'm not sure if that's possible on a mechanical camera. I guess one could attach a clamp around the camera with one end on the filming button. Tighten to start filming and loosen to stop. Though that would be awkward.

Just wondering if anyone knows a source for rubber belts designed specifically for Eiki 16mm projectors other than eBay? I do see some on eBay but it would be good if there were more options. A number of years ago, I was using an Eiki projector (can't recall which model.) It's somewhere in storage and I'll have to find it. Overall, it was a nice, well built projector. Mechanically, it was very reliable. It was also my first 16mm projector. But it had one major flaw. It used these rubber belts in the arms for the take up and feed spools and they would frequently break when projecting films. There were times when I would borrow 16mm films from a film library and I couldn't finish watching them because one of the belts would break mid-reel. I had to return the films only partly watched. It got extremely frustrating. At the time, I managed to get some generic belts from a local store as replacements but they wouldn't last long. Though once I chatted with someone who said that the authentic rubber belts for the Eiki projectors would last much longer. I was thinking of putting the projector into active use again and it would be great to get my hands on some belts that would last a decent amount of time. Ive actually had pretty bad luck with 16mm projectors. I have three of them from different companies. The reason I have three is that I was on a quest to find a reliable 16mm projector. Though unfortunately, all three have issues. With the Eiki, it's the rubber belts constantly breaking as mentioned above. After that, I bought a Singer which to be honest, was pretty poorly made. My dad was really unimpressed with it when he went through it's innards. The globe blew not long after I bought it. I bought a replacement globe for it which was unusually expensive - well over $40 if I recall. When the new bulb was installed, there was no light output. I was never able to use it since. Later, I bought a Bell & Howell manual threading projector. It seemed to have a fault with the audio. It had very poor quality sound. If someone was talking in a film (eg dialogue or narration) it was hard to understand what they were talking about. And this projector was really loud. If the bad sound quality wasn't enough, it would be drowned out by the extreme loudness of the projector. Normally, I don't mind the sound of a movie projector - it can add to the ambiance of a screening. But this thing is way too loud. And worse for me being the projectionist as I have sit right next to it. It's like being next to someone pounding away with a jack hammer in a demolition crew. Very unpleasant. Though despite the annoying issue with the rubber belts, the Eiki is so much nicer to use. Actually, I think the Eiki will be the only 16mm projector that I will bring out of retirement. At this stage, I don't know what I will do with the other two.

Webster, nice footage and I enjoyed the nature closeups and your mother's commentary. Yes, I have known about that Pan Cinor lens with reflex viewfinder for quite some time but never seen one in real life. I heard that Angenieux also had a lens with a reflex viewfinder. There seems to be 10 - 120mm and 12 - 120mm versions of it. Simon, good to hear that the critical focuser has 15x magnification. This sounds very usable. Thanks for the recommendations for the younger models. I guess these ones all take single perf film. What kind of oils would be recommended for lubrication? And would there generally be a socket for a cable release for regular filming? Actually, I just googled to see if these cameras also offer single frame shooting but didn't come across any information that suggested that was the case. Not really an issue because I could use other cameras for time lapse and stop motion animation.

I'm interested in getting hold of a Bell and Howell 16mm Filmo (possibly a 70 series camera) and running some film through it. I have shot with a K3 before so this time, I'll have to get used to operating without a reflex viewfinder. I do note that some models come with a "critical focuser" which would allow direct focusing through the taking lens when it's swung out to the side. I do realise that you would only be seeing a small portion of the image through this port. I'm assuming this would be the most accurate way of achieving focus - handy when focusing at close distances with large apertures I gather. In practise, how easy is to focus through this thing? I guess different individuals would have different experiences and preferences. Just hoping for a bright clear image. I'm guessing there wouldn't be any ground glass. I know that some models have a bunch of viewfinder lenses that have matching or corresponding focal lengths to the taking lenses on the turret. I'm hoping there's a 25mm and 50mm viewfinder lens available because I plan to use my Canon FD 24mm and 50mm lenses with a C mount to FD adapter. I may or may not be able to focus on infinity but I would mainly be focusing on closer subjects anyway. Ive also heard there's an accessory known as a "focusing alignment gauge" which fits between the camera and tripod, allowing you to shift the camera from one position to another. Parallax correction I assume. How often does this accessory turn up on eBay? A few people on this forum have commented that these cameras can produce flicker. That's one turn off for me. How common is this issue? Ive seen a number of clips on youtube shot with Bell and Howell 70 series cameras and I didn't notice any flicker in them. Someone mentioned that the HR model is less likely to have flicker but I checked out the price of a HR on eBay and it's going for around $1000. For me, I think part of the appeal of Bell and Howell Filmos is that generally, they can be picked up for super low prices. If spending $1000 on a 16mm camera, I think it would make more sense to buy a more advanced camera like a Bolex H16 reflex or an early model Arriflex. Also, is there a socket for a cable release? I'd prefer one when filming from a tripod.

I do see the vertical movement here. It wasn't really noticeable for me when looking at the main image area - probably because the footage was hand held. Though looking at the top frame line, I can see the vertical movement. As for my K3 footage, it's been years since Ive watched it. So I'm only going on my memory. Though none of it was transferred. I watched it all projected. I mostly used a tripod and occasionally a monopod but I don't recall seeing vertical movement when projecting it. I would have no idea whee the reels are currently - somewhere in storage I suppose. I haven't seen any of it since the move.

Dom, that really sounds like a grim situation here regarding film. That is crazy what Deluxe did. Sounds like they're anti-film. Aapo, yes I would only send developed film overseas. Even so, there's always the chance of films getting lost in international mail. Actually, there's also a high risk of items being lost in the Australia postal system as well. Ive had a number of things go missing over the years including a super 8 Kodachrome 40 film I exposed but never got to see the developed results. Interesting idea about the air blower system. Though I wouldn't have much of an idea how to build something like that. The other things is I wouldn't be able to capture anywhere near the full dynamic range of negative film. I would be photographing the individual frames with an M4/3 digital camera. I just wouldn't be able to do the medium justice. One option could be shooting in HDR (three or more photos of each frame at different exposures and combining them) but that would be way too much time and work for hundreds of frames on a reel of film. And then there's colour grading - something that Ive never done before and don't really know how well I'd go with that. Ive seen various peoples attempts at colour grading transferred footage on youtube and the results are very mixed. Some samples look very lacking and dull while others look quite nice. I do process digital Raw photo files in Lightroom so I guess there might be some similarities to this type of work. Though the really good colourists are amazing in what they can produce. Yea the contrasty nature of reversal film is one challenge but I think overall, it would be easier to get decent looking results with reversal than negative with a DIY transfer system. Paying careful attention to exposure and lighting during shooting should help somewhat with contrast issues. Robert, that sounds very impressive about the 6.5k scanner. I hope that somehow large scale film production in Australia can make a comeback to utilise such resources. I guess we need some brave, adventurous people with lots of money to start up some big labs.

Nice work on the Chicken Woman! I admit nothing had me prepared for that opening shot (some people may even be slightly traumatised if they saw such a scene in real life.) I liked the closeups of her bloody face with the feathers floating by. Very clean looking Super 16 footage.

I have an idea for a shoot in mind but there wouldn't be any crew involved (other than myself.) Well perhaps there might be an additional person holding up a reflector unless I can rig something up to hold the reflector up in an elevated position. Basically, the shoot will involve a female model and will be reminiscent of a shampoo commercial. Lots of closeups / beauty shots and hair flipping. I have some specific shots planned and I will think up some other ideas too though it will be non-narrative with no dialogue. And later down the track, I may have some ideas for other shoots as well. They may be different or they may be similar. And I could use the camera for home movies as well and other projects. I do plan on getting into wedding videos. I did incorporate super 8 film into two wedding videos that I shot for family members (the family members actually requested the super 8.) With regards to shooting wedding videos for clients, I had planned to shoot 100% on digital. Though you never know, I could mix some 16mm in there (that's a possibility.) There is a lot of talk on online forums about peoples experiences with the K3. And they range from good to bad (a real mix.) I had absolutely 0 registration issues with my K3. No jumping, weaving or scratches or anything like that like some people were mentioning on the forums. My footage was very stable. And with regards to one particular film stock, certainly an improvement over super 8. A few times, I had shot Ektachrome 7240 (commonly referred to as "video news film") on super 8. A number of people (including myself) found that there was a slight softness when shooting 7240 in super 8 (Kodachrome 40 looked noticeably sharper by comparison.) Someone reckoned that due to the thinness of this film and the lack of a pressure plate in super 8, there was probably some film breathing going on. Well that issue was non existant when I shot a roll of 7240 in my K3 (using it in the Australian snow fields in winter and a little bit of wildlife.) I got noticeably sharper / crisper footage. It was a big improvement over shooting the same stock in super 8. I would say that the K3's pressure plate did a very good job indeed. Granted, Ive never shot with a Bolex H16 but I know they are workhorses and have been used by countless numbers of filmmakers for decades. Yea I wouldn't be surprised if they offer an even higher level of picture stability than a good working K3. And they are more versatile as well. By the way, I don't have much of an issue with winding on a spring-driven camera. It adds to the charm of operating such a camera. And great not having to worry about batteries or charging. It's just that the K3's own winder has a lot of resistance and got tiring to use after a while. For shooting 16mm home movies, I wouldn't mind playing around with a Bell & Howell turret style camera. I reckon they'd be fun to use. No reflex viewfinder but that adds to the challenge.

Dom, thankyou for your reply. I didn't realise that the film situation in Australia had gotten so dire. It was only so many years ago that I was an extra on McLeods Daughters who were shooting on Super 16mm. And a similar situation being on the set of the Hey Hey It's Esther Blueberger movie (shot on 35mm.) I guess things have gone downhill since then in terms of motion picture film usage in the industry. Thanks for the recommendation for Camerquip. I was actually considering renting a Super 16 camera from them. I see that they scan up to 2k. I was hoping for a 4k transfer but still worth asking them about pricing. Guess I could also consider transfer houses overseas. Ive also considered the option of putting together a DIY transfer setup. Though I was planning to shoot on negative film largely because of the generous exposure latitude and more film stock options. With a DIY setup, I would be worried about dust so I'd probably be forced to shoot Ektachrome instead. Reversal would probably be more expensive to shoot on in 16mm but at least I'd be saving $$ with transfers. Though bit of a downer that if I tried projecting Super 16 reversal, the sides of the picture would be cut off. Actually once at a camera market in Adelaide, I saw a 16mm projector with the words "Super 16" but that may have been in name only. By the way, I do remember Atlab as one of the places that did motion picture film developing. I did a search for them online tonight but only came across other businesses using the same name.

Edit: I believe that should be 29.97fps rather than 29.8fps

I guess one way of reducing transfer costs is to find another individual (or a bunch of people) who are also getting their footage transferred and submit them all together and split the bill. Though does that really work out much cheaper and do many people organise such ventures? And if that went ahead (either as a group or two individuals), would the amount of colour grading and finished frame rate of the transfer preferably have to be the same for all films to keep the costs down? In other words, would everybody have to agree on the same stylised look (with regards to colour grading) and the same frame rate of the finished files (24, 25 or 29.8fps)? Actually, that's another thing I'm curious about - the frame rate. Even though I'm discussing transfer companies based in Australia, do they offer options of other frame rates for the finished file other than the native 25fps? I also shoot stock footage and Ive been informed a few times that it's preferable to use 24fps or 29.8fps for stock videos as apparently, it's harder to convert 25fps to 29.8fps for markets that use 29.8fps natively.

Just wondering if anyone had any recommendations for companies who can transfer Super 16 negative film in Australia? Ive never had 16mm transferred before and I'm curious about the costs involved. I know it will be expensive but just wondering how expensive it would be. Also in Australia, there is Nanolab who can do a 4k transfer of 50 feet of Super 8 negative for AU$50 with light colour grading. I'm betting that it's probably going to be considerably more expensive to do a 4k transfer of S16? And that brings me to a dilemma. Because of the nature of my shoots, I would only be exposing 100 feet of film at a time every once in a while. I'm guessing that a lot of transfer houses would require a minimum amount of footage for a job. I hope that some would allow 100 feet.

Good point. It does give the format it's own kind of character, setting it apart from say 35mm. Interestingly, when I used to watch the Australian television series McLeods Daughters (which was shot on S16) I was always impressed how clean the footage looked. Even indoor shots in which they likely used fast film always looked super clean like the exterior shots. Whereas Law & Order (shot on 35mm) looked slightly grainy to me. Perhaps they used very fast film on the L & O TV show for a gritty look? I guess that Kodak Vision 800T neg film would have been in existence around then.

Pavan, yes very good points. I did have a very affordable regular 16mm camera at one stage - the Russian made K3. With regards to transferring regular 16mm, I could have a go at putting together my own DIY scanner - incorporating my Panasonic G6 M4/3 camera to photograph each individual frame. My G6 captures 4608 x 3456 stills so that could be downsized to 3840 x 2160 quite nicely. However, I would be quite worried about transferring negative film with a home brew setup for fear of dust. The general consensus is that dust shows up more visibly on negative film than reversal. Alternatively, I could shoot on reversal film though I really like the wide exposure latitude and 'safety net' that negative film provides. On the other hand, reversal film tends to give a contrasty retro look so that could be cool in it's own way.

That actually makes me curious about what movie crews do when they've completed all the shooting and they've got a fair amount of film left in the magazine at the end of the last day. I wonder how they finish it off. Perhaps they do lots of extra takes of the last shot?

Aapo, thankyou for your reply. I do admit that I'm tempted by the Canon Scoopic. Looks like it has a very nice lens from various clips Ive seen. Though with cropping regular 16mm to S16, there seem to be a number of disadvantages. Another option that came to mind is renting a Super 16 camera. I do have some ideas for a shoot involving a female model (mostly close ups.) Sort of like what you would see in a shampoo ad with beauty shots and hair flipping. I'm visualing a nice sunny day outdoors with a reflector and possibly a scrim. It would be nice to rent something like an Arriflex SR3 for this. Though renting is not without it's issues either. For one thing, I live in a small city with a small population. I have my doubts there is much in the way of businesses here that rent out motion picture film equipment. I actually wonder if there are any at all. Also, for this shoot, I would probably get by with 100 feet of film. Though if I'm planning to rent the camera for one day (specifically for the shoot) what if I don't finish off all the film? I wouldn't want to waste it by shooting random stuff after the shoot (trying to finish it off before returning it.) Though maybe I could finish off the film by shooting some hair flipping at high frame rates (that should use up a lot of film.) Of course I would do so after Ive completed all the other planned shots at 24fps.

I know in another thread that I had considered getting a Super 16 camera but came to the conclusion that they're just too pricey. And it's been a while since Ive checked out prices for second hand 16mm equipment. I didn't realise that prices had gone up for used gear. So now another option I'm considering is cropping regular 16mm to 16:9 aspect ratio in post. I would mostly be shooting on 50D so at least grain would be reasonably tight. With regards to the cropping, at first I assumed that all I had to do was crop the top and bottom of the image. Though if it's anything like the super 8 transfers Ive had done, there would be areas of black (pillars) on the left and right of the main image area that would also need to be cropped. So likely, the cropping's going to be pretty extensive. After cropping, I would like to end up with 3840 x 2160 content. Though would a 4k scan be enough resolution to achieve that? Say for example I found a company that could scan regular 16mm at a resolution like 4096 x 2304, by the time I crop the black pillars on the sides and top and bottom of the image, would I be close to a 3840 x 2160 resolution or would it be significantly less than that? In other words, would a 4096 x 2304 scan be enough to get a 3840 x 2160 crop from regular 16mm? To me, this seems unlikely. Realistically, would I need a higher resolution scan like 6k to get a 3840 x 2160 crop? If that's the case, maybe the extra money spent on those super high resolution scans could be better invested in a Super 16 camera instead!

I do admit that the Konvas cameras sound like they're really versatile for their price.

I did consider that option. And yea it would be nice to be able to use top notch lenses. Wonder if it would be a similar cost to buying a Konvas camera on the used market or not much more. Regardless, I did note that you mentioned that short ends are unreliable regarding what kind of condition they're in. And paying full retail price for 35mm film is just too costly.

By the way, with regards to cropping regular 16mm, would putting tape on the viewfinder be doable for composing or would it be better to apply tape to the ground glass?

Aapo, that is very tempting. Though I'm still considering my options at this point. Whether I settle on a 16mm or 35mm camera, that may happen later down the track when and if I get more funds.

Will, it's been ages since Ive used my K3 but I remember how tiring the winding got. That thing has a lot of resistance! Oh yea the Canon Scoopic is really tempting. Ive been looking at footage samples online shot with the Scoopic and the results look really beautiful. It does look like a very good lens indeed. Though obviously not a candidate for conversion to Super 16 as that lens would probably only cover regular 16mm (though I'm betting there's a fair chance that the long end of the zoom might cover S16.) Regardless, I wouldn't want to fool around with an S16 conversion with a camera like that. After transfer, cropping the 16mm footage in post could be an option. I would like to end up with a 16:9 aspect ratio. However, Ive just thought of a dilemma. Ideally, I would want a 4k transfer but correct me if I'm wrong, cropping in this way would lead to losing a huge amount of resolution. At first, I thought it would merely involve cropping the top and bottom of the frame to get the 16:9 aspect ratio. I could live with that. However, if it's anything like the super 8 transfers that get done for me locally, there would be thick black bars on the left and right side of the image (pillars or whatever the terminology is.) And those black bars would contain pixels just like the main image area. In order to create a 16:9 aspect ratio, I would have to crop those black bars as well, resulting in a significant loss of real estate. I would like to end up with a 3840 x 2160 clip after cropping. Though would that really be possible from a 4k scan of regular 16mm footage? Scanning the footage at a higher resolution would probably help but I don't think there's any way that I could afford that. I'm sure a 4k scan would be insanely expensive as it is. Perhaps there's another way? By the way, I'm sure that Arri SR3 must be a very nice machine. A number of years ago, I was an extra on an Australian television show Mcleods Daughters where they used an Arriflex 416. I was pretty close to it too with the scene they were shooting. .