Rick Palidwor

I am part of the Pass the Cart II Project but filmshooting.com is down so am unable to communicate with the others involved. Are any of the main players in that project on this board as well? Would hate to see this thing go off the rails again. Rick

Chinons and GAFs are notorious for this in the eye-piece, and yes, I have had to clean some gunk off my forehead :( Rick

Don't think it's related to the cartridge. Many cameras had a rubber seal around the edges of the compartment door (to prevent light leakage) and it is common for it to disintegrate like this. You simply have to clean it out with the method Phillip desribed. I have had the same thing happen to some eye-cups - that's a bigger problem. Rick

Thanks guys. My cable release pin can extend about 3/4 inch and when I attach it to single frame jack I can only push it about half that, so it's not like my pin is too short. Also, when I press it the continuous run button depresses (though it does not run). I'll keep playing and will try some other cables. Re: the other remote jack on the back-left, interesting. I thought it was to connect external power. Curious: it says in the manual that when shooting single frame you should close down one-stop from the auto reading. Why one-stop down for single-frame? Something to do with the shutter? Rick

Recently picked up an Elmo 106 which seems to run fine. A question: On the right-hand side, above the handle, there is a threaded jack which looks like it would allow single-frame shooting. However, my remote cable, which works fine in the top trigger release for normal running, won't produce any results in the side jack. Any ideas? Rick

Oh, and assume you might be shooting wide open so don't worry about the apreture/sharpness issue, assuming that the band is the important thing and "you get what you get". Rick

Duncan You have a Canon 1014XLS? Good camera. I have shot many bands in bars and it's really a question of whether there's any light. I can usually get an image, but have refrained from shooting a few times because I knew there wasn't enough of it. Plus X would be tough. Trust your light meter. And remember, all you need are some highlights. Don't expect to light and see the whole stage. But if the singer has a light on their face (they usually do) you will see them. Drummers are notoriously difficult as they are usually in the back. Many musicians have an aversion to lights and tend to stay out when they can so (assuming they are cooperative with you) let them know they need to stand in the light. I go to a bar shoot early and talk to the techs and tell them I'd like as much light as possible. See what they have. Find out if you can adjust a few. Consider shooting fast film, or be prepared to push the Plus X, if the bar does not have enough light. Rick

Search this forum as well as filmshooting.com and you will find many lengthy discussion of Pro8. From what I ahve read (and people I have spoken with) I wouldn't go near them. There are many better alternatives at better prices to boot. Rick

I've done some tests with many different cameras and most lenses are a little soft at 1.4, even when in perfect focus, and they get noticeably sharper as you stop down, for the reasons Jim gives above. I am also led to believe that wide apertures are less sharp because they are drawing light from the edges of the lens and the smaller apertures are drawing mainly from the centre of the lens, and the centre of the lens is always sharper than the edges. Apparently some reverse principle kicks in at the smaller apertures (e.g. f16 may be less sharp than f11) but I don't know the reason or the threshold when this kicks in. Maybe the enlightened folk here can elaborate on that. It may be related to drawing light exclusively from the very centre of the lens. Jason Duncan wrote: "...I thought the more light being exposed to the film the better?" Jason, I am assuming that a shot at f4 and a shot at f5.6 (which is a little sharper, based on optical principles) are both correctly exposed, the f5.6 shot having twice as much light available as the f4 shot. Rick

I think the biggest factor in whether your footage looks good, regardless of transfer method, is how it was shot in the first place. Poorly shot footage isn't going to look good with even the best transfers. While I personally hate miniDV as a format (not reliable enough, not enough universality) I agree with Mitch that it is typically "good enough". I find that some people get too hung up on minutiae (X device is Y sharper than Z device) and forget that the best technical work flow won't rescue a poor story and a good story will stand up under almost any work flow. In my experience people who get hung up on such minutiae are the same ones who don't shoot very much and they use the minutiae as an excuse - I am not going to bother shooting until I get the best possible workflow. Since there's always something better on the horizon or some way to "improve" your situation, you never shoot. Good luck with that. Rick

To set your f-stop, look for the dial on the left-hand side which says "auto/off/manual". Auto activates the light meter, off is off, manual allows you to set the f-stop. Turn the dial and you will see. You need the .625V button battery in the compartment just below for any of this to work. Rick

Is that really what you are paying across the pond? Tell me that include processing. Rick

File the left-hand side about as far as you think you can go. Be careful. Mitch Perkins at www.photoplays.ca has done many and may offer some advice if you need it. Rick

I'll take it. Had one once. Liked the optics. I'll PM you. Rick

Stop teasing. What is it already? Rick

Yes it would be transferred at 20fps in NTSC, an increase in speed of about 9%. For lots of footage the speed change is not noticeable (I shoot most of my stuff at 18 to get more running time and more light) but it is not recommended for sync sound shooting. I'd shoot 24 if I were you. Rick

Yes. 7240 to be precise, as there are several discontinued Ektachrome stocks. We liked that stock a lot but for some reason not many people did. Rick

There is more than meets the eye on this issue. I don't have any numbers in front of me and I don't have the instruments to measure the width of a frame in front of me. However, I have seen published specs that said "projectable area is 5.31 mm X 4.01mm" and another that said 5.46 X 4.01. Mike's number of 5.63mm for the width is probably closer to the truly usable area, though it may even be a bit more (did you go from edge of sprocket to edge of film?) Regardless, the maximum width is fixed, whatever the actual number, and the aspect ratio if one uses the entire height of the frame is probably around 1.4?? (I don't care). The point is, you don't have to use the entire height of the frame. You can use an effective aspect ratio of 1.66:1, 1.78:1 (16:9), 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc. The choice is yours. Of course, the greater the ratio, the more "wasted film", but is it really wasted if it was never intended to be used in the composition? The whole point of super-duper 8/ultra-8/max8 is getting the entire width of emulsion on the screen by exposing the (formerly) sound-stripe area. To use this you have to "shrink" (in fact, enlarge less) the image in the transfer, resulting in slightly tighter grain. Voila. That's the advantage. As to the actual aspect ratio of the entire frame or the choice of aspect ratio one makes... that's another matter all together. Not unrelated, but not the point of considering this simple modification. Rick

The 814 AZ is one of the best cameras for reading film speeds. I don't have the list in front of me but do you think the mod is necessary? I seem to recall it reads up to 9 different speeds, and then it has manual over-ride to place the exposure where you want. Rick

I am pretty sure that Canon is not a 220 degree shutter (it would have an "XL" in the model number) so 155 degrees is more likely to be correct. I'd say use an external filter if you have one (and get an 85B, not 85A) but try the internal filter and see what you think. Rick

Is that your drawing Michael or Pro8's? You are right, the key question is, do you see the complete right side of the frame? This would be easy to test. And you are also right, the horizontal frame lines at the top and bottom are close to pointless as you still use the entire height of the frame, or at least most of it. It's that extra width that makes it 16:9. I guess the value would be if they correspond to any cropping that is done to make it exactly 16:9 but I think you'd lose less than shown in that diagram. The only truly valuable thing I see in that viewfinder is the centrepoint, but if you can see the entire width of the frame there would be no need for the old centre point, so why is it there? Rick

The average Nizo has a lot of settings. What are you looking for? Rick

Some years ago I remember that the Widescreen Centre in the UK was selling a negative super 8 "surveillance" film (it actually said "surveillance" on the box). This was before any of the vision negative stocks were available on super 8 so was drooling at the possibility but it was too expensive. This was probably 8-10 years ago. Anyone in touch with the Widescreen Centre could probably get some information on that and how it related to this MFX stock. Rick

I didn't stay for the treats. Too many deadlines. (If I stayed I would have asked more about the super 8). They had samples of the stock pushed up to two stops, and the grain was still very acceptable. I can forsee shooting in low-light AND with a decent f-stop. Rick

I went to a Kodak product launch tonight for Vision 3 500T. Two tests, one shot on super 16 and the other shot on super 35 were shown (on standard 35mm prints). Impressive stock. More shadow detail without increased grain and two more stops latitude in the highlights. Anyway, the Kodak rep said 16 and 35 are coming out now, 65 and super 8 on the way!!! I didn't stick around for the Q&A to ask about a release date for super 8 but from what she said it is definitely in the cards. We should lobby so they don't renege. Rick