Marty Hamrick

There used to be several labs that would buy short ends of 35mm MP stock and offer them in cassettes for still photographers.I remember Seattle Filmworks was one such company.They also used to process it and offer prints and/or slides from the negatives.I had heard SFW went out of business or this is no longer a service they offer.In doing several searches,I have failed to find anyone that still does this.Does anyone know of a lab that offers 35mm MP stock loaded in cassettes for still photography?

Anyone have any suggestions on how to set up the VF?I hate split image anyway,but it's a staple in most super 8 reflex cameras.Anyway,I can't seem to get the camera properly focused through the VF.Haven't shot any film with the camera yet,but when I attempt to focus,even on measured distances,the split images won't come together.Any suggestions?

I actually found the camer's manual online.What it apparently does,is automatically remove the 85 when daylight balanced film is used.It leaves the "sun" icon showing so as not to confuse the "average Joe". So far I've shot Trix and 200 T neg all with excellent results with this camera.I love the 814 AZ.Built like a tank.

I just shot a test roll of Fuji Velvia 50D that I bought from Spectra with processing.I was careful before I loaded the cartridge in my Canon 814 AZ to see that the filter was OUT,the little light bulb icon showing,even looking down the lens barrel to see the filter was out.I inserted the cartridge and the filter switch went back to the sun icon showing the 85 filter to be in place. My understanding is that daylight balanced film is to be shot in daylight WITHOUT the 85 filter.I checked the meter reading against a hand held meter and it jived pretty closely set at ISO 50. What's the deal here?Could Spectra have improperly notched the cart in manufacture,or is it supposed to do that?Will my film come out underexposed and too warm? I didn't think I needed to look at the switch again after I loaded the cart.I just noticed the switch was in the "sun" icon position,meaning filter IN.I was positive I had set the switch to tungsten(filter OUT)before loading the cart.I unloaded the cart, re set the filter switch to tungsten (OUT),reloaded the cart and watched the switch return to "sun" icon(filter IN).What's up here?I've shot other stocks with this camera and never encountered this.

Been running this movie at the drive in.Non 3 D.We've adjusted the lamphouses and shutters to get maximum light on the screen and except for a few very dark scenes,it doesn't suffer too badly.There is one scene where the queen is talking to the young girl,a night exterior that's just unwatchable on a drive in screen,but surprisingly the rest of the movie looks OK.Not great,but OK. I loved the story as a kid reading it in school,but if I was doing the piece,I would've opted for a gritty,live action look (more akin to Braveheart)as opposed to the video game look,but that's just me.

Sweet!Very nice lighting on those interviews.What sort of camera stabilization do you use on those moving shots?The crane up shot of the guy at the computer was particularly nice imo as was the running shot on the trail.

Does anyone have any experience with this,or any other effect where half silvered mirrors are used?I've seen the old diagrams showing how a half silvered mirror can be placed at a 45 degree angle to the lens and a male and female matte can be used on either side of the camera to do similar effects as is done with opticals or CGI. It was used extensively in the film Metropolis and I was wondering if anyone is still messing with it today.

Hi John, I thought about you last night.The owner of the last remaining drive in theater in town called me to run the projectors(three screen,two Century's and one Simplex).Apparently his manager whom he had put in last year left him high and dry after ripping him off.The booth was in shambles with two platters not working properly(he had also left the snack bar with almost no inventory and it too was a mess). Anyway, I thought about you,as I know you used to be a projectionist at a drive in.Surprisingly,there are still a number of drive in theaters around the country that are turning a profit.Wonder how many of them will survive digital projection.

I've been recently contacted for some possible work,originating on HDV and distributing to 35mm release print.The camera of choice (not my personal choice,but that of the production company)is the Canon XL-HG-1(I think that's it,anyway,I can't keep up with all the model numbers). I have no experience with HDV to film and I want to know what the workflow is.I'm assuming you end up with a DI that you use to strike an interpositive?Someone walk me through this as the last time I worked with any workflow resembling this was around 1993,and that was 16mm to 35mm.

I've only actually observed one English ACL in the field.It was first bought by a local production company back in the early 70's.It was in the shop more times than it was out and I suspect that fact had much to do with the company going belly up.Don't remember what the recurring problem was,but a gaffer friend of mine ended up with it and he says today it makes a good door stop.His advice was to never buy an English Eclair.

A freind recently gave me a Sankyo 420 XL Supertronic camera.It's fine except the iris seems to be permanently stuck at F 2.8.Since I didn't pay anything for this camera and I really don't see it as worth putting money into,I'm considering attempting the repair myself.Does anyone have any experience with this and possibly have some repair advice?That is,besides using it as a paperweight.

That Arri S site brought back some fond memories.Especially the attempts to silence the things.Don't know if I'll ever get opportunity to shoot 16mm again,but the Arri S was on of my favorite 16mm MOS cameras along with the Beaulieu R 16. Does anyone know of any wesites devoted to the Beaulieu R 16?Sure would like to see how they recommend silencing a Beaulieu R16.That was a challenge for me back then.After awhile I just gave up and rented an Arri 16 BL or Eclair NPR,especially for studio shoots. I too,grew up without the internet.Somewhere I still have some of the literature from Kodak about 16mm film stocks,now long defunct.

I was having lunch with a friend of mine who used to shoot a lot high end commercials,mostly on 35mm.Recently he sold his company and now works for the same station I do producing the promotional spots.He told me was looking to unload his Tiffen filter set.He said he uses the software in post. I have no experience with these types of software and I was wondering,is it really that similar?I've always preffered to get my effects in camera.I've often prided myself on the fact that when I turn in my video,or film for that matter over to an editor or colorist,very little was needed.What are the advantages to shooting naked and doing your filtration in post?I'm speaking more of such filters as diffusion,fog or haze,as well as dot texture filters.

Unfortunately it does.Tragedies happen like this about every 7 to 15 years or so.If it's not news choppers,it's ENG trucks and powerlines.The industry gets on a safety kick for awhile,they calm down the insanity briefly and they get sloppy again.It's cyclical,at least that's what I've seen in the 25 plus years I've been a TV news shooter. This story brought back a grim reminder for me.Back in 1986 a news chopper for WTLV went down in Jacksonville,Florida killing veteran pilot Buddy Smith,reporter Julie King and seriously injuring photojournalist,Bret Snyder. It ends up being the responsibilty of the crew in the field to look out for their own safety and that of their competing collegues.There comes a time when you just have to tell the bosses not just no,but hell fu**ing no.

I always thought Aaton,if anyone would go into super 8.In an old issue of Super8 Filmaker magazine,a dummy prototype of an Aaton super 8 was featured in a picture in one of their articles on DS 8.

I really have to admire the folks making Ikonoskop cameras for their effort.I suppose this will be the proof of the pudding so to speak as a barometer to see if double super 8 is a viable format.If they can sell that many cameras at that price ,then it stands to reason that there would be a bigger demand for DS 8 stock and the film companies would follow suit. I'm skeptical still,though.Too bad a camera like this wasn't available in 1979.

And that's really where it counts isn't it?A friend of mine just bought one because she is partial to Canon,she already owned an SD XL 1.She said virtually the same thing,comparing it to Sony,JVC and Panasonic lines of similar machines.

That's what I'm unsure about.Humans don't have a blind spot in the middle,we get an almost 180 degree view.I'm wondering if these lizards get an unobstructed almost 360 degree view that's as close to merged as ours is.But then a lizard's brain isn't as complex as a human's.Maybe I should pose this question to a biologist that specializes in reptiles.

Ah yes,those were the days.It was great fun.You could make a living in film without moving to LA.Many of these productions were quite large budgeted.The average cost of a film was figured then (circa 1975-80) to be around 1000 bucks a minute,the average length of a film,15 to 20 minutes (this was also before the days of electronically induced sensory overload A.D.D.).A typical 16mm production company employed anywhere from half a dozen to thirty or so full time employees with more freelancers doing side work.Also like David said, there were labs in every major city in the country,employing dozens of folks.

When I worked for a lab back in the 70's,I had a client who made a living shooting weddings and other family events on 16mm.He was from a wealthy family in South America.Some time later he switched to super 8 and I never heard from him again as the lab I worked for was primarily 16mm.I think it's safe to say that having a professional film your wedding back then was reserved for those of wealthier status. I have a few old issues of the magazine Super 8 Filmaker where there is an article on a super 8 wedding business.The article is late 70's,so I doubt seriously too many readers benefited from that article.

Recently a friend of mine who was shooting a documentary about reptiles asked me this.How would you show the point of view of a lizard who has two eyes on each side of his head that operate independently of each other? Would you show a split screen or would you somehow morph the two images? Opinions? I remember an old documentary about insects that showed a POV shot of an insect with compound eyes and they used a lens that broke the image up into multiple smaller images.

Had the same problem with my EBM a few years ago.Never bothered using it again for sync,I was told it would require an expensive trip to the shop.I ended up selling the camera anyway,got tired of dealing with camera noise. Love your film!Excellent work!

Don't laugh but stashed somewhere in my closet,in my collection of old trade magazines,I have an old Filmmaker's Newsletter that has an article on a sync pulse generator that was designed to work on a spring wound Bolex.

The Canon 814 XLS in one of your top of line latest models.It can take a sound cart,but like the previous guy said,they aren't available anymore unless you want to take a chance on old stock on ebay.Even though mag stripe sound is dead,this camera is the one of choice imo if you can afford it.It has about every feature you could want,very sharp glass and is very quiet for a super 8 camera.The 814 E has similar features,but can only take a silent cart.Very nice camera too,loaded with toys as well.The 814 AZ,too is very nice,I have one of those,makes nice images,sharp glass,but it's the oldest of the three and doesn't do slow motion like the other cameras.

As I recall,we did OK with Turkish towells,but we never attempted to shoot in a studio with one.Usually we opted for renting an ACL or NPR or Arri BL.