jason duncan

I'm somewhat of a newbie, so I admit I don't understand all of the info given so far. Currently I'm concentrating on filming a band in a bar (with dim light of corse) so I figured I'd have to set the aperture to the largest setting, but I didn't know that f/1.4 causes lower res. I've done research on battery pack light kits, but so far it looks like a 100W is the largest that can be ran from the pack (remember the original 110VoltAC lights that are 625W and blinding). I want to use b/w and not 500T, and I'd rather use Plus-X and not Tri-X. I've been told that if I want to film in a bar, the only way is to use 500T. I know back in the day Kodak had 400ASA b/w.

Hello all, I read a comment by Rick Palidwor about having an aperture setting of f/5.4 will give a much shaper image than that of f/1.4. I'm confused as I thought the more light being exposed to the film the better?

I guess I'd be more worried about underexposing. I would like to film a bar band so I would need 500T but you are saying even that speed of film is pushing it? And yes, the footage will be on some sort of digital medium.

Hello all, I was wondering your opinion on using negative vs reversal. Since I never actually view the film, I have it transferred to a miniDV tape or to an AVI file dvd, would it make more sense to use negative? especially if the quality is better than 64T. Reversal is easy for me because I can have it both processed and transferred in Michigan. I know the lattitude is better with negative but is that the only advantage? I keep thinking about the old 35mm still pictures and how they can make a duplicate from the positive print but it's always bettter to have the negative when it comes time to making dups. Just wondering if the same principle applies? Thanks

With this LA72000, can I get a 2.35:1 ratio?

Do these settings also appy towards the 1014xl-s and 814 xl-s?

I have a Anscomatic ST/111. So on my model you have the batteries that go in the handle grip portion. And there is another spot for the mercury battery. A penny or nickel works good to get the little silver cap off.

Great short...luv it! Two questions for ya: 1) How come negative Super 8 looks better on some sort on Mp4 formatt? Really the only other max 8 negative film I've seen on dvd is some of the shorts in "Super-8 Cities", and I'm not sure if Rick Palidwor's "Sleep Always" is negative stock, but I have that too. 2) your scope looks like 2.35:1. I thought super 8 could only but cut out to 1.85:1?

Thanks fellas for the info and the links. I'm somewhat of a newbie to Super 8 and I wasted $200 filming a band at a bar. All of the film was way underexposed.

I'm not sure exactly what he had. But I do want the same set up. It was a giant spot light on a stand facing opposite of the band with some sort of sheet on a frame that he bounced and aimed at the band. I'm guessing the light shined directly on the band would have blinded them?

I will be filming inside so I will try the other two reflectors. But where do I look for this and that giant light can? Smith Victor and Bogen Imaging seem to have the small cans on stands. This guy had a heavy duty light can the size of a watermelon.

Hello, I was at a bar and some fellow was filming a band in 16mm. He had some sort of light can with a grifflon, I think. I have tried to find this set up on various web sites and the closest I have found is a shop light on a stand with a umbrella as the reflector. Is this grifflon a thing of the past?

Thanks Michael. Should I set my focus for manual instead of auto?

Wow, thanks David. I didn't even consider the flicker from the flourescents.

As a newbie who is obsessed with Super 8, I've realized lighting is as important to film as a roof is to a house. I plan on shooting in an office with mediocre lighting with reversal film using a Canon 1014 xls. What size light source? What about a grifflon? and how big? Where do you buy that stuff nowadays. With our poor economy, all of my local camera shops have gone the way of the do-do bird.

Hello all. I have a Panasonic PV-GS150 3CCD miniDV and latley it seems like I'm getting a slight blurred image if the light source is not extremely bright. I have to zoom in and then out on the subject to correct this. Is this normal for a consumer model?

Yes, I can't afford a full light set. Are you referring to the greater lattuide of negative stock? Meaning I can be a little underexposed and the film may still turn out and not to too dark?

Watch the 16mm film "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter" and you will find Santos!

I already have the Tele but I'm looking for the "Close up" 240 lens for the 1014/814 xl-s. Do you have that too?

The 814-xls does not have lap disslove as the 1014 does.

Alessandro, I wasn't avoiding your responce. I've been boucing around from here to there trying to read this and that. I'm sorry if I didn't answer a question or if I re-asked something after you gave me an answer. I really do appreciate you taking the time to try to help me for free. Thank you, all of you.

Yea, I feel pretty foolish about the whole deal. Thanks everyone for you input and comments!

Wow, I thought I was doing good by having the slower of the two b/w films with a XL camera and setting the apeture to 5.6 but even with 500t I'm still pushing it. Thanks everone. I still don't understand why the mini-dv looks perfect in the same setting. Smaller lens means less light.

Yes, I plan on buying a meter after that costly adventure. Would it be too hard to match up audio if I were to film at 9fps?

The club I was at mainly had the strobbing lights going. I don't know if they could/would turn the regular lights up anymore. I thought Tri-x was slower of the two b/w films meant for low light. So you are thinking since tri-x equals 160t, I need more like 500t, even 200t wouldn't work? Once I insert the cartridge in and the camera reads what film speed it is, how do I varify that it is reading the cartridge correctly? Another thing, the lens on the super 8 is much bigger than the mini-dv but yet the video footage looks great?