Jim Carlile

Interesting stuff. Thanks Michael. Super 8 Arena has great photos-- I don't know how he does it. He makes all cameras look great. His photos of the Black Nizo silents are classics.

Michael, was Minolta involved with these Afga cameras, as they were with the Microflex (they made those, didn't they?) What was the lawsuit about? The more I learn about these Agfas and the Zeiss Ikons, the more impressive they are.-- they were way ahead of their time-- they seemed to have come up with most of the advances and big ideas.

Here's a quick list of the only cameras that will accept the 200 foot Kodak sound cartridges: -- only the nizo 6056 and 6080, no others, -- only the Beaulieu 6008 and up series -- the Elmo 1012 SXL and 612 SXL, and the later simpler 230, 240, and 260 sound cameras. -- none of the Canons... -- several Sankyos -- the primitive Kodak Ektasound Supermatics there might be a few more (Bauers?) but not sure..... Kodachrome, 7244, and 7242 Ektachromes came in 200 foot sound loads.... If you can get a hold of a 200 foot cartridge, do so. Dwayne's will still process them (Kodachrome only) for about $35.

Coincidentally, I was just reading an old Movie Maker article today that mentioned the Agfa Movexoom at Photokina, and it did note, yes, that it had a stepper motor for the iris that used something like 32 "pulses" per f/stop. They were very proud of this in 1975 which means AFAIK that this was one of the earliest sort of 'digital' "pulse' consumer pieces anywhere. I had always thought it was some $$$ Bang and Olufsen component but no, Super 8 apparently beat them to the punch. The article also said it used something like "MOS technology" which made me smile, but that was a very big deal for the time.

That's a nice little rarity. You know though that it's a 40/160 camera only-- I don't think it has a filter pin. BTW, I've yet to see a later sound Elmo that didn't fire up right away after years of non-use. They are great cameras all of them and they always seem to work right out of the box....

I remember it was a really big, big deal when Kodak discontinued 5254. It was a beloved stock. A great source of information on this era is of course AC. Invaluable as to attitudes.

That was in the good old days of 'real' dailies, like "cut,'" "print that," etc. etc. Nobody printed bad takes unless you wanted the producers to fire you.

The emulsion definitely has to be facing out because you want the maximum amount of surface area exposed. There's a way to wind the film onto the take-up reel that will automatically turn the emulsion out the correct way: http://www.marriottcameras.co.uk/instruct3...th_pictures.htm The newer tanks don't have the little front spindle that you thread the film around to peak it away from the reels. This reduces the surface area as well so they're not as good as the older tanks. The G-3 will work OK-- sometimes really well-- but it prefers smaller film lengths for best results and lots of experimentation. Plus patience and a strong wrist.

I've found that the older cameras I use just don't like it when the weather is cold outside. They make a considerable racket compared to warm weather-- I first noticed this with a nice but un-CLA'd Bolex D8L. It made a loud grinding and rubbing sound in a cold room, but as soon as I left it in a warm car for awhile, it sweetened up just right. And that was a purely mechanical, metal Bolex. I don't think there's a problem with a little bit of outdoor use. But these cameras are getting old and most of them were never that hardy anyway-- lots of plastic parts and little flimsy switches. So I'd stick with warm weather whenever I could-- like above 65 or 70 degrees. The old lubricant will melt a bit and smooth things out. As to lubing on your own, the problem is not getting the camera open, it's knowing where the pivot points are, and which belts to avoid. You should also use only watch oil or some equivalent, and very sparingly. Here's a good, classic article on motion picture camera maintenance. It's kind of scary: http://duallcamera.com/2000/preventive.html

I agree with the Canons. If you're in Manhattan you're in luck. Check out Du-all on West 29th St. They have a good number of great, professionally rebuilt Super 8 cameras that they guarantee and fix -- themselves. That's what they do-- they repair professional motion picture cameras and are very good. http://www.duallcamera.com/store/index_Cam..._Super8mm.shtml

No. But they're probably in good shape. I bought a Nizo a few months ago from Super 8 Arena and it sounded really sweet-- almost as quiet as my 6080-- so I suspect they are treated well and come from good homes.

Kodak salvaged out their huge sound striping machines about a year before they formally announced the discontinuance of sound stripe. Fuji still stripes single 8 film sent in for processing, after exposure, though.

M-I-C.....K-E-Y.......M-O-U-S-E I say, just let a 16S be a 16S.

WAIT A MINUTE! Don't pay too much for that Leicina-- it's worth about $250, max. When you say the Pro8 814 is less money, that scares me.... the Leicina should have no problem with negative stocks. But don't use it-- or any other older camera not rebuilt- in cold weather. The lubricants will seize up.

The amount of time that has elapsed is really no time at all for a latent image. They should come out well. I've had film-- both Kodachrome and Ektachrome--that was shot 25 years ago come out acceptably well.

Not sure about that. But people do this all the time and it seems to work.

You're OK with the time and the temperature-- it should be no problem. And any likely 85 filter problem can be corrected in the transfer. If you push in the filter pin while looking down the lens, you should see the filter going out of the light path. Just push it in and out and see what happens. But I doubt that the filter was 'in' while you had that cartridge in the camera-- it should have disabled it.

No, maybe, and YES. If the lab says it's ok to splice unprocessed footage, then no, they won't be pissed off. But there could be problems-- like how would you do it? A better bet would be to do stills and have them run as clip tests, if they are willing. Yes, I knew someone once who ran some 35mm still Kodachrome slowly through an Eyemo and actually had it processed. Looked OK, but it was kind of like putting racing fuel in a Rambler. The problem is that the perforations are cut slightly different. Most MP film has slightly 'rounded' perfs to ease speedy transport-- still film doesn't. Also, if the pitch either way is different, still or MP cameras can jam when using each other's film. This is a bigger problem for older 35mm still cameras.

You'll lose about a stop with all the internals, so yeah, go with Tri-X if you need the light.

Are you sure the filter was on? That VISION cartridge should have pushed in the filter pin, which would disable the filter. It would also freeze the switch to keep you from moving it. That's the whole idea-- to use an external filter only. I'll bet it's OK.

The sound 814's could toggle back and forth between the "xtra light" 220 degree shutter angle and the smaller one. That may be where the confusion lies. I don't believe any of the later silent 814 or 1014's were XL, but I could be wrong. Those early 814's are cool cameras with a nice design. Much simpler, and I like that folding grip. Yes, I would use an external 85 filter too, but you can always test and see which one looks better. You know of course that with black-and-white film you don't need the filter.... Have fun.

Why not just dispense with still film and shoot, say, neg stocks on Super 8? Spectra, Pro8, and others can supply them and machine process them as well. I guess you could use still cameras to do clip tests, but that's what they are. Not a bad idea if you have the kind of relationship with your lab that they'll do clips tests for you in the first place. But I'm a little confused about how hand processing at home is going to help test anything. Seems to me the whole point is that you want to see how 35MM MP film is going to look ahead of time. So unless you're going to hand process that as well, the huge number of variables that will crop up with home processing is going to end up cancelling out any advantage to the effort, IMO.

Se habla Espanol?

But you need the consistency that only professional machine processing can provide-- if you're using still film as a means of testing stocks and lighting conditions. Rolling your own is fine but where to process? I doubt most MP labs want to develop 3 1/2 feet of stock unless you have an express relationship with them and are intending to give them a lot of business as a result of the tests.

I'm in the Valley, too. Thanks for the tip-- I know the place but never associated them with super 8. I wonder who's collection it was? It's funny, but this part of L.A. seems to have become the Super 8 center of the world these days. Who would of thought-- I love the Valley!