Jim Carlile

Your Canon will work just fine with that film-- no need to worry. Kodak sets up V200T so that it will read at ASA 100 in yours and most other S8 cameras. They speed-notch it at ASA 160, and then supply it in a "notchless" cartridge which is designed to push in the camera's filter pin and kick the ASA setting down another 2/3 stop, which is ASA 100. What this does is overexpose your film by one full stop, but that's OK, because Kodak recommends this film be overexposed that much. They do this on purpose. In some cameras, the film will be exposed at ASA 160 and not kicked down, which amounts to a 1/3 stop overexposure. That's OK as well. By taking out the camera's internal 85 filter, this also means there is no daylight color correction outside, but that's OK too because a transfer can remove this. Indoors you don't need it anyway, and if you really want the correction in-camera then you can always put an external 85 filter over the lens. So the best thing to do is-- don't do a thing.

I agree with Dominic C.: it all sounds fishy as hell. First they accept your project, then they fire you? Makes no sense. It sounds like economics to me-- wonder if they still have the rights to your project and will go ahead with it (and gee, no longer have to pay you for it...?) Hmm. Best advice you got here is to file for unemployment immediately. Since there was no progressive discipline or warning then they can't claim you were fired for cause, so you can't get turned down for misconduct. Just call it a layoff. If they fight you on it then that's proof they were trying to screw you economically-- so it's not you. You'll win because they never gave you an opportunity to save your job, and that's required of an employer in all states. Then-- don't take it personally.

With your background, try applying to AFI. Where you are going now sounds immensely better than anything else in LA-- but be sure you finish first. You might be disappointed in the --ahem-- intellectual level in America, compared to what you are used to. It's nonexistent, really.

She needs a spreader.

"Dichroic" is the name for the blue-red images that come togther at the focus point, but that's not what the 148 uses. This Nizo lacks a center-circle split image, so what you do is just focus until the double image in the viewfinder comes together. It's a rangefinder, just not with the split image circle. The later 148 macro has split image focus, as do the bigger models. Only dichroics are the underrated, more expensive Chinons, which were badged as Bell and Howell and the Beaulieu 1000 series. Maybe a few other brands-- it never caught on, harder to use in lowlight, but effective in general.

I mentioned this at the 8mm section, but there are some interesting things at the Bergman auction this month, including this camera: http://www.bukowskis.se/auctions/H022/267-...oom-814-super-8 Not a bad estimated price. Wonder what'll it end up going for...? Surprised that Andreas and some of the other angry Europeans at the other film site didn't mention this-- unless, of course, they were hiding it for themselves, which is likely. Not any more, chaps...

In case anyone's looking for a nice 814, there's one right here: http://www.bukowskis.se/auctions/H022/267-...oom-814-super-8 Sure beats eBay. Be the talk of your friends.

California has a two-year residency requirement for the public colleges in order to get that cheap tuition. But if you satisfy that, the best choice is L.A.C.C. supplemented by extension classes at UCLA. LACC's tuition is almost non-existent. Plus here's a little secret-- if you're cool, you can sneak into most of UCLA's classtime film showings... and about twice a week they show every kind of movie imaginable, at night, for free.

It's amazing to think that no matter the format, current 3-D is still based upon a 19th century technology-- alternate right-left and polarized light.

The reason why Kodak doesn't filter-notch their negative S8 films is because they want the camera's meter to set up a deliberate one-stop overexposure. They feel it transfers better, and they also figure that users prefer an external 85 filter for daylight use. So their way of doing it gives them a two-fer. That's fine for V200-- but the problem is that for 500, few S8 cameras will read this high. Kodak notches this V500 cartridge not at ASA 500 but at a lower indice, and then relies upon the notchless cartridge to kick it down to ASA 250, which is one stop below 500. On cameras that only read to ASA 250, or worse, ASA 160, what happens is that the meter will only read at its maximum ASA when confronted with this bigger speed-notch size. So, you get that handicap, combined with the automatic kick down to an even lower ASA caused by the notchless cartridge, and you're talking trouble for ASA 500. In most cameras it will end up getting read at ASA 160, or possibly even ASA 100, if the meter only goes up to ASA 160. An exception here would be if you have a really low light filming situation. In this case your aperture is already all the way open to the max and you still need more sensitivity. So, no matter how ASA 500 is read by the camera, that added boost at the max aperture will give you a more decent low-light result. None of this is brain surgery, and the fun is in the experimentation and the testing.

Try V200T with that camera rather than 500T, unless it's very low light, in which case you'll be open all the way anyway and need it. If you cut a filter notch in the 500T cartridge you can use that film in the camera normally. It will read at ASA 250, which is OK. Otherwise without a notch it will read at ASA 160-- don't ask why, too complicated to explain-- at 160 it will be a little too overexposed unless it's a really low light situation.

If the internal filter is pushed aside by a notchless cartridge, the film will be read as ASA 100, not 160. If you then put an 85 over the lens, the camera will still read the film at ASA 100, but open up the aperture by 2/3 of a stop to make up for the light loss caused by the filter. So in effect, you treat the film as if it has a film speed of ASA 64 or so when the meter sets the exposure this way. If the internal filter is pushed aside by the filter switch instead -- and the cartridge has a filter notch in it, it will be read at the straight ASA 160. If you then slide the filter in place, or put one over the lens, it will cut down the light 2/3 of a stop, so the film is as if it were ASA 100 or so in terms of light sensitivity. By "as if" ASA 100 or ASA 64, this means that if you were going to use an external meter and wanted identical results to how the Nizo handles the film, then you'd rate the film's speed at these numbers respectively. Actually, the film is still ASA 200, it's just that the Nizo meter reads it lower because it won't go up that high. And the filters will bump down the effective ASA as well. But that's OK, because negative film responds well to overexposure. A lot of this is touch and go-- this is analog, for sure -- but it works out fine.

You're brave, but glad it worked out.

Some 'Culloden' in here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ml4yz Great B/W images. Surprised no one has mentioned this BBC doc.

I'm surprised that no one's mentioned this-- only a few more showings. It's a landmark for a lot of reasons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ml4yz Pretty amazing-- great B/W from Dick Bush (16mm?), and a fantastic transfer on the 'War Game' DVD.

They should work. The super 8 camera's remote devices were just simple on-off switches that completed a 2-pole circuit. A very small voltage then kicked in a solenoid to start the motor. That's why you could run remotes with hundreds of feet of wire. The very newest cameras were controlled by logic circuits, where the voltage turned on a gate, which signalled the electronics. But it was the same on-off switch idea. Now the very earliest cameras didn't work this way. With these, the remote switches were actually external power supplies, where the operating current ran from the switch unit itself. But we're talking like before 1968 or so. With those cameras the simple switches will not work.

You can use either VISION 200T or Tri-X with no problem. A slight overexposure, but that's OK. 64T is another thing-- probably not too well.

For real film making, don't forget the 30s and 40s issues of AC, as well as the SMPE Journal and International Photographer. All of them had "amateur" sections, too-- and facts and tips that do not date.

Let's get back to the subject: Question: this was "public" funding, a la grants? Well then, in who's name were they issued-- the artistic director or the producers? That makes a big difference-- what it looks like is that these "producers" have taken over a project for the sake of having a project, but if the grants are in the director's name-- or give him some kind of primacy-- he has a legal case for resuming control. This is the crux of the problem. Even in the grants world, "producers" often use the creators for their own ends (surprise surprise). The director may want to see the paperwork, and review it with a good non-profit grantwriter. He may have more rights than he knows. BTW, the reason why 2001 went with Jupiter rather than Saturn was because they couldn't get convincing Saturn effects. My problem with 2001 is that Kubrick botched it with his re-cut, 4 days after the premiere. The original version was much better and more allusive-- and those patched-in intertitles are embarrassing, i.e., "To Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite...?" Cringe.

How does 2468 work out? It seems like an interesting alternative for a reversal print film, but how is it perfed? And cost?

No sound.

There's no ASA 500 speed indice in the super 8 system, so what Kodak does with V500 is they speed-notch the cartridge at ASA 400D/250T, and supply it in a 'notchless' filter cartridge as well. This automatically sets the exposure meter to ASA 250, which is one stop "overexposed." Not sure how Pro8 handles their notching-- but they don't go the overexposure route I've heard. Kodak prefers this for negative films-- there's so much latitude in those stocks that moving the exposure over one-stop on the H+D curve really opens up the shadow detail. If your camera will read up to ASA 640, then it will read V500 whichever way the manufacturer sets it up. Nothing to worry about.

Hey Borowski, There's a gag commercial they run every night on Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network, that shows an old 8mm film of a family supposedly named Borowski sitting around a kitchen table playing some board game. Any relation?

It's going to be an accurate shutter speed on the back of the manual, but the problem is that this is not the only factor. The big zoom lens and viewfinder optics will soak up some of the light, which means you need to open up the aperture a little bit beyond what the meter tells you. This means about 2/3 to 1 full stop extra. But-- and here's another consideration-- it all depends upon what Agfa means when their meter says "f/8." It may not really be f/8-- it may be already corrected, with a light loss factored in-- depends upon the camera. So the advice is totally correct-- test it first. SH is right that if you already know the shutter speed, you don't need that formula-- that's only if you have the shutter angle and need to know the speed (you can of course figure out the shutter angle now just by plugging the shutter speed into the formula with the fps.) The good news is that V500 has so much latitude that your results will be good no matter what. Even if you just guess the exposure you'll be all right. (but don't!)

On the 801, V200T is read as ASA 100 because of the notchless daylight cartridge-- it triggers the camera to read the film-speed indice as 100 and also retracts the internal 85 filter. That's the daylight setting for this particular indice. Nizo owners say that you can override this by toggling the switch back to 'tungsten' to get a 160 reading. I can't verify this-- it's an unusual feature that circumvents the SMPTE super 8 speed-indice protocol. What I would do is cut a notch, then slide the filter switch to daylight. This way you get the benefit of the 85 filter in place for daylight use-- remember, it's a tungsten film. But no matter where you set the switch, the film speed will still be rated at ASA 160 in this camera with a notched cartridge-- but the filter will soak up about 2/3 stop of light, thus giving you an effective film speed of 100. That's where the 100 comes from. What Kodak does is speed-notch the film for ASA 160T/100D, then uses a notchless cartridge to set the meter to 100. The film is rated at 200, but they prefer it overexposed a bit, and for daylight use, they figure you will use an external 85 filter over the lens anyway. When used this Kodak way, the film is STILL being exposed at ASA 100 and it will still be overexposed one stop, even with an external filter. Overexposure with negative film is great-- preferable, in fact, because it causes the basic exposure to sit well over on the H + D curve, thus giving you great detail in your shadowier areas.