James Grahame

Wow! zvex. Never expected to find you here. Welcome to our little world. I'm still lusting after one of your tiny tube amps. You're not thinking of creating a tape delay unit that uses mag film, are you?

Mmm. Lenny Lipton is a one-of-a-kind character. He first gained fame by writing the lyrics to "Puff the Magic Dragon." He dabbled extensively in film before becoming obsessed with 3D. He's currently an executive at RealD, the company behind the digital 3D technology used on "Meet the Robinsons," "Beowolf," "The Nightmare Before Xmas" and many others. I'm sure he has two or three dozen patents to his name by now. :)

Fred's latest transfers have been absolutely stunning. Part of the answer is that technology has advanced to the point where it is feasible to produce excellent images with machine vision cameras. However, Fred also takes the time to apply plug-ins during post production to improve the quality of his footage. That work can easily take hours or days of computing time and is simply not feasible in a professional environment where work is billed by the hour, especially if multiple tries are required to get it right. Another part of the equation is that amateurs are really dedicated to getting the best quality they can out of their footage. They're not afraid to retransfer things several times to get things just right. That said, it's more or less impossible for a DIY system to outdo a high-end commercial transfer performed by someone skilled. James Grahame (reflex)

This is the saddest thing about discontinuing the magazine - 35% of readers don't have an alternate source for up-to-date S8/16mm news.

Clever film. It's actually quite amazing that you were able to shoot a dark and moody nighttime film on E-64T. Why didn't you choose a faster film like Vision2 500T neg? Was it because of the additional costs of transferring negative film or camera limitations?

When a S8 film cart reaches the end, the film stops moving. It can be a bit confusing, because when you pull the trigger the camera will run, although it will sound slightly different. From what you said, it sounds like you removed the film and the camera makes a strange sound running without film. Unfortunately, many Kodak S8 cameras were made with plastic gear wheels that have either disintegrated or become incredibly brittle over the past couple of decades. If that has happened to your camera, you'll hear all sorts of weird noises. That said, some old movie cameras make a squealing noise because the lubricant has dried out completely. It's hard to know without hearing it.

I agree completely that it doesn't make sense for an amateur filmmaker to purchase a RED One because it will depreciate quickly. I think the main argument for digital gear is that most families have a fairly modern video camera kicking around, making it pretty easy for someone to shoot and edit a short video without spending much extra money. Video is easy to edit on computer and there are no issues with sync sound, making it an easy way to start telling stories with moving images. Even though the equipment is cheap, Super 8 gets expensive in a hurry. With a 5:1 shooting ratio, you're looking at over $100 to shoot and develop a single 2 1/2 minute film, assuming you edit it by hand and project it. An inexpensive digital transfer will easily double the cost and requires the same NLE software outlay as video. It's important for people to jump into Super 8 filmmaking with their eyes open. The simple act of using film won't make the final product look like a Hollywood blockbuster, and film is often a challenging medium to work with. That said, film can be absolutely beautiful when done right.

I second this. The trick to successful filmmaking is to do a lot of research and ask a lot of questions to experienced "old hands" when you have the chance. The best classroom in the world is real-world experience, and nothing makes you feel more humble than the first few times that you try to light a scene and block a few scenes - even on a tiny indie production. You'll feel like you're juggling a dozen eggs. I don't agree that analog is the only way to learn photography and cinematography. It happens to be what many of us old codgers grew up with (I'm in my 30s), but learning the nuts and bolts of digital equipment is extremely valuable, too - especially since DSLRs and prosumer camcorders offer excellent manual control these days. Film has an incredible aesthetic, but there's no reason to burn through hundreds of dollars worth of film unless you're somewhat confident that you'll get meaningful results from it.

The Sankyo shoots at 18 + 24 fps, so it already shoots at "pro" speed. I'm not sure it will correctly read the speed of an E-64T cart, though. It looks like it has a manual exposure mode, though, so you could just use an external light meter to set exposure if it can't read certain speed settings. This could be a good deal. It's hard to tell what model the Minolta is (the seller is giving a video camera model number from the box it was stored in.) It looks like it's an XL-42 or XL-64, which means it shoots at only 18 fps and does not read E-64T correctly (although you can manually override the exposure). Honestly, I would hold off until you find a camera that can read modern cartridges correctly and that offers at least 1 + 18 + 24 fps. There are lots of them out there selling in the price range you're looking at (I just picked up a nice Nikon for $16.50).

Video is an excellent way to learn shot composition, timing, lighting and editing as a total beginner. It doesn't make sense to spend a small fortune to learn basic skills. The film camera should come into play once one has developed a certain aesthetic eye and some background knowledge.

Buying a cheap S8 camera doesn't really make sense - each roll of film will cost a minimum of $25. You want the best image possible on that film. That said, it's possible to stumble upon the occasional bargain. When shopping for a camera, you want one that can shoot at the "pro" speed of 24 frames per second (along with the old home movie standard of 18 fps and possibly one or two 'slow motion' speeds such as 36 fps). An intervalometer is a nice feature for shooting time-lapses, too. But - most importantly - many cheaper late-model Super 8 cameras cannot read the speed notch on some modern films correctly. Check this list at the Super8Wiki to find a camera that can correctly meter the new film (it's not complete by any stretch, but it's a good starting point.)

I think I can explain the Washington D.C. traffic. I occasionally post film-related things on retrothing.com. If I learned about them through a thread on filmshooting I mention it in the post. It doesn't usually result in a huge amount of traffic, but several of my film-related writeups in the past few months have been linked to by some extremely large gadget blogs (which get several million readers per day), which resulted in a lot of unintended traffic flowing through to filmshooting. Several of those sites are hosted at the AOL Dulles Data Center, a few short miles down the road from some very secretive and completely unrelated federal agencies. :)

It is very cool - thanks for letting us know they're now available. I suspect we'll see some clever hacks as DIYers get their hands on these (crazy hand-cranked film loop exhibits, or integrated into wacky steampunk projection machines). That said, anyone who uses this to project their old family films will probably inflict a lot of damage on them. I can't see it having a particularly gentle film transport.

Hey, Rick. Glad to see you jumping into Single-8. Kent at single8film.com has some recently expired film on sale at 50% off ($8 for the 25ASA daylight stock, $9.50 for the 200 ASA tungsten-balanced stuff). I just ordered enough to shoot a couple of films this summer. I'd check the price of sending directly film to Japan for processing, because otherwise you'll have to pay to send the film to LA, then pay return postage to Canada from LA.

Nah, thanks for sharing the info with people. I was just trying to say, "Hey, you didn't need to go to the trouble of grabbing a screenshot." :)

Or you could simply say, "The front page of filmshooting.com says that the site will be back on May 1st, after Andreas gets back from his honeymoon."

I have one... but it's in a box in Chicago, about 1600 km from me. The camera's real strength is its low light capability - a really fast f/1.1 lens and 230 degree shutter combined with its small size make it great for incognito shooting at night in available light.

This S8 forum is far quieter than filmshooting.com. I think part of the reason is that filmshooting.com is much less restrictive and the admin is less likely to step in. Filmshooting.com users demonstrate remarkable restraint when it comes to commercially-oriented posts. They're usually along the lines of a message from Roger announcing a new product or Juergen or Chris (although I haven't seen anything from him in a few months) with mention of their latest magazines. And the use of nicknames doesn't cause much trouble there - most of the long-time users are on a first name basis anyway.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The forum guidelines say, "You may not advertise or promote other companies or their programs which may compete with Cinematography.com." and also "We reserve the right to edit or remove any content on these forums that we deem inappropriate with or without forewarning. We will try to give fair warning when we can, but it is not always feasible to do so." In other words, the administrators don't tolerate advertising unless it's paid. Seems crystal clear.

It is to protect the fifteen advertisers in the right sidebar. Or to encourage you to become the sixteenth. :D

Michael, Luckily, this is a forum, not Pravda. ;) I am constrained by the articles that I receive, but rest assured that I have discussed the direction of the content with Juergen. I'd love to see more technical articles, I'd love to see more hands-on-shooting pieces and I'd love more DIY building articles, but I don't have the time to write them myself. That restricts me to the pool of articles available from schmalfilm. I have approached others to contribute, but very few have actually come through with text, either because of time restrictions or because they don't feel comfortable writing an article. I will definitely get each and every decent article into print. I apologize for not responding directly to some of the things you said in your previous comment. I don't know anything about your history with schmalfilm, but I am sorry that it did not end on a happy note. Cheers, James

Both Super 8 Today and smallformat are underdogs. Both magazines have tiny readerships and both are fighting to survive. No one makes a living from either magazine. That's the nature of publishing a magazine that caters to a "long tail" hobby like Super 8 film. I understand that you consider smallformat to be part of a big machine because it is printed by a commercial publishing house, but that does not mean that it is a big budget production. It simply means that there is access to professional layout staff and Schiele & Schoen's printing and distribution. I haven't made any "unsubstantiated claims against your work," Michael. :) All I was trying to communicate - perhaps too strongly - is that your negativity has the potential to do more damage than good. I already work very hard to write content for smallformat and provide translation help. I simply don't have the time to do more and I would love to get help from others.

Please do the Super 8 community a favor and stop the negative comments about smallformat. It's an extremely small magazine focused on an extremely small market. All of the regular contributors work extremely hard without much tangible reward, and your sniping is demoralizing. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from writing content for the magazine, in fact it would be greatly appreciated. I discussed Mr. Klose's cartridge with Juergen a couple of days ago. Mr. Klose is working extremely hard to test his design as thoroughly as possible, and some test cartridges will be forwarded to Juergen shortly. There have been no delays that I am aware of, and I'm sure that the February 2008 date mentioned in Juergen's piece was based upon comments made by Mr. Klose himself. After all, that gives the company a mere 60 days or so to finish testing and ramp up production (with Christmas in the middle). It's a very aggressive timeline, indeed. Juergen will publish his experiences with the cartridge as soon as he can, but please remember that there is always a tradeoff between writing an extensive article and getting the essential information out there. In the case of the last issue, I think Juergen made a good choice to introduce the cartridge in a brief Viewer piece that was written as the magazine was going to press (remember that there is a lag of a few weeks between when the editorial work is finished and printing). There was no point in going into more depth because the cartridge was still in development and subject to change. In fact, there has already been at least one significant alteration.

I think I can explain the strange transparent plastic. A production mold is expensive to create, so companies often start by machining a part from a slab of soft plastic or by getting a cheaper aluminum mold made. Both techniques often require different types of plastic than the final steel production mold (aluminum will cause the plastic to cool faster, so a different softer resin may be required to produce the part).

Michael - I'll do my best to avoid any permutation of 'objective lens' between the covers of smallformat from now on, unless we're doing a piece on microscopy. I agree that consistency is important, too. Translating a technical publication is ridiculously challenging because one often treads a fine line between making the original author sound overly pedantic or dramatically rewriting the text to Anglicize it. Cheers, James