Mitch Perkins

Maybe just swap the 200T for 64T - the colours are retro compared to the negs. 500T will be good for the (darker) reception, along with 9fps on that Canon. I always feel manual exp is the only way to go - weddings are all about the faces, which (especially in the case of the bride) can be a little over exposed, (or even a lot, a la fashion shoots), but never ever under-exposed. You can't risk exposing for the sky or white buildings behind the couple. Handheld is great, but...*good* handheld, if ya know what I mean... Mitch

Nikon Superzoom 8 w/exp dial soldered to the iris armature, side panel cutaway to "finger-drag" the motor for super-slow film transport in extreme low light. The little lens is razor sharp wide open. Just shot a wedding yesterday using 64T, Tri-x, and 500T, all of which ran like butter - no jams or jitter (which I can hear when it happens, kind of a "galloping" noise). I love the Superzoom 8's cuz they're cheap, small, bullet-proof and simple, (and therefore easy to fix if anything does go wrong). I'm at a place now where if I did have anything "high-end", I'd probably just sell it to buy cymbals ~:?) I need 'em soon, cuz we start recording tomorrow... www.myspace.com/mitchsperkins Mitch

Black bride in a white dress on a bright day, even? I shoot S8 almost exclusively at weddings these days - I like the exposure to remain consistent during pans, or if not, do an iris pull. In fact an iris pull to white (extreme over-exposure) can be a nice touch...conversely, it is not accepted procedure to stick the lens in the bride's face to take a reading. Let me re-phrase, though: the use of auto-exposure is questionable at best ~as a substitute for experience~ on run and gun shoots. Mitch

Hi Matthew, 1012 was one of my first cameras and did indeed produce super-sharp images, and though auto-exposure is useless even for run and gun situations, (wherein experience, not a light meter, is required), the camera does indeed look to be under-rated...judging from this thread so far...~:?) Mitch

Use a short strip of currently-offered film, placed in the gate, firmly against the PDC slot side to gauge. I usually take it (remove material) just past the edge of the filmstrip, but if one is worried about the film buckling during transport (doesn't happen), one could stop short of the edge. This of course will result in a less wide image area. No bevel needed, but he will have to buff the worked area with wet diamond grit sandpaper. Then put pressure on the (virgin) filmstrip while dragging it through the gate, then use a powerful magnifier to check the filmstrip for emulsion scratches. I use a Sharpie to black out the worked area - it (the ink) will not (cannot) chip off. This step is necessary to avoid halation. Remove material from the side ***opposite*** the pull down claw slot - there is no point widening the aperture into the perfs... Try a tiny dab of contact cement to keep the evil springs in place when re-installing the gate. Mitch

"They used a Projector-Camera telecine system. Those ALWAYS turn out horrible" Absolutely wrong 100% for sure. We use a chain w/VX2000 or sometimes Z1U, to often *stunning* (depending only on the quality of footage) results, and I am tired of folks dismissing this setup offhand. Mine too - the transfer blows, both figuratively and literally. ~:?) It's not enough just to have the equipment; you gotta know how to work it... Agreed. We've seen a ton of dazzling, deep rich colours from this stock. Mitch

Sorry I can't help with your specific camera's auto readings, but - the internal filter does help (if not 100% correctly) to warm the image negative always needs CC after telecine; the filter is not absolutely necessary ditch the auto-exposure - look up and apply the "sunny 16" rule; negative has awesome latitude HTH Mitch

Wrong. Modified light source, diffusion. Incredibly simple. Mitch

The resulting Super8 footage will flicker and have a severe blue cast. Mitch

The "client" in the blind test would have the money required for processing and a one-light transfer of one roll each of negative and reversal film. That's one way of setting it out... The test would not be conducted using 6 year old film, unless it were a test of the sanity of the testers. Seven or eight, nine tops. But that hasn't much at all to do with a blind test of labs... Sure, throw in some rookie mistakes (identical on each roll), and see how the labs handle them. Good idea. Now you've made me sad... Mitch

There is a tiny set screw at the back of the camera which holds the rod/hinge in place. Loosen the set screw and, using the same tiny jeweller's screwdriver, push the rod out. The handle will fall to the ground and smash into pieces. Just kidding... Mitch

Because nobody's going to pony up the cash for it? :) Too bad, because you're right - blind test is the only way for the average low budget S8 shooter to get a broad idea of service levels lab to lab. If a facility knows it's being tested, of course they're going to be on their best behaviour. Here's the thing - there's no reason to tell them it's a test, because that's irrelevant; all the labs are supposed to be on their best behaviour all the time. Mitch

Just saw your pm when I logged in to answer you here. Glad to see you went ahead with the procedure yourself. Pretty tight in there, isn't it? I found the hardest part is not melting the little plastic aperture scale, right next to the armatures. Way to go, and I do very much appreciate your thanks. Mitch

Soderbergh quoted on IMDb - "I'm not a world-class cinematographer, but the momentum and the closeness to the actors ... I'm so close to them that I can just whisper to them while we're in the middle of a take." Interesting in terms of this discussion... Soderbergh DP/Cinematographer credits - The Argentine Ocean's Thirteen The Good German Bubble Ocean's Twelve Solaris Full Frontal Ocean's Eleven Traffic Schizopolis Even with the best gaffers, what else would one call a fellow with that many shooting credits? Mitch

Because the R10 has macro "in the long angle", so to speak, you need to first mount a 1:1 element, and then the WA attachment, and then you have to critically focus all your WA shots, as opposed to say, a Canon 814, which has one fixed macro "in the wide angle" focal setting for WA. The 1:1 can thread directly onto the front element, and then rods are indeed handy for mounting the WA element. Here is a picture of some mods I made to an R10 for this type of purpose - http://friendlyfirefilms.ca/nikonr10.html Here is a picture of the WA attachment in use - http://friendlyfirefilms.ca/lenses.html HTH Mitch

What's happened is the coil spring in the exp meter has weakened - since the spring uncoils to open the aperture, a weakened spring will not fully open the aperture. The armatures of the spring and manual exp control knob are not attached, they rest against each other by the force of the coil spring. What I did (always do with Nikon Superzooms, since they all almost always have the same problem), was get in and solder the armatures together. While this guarantees full manual control, it does defeat autoexposure, but that's no loss, IMHO. Mitch

Even the cheesiest bar usually has lights pointed at performers - the drummer may be in the dark but the singer could be quite hot (puns intended). 500T could nicely cover the range but multiple fstops will likely be needed. Mitch

You're going to need to replace that knob. Removing the four panel screws will reveal how the other similar knobs are attached, and there ya go... Mitch

Ya but the best-shot footage can be killed dead by a really bad transfer (though of course the transfer can be redone, presumably for less money than a re-shoot)...all the factors are the biggest, but with Super 8, dust and scratches seem to warrant special attention, due to the tiny frame. Just to be clear, I actually called it "breath-taking", and said it looks great! ~:?) Mitch

It's good enough for those who do it and are subsequently happy with the results. I'd like to see someone argue *that* - "sure they were perfectly happy with the results, but it wasn't good enough!" When Rick and I made Sleep Always (a film we will *never* stop referring to), my feeling was that excessive dust and scratches were the biggest bane of a "pro look" in Super 8. So we ran it through some pads soaked with Isopropyl, (not too much now, CAREFUL!), transferred to MiniDV, and we were happy with the results! Really, there's about five specks and not a single scratch during the whole 81 minutes. I have since transferred tens of thousands of feet of Super 8 and 16mm to MiniDV for people, and every last one of them has been...happy with the results! Some of the home movie footage is simply breath-taking. You need to adjust gamma for shadow detail, and tweak the colour, but other than that the MiniDV looks great. Throwing an HDcam on the chain looks even better, as does capturing 10bit, but that doesn't mean the MiniDV doesn't still look great. But yeah, don't use nostalgia for sharp images - it doesn't make sense. ~:?) Mitch

Since you're shooting through a microscope, (very cool by the way), I assume the project is not narrative? ~:?) Can you bracket in 1/2stop increments? Kinda the same as testing, except that one of the exposures will be the one you want, and you'll have the shot...depending on how long the shot is... Anyhoo autoexp. is right out. Or wait; what about filling the frame with the same value of white as the objects, and taking a reading from that? Are you doing science? Science rules! ~:?) Mitch

We use a turquoise-ish filter pack in front of the lamp, but behind the gate. You can get Lee filter swatch sample books from MP rental houses. Or from Lee, I guess. Mitch

A 1012xls was presented to me for repair which had begun slowing, then making a "gallumping" sound, then ground to a halt. Pretty sure the motor had burned out. However my Nikon Superzoom 8s also sometimes slow and stop, but the cart-slap always works. Mitch

Thanks Rick. That was a SuperDuper8 transfer too - I was pleased to see the grain as sharp on the edges as it was in the middle, thanks to an over-sized field lens. Rick nailed all his exposures, which helps a bunch. Also, while generally I agree that projected film looks better than transferred film, often the rich blacks resulting from the higher contrast [reversal only] is quite pleasing, and the colour seems to get a boost in saturation. Mitch

You mean trouble with it jamming? Take the cart out, give it a slap or two on one or both sides, push a little film through, take it up by hand, [it should not resist too much], and re-insert. Or do you mean trouble with how the exp meter reads it? That doesn't matter; you need to shoot a bracketed test roll and compensate based on the look you're after. Finally, we have latitude! Manual exposure is of the essence... Mitch