Mitch Perkins

Since you're already sending it to Toronto, try giving Exclusive Film and Video a call (416) 598-2700. They have many professional clients, and they do an *excellent* transfer, as do we, for around the same price you mentioned. There's really no substitute for sitting in, though... Mitch

Wow! Thanks for that. I never had a problem with the old 7240 (R.I.P.), thought it quite beautiful in fact. SA would've been so much more ~sparkly~ if we had been able to go back to the original MiniDV xfer, right out of the box, so to speak, and conformed that to the excellent soundtrack. As it stands it went through a number of format changes, and lost a bit of itself each time...~:?( Mitch

Ech, I widened my gates because I could, knowing that it was empirically impossible for it not to make *some* positive difference. I never thought it looked like Super 16, though others, some of them in the film industry, thought the film was shot on Super 16...probably due more to the absence of any scratches, (and about 3 specks of dust in total), in the movie. Hmm, since I can't seem to edit my previous post, I'll just note here that the Pinnacle box and the Iso pads really come into play with the negs. Huge difference... Mitch

That's why for SA we used the poor man's wetgate - two pads soaked in Isopropylene, placed just in front of #1 sprocket. The Iso stays on the film through the gate, filling in (therefore "removing") scratches, and eliminating 99% of dust. Dust is everywhere - even if the cart were the culprit, processing would remove that dust. HD transfer of S8 looks much better than SD, as one would expect - we have mounted a friend's HD cam on the telecine a couple of times with superb results. Now we are using a Pinnacle (now Avid) Liquid Edition Pro breakout box, going out from the S-video on the Sony VX2000, bypassing the 5:1 MiniDV compression. Again, vastly superior results. Mitch

Not too tough. Focus and zoom ring covers have to come off, then front cover... It's a lot easier if you decide to forgo power zoom and AE; you can snip those wires and get to work. Mitch

Mounting screws for the lens, probably not, but you should be able to get the front of the camera off with the added clearance provided by removing the zoom/focus ring covers. Then you can investigate removing the front assembly. It'll have to come off so you can access the lens mounting screws from "behind". Mitch

Maybe not. Is there a rubber lens barrel grip "ring"? Get something under there, slide it off, maybe revealing screws. You may only have to remove the lens barrel cover and zoom ring + lever, allowing more clearance. All S8 lenses I've seen mount with screws pointing forward, usually through a metal plate, threaded directly into main aluminum cylinder, through/in/around which all components move. This makes sense but can be extremely problematic for lens removal. ~:?) You could be looking at major dis-assembly, including soldering little tiny wires. You may know when you get the front shell off. HTH Mitch

The OP criticizes the Super 8 format itself, on the Super 8 forum; complaining, where the idea is to make the best of it. Nothing to do with the work, "per-se". ~:?) Mitch

The R10, like most cameras, gets a little softer when wide open, the SZ8 does not, I suppose because there's much less glass. Again, even with a wide angle attachment, the SZ8 is sharp as a tack. Mechanically, the SZ8 is of a simpler design, which I like, especially now that dissolves etc. can easily be done in post. Also, the handgrip folds out of the way for tripod mounting, IMHO an essential design feature. Mitch

To criticize is to volunteer - get out there and get on that board. ~:?) Well then, there is quite literally someplace for up-and-comers to go, and since it's not difficult to use 16mm, a bit of gentle encouragement is all that's needed.... Mitch

No, just that blasted thingy. Once I got rid of it things smoothed out. ~:?) I'm not sure folks ever did notice, speaking of which, you're going to have to pardon a *lot* when viewing the clip - it looks purplish, it's the wrong transfer, (I did a much better one with no frame lines, no scratches [wetgate]) etc...but I believe there were problems loading it. Click on "films", then the right-hand arrow at bottom - http://lauriemaher.com/ Our heads were full of Mr Hulot's Holiday...not a bad thing to have a head full of. ~:?) Okay - Nikon Superzoom 8. ~:?) Mitch

While all that is true, we've run tens of thousands of feet of 8 and 16mm home movies through our telecine here, and the Super 8 registration is almost always extremely good. Back in the day, the system was fully supported with R&D etc. Usually it's the 16mm that has reg. issues, though I assume it's mostly from improper loading of the film into the camera. Mitch

Man, 7240 was great for that. Everybody hated it except me an' Rick Palidwor. We used it for "Sleep Always". We never got a complaint that the movie itself looked ugly, just the stock...~:?) Did they have that in 16/35mm? Special order? I've got a '79 Grand Prix I wouldn't mind running on nitrate film - short trips, straight up, y'know...~:?) Mitch

"Soft, Simon Ellis?s critically acclaimed short film, commissioned by Film4 and the UK Film Council with The Bureau for Cinema Extreme, has put Ellis on the international film industry?s radar." You forgot the international film industry. Or how about on the set of "Children of Men II"? Or the set of "28 Days Later Still"? Or the set of "Harry potter and the Wizard's Overbite"? Those are some places to go. http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/informatio...13BB&skip=0 "The Bureau The Bureau is a London based production company..." Evasion noted. Mitch

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/ne...1.4.7&lc=en My guess is that new developments in filmstock would be closely guarded until release; it's hard to imagine the scientists who created Vision2 stocks sitting around waiting for digital motion picture imaging technology to catch up...if that's even possible. ~:?) OTOH, everyone seems quite pleased with the Vision2 stocks, so maybe they're focusing on something else... Mitch

http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/informatio...13BB&skip=0 "The Bureau The Bureau is a London based production company harbouring producers Bertrand Faivre, Kate Ogborn, Soledad Gatti-Pascual and Matthieu de Braconier. The Bureau?s latest productions include: Far North by Asif Kapadia - premièring at the Venice Film Festival (starring Michelle Yeoh, Michelle Krusiec and Sean Bean), Glue by Alexis Dos Santos (Young Jury?s Award Rotterdam, Best Film & Audience Award BAFICI and Special Mention Viennale), The Sickie by Rupert Jones (starring Toby Jones, ARTE Award & Audience Award Angers and TCM special mention) and in pre-production Unmade Beds by Alexis Dos Santos." Even if these films don't make money, the exposure can't hurt an up-and-comer. And look! - "August 08, 2007 - London Soft, Simon Ellis?s critically acclaimed short film, commissioned by Film4 and the UK Film Council with The Bureau for Cinema Extreme, has put Ellis on the international film industry?s radar. It won Best Live Action Short at the Toronto Short Film Festival, as well as the Audience Award and a ?Special Mention? at the Hamburg International Short Film Festival." This could be you! Well, not you, but it could be somebody else who hasn't given up. ~:?) Mitch

OP has stated the desire to shoot a feature. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:wr_rn...lient=firefox-a "Financier Dean Goldberg has raised over 25 million pounds for UK features in the last 4 years, much of it for first-time filmmakers." Whatever. If you need to do something you find a way to get it done. Mitch

Every weekend - I shoot weddings for a local prodco. Usually about 10 rolls, to be cut into the main MiniDV product. Keeps my hand in and it's a blast, long as there's little kids running around...and a lot of money spent. ~:?) I like to call a thing what it is, enjoying the civility where it's actually warranted. That way it means more, as opposed to being a rule. But hey, I can adapt...~:?) Not sure exactly what went wrong. I took it to a local 16/35 repair/rental house, and the Big Cheese there recommended disabling. I agreed as I've found most Super8 camera "repairs" costly and ineffective, except the ones I do myself. ~:?) The footage, all exposed using a tripod, looked as though it were shot from a jackhammer, from beginning to end. Funny thing is most folks we showed it to shrugged and said they didn't notice! It was PlusX in the countryside, so perhaps they were distracted by the extremely beautiful content....~:?) Mitch

Smiley noted, but what folks usually do is go out and *raise* the money for the project. For that you need a good script...no wait, a script that'll make money. Loading cameras is the least of your worries... Mitch

Sorry, I found myself asking - who is this idiot? http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tnews/NewsI...p_AttrId==12816 "John not only wants artifacts and exhibits that disprove evolution, but that also have 'a great deal of buzzability.' For example, a planned exhibit of a spark plug encased in stone will show 'that rock can form quickly, which helps prove the idea that the Grand Canyon was laid within in weeks, months, years, after a worldwide flood -- not millions of years.' " Ah, Google...'nuff said. ~:?) Mitch

Absolutely not; it makes sense that a true reg. pin would never be passive...(hmm, nor would a true 16/35mm PDC...for that matter), so I disagree with your prediction by agreeing with your point in the main - if a true reg. pin is active, then the Nikon thing is not a true reg. pin. At least I got to disagree with something...~:?) Actually, of course it's been a pleasure keeping it civilized. On top of it all, while I'm pretty sure the top claw of the dual spring-pressured drag claws is there for stability during normal shooting, as I say, I had to disable the thing in the R10 I owned, as it was sticking and responsible for some very unstable footage! Mitch

Thanks Michael for taking the time to reply, and for the good words about the S8Today article. I'd like to address a couple of your points below, unfortunately...~:?) Who's to argue with the "literature", eh? but on every R10 I've seen, including the one in the picture, (unless they de-powered the camera in mid-dissolve), and the one sitting beside me now, the "upper" claw is in the film path during normal filming - as I say, it engages the perfs of a short filmstrip moved across the gate by hand. But, many Nizo PDCs, as well of those of many other manufacturer's, also have only passive retraction - the cam only moves it up and down - and certainly these PDCs are engaging the perfs at normal filming speeds... Only the bottom claw would have any effect in the above scenario, and yet there's that top claw...not to mention the PDC is left protruding when film transport is stopped, effectively preventing any "slip back". Anyhoo, the built-in cartridge pressure plate is also holding the film in place, and that didn't change with better cameras. I sure don't want to be a jerk about this, but I would like to make sense of it. ~:?) Mitch

Nah, people are probly watching it, saying "cool" and waiting for other people to post "nice clip". ~:?) I'd watch your DV clip, but very recent browser "issues" coincidentally linked to this site = no flash installed on this computer at least for today. From a DV point of view, film stocks can give you a lifetime of organic "looks" to explore and shape with light. Then you have all the digital transfer/post magic... Check the first post and clip linked therein, but not necessarily the subsequent flame war, here - http://filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/view...7fe677ed8a5b00b Mitch

This is exactly what it does. ~:?) I'm unsure of the difference between "stability" and "registration", as applied to a moving image. That's why I'd call it a reg pin for lack of a better descriptor. It could be there to ensure that the frame lines are in the same place whether filming in forward or reverse... Yes, the Nikon second claw, retracts passively, much like a Nizo pulldown claw. Both engage perfs. I can't imagine the techs at Nikon recommending the additional expense (to the consumer), of installing the thing if it really had no beneficial effect. The tiny Super 8 frame is in no danger of buckling/warping; there's simply not enough area. Passive retraction PDCs are more likely to catch the trailing edge of the perf on the way "back up", as some 20+ years later, the cams are worn, leaving the PDC still in the film path after exposure. Old sticky lube adds to the problem. The Nikon R10 second claw would certainly work against such catching, as it disengages only via forward motion of the film. Of course, if the second claw gets to sticking, then you have to do what I did and get the hell rid of it. ~:?) Mitch

No joke, look at the picture - http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/plate_r10r8.jpg Again, it seems to have only sprung, passive retraction, perpendicular to the film plane, between perfs, no film transport...two tilt-axis-mounted, reciprocating-action-tipped claws, one for each direction...you can see the "top"(left-hand) claw is in place for forward filming, with the "bottom" (reverse filming), claw tilted out of the film path. I've just run a short filmstrip along this second claw - it snaps into each perf, being subsequently pushed back down by the trailing edge. Again, it remains stationary with film transport trigger depressed. If it's not designed to help stabilize image registration, I can't imagine what it is designed for... Mitch