Mitch Perkins

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... Is a true reg pin never passive? Mitch

I had 5 or 6 of them when I had access to (long) short-ends in 50' S8 cartridges. Kodak press tapes went smoothly through mag, camera and processor. Shot thousands of feet with only one or two jams. Watch the counter and listen for the splice, or throw caution to the wind and allow random fades to/from white. You have to *really* want to do it. ~:?) Then again, once you've figured it out... Crack it carefully in half, practice loading with leader. Only one path makes sense. The little band spring is ingenious and diabolical - you hold the feed reel and backwind the takeup reel, after you hook the tiny tooth into the invisible slot, then attach head of film...I forget how to do it, but you need a darkroom, not a bag. Mitch

R10 reg. pin, top left of aperture - http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/plate_r10r8.jpg Though sometimes they stick, guaranteeing the most possible jump. ~:?) Servicing a Super 8 camera involves perhaps more risk than 16mm...? Best to luck out on a camera that's seen little usage/good storage since it was put together by the carefullest tech on a lucky day during the height of the manufacturer's R&D/quality control. ~:?) Nikon Superzoom 8 is the sharpest I've seen, including wide open with wide angle attachment. Very cheap. Mitch

Sure 500T is very lovable. The labs have nailed 64T since 1 year ago, so you might want to give it another whirl...outdoors. ~:?) Mitch

Have you tried recently? The labs seemed to need a tweak period to get it just right. The stuff I've shot is anything but thin...I believe the cameras over-expose this stock on auto-exp, which is just one of many reasons never to use auto-exp. ~:?) But yeah, indoors you need those old eye-bursting 650W lights, or a bright window near the subject. The negs are more versatile in every way - I'll bet you could even make 'em look like reversal with the right CC. Mitch

Mr Hulot's Holiday! Beautiful/funny story, and beautifully shot B+W. Definitely overlooked by the "general" audience... Mitch

64T will give you that retro feel, the punchy colours and rich blacks of reversal. 200/500T looks more modern, state of the art. Canon 814XLS is IMHO the most useful all round camera, (and I don't even own one!), but the little Nikon Superzoom 8's produce the sharpest images I've seen, even wide open with a wrench...and a WA attachment! The Nikons are also easy to mod - shutter can be removed w/out disabling pulldown, and I've carved a section out of the right side panel to access the main drive, which I can "drag" (with my finger) down to 4 or 5 fps in low light. Whatever camera you decide on, rest assured, it will be used. ~:?) Mitch

I've been shooting/transfering gobs of 200T for a wedding prodco the past couple of summers. The Nikon Superzoom 8 I've been using doesn't allow for the filter after the notchless cart has pushed it out of the way, and there's no time for mounting filters. With WB adjustments, WB shift adjustments, and shifting (increasing/decreasing) colour temp of the projector lamp during telecine, I'm able to achieve what I'd call very pleasing, if not technically proper colour. "Proper", however, is not always what you're after - even asa ratings are/were decided by a roomful of folks looking at bracketed pics and deciding which one looks "most right" to them. One is well within one's rights to disagree with them 100% of the time.~:?) The 200T will indeed have more latitude than the Ektachrome 100D, but f-stop should still be changed - I use the "sunny 16" rule, opening up a stop or two in shade. Reversal pretty much has to be nailed - a little over for paler colours, a little under for richer colours, you know the score... Mitch

A friendly recommendation to steer clear of those controls - they have been known to jam permanently, (camera is 25+ years old and newer carts currently suffer from increased film jamming), and you can do more flexible dissolves in post. Mitch

It sure does! We do the negs here, using the invert feature on the VX2000 and a turquoise-ish filter pack in front of the light source and behind the gate to deal with the orange mask. If the exposure is right, stuff looks great right out of the box with little CC needed, but if there is under-exposure, (a lot of white grain in the blacks), it is difficult to crush it out without introducing undesirable artifacts. This is no doubt because of the MiniDV compression/limitations of the VX2000. I'm glad there are higher-end places like Spectra to deal with these issues, because the intro of negs to Super 8 is the greatest thing since sliced bread! Meanwhile we can do a nice clean (Iso wetgate), inexpensive workprint type xfer for folks. Mitch

I don't think so; the only way one will ever see TV pixels is by getting right up close to the screen - on our telecine chain, the grain shrinks as you zoom out from the image, (of course!), but one would have to zoom out past any reasonable point to make the grain smaller than the pixels... Still, you've given me a puzzle here to think about, because I always jokingly claimed that if one made the Super 8 image small enough on the TV screen, the resolution of the resulting tiny box of image would equal that of 35mm! Not so however, as you've pointed out that the pixels would "become larger" in relation to any object depicted in the film frame. Truth be told, I find myself hard-pressed to think/write intelligently on this. Must...have...more...time! ~:?) Meanwhile the SD8 (there you go - just call it SD8), frame is well suited to 16:9 capture - every grain of the film image is put to use. Mitch

Technically, there were *no* pixels capturing the *additional* film area...~:?) This is interesting. I think the reason it's not a concern is that the grain is so much bigger than the pixels - as in so many other cases, there is improvement up to a point, after which there is deterioration - as you say, "might not always..." Mitch

Don't forget that telecine stage... Mitch

Heck, even those little booklets that came with the film years ago warned against zoom-happy shooting. I tell ya, some (but luckily not most), of the home movie footage we get looks like they handed the camera to the monkey...they had a monkey, right? ~:?) Mitch

So then, "What I hate about when a super 8 camera is handheld and the 4mm lens is NOT used or a weight is attached to the camera or steadicam or the film is NOT filming at 54 fps is that the footage looks lousy", would've been a more accurate thread title... Folks can film the inside of a jar full of mayonnaise for all I care, long as they keep the little gauge alive. Mitch

Hi all, You can email me at mitchsperkins@gmail.com for the conversion, ($85 CDN), but I'd rather you do it yourself, and here's why - it's easy! Use a short strip of film placed in the gate, between "go's" with the file, to gauge how much material you're removing. It's safe to take it just a peep beyond the edge of the filmstrip; the frame is so tiny it will not buckle. Use a file that is narrow enough to avoid contact with the top/bottom of aperture. I dremelled the sides of the file I use. Extra care is needed for 1) plastic Canon xls series gates, and 2) Nizo gates with their insanely tiny film-guide springs, which *will* pop out to be lost forever on removal of the gate, and which were designed by Satan. You have to take the right side panel off the Nizos and pull the gate out with right side facing down over a bowl or something to catch those devil springs. If you lose 'em, cut tiny chunks of rubber and contact cement them in place; the springs provide push resistance, not pull. Don't know the numbers, but she blows up pretty perfectly into a 16:9 frame in the capture window... I do regret christening it "Super Duper 8", because I now feel certain that "Superdee Duperdee 8" would've made everyone happier. Jeez, I'm sorry... Mitch