Michael Lehnert

Well, yes of course it is a marketing lie, or, as the German language says it, 'Etikettenschwindel', although nowadays, we say "trademark cross-licensing deal for parallel unrelated activities", and it's legally okay. The analogy to THX is spot on. We know the format and image acquisition differences, and mature viewers or cinema goers might as well. But to be honest, from my experience from conversations, the key demo of 14-28 doesn't know anything about this, and doesn't really care. For them, IMAX is simply a grander theatre with "bigger picture" and more oomph, and whether they go there depends on them being able to pay the premium over a regular movie ticket or their want to invest it in aftershow drinks. Just as THX lost its credibility when Sony brought out lacklustre home audio/video components with the name, or their THX car audio line, I am sure there is still a bit of commercial mileage left milking IMAX... I am thinking top end home digital video projection... I know... hashtag sarcasm.

For as long as the trademark cross-licensing deal between ARRI and IMAX for "exclusive" use of "customised/distinct" Alexa 65s is in place, I guess ;) . Franz Kraus spoke of a multi-year deal, no precise figures, so that in itself is quite noteworthy.

There are a few items on sale, but the gross of it has not been reduced. If you want to safe you preferred Beaulieu spare part that they will throw away, you gotta pay full prize ;) .

I don't want to appear as increasingly misanthrope, but over the past year, looking at the public discourses in civil society, I agree with Satre. I am sure everyone here is very talented. I mean, some here we are regular forum users for over a decade. But just looking at the words people use here like "yesteryear writer"... dear me :wacko: I would have robbed a bank to get $90 to spend on 6 hours of Werner Herzog, and here, for some, the takeaway seems to have been that "no storyboard" is a moronic advice. If the participants don't have the critical thinking ability to deduct that when Herzog says that, it is a personal statement, and should not reflect general approach to filmmaking to everyone, I truly start to wonder. Master Class means that a recognized master of the craft gives insight into his or her workflow and experience to high potential talent who have gained the skills and have the necessary experience to gain from that exposure. It's not first-year undergrad Cinematography 101 where you learn how to do the basics, such as remove lens cap from lens, or get a free-for-all to skip PreViz Techniques class. :mellow:

Both the Canon Auto Zoom 814 Electronic and Canon Auto Zoom 1014 Electronic use TTL exposure control, which means the internal lightmeter takes an average reading of the incoming light and selects the f-stop accordingly. The discrepancy you experience relates to the difference in light that is caught by the lens at the different focal lengths. It is indeed a bit like moving between a spotmeter (narrow light angle in tele) and a incident reading (wide light angle ambient). In fact, if you have a long focal length zoom lens, such as on the 1014, you can mimick taking spotmeter readings by using the tele – if you don't have a spotmeter at hand. The decision on whether to go for the one f-stop suggested by the camera in tele, or the one suggested when in wide angle, depends on what you are filming. If the contrasts would too stark and the overall image to underexposed in wide, but spot on in tele, e.g. when zooming out of a shady olive grove into a tele of the bright sunlit Mediterranean sea (with lots of light reflection on the sea surface), then you may want to actually select an average value between the two extremes f-stops at either end. You can also pick one in a slightly weighted manner, so not just the mid-point f-stop, but rather weight it to retain some of the shade of the olive grove at the beginning, and overemphasise the glare of the sea in tele. Or vice versa. If you have f/22 and f/8, pick either f/16 or f/11, or an in-between between the two for a dead-on average, using the manual exposure control of the camera. Now, I don't know what you were shooting, where, indoors or outdoors, with light set or merely available light, at what time of day in what light conditions, and above all what aesthetic you are actually after, if you used ND filters etc. etc. etc. But, in crude generality, as you are shooting with negative, and 7219 at that, you will find that the film stock has such latitude that you are unlikely to receive back totally overexposed or underexposed material during a travelling through the zoom range. Your concern was much more relevant during the low-sensitivity reversal film era, the Kodachrome nostalgia that some people still indulge in. Don't forget, the 'art' in the art form of cinematography is to master the technical aspects, alright, and then override this technocratic rulebook with the intuitive feeling gained from shooting experience to get the right result you desire :)

I currently do a project at a rather famous European arts university, and what you say you observe is something that resonates with me. Plus I get the technical side of this full-on in the Super 8 forum here - the questions are quite something... B) While I appreciate 'bilderstürmer' and challengers to 'emporic icons', those defiant provocations should at least come from a place where an alternative idea is formulated, or in the process of formulation. Rejection or despectability for its own sake without showcasing an alternative aesthetic approach, artistic idea, or solid argument for that destructive viewpoint, well, that's just moronic posing. I think it was Eric Rohmer who said "La seule critique d'un film est de fair un autre.", the only critique of a film is to make another one (*). The Nouvelle Vague did that as material manifestation from Les Cahiers du Cinéma. Oddly enough, they had nothing but respect for the directors and cinematographers of the Hollywood System. Ah well... _______ (*) don't quote me on that, but I can find it out once back in my home library

As Brian said, elimination of flicker in the DIY set-up you are describing is difficult, total synchronisation almost impossible to attain if you don't quartz'em up. If you don't want to pursue a modern production chain and thus do a digital telecine or scan of your material (negative or reversal), and if you want to artistically experiment with Normal 8 and Super 8 through projection (possibly projecting negative film stock as is and not merely reversal film, or devise other visual/performative arts processes with virage or scratching or whatever) then I suggest you go with the Elmo. – It has dual format so you can project Normal 8 and Super 8 – otherwise, the Kodak Brownie you bought is useless to you. – It has variable speed, which will give you another artistic register to use in general, and some leverage for your attempt to do DIY filming off a screen. – Elmo is actually in general mechanically sturdier built than Bolex, which should reduce your angst stemming from owning a dual format projector. In fact, I think that angst is overhyped. I own a dual format projector since 1984, it was used the most of all my projectors, and it's the only one of those 6 projectors from top-level manufacturers (Braun, Bauer, Eumig) in current ownership that never needed any maintenance. Good luck.

So, expanding on Martin's explanations, one should run the cartridge in for 5 sec at 18 fps with the lens covered ("shooting black"). Then go back to 24 or 25 fps (or alternative filming speeds you want) and begin shooting what you want to. It's basically as you would do it on 16 or 35mm after swapping magazines.

I can relate to your scrapyard comments, as I drive an old car where spares are sometimes rare now due to such practice. Looking at the website, the Beaulieu items on dramatically-reduced sales prices are items rarely bought already back in the 1970s and 80s, and now largely obsolete, such as the original Macro Banc, external containers for the 2008-series, car battery clamps, or some lens adapter rings. Key products for cameramen back in the 1960s, but now no longer part of a shooting infrastructure or workflow. If they have hundreds of those, I could see that the prospect of ever selling them is very low, and thus it's dead capital and an expensive drain through storage cost. However, their announcement is referring to all Beaulieu parts, which means everything from spare pin or drive units they had manufactured themselves in the last few years, to battery and charging accessories, whose disposal would be insane and stupid and potentially kill off Beaulieu cameras still widely used in the field. It could well be this is an ill-advised marketing ploy to increase the sale of All Beaulieu accessories through psychology of fear, like the absurdly expensive but necessay battery and charging accessories, while in fact, they would realistically only ditch or discard those items now on sale (some I mentioned above, which are bulky and obscure and difficult to sell at their original prices Wittner wanted for years). The thing is: this is "ill-advised" because a company and its management whose recognition is largely based on being the world's leading Beaulieu supplier would only take such drastic measures - in terms of marketing communication and strategy - if the company is existentially threatened from the capital expense that Beaulieu storage costs represent. If that were the case, than most people with basic business understanding would conclude that Wittner is on the verge of going bust. And that's not an idea you would want to even seed in customers' minds if you are a professional business leader, and former entrepreneur as Wittner. Once the trust in a company's viability is gone, it's almost impossible to regain. So either this is bogus marketing gone wild'n bad, or Wittner's business base is crumbling and the company is on the verge of bankruptcy. In which case I wouldn't order or do business with them at all anymore, because German legislation is such that end consumers are in the worst position to reclaim money, purchased products or items legally belonging to them but held with the bancrupt company. They almost always loose out, as many Beualieu owners cna testify when Wittner's predecessor, Ritter Film + Videotechnik, folded over a decade ago. That was really messy. Stupid Wittner, really, whatever the idea or motivation or need is behind this "Aktion".

Agreed, that would at least constitute meaningful disposal for them and sustainable development for Beaulieu users. I appreciate the high costs of storage in business, but to simply through everything away, and to say so without any doubt or remorse, is the most repugnant and shameful thing I have encountered in the industry in quite a while. Taking over the Beaulieu spare parts and refurbish activities from Beaulieu and Ritter Film + Videotechnik in 2003 made Wittner. It gave them the credibility to be recognised as a serious company to shop with in the European Super 8 scene. And from there, their international expansion became possible at all. While I guess there is hope in some parts of the Super 8 industry thst people will start tossing away all old cameras and shift to buy Kodak's new Super 8 camera (improving quality of total camera stock, and making Kodak's product viable), there's simply no replacement for thr technical and aesthetic proposition that a mirror-reflex Beaulieu offers. There aren't enough facepalms in the world for Wittner's tactics there.

Yes, voltage. It matters. Rather. Choose 110V or 220V on the charger depending on where in the world you are and what voltage is deployed through the grid.

I get alot of Personal Messages to my profile here from people who don't even post their questions in the forum (registered users, zero posters), and instead asking me directly for help or support, or putting questions to me. While I am very happy to field answers, it's kinda sad that internet forums have become so "old-fashioned" that people don't see the value in asking their questions in public to get better hive mind anwers than most direct PMs. So, from now on, if a question is concerning a good and rare camera, I'll feel compelled to post the correspondence, anonymously, here in the forum, simply to make it available to the public. Someone may have had the same question, someone may web search it in the future, or learn or be inspired by the issue at hand for their own work. Yesterday, I got a question in regarding the Eumig 881 PMA, it's time exposure feature (similar to the one found on the Bauer A 512 top production camera), hacking it for daytime with NDs, and a related question on reciprocity failure. Here's the correspondence. I hope someone who has more shooting experience with the Eumig 881 PMA can chime in, as it's been years since I had one in hands and shot with it. ~~~~ Hi ____, it's been a great many years since I have used an Eumig 881 PMA with Eumig Makro-Viennon 1:1,8 / 7-56mm, and I may not remember the functionality of the intervalometer (variotimer) and time exposure feature fully, but cross-checking with the original manual, let me answer your three questions as best as I can: First: The exposure index of the camera is set automatically using the Super 8 cartridge notch codes, reading either ISO 25/40 or 100/160. You can't alter or override the exposure meter's reading with dedicated EI dials or the filter key for the Wratten 85, as is possible on other Super 8 cameras where the systems are interlinked. When you activate the time exposure feature, the camera will calculate and control its own "correct exposure time" of a film frame based on the film's exposure index and the camera's exposure range of 1/12 sec to 1 min, and yes, the diaphragm automatically opens up at f/1,8 in that setting. I have never tried this out on the Eumig, but the diaphragm is accessible by the manual aperture settings, and you can close it and lock it. In fact, the manual tells you so when shooting with ISO 100/160 film stock to close it manually down to f/2.8 and lock it at that. So I suppose you should be able to close it down to f/11 and lock it. You can check yourself as you should see a change in the exposure through the film gate: angle a mirror at 45 degrees to the gate in the cartridge compartment, with the compartment door open. You would need to calculate the film speed, your chosen aperture opening and the neutral density of the filter you want to use for the specific shooting situation I can only guess you are aiming for. I can kinda see what you are trying to achieve, but technically, you can't shoot the time exposure feature (LT mode) – which in itself will lead to time lapse in its original purpose scenario – in conjunction with the intervalometer (VT mode) of the camera, in a daytime situation. You can't set LT and VT at the same time, and the filming speed selector know of the intervalometer won't affect the shutter release in VT mode. Your proposed ND hack for LT should get you the maximum out of this experiment. But in the end, you have to test-reel it! Grab a cartridge and just shoot it to see how the camera reacts to the daytime ND'd time exposure that you I think you are after. Cinematography is about physics and chemistry, but it's still an art practice. If by "open or closing stops", you don't mean opened-up or closed-down f-stops but the mechanical shutter release, the "opening and closing" of the shutter, then yes. The opening angle of the shutter is 190°, and mechanical transportation is not changed. In LT, it's just governed by "sufficient cell-measured" exposure time rather than filming speed when shooting normally at, say, 18 or 24 fps. That's why you have the film-sequence timer knob, telling you when you have 10 sec of film at a projection speed of 18 fps exposed "in the can" or rather in the cartridge chamber. Reciprocity is mathematically defined in a formula that says that aperture and shutter speed are inversely proportional. As you decrease the aperture, you will need to increase the shutter speed by the same corresponding setting to retain the same exposure. You get the same exposure at various combinations of f-stops and shutter speeds, which manifest to you in the lovely optomechanical interplay between f-stop setting ring, exposure index setting control, and filming speed setting selector (one mark down there, one mark up here, to put it primitively). Reciprocity failure is when the light situation is such that this interplay breaks down and you need to add extra exposure time to the usual formulaic rule of one f-stop, say, half'd, to double exposure time. This failure happens at the film stock level, as the silver halide grains on the emulsion do not evenly react to photonic exposure, and so the density of the exposed frame is lower than the exposure index of it technically suggests. Film stock data sheets have density curves where you can check on the characteristic behaviour and cut-off points of the film. ~~~~

Thanks! Fixed the width issue; was Code instead of Quote :rolleyes: .

The next step of the development of Kodak's new Super 8 camera via customer clinics and feedback session can be read in this new thread here!

I am sure lots of Ciny.com users are aware of this, or are taking part, but just for completion's sake: Kodak is currently conducting costumer clinics and feedback sessions, outsourced to Safari Research, for its new Super 8 camera, provisionally nicknamed "Kodak Neomatic Model 2016" B) , and the format in general. The camera is still planned for launch in CQ4/16, and all is well on that front so far ;) . Sessions in the UK took place in June and July, and non-disclosure agreements are obviously in place for all participants (at least in the UK), so the content cannot be discussed. Recruitment for the sessions was done directly based on long-standing relationships with Kodak, as well as a sub-sample drawn from what must be The Super 8 Collective™ newsletter/product-offer subscription, as I received different calls and separate invitations to participate. Below is the standard e-mail that I got from the Collective side (always use non-business e-mails so you know the source of it :D ) . I am not sure how they pre-screened participants on that side in the "telephone interview", but maybe someone here took part in the sessions via that route and can share the experience (don't break NDAs, though, if you signed one).

...and the point of the Kodak Instamatic cartridge and Super 8 as a format is very much that you don't have to worry about film being exposed while handling it, at any stage. I occassionally see novices swapping cartridges in changing bags, or taping up the cartridges' sides, hell, even the camera cartridge compartments despite their rubber seals not having been compromised with age. Much ado about nothing, in my experience.

Mark, Everyone in this forum is very happy to help out newcomers, and there are actually hundreds of threads answering potential questions in great depth. What is not so much appreciated is raising questions that with quick web search on wikipedia, or in this forum, could easily be answered by itself. It will also be rather difficult to evade the impression that someone is hogging fellow forists' time, or out to troll, if answers are provided, yet to seem to fail to get it because of obvious trivialities. I think you will accept that R8 is hardly a short form for Random 8mm, for example. Here's everything you need to know: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_8_mm_film With best wishes, /-M

Andries, A) Where did I say I recommend purchase of this specific 4008 eBay camera? Exactly, so no need for the officious formulation towards my orignal post you chose to open with :rolleyes: :) . This was about highlighting to Mark Day the price difference between a 4008 kit in beaten-up condition with high cost to get back to order, and a 2008 kit in excellent cosmetic condition that may be less expensive to do a CLA on – both with the same lens. B) While Beaulieu cameras are more maintenance-demanding than any Bauer, most Canon, and some Nizo, I own 4008 bodies for over 25 years and they run flawlessly. Can't say the same about that damned ownership of a 6008 (never again! :ph34r: ). It's not a marque for casual beginners, but absolutely worthy of recommendation for beginners seriously dedicated to exploring Super 8 to the max. C) Not every ZM II came with the Schneider 11x6mm by default. You could order the Angénieux 8x8mm as well. The novelty for the Angénieux bundled with the ZM II was the new bi-tubular Beaulieu Reglomatic. The Schneider was exclusively introduced with the ZM II, and remained optional on the ZM IV. D) While every ZM II has the exposed motor-shaft/sync-sound socket (over the prior ZM), not every ZM II model has also the 'film wind locking button' or friction brake, which when pressured declutches the motor and thus enables the lovely manual rewind feature. In fact, the exposed motor-shaft was introduced by Beaulieu with the ZM II primarily as a sync-sound socket so that broadcast-standard Pilotton Synchro-Pilot or Erlson Contact-Switch accessories could be inserted. The development of the rewind feature via the friction brake came at a slightly later stage in the production. It was mainly inspired by and pushed for by Ritter, Germany's Beaulieu importer. I don't have the serial number at hand from which this became standard for production, but can look it up if you can wait until second-half of June (am travelling right now). Incidentally, it also became a retro-fit feature offered by Ritter to its customers for already sold ZM models. They would swap out the body panel for a ZM II one to gain the exposed motor-shaft, add the friction brake, and of course threw in a new ZM II badge. You will find lots of Frankenstein-modified 4008, 3/5008 and 6/7/9008-series cameras that came out of Mannheim, and many Europe-based ZM IIs started their life as a ZM. E) I fail to see a difference in the leatherette texture, however, the cover for the motor-shaft/sync-sound socket is a standard replacement that was handed out since the mid-1990s, as is the plexiglass cover for the footage counter which lacks the chrome-coloured ring. These spares as original parts were already highly valued in the 1990s, and people were put on waiting lists at Ritter for a leatherette'd socket cover. Hilarious stuff. F) Battery packs can be charged inside the camera by plugging the battery charger into the uncovered socket next to the eyepiece. However, using the external battery container for charging should be the preferred method. For LiIo and NiMH, it all depends on the charge current management logic of the charger, not on the principle of charging through the camera "wireloom" itself. Cheers, /-M P.S.: Note the sticker in the cartridge compartment: "Ritter", the sticker type they used shortly before going bankrupt in the early 2000s.

Right, so you are shooting Double 8 and screen them as Normal 8. Yeah, I can see know why you are considering the Super 8 cartridge system as something else and distinct ;) . Nikon's only claim to fame comes from the Nikon R10 model. Don't bother with any other Nikon cameras. Back then, they were not nearly where they are today in terms of market dominance, tech leadership and brand premium. There have been plenty of forum threads here discussing the pros and cons of the Nikon R10 camera. Search for them. Some former users and I spent long threads discussing the intricacies of the camera, and we deconstructed the myths surrounding it quite thoroughly. Since then, I've personally never been convinced again by the acclaim that the Nikon R10 gets from its followers. My advice: Don't bother. And whatever anyone tells you, including published books by Jürgen Lossau, do not believe the legend that it is "pin registered". The Nikon R10 does not only have no registration pin, it also does not have a double registration pin, and it certainly does not have two double registration pins! The Nikon R10 is not a Mitchell S35!! B) Beaulieu/Bauer/Nizo production cameras are always the better choice in terms of optics, features, reliability, and Canon is the better choice for 'Made in Japan' cameras of the era.

The Beaulieu 2008 S is a very good camera, a predecessor to the top-of-the-line Beaulieu 4008-series. Check out the manual of the Beaulieu 2008 S by clicking HERE. I have rarely seen a camera in such good cosmetic condition, but it is certain that it will need some CLA job. It is common for the shutter to be left in such a position that the viewfinder is darkened, when the camera is stopped not via the release button but via the power switch at the back of the handgrip. Why the lens doesn't come off is a bit weird. It may have been screwed in too tightly, or, worse, someone superglued it into the C-Mount – no end to idiots roaming the world. Based on the picture of the battery pack, this is an A model, i.e. serial number < #808699. This means you cannot use the three-contact battery pack that is still available to buy new from Wittner Cinetec's Beaulieu Shop. Instead, you may have to buy the 'Akku-Dummy / Kontaktblock 2008 Modell A' to feed power into the camera from an external battery, which is a good idea anyway. Alternatively, you may be able to re-cell the supplied battery pack, which as its NiCd-based, will most certainly no longer function properly. I am not an expert on A-model Beaulieu 2008 S power pack issues – maybe someone else can chime in? Overall, if you can get it CLA'd in the USA, and obtain an external power source, it's a good buy as US$65 doesn't strike me as a bad deal, given that you have untested ones going for three times the money on eBay at the moment. Incidentally, HERE's a 4008 with the same lens and new battery pack for US$295. More importantly, the seller also states in the description that s/he offers service and re-celling for Beaulieu 2008 S models et. al., unrelated to the auction at hand So this may be a good port-of-call to inform yourself about the specific battery issues of the A model 2008 S, and also have it serviced there, should you buy it from your original auction. /-M

I am unaware of a "Brownie" rumour, but 1) Kodak will be introducing a new Super 8 cine-film camera in CQ4/2016, first presented to the public at CES this year. This has been widely discussed in this forum and elsewhere. 2) Kodak is selling Super 8 film stock in the Kodak Instamatic cartridge now as it did since 1965. You will find that overall supply never stopped, and Kodak is promoting the Super 8 format just fine. 3) If you want to purchase a "vintage camera", choose the cine-film format according to the aesthetics and production practicalities. To buy S8 vintage just because Kodak may introduce a new camera and hence push S8 more does not make much sense. It would make sense to buy into S8 because of the new camera, if you are new to the format and hesitant of investing in vintage gear that may require more than just CLA to get top image acquisition... although "vintage" production cameras by Beaulieu, Bauer, Nizo, Canon will remain attractive due to their optics and certain features that cannot be replicated with either the new Kodak camera or a digital post chain. 4) Super 8 has quite a rich ecosystem of third party providers across the globe. Those have been pushing S8 quite successfully for various means and purposes, so S8 is really no longer ultra-dependent on Kodak to continue to exist. An analogue word be Polaroid-based instant film and its supply by third parties long after Polaroid ceased to exist in the way Edwin Land had founded it. So, yes, S8 didn't see that much corporate support from Kodak itself since the mid-1980s, when it sold cameras of its own alongside a portfolio of film stocks. But it's not that this show of support is a make-or-break or big-saviour act. Super 8 did better over the past 20 years than enternal doomsday sayers like Jürgen Lossau were portraying it in their publications.

That's a 1962-64 Carena Zoomex II, for Double 8, not Super 8. Made in Mauren, Liechtenstein (the tiny country between Switzerland and Austria) and distributed by Gevaert of Belgium, this camera came packaged with an Angénieux Zoom 1:1,8 / 7,5-35mm vario lens. Very intelligent design using a unique patented transport/guiding system, and overall being of superb Beaulieu- or Nizo-level quality. Equally rare is also the successor, the 1964-70 Carena Zoomex S, which came with an Angénieux Zoom 1:1,8 / 6,5-52mm vario lens, as found on the Beaulieu MR 8 models of the same period. Carena never really managed the industry's evolution to Super 8, and closed down in 1970. The name continued on cheap entry-level cameras from Japan until the 1980s. Here's an ongoing Rakuten JP auction for a mint 'S' set with the longer zoom, plus obviously expired Fujifilm film stock; one bid at ¥28,000, roughly £185: http://auction.rakuten.co.jp/item/11566217/a/10005292 There was an auction a while ago on eBay UK, just the 'II' camera with the shorter zoom lens, going for £38. Check out Stefan Franckh's page to browse and download the manual: http://home.scarlet.be/stef49/Collection/index.html

In my experience shooting with two ZM II bodies (among other cameras), you can achieve a visibly better frame stability with a properly CLA'd Beaulieu 4008 ZM II. By this I mean "in camera", not "in post" dialing up FCP's SmoothCam ;) . Indeed the same is true for the other top three production cameras (Leitz Leicina Special, Bauer A 512, Nizo professional) and to some extent several sound cameras (such as Canon 814 or 1014 XL-S, Nizo 6056, Bauer S 715 XL microcomputer, Nikon R10). Bear in mind that due to the required timing of the alternating phases of the guillotine shutter that all Beaulieu cameras use, plus a variable shutter with a 100° opening angle, you will get a maximum exposure time at 24 fps of 1/86 sec or 1/87 sec for 25 fps. Therefore, the resulting pictures from this camera will always feature a slight "stroboscopic" effect. This can lead to some degree to a certain "unsettledness" in the visual impression a viewer might get from shots made with Beaulieu cameras. On the other hand, the shorter exposure time gives the impression of producing sharper pictures. In the end, if this would be my 4008, I would send it in for service. Of course, alot of people shoot Super 8 nowadays primarily to obtain that "flicker" look. Which is okay. But the format has so many more advantages that reducing it to "lomo-flicker-analog-adoration"-shooting is kind of undervaluing it. It really depends what aesthetics your are after. B)

Choosing a film stock is of course more an aesthetic decision than a technical one. The first defines the second. However, given the niche availability of Double 8 / Normal 8 cine-film, and that maybe looking at film stock gives the inspiration for the look and feel of the film project, I would suggest you check out these suppliers: Wittner Cinetec, distributing the Agfachrome RSX-II 200 D color reversal film on polyester base (data sheet) for the E6 development process. Foma, distributing the Fomapan R 100 as 10m or 30m B&W reversal film on acetate base (data sheet). It has slightly coarser grain than the new old Kodak Plus-X (7265), but not too close to the Kodak Tri-X (7266) territory. Kahl Film offers his own-branded film stocks such as the Kahl UT 18 and Kahl UT 21 color reversal in 7.5m and 30m, as well as OrWo UN 54 100/160 B&W reversal. He also offered Ferrania 100 color reversal, but that's now sold out. Development is supposed to be included. Personally, I have not had satisfactory experiences with Kahl, as I dislike the company's intransparency when it comes to the sourcing of the film stock, business behaviour and communications. However, if you don't expect industry standards, Kahl may be for you. An excellent port of call for film stock, development and post is beyond any doubt ANDEC Filmtechnik in Berlin. You can also buy film stocks mentioned above at the Old Film Company and, with a quick web search, with different sellers around the planet.

Kodak certainly chose the right focal length for a cheap and cheerful lens to get started with. The vario one is also quite solid in that respect. And with C-Mount, it doesn't really matter as you can ditch them and use different glass if you want to get more out of what the format allows. It will be interesting to hear how many camera kits will be ordered with what lens respectively (and what the final prices will be). Mark, would you say the quality is similar to (now Ricoh's) Pentax Cosmicar range, in terms of optical resolving power and color-neutral reproduction?