Fabrice Ducouret

21 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

 

Dom, I will try to keep it short, but I really appreciate the effort you put into your answer, and the immense knowledge you have brought to this discussion.
Maybe I didn't google very hard (I actually use DuckDuckGo, which I prefer), but I didn't know the full names of the cameras. As it turns out, I consider most of the ones listed here as oddities, and I would *never* consider using them. They all look extremely cumbersome, in the 3-5 kilos range, or are not with a reflex viewfinder, which rules them out right away.

What are the "flat base Bolexes" you mention? The Rex-5? All the ones I have seen have a really bad balance / center of gravity that prevents putting them down on a table the right way up. Hard to forgive such a design flaw. And the high-up lens mount prevents using scopes, as I said before.
Although my Super-8 Bolex, the 150 or 160 Super, has a really amusing design that reminds me of a 1960s kitchen appliance - or a camera you'd see in a comic book. I'd never use it either, because of the complicated types of batteries needed and the cumbersome design, but nonetheless a weird object to stare at confusedly (I think the designers at Bolex were taking something...). I own over 50 Super-8 cameras and the Bolex I had were the absolute worst, so maybe there's some of that in my feelings about the brand...

Back to 16mm...

Example #1 of the Bolex being super wobbly, weakly built, coming apart, badly designed, makes it difficult and scary to even handle.
Example #2 of the Bolex being wobbly, and having parts that move that really should absolutely never, ever move, since they are optical, fragile outside elements.

Example #1 of the Webo being sturdy as a tank, and wonderfully easy to handle very firmly (while lighter than the Bolex).
Example #2, because, you might want to hold it firmly on either side of the body? Do not try to reproduce with the Bolex...

Here's the front plate of the Webo, almost perfectly flat...
Here's the front plate of the Bolex, unnecessarily encumbered and not flat at all...

Which results in lenses like this one, not being mountable on the Bolex!
But on the Webo, it fits like a glove...

Another example of the really bad design of the front plate of the Bolex, preventing to use this amazing Canon Macro Zoom Lens...
And the Webo wears it without a problem.

Also, yes, I wouldn't mind teaching 16mm using a Bolex, but I've seen a lot of USA schools teach students with a Krasnagorsk-3, which I think is a better camera than the Bolex. Cheaply built, for sure. Proprietary mount, alas. But definitely cheap, affordable, very easy to hold and manipulate for hours, and with a reflex viewfinder.

I liked the joke about Fontainebleau, but my first Webo was given to my by a teacher that had used it across Europe for 30 years and it ran perfectly even when I used it. If the videos in this post do not convince you of how much sturdier it is...
 

12 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Your are right about the Pathé having

• a very low optical axis,
• a low center of gravity, and
• a big base surface.

It is also one of few spring driven cameras that run up to 80 fps. Competitors on that ground are the Bell & Howell Filmo 70-B, -DB, -G, and -S or the ETM P-16 which go up to 128 and 120 fps respectively. A younger Victor 3/4/5 reaches 80 fps, too. If you need such speeds

For the other features in combination we have the Ciné-Kodak Special, the Paillard-Bolex H-16 RX-2 to -5, the Pentacon AK 16. CKS’s reflex system is usable until you press the release button. The magnifyer tube is useful. The turret for two lenses and Kodak’s proprietary mounts surely lose ground.

A Pentaka 16 accepts a spring drive accessory. Its variable mirror shutter gives you a brighter finder view than a Paillard-Bolex. The younger P.-B. H-16 Reflex models have a big enough base in my opinion. Their turret disc accepts more lenses than the Pathé’s which has recesses. But that can be changed. Optically, Pathé beats Paillard, the double prism system compromises stronger than the pellicle. Mechanically, the H-16 is superior to the WEBO M. No chauvinism intended.

An Arriflex 16, although no spring drive accessory to it is known, gives you 100 percent light in the finder, the big base a professional camera must have, reliable mechanics, a rugged turret, and magazine capability. What not many know: bajonet lens mounts don’t center lenses better than threads. In fact the Bell & Howell A and B mounts are the best in that respect, there is a cylindrical fit between camera and lens. The C mount is threads only, with less play.

If you can live with a NON-REFLEX critical focusing system, your choice widens. With an ETM P 16, of which I know its mechanics will survive a meteor hit, you can remove the periscope loupe (hence the designation P), so a replacement offering stronger magnification is possible anytime. The ETM P 16 Reflex is rare. The H-16 with serial number below 100,400 have a very accurate set-up system together with the diagonal rackover and 190 degrees shutter opening angle. Still more light reaches the film in a Filmo 70, say, models DA/DL/DR, with a 204 degrees angle plus 15 times magnifying focuser and alignment gauge. An Arco TV-16 has 220 degrees on a variable shutter and a prism reflex finder.

My favourites are Filmo 70-DL and P.-B. H-16 S-4.

Thank you Simon for this well-documented answer. A pleasure to read it.

I find difficult to find a reliable database of these cameras, where I could read more about them and see pictures of them (the Super-8mm format, for some reason, has generated a larger amount of wikis and databases than 16mm - maybe a larger user-base, although less professional?).

When I consult the pictures of the Bell & Howell Filmo B or DB (of which there are no more than 2 photos on the whole internet, not sure how easy it is to get one), it seems it has some of the issues I have with the Bolex: difficulty to place on a flat surface, and oddness of the gravity center, because of the vertical position of the spools inside the camera. Which would be especially bothersome for high-speeds since a good grip is even more important.

I could not find a single photo of the "ETM P-16", the "Victor" cameras, or the "Pentacon Ak16".
Is this the Pentaka 16? This article seems to have the only existing image of this camera. Interesting if it is reflex.

The Ciné-Kodak Special is the one that most grabbed my attention. The Cine-Kodak Special II look like a Webo with less features and a bunch of oddly-placed knobs which would make firmly holding the camera a bit cumbersome (might be a real pain to avoid flicking this little guy during prolonged use, or to not scratch anything with these sharp protruding viewfinder pieces! OUCH!). But you say the reflex system is unusable during filming - why? Again, that defeats the purpose a bit if one if following moving subjects.

The Bolex 16 that you recommend (with reflew finder usable during filming) is the one I *thought* I had purchased, only to be severely disappointed when I realized I had to do the whole process of focusing on the viewfinder plate, changing the lens position, etc every-time I'd shoot something. It makes the use of Scopes impossible. But I think it'd be impossible to use scopes even on the H16, given the offset of the lens from the tripod socket and the height where the scope would be in relation to the shape of the camera; the weight would be too high up to hold the camera vertically effectively. And how many times did someone focus, then forget to put the focused lens in front of the film gate position? It's really a bad idea all along (no chauvinism intended! Plenty of bad French cameras exist...).
I am also very confused with the naming conventions of the Bolex Cameras, I cannot find a reliable source giving the names of each model - the one I have doesn't have a model name on it, but online photos of my (non-reflex) model show up with "H16" in the name, and the one you have which is different is also called H16?

I however disagree that the Bolex cameras c-mount disc accepts more lenses than the Webo. The annoying metal lever that is supposed to help the user rotate the mounting disc gets in the way with some wider lenses, and the middle axis is a huge bump that some lenses touch when mounted - the front plate of the Webo is almost completely flat.

"Mechanically, the H-16 is superior to the WEBO M. No chauvinism intended", I would love to hear more about your findings in this field (the mechanical comparison, not the chauvinism! haha), while I have both a Bolex and a Webo at hand to compare.

But I sometimes wonder if the designers at Bolex intentionally made their 16mm cameras easily breakable (difficult to hold, the adjustable optical viewfinder on the film door is wobbly, the non-reflex viewfinder at the top by the handle is wobbly...), to make sure there would be profits from servicing them.

The Filmo 70-DL makes me feel like the Kodak K-100, in the way that it offers its user to place little "fake" lenses on the viewfinder to "simulate" the lens crop. But these little viewfinders can be hard to find, screwed on in their wrong position, slow to install, etc, where a reflex viewfinder would cut through these steps. It also seems a bit heavy, and therefore hard to handle? My Bolex weights 2.6 kilos, without lenses or film inside, whereas the empty Webo is 2.3 Kgs. And I can't imagine how heavy a G.I.C. ETM P16 must be, if you say it can withstand a meteorite hit! The Arriflex as well...

"If you can live with a NON-REFLEX critical focusing system" - I could, and was going to when I purchased the K-100 (2.6 kilograms btw), but I really want to use scopes!
There really has to be a very good reason for a camera to not have a reflex viewfinder for me to consider it. In range of film cameras I use, I use a lot of bellows cameras for medium format, for example, because they are very portable and convenient, although not reflex (I use the laser rangefinder mentioned earlier or a Blik hotshoe rangefinder). How do you quickly focus with the Filmo?
And the Kinamo 35mm I have for hand-cranked 35mm filming - well, it films 35mm 4-perf and weights an outstanding 1.4 kilos!

On 10/10/2020 at 12:10 AM, Simon Wyss said:

Pathé WEBO M, M for membrane. The pellicle or membrane is a microscope cover glass of 0.004" thickness, made non-reflecting on one side. I have such glasses but never got to have them bloomed due to the costs. The volume of WEBO M repairs is too small to justify the investment, at least for me. If someone pays the expense, I will do it. Another pellicle camera is the 8mm Christen DB, also French. Same size of membrane glass

Hey Simon,

Thanks for the input. The thing is, for me the Webo 16mm is simply the best 16mm camera out there, so I am bound to buy that one model that I am the most comfortable with again and again (hopefully I don't lose the new one, there's  no reason to!).

Let me explain myself:

-Spring-powered is a plus for me, not a limitation. I cannot be bothered having to charge batteries if I shoot all day or looking for adapters if I travel the world,
-Reflex viewfinder is a must for me. I use weird lenses (see my answer to Dom above with the benchmark link), and I need to be able to not only change focus while filming but also use scopes like the Schneider Cinelux 2x,
-Interchangeable lens system, because one single lens rarely does it for all kinds of situations,
-It has many features that I love, like slow motion at 80fps and fast motion at 8fps, and several choices in between, and possibility to change frame rate while filming,
-You can do in-camera cross-fades, which I find much more pleasing than digital cross-fades (explained here),
-And, last but not least - it is incredibly compact and easy to handle. Now, for some people who are tripod-bound, that is not a big problem, but that is an indeniable strength of the Webo over, say, the Bolex 16mm, which has a high center of gravity and is very difficult to hold firmly, see this chart of grip positions of the Webo I made here.

Other cameras I have owned and used are the Krasnagorsk, Bell & Howell "Gun" Camera 16mm Type N-9, Kodak K-100, Bolex 16... None of them really compares! But if you have suggestions of models that I should try out, or if you want to share the 16mm cameras you enjoy using the most, please, tell me!
 

On 10/9/2020 at 5:39 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

If the pellicle was broken you wouldn’t see any image in the viewfinder. If the focus marks are off you have a problem with the distance from lens mount to ground glass or aerial image (reflected off the pellicle). Or the lens itself may be out of calibration.

I don’t remember if a Pathe Webo uses a ground glass, do you have a manual describing setting the viewfinder eyepiece diopter?

For reflex focussing to work, the viewfinder image needs to exactly match what is on the film, but these are two different paths. The focal flange depth is the distance from lens mount to film plane, which determines the recorded image. For the viewfinder image to match, the distance from lens mount to ground glass, reflected off the pellicle, needs to be exactly the same as the flange depth. To properly check these distances requires optical measurement using a bench auto-collimator, something camera and lens techs will have. 

The other variable is the lens itself, which needs the back-focus to be set to match the camera flange depth. This can also be checked with an auto-collimator. 

If you have more than one lens, you could check if they all won’t focus to infinity, in which case the camera is most likely the culprit. 

You were absolutely right.

I carried out more extensive testing on a test bench with a laser rangefinder, and I actually understood where my doubt was coming from:
Some lenses, made for newer TV cameras, do not focus at the distance of the ring due to their slightly different screw threads.
For these lenses, we must not rely on the markings on the ring, and simply rely on the reflex viewfinder to focus.
I attach photos of my benchmark testing of the c-mount lenses, and results here.

Thanks

I grew up using an amazing Pathé Webo 16mm, that I was very attached to. It disappeared under sad circumstances during a move.

After being extremely disappointed by a Bolex turret 16mm and a Kodak K-100 that I thought I would like just as much, I just got another one after years of missing it dearly, but it seems that the "pellicle" part is missing, because when I put a lens in the mount, the focusing is wrong (for example I put a lens on and focus on an object that's 7ft away and the lens marking reads infinity).

Everything else works perfectly well... I assume a previous user just broke the pellicle while trying to clean it, as seems to often be the case for this model.

I found this thread, which was very helpful, but the OP doesn't explain how he solved it.

I'm trying to understand better what the pellicle's job is - since I am able to see clearly through the reflex viewfinder, but the focusing is off from the markings.
Can I still use the camera, and, if I achieve focus, that means the shot captured on the film will be sharp as well?

And is it easy to fix? In the post I linked to, someone mentions a Webo repair shop that is gone now. The one mentioned here is gone as well.

I called a few people around town, but if I'm unable to fix it or have it repaired (I'm in L.A.), I'd like to find a picture of an intact Webo front, in order to explain the seller why I am returning it.

If anyone can help with any of this, it would mean a lot to me.

On 3/26/2007 at 9:52 PM, Evan Ferrario said:

A small piece of glass infront of the film gate.

 

Now before you go off on me, yes I know I was being stupid. The spring mechanism in the camera wasn't winding right so I had a friend over looking at it. We had the camera all in pieces on my table and I thought, well since it's all takes apart, why not clean the glass. I got some q-tips and rubbing alcohol and began cleaning it.

 

At almost the exact time my friend got the spring working right, I snapped the glass. It was a really thin piece of glass that was infront of the film gate. It was diagonal and I believe it was there to reflect the image into the viewfinder. The viewfinder does not work now so this supports my suspicion.

 

After breaking it, I started to look at the glass and how it was held in. The good news is that the glass can be replaced, it has slots for it to slide into. The bad news is I have no idea how rare or special this glass is. The slots on the camera could take a piece of glass that was slightly bigger or smaller than the one I broke, so I don't need an exact match.

 

I just wanted to know from anyone who knew more about cameras, is this a very specific and special glass. If I was able to find a similar sized and thinness glass, could it be replaced. I thought it looked a lot like the glass that is used to cover slides for microscopes. Also, I have a few broken 8mm cameras lying around, would any of them have glass in them like the one i broke?

 

And lastly, since the glass i suspect was only to reflect the image to the viewfinder, will the camera still work without it? Is there any way to focus without seeing through the lens?

 

Anyways I appeciate any help with the issue. I know I shouldnt of been so careless in the first place. I have been tinkering with this camera for weeks and it seemed like we just had it all working when I went and messed it all up again.

Hey Evan,

Were you ever able to fix your issue?

What exactly do you mean when you say the viewfinder wasn't working? Was it not focusing right, the way a reflex viewfinder is supposed to, or was there just no light inside?

THanks

I grew up shooting a lot of 8mm and 16mm and I recall using several cameras that allowed you to dissolve shots in the camera.
I've been wondering for a while now if a dissolve between two shots will look identical when done in Camera and when done in Post.

How does the "dissolve" option work when done in camera (in my humble experience)?
There are different ways of doing it. I've used cameras that did it in an automated way and cameras that would do it manually.
Simply put, in automated cameras, the camera will shoot Shot A and when the user switches the "Dissolve" button on, the camera's iris will progressively close for, say, 3 seconds, then rewind the film 3 seconds back.
Then the user can shoot Shot B (and I'm assuming with fully open iris, or anyways automatic exposure), thus overlapping the last 3 seconds of Shot A with Shot B - since Shot A was terminated by closing the iris, becoming darker, the image captured for Shot B will become brighter.

When done in-camera, the last 3 seconds of Shot A are going to be exposed again with Shot B at full brightness. This produces a double-exposure effect (easily replicable in film photography).
That is to say, that if during the 3 last seconds of Shot A there are areas of the shot that are very dark, these will allow Shot B to be visible in these areas very early as Shot A dissolves.
Another way to do this is by closing the aperture and rewinding, and then opening the aperture for Shot B.
I've used the first method more often because it is automated and was never able to replicate the feel of these dissolve transitions in digital.

In digital, a cross-dissolve (for example the default ones in Premiere Pro, but I'm assuming it's the same in other programs) will fade the images of Shot A from 100% opacity to 0%, and will bring Shot B to visibility the same way but in reverse. There are no possible overlapping effects when applying the dissolve, the overlap will be perfectly even even in darker areas of Shot A.

I wonder if anyone could clear this up for me. Maybe the cameras with automatic Dissolve features would open the iris of Shot B from 0 to 100 but in many cases I would shut down the camera and shoot Shot B in different circumstances so maybe the camera wouldn't "remember" to dissolve "in" for shot B. But whenever I see cross dissolves that I know have been edited digitally, they never have the feeling of a double-exposure image, where dark areas of the image show the second image more clearly (in-camera dissolve resembling more of a blending mode...)

I just got a Kinamo 35mm camera,  and I'm really excited to play with it soon.

Unfortunately, it comes without a user guide, and these are hard to find, even today across the world wide web.

I've taken a picture of it and labeled some of the parts in case someone out there can help me figure out what everything is. The model I got has only one little defect, which is that once rewinded the motor just goes straight away, whether or not the shutter is pressed. So I might look for a cover, and only use the hand-crank. I've been able to open the film compartment and the film holder inside, but I'm not sure how to load film it it yet.

 

Hi Juha,

Did you find a solution to your problem? I would love to see how you fixed it. 

Can it be used to film? I haven't found a manual online, but if it can shoot at lower speeds than 150fps I'd be interested. I'm also curious/worried about the power supply..

I'd be curious to know what the stretch factor on McTiernan's anamorphics usually is.

As a project to create a lens within a 3D program, I would love to create a physically accurate (single focus, i.e. cooke, hawk etc) anamorphic lens to play with it in the 3D space.

Are there diagrams for single-focus anamorphic lenses that are openly available?

It would also be interesting for me as I would love to understand better how they work.

This is dope - I want to try as soon as I get home!

I will make some anamorphic tests with a Sankor 16D and Super-8 Cameras soon (Canon 310XL, Bauer) - and will let you know!

Does anyone know if Zone Plate has ever been used in cinematography?

I understand that, quite like pinhole, it can require long exposure times, however, that doesn't rule out high speed film or frame-by-frame/stop motion/landscapes.

I'd be curious to know if it has been done or is being done and how the obvious challenges were overcome.

Thank you very much David! Very humbled to have an answer from you :)

I watched Polanski's "Cul-de-Sac" yesterday, and thought that the black and white cinematography was incredible.
I am wondering what type of gradient filters were used for what seemed to be "day-for-night" scenes in which the actors are sometimes black silhouettes when they are under the dark part of the filter, and then bright again when they are on the transparent part.

I have some gradient filters, but the "dark" part isn't very dark.

Hello

I have recently released my showreel as a cinematographer and director of photography, and I would love to have some feedback from you.

You can see it here:

Thank you very much!

Hello,

I have a question that applies both to still photography as it does to cinematography, I hope I will not get banned for that!

As a cinematographer, I find hard to differentiate the two, as I use my photographic work a lot, as an inspiration and experimental playground in my cinematography work.

Currently, I am wondering what are the best ways to find a fisheye accessory or get a fisheye lens for a very low price. The goal is to fit in a lot of landscape, and get distortion effects on faces or other subjects.

I realize that usually these lenses or add-ons are expensive because they are made with a lot of polished glass that costs money to manufacture.

However, I am wondering if over the years some older lenses or accessories become cheaper in second-hand stores.

I am trying to attach the lens:

-either to "old-school" manual lenses (for still cameras such as Pentax MX, Minolta X-300, Olympus Pen F, Pentacon SIX TL, Canon) for photo work/research;

-or to Super-8 cameras (Canon 310 XL, Bauer C105 or C107) for film work;

-or to more recent digital bodies (Canon EOS rebel, Sony NEX 3) for digital film work.

The lens has to be as fisheye as possible and full-frame if possible!

The closest I've been (and cheapest) was a TV Zoom Lens someone sold me for 5 euros at a rummage sale that used to be from a Canon video camcorder from the 70s, with macro functions, zoom functions, and quite wide angle. I can easily adapt it on the Sony NEX because it has a C-mount, but it requires cropping and is very bulky.

Hello

I've been making Super-8 and 16mm and 35mm short films most of my life as a filmmaker and DP, and for the past few years I've started moving towards digital filmmaking.

At first I was using MiniDV but the quality was very cheap, so my equipment now is a Canon EOS Rebel T1i that I equip with old 1.4 lenses, and a Sony NEX 3 that I also equip with a bunch of old lenses some of which are handmade/modified lenses.

My question is this : Which one is the camera that I should use the most for my films?

The EOS has a 20 fps frame rate but a very large image (1920x1080) so maybe that's bad? I only have like three lenses that can go on it and the lenses I design cannot go on a camera with a mirror. Is it that bad to shoot 20 fps? I used to shoot 18 fps with super-8mm. Handheld, the images are too shaky.

The NEX has a better frame rate of 30 fps but the image is 1280 x 720, although I have way more lenses for it and most of the homemade lenses I build can go on it because it is mirror less. I've had issues with the compression, though, that make it annoying to use this camera. When handheld, the images aren't too shaky though.

I think maybe I should get a NEX-VG10? At the end of the day, I'd love to have a camera that's not too bulky and can shoot very good images, not too compressed, with an e-mount. Getting good sound isn't a priority. I also think it might be possible to get an external SSD recorder to plug in the HDMI of the Sony NEX, thus I would have an uncompressed image from the NEX?

At the end of the day, I've used more than 80 different cameras to make my films, and I feel like the search can be endless, although I know the content is what matters more than the tool. But please let me know what you think.

Hello

I've been making Super-8 and 16mm and 35mm short films most of my life as a filmmaker and DP, and for the past few years I've started moving towards digital filmmaking.

At first I was using MiniDV but the quality was very cheap, so my equipment now is a Canon EOS Rebel T1i that I equip with old 1.4 lenses, and a Sony NEX 3 that I also equip with a bunch of old lenses some of which are handmade/modified lenses.

My question is this : Which one is the camera that I should use the most for my films?

The EOS has a 20 fps frame rate but a very large image (1920x1080) so maybe that's bad? I only have like three lenses that can go on it and the lenses I design cannot go on a camera with a mirror. Is it that bad to shoot 20 fps? I used to shoot 18 fps with super-8mm. Handheld, the images are too shaky.

The NEX has a better frame rate of 30 fps but the image is 1280 x 720, although I have way more lenses for it and most of the homemade lenses I build can go on it because it is mirror less. I've had issues with the compression, though, that make it annoying to use this camera. When handheld, the images aren't too shaky though.

I think maybe I should get a NEX-VG10? At the end of the day, I'd love to have a camera that's not too bulky and can shoot very good images, not too compressed, with an e-mount. Getting good sound isn't a priority. I also think it might be possible to get an external SSD recorder to plug in the HDMI of the Sony NEX, thus I would have an uncompressed image from the NEX?

At the end of the day, I've used more than 80 different cameras to make my films, and I feel like the search can be endless, although I know the content is what matters more than the tool. But please let me know what you think.

Hey there

I'm in Paris, and have a good experience with Super-8 cameras. I'll be ready to help. Let me know through my email address if you can.

See you

Look to have more than just one camera as the features (ranging from resistance to portability but also technical features) change drastically from a camera to another.

I'd add in the brand Chinon, that the previous poster hasn't mentionned, it's very overlooked, very often their cameras were made of very strong plastic cases and had a wide array of features.

Either that or Canon, some Bauer cameras are really resistant and often open to ƒ1.2. Some of the metal-cased Agfa ones are virtually unbreakable.

Don't worry too much about the microphone, check in this forum if you can process sound film Super-8 at all first.

And remember that switching from the DV world to the world of Super-8 will be interesting for you, but probably full of surprises, as when you have to focus each shot manually, and sometimes adjust the focusing manually during a shot (but maybe you were already doing so with manual DV cameras?).

Make sure you have a tripod as some Super-8 cameras will also be weighing a ton more than small DV equipment - but again, that's a generalization, and some of my Super-8 cameras (like the Agfa Microflex who are also very resistant and reliable) probably weigh less than some big DV cameras.

One last thing, if the portability/weight of the camera is an issue of capital importance for you, and you want to know what a camera looks like before you buy it, the visual encyclopedia at mondofoto.com is quite good (there is one on super8wiki.com as well, albeit less documented visually I think).

Yes, the lens determines a lot of things that are not VERY difficult to understand if you know how to look online.

The is no "better" or "worse" in lenses. They're all different, and they all do different things. Aperture also plays a part.

You just have to ask yourself simple questions, Kevin, and not let the technical side overwhelm you as it seems it's doing.

Ask yourself if you want to have depth of field or not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field), ask yourself if you need to film in low-light conditions, ask yourself these kind of questions and then if you're not sure how to do it you will be welcome to ask your questions here and for a specific result that you wish to obtain we will tell you how to do it and if you can do it given the cameras that you have.

Sometimes, I have to use three, five different Super-8 cameras for the same shoot because specifications differ and allow you to do different things. But there is no "better" lens. Sometimes a lens will be said to be "faster" than another, it means more light gets inside the camera than with another lens, for example.

Just ask yourself what you want to shoot, and if you run into a problem come back here for specific help. Keep in mind that Super-8 cameras were initially sold widely with the purpose of letting people shoot home movies, and then it began being used for fiction.

Keep it simple, and good luck.

Hello

I've owned this camera and used it a lot. The green light is definitely for the battery check.

The other button near the lens I can't remember what it is, I can't really visualise because the camera is at my mom's so i can't really see. I guess if you have a photo of it somewhere it could help me. Isn't it the macro switch you're talking about?

Anyways, as far as the "speed" of the film I think you're confusing the speed of the film (the chemical formula that will make the film more or less reactive to light) and the rate of pictures per second (or FPS) which is the speed at which your camera is going to film (i.e., 36 fps would be slow-motion, while 9 fps would increase the speed of action). You can shoot at several speeds and thus make slow-mo shots, or else shoot at 1 fps and make animation films or timelapse. The other button, which is the one I think you say is silvery, is the timer. It only works when set on 1 fps mode with the trigger locked (maybe that's the mysterious button #2).

So, my answer would be: try to lock and release the trigger with the R - L switch near the trigger.

If that solves the mystery button thing, then fine. Put the FPS - frames per second - switch on 1 and lock the trigger in run mode. Now when you will switch the silvery button, the camera will click at different time intervals depending on how you set it. Basically what it does is that it takes just one image at a time, and then when you play the film at normal speed, the normal course of action is greatly sped up. It's mainly used for speeding up the way clouds move, or the sun, or the way a flower opens and closes, etc.

You can search "timelapse" on super8wiki as well as wikipedia they have an entry.

Be sure to use brand new batteries each time for timelapse though, and to place the camera on a tripod (and to be patient! sometimes 5 hours of filming will only reult in 5 seconds of film).

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me through my profile.