Edward Koehler

It was bought new from B&H Photo and used within days. It's freezing cold here and was in the foyer, which is a dry and cool pace (about 55 degrees) before being used. Removed from camera after use and given to Pac-Lab in NYC that week.

That is definitely a result of the film or processing, not your camera or your projector. The only time I've seen anything like that is when I located a roll of lost film approx. a year after it was exposed, and it had suffered temperature changes. It was heavily solarized in the warm tones and highlights. Any chance the film was subjected to heat after it was exposed? Placed on or near a heater?

You should consult with Pac-Lab. If it's something to do with their processing, then they need to know about it.

But rest assured (and assure your wife) that is not the result of your camera or your projector.

There is a little trailer about the book: http://vimeo.com/15545904

Thanks for that, Jurgen. Looks very interesting, I just can't justify the expense on myself this time of year. Surely they'll run additional printings since it's getting so many pre-orders? A run of only 100 seems very limited.

Perhaps it was the lab's fault that he made the same basic error so many times growing up that he won't 'tolerate it anymore'.

Friedemann, that EM-26 you posted shows exactly the problem I guessed at: Probably a stop too much red bias. Would that be fine if you were looking for an artsy effect? Sure.

 

Would that be fine if it were a customer's film, new, meant to render as standard daylight balance? Almost certainly, not acceptable. What if someone was shooting a student film and they were going for a really cool look? You just cancelled it out. What if they were shooting the ocean?

 

Yeah, sure you can fix all this in scanning, but what if someone were looking to put a soundtrack on it and send it to a festival? You've just ruined their project. . .

Any student 'DP' or 'Producer', or independent filmmaker for that matter, who would send their footage off to be CROSS-PROCESSED without a general understanding of the results to expect from the chemical process hired would be solely responsible for the results yielded. Regardless of whatever 'look' or color balance they were intending to maintain, the resulting redshift would not be the liability of the lab. It is a cross-process, afterall. Any dramatically unexpected result would likely be due to their inadequate testing or research of the production workflow. But it sounds like you would blame the lab in such an instance... Is that right Karl? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me you're indicating such results would be the fault of the lab. Please clarify.

It's so thoroughly axiomatic that one should test any experimental process before shooting principle footage (to have some knowledge of what results to expect) that you're point seems extraordinarily pedantic. No one said you can process Fuji R25N in E-6 with complete color accuracy. It was offered as a cross-process alternative.

Here's a recent UK music promo from a well-known pop act directed by an acquaintance that exhibits similar color approach:

Well, acceptable results for me are a grey card reading 1.00 1.00 1.00 (or whatever it is for a grey card on E-6) on a densitometer.

So you do densitometer readings of a grey card on your S8 reversal then, eh Karl?

What is telling is your continuous and repeated personal attacks.

There is nothing personal in correcting your erroneous statements, Karl. It really is not about you.

If you have a personal problem with me, fine. But I do not expect you to follow me from thread to thread patronizing me. And you can go back to calling me Borowski or ignoring me. You don't know me, and you obviously don't know how to converse civilly with those who don't share your fantastic viewpoint on 8mm film gauges.

Sorry, guys. My intention was to merely correct Karl's statement that single8 is 'dead'. It's not my intention to always be 'right', but I do endeavor to not be factually incorrect. Karl Borowski takes offense to my corrections to his factual inaccuracies, which is telling.

Did you get suspended from Filmshooting?

Carl Looper has not been suspended from Filmshooting. He's an active contributor and gets along quite nicely, unlike someone else who has now abbreviated their (similar) first name out of some apparent realization he has not exactly been making friends around here.

I wonder if Karl has found out how to note shutter angle yet? He'll need to know that IF he ever surpasses loader.

Sorry, it appears to have been discontinued in 2007, although there is supposedly some respooled Velvia and B&W stock available only in Japan.

 

http://www.retrothing.com/2006/04/fujifilm_to_dis.html

That is incorrect, Karl. Fuji R25N will be produced until March 2012, RT200n until May 2012. They had announced the discontinuation for 2007 but continued production because of petitions from users. A few Cinevia stocks appear to still be available, supplied GK Film GMBH. There is also a B/W stock called RetroX availble from Tak at Retro Enterprises in Japan.

http://onsuper8.blogspot.com/2009/06/rip-single-8-by-2012.html

http://single8film.com/buyr25n.html

http://film.club.ne.jp/english/eng_single8_film2003.htm

http://www.super8.nl/english/e_film_new_fuji.htm

And what do you mean by shutter symbol? I don't see it in the emoticons. . .

Ask anyone who has worked in camera dept. You're quite green to not know it.

LOMO has made Super8 cameras in the past, including double S8 using 25' spools.

 

They were hardly top of the line, even if some had metal bodies.

 

http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_lomo/cameras_lomo.htm

The old Russian Lomo cameras are a different entity to the Lomography 'toy' cameras we refer to as 'Lomo'. Lomography AG is an Austrian company which was granted rights of distribution to the LOMO LC-A. I don't know if Lomography ever marketed the Lomo super 8 cameras, but it would seem that if they have a working relationship with Lomo on the LC-a, could (or would) they market and distribute one of the Russian Lomo Super 8 cameras?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomography

He's also not the only one here who makes a living in the film industry. He's loaded a few jobs and seems to think that renders him some superior status to come in this forum and belittle its contributors, assuming any Super 8 enthusiast must be amateur. He comes here to inflate his own ego, rather than to contribute anything of worth. Such a personality is not well-received in the film industry, which is likely why he's loading jobs using short ends left over from a Domino's commercial.

It's not just on this one point that Borowski is gravely mistaken. One of the projects I'm editing at the moment is a 'making of' video for a food product commercial shot in 35mm. This is a national commercial with a decent budget shot on fresh stock. The footage consists of the original commercial and behind-the-scenes HDV and Super 8 footage. The output resolution is ProRes 444 1920x1080. This is not the only, or last, paid project in the world to use Super 8 in this way. Filmmakers will continue to use Super 8 for its distinct characteristics. Borowski only demonstrates his ignorance in his continued contempt for Super 8, and all other formats not deemed 'professional' by him alone.

I won't be addressing him directly any longer, and I think it's best we all do the same.

I'm tempted to reply to Karl... but let's not feed him any longer, now that we know what he is.

^Some great points, Robert.

Super8 is a mort artsy format now days, I f I were to make a super8 camera, I would follow the business model of lomography (lomo/holga) - a manufacture and promotor of toy/plastic lensed cameras. They have turned cheap medium format russian and chinese cameras into $50-200 art making tools (imagine the profit margins- on something that costs maybe 5 dollars to make)

 

lomography.com

 

In order to take off again, super8 needs be accessible (an easy brick & mortar way of getting film processed, plus an excellent online service) new- hip/cool (nostalgia and the much craved gritty street fashion look could help) - endorsed by talk shows, seen in fashion ads (as the lomo Diana often is) and above all it needs to be easy - fully mechanical (or cheap electronics) and auto metering (or perhaps no meter, but simple easy exposure guides)

 

Fred (I may be repeating what others have covered, forgive me - I haven't read every post)

Agreed. Super 8 is a niche format now, used by broad range of individuals from hobbyists to professionals. On occasion, you'll see it used in music promos, skate films, documentaries, commercials and feature films... used by many professionals when it's idiosyncratic characteristic lends well to the story. Good storytellers don't limit themselves to whatever is perceived as 'professional'. They select from a wide variety of tools and techniques, and would use a modified Fisher Price pixelvision if it augments the storyline. A good friend is an Academy Award and BAFTA winner (for cinematography), and it should come as no surprise that he is also a Super 8 enthusiast. He happens to love grain structure, as do many of us here. I would ask what Karl he thinks of a film like 'Natural Born Killers', but I no longer care.

And yes, Fred... the retro-cool appeal of super 8 could be exploited by a company like Lomo. A motion picture camera does not need to be complicated, it just needs to work. Lomo is not going to produce something like a Nizo or better. It would likely be more along the lines of the old Bentley S8 cameras. Toy cameras intended anyone who might want to shoot some super 8 at a music festival, perhaps of their child halloween, of their best friend's wedding, or produce a short art film on a non-existent budget through a plastic lens. I don't see why that sort of thing needs to be denigrated as 'crap' or not professional. I had that attitude just out of film school, because I'd been taught to acquire the best signal to noise ratio possible. Then I stumbled upon Super 8 and have loved it's characteristics ever since. I actually did not shoot Super 8 until after film school... having shot mile upon mile of 16mm and 35mm, as well as a good variety of professional and broadcast video formats.

Karl... if you're soo thoroughly convinced of the imminent demise of film, then you should be pursuing a role as DIT rather than Film Loader. But good luck with whatever you end up doing.

So you want to fight, huh? I'm not going to throw egg back, but there is a real "upstairs closet" (actually a drawer in a living room bookshelf) that *had* an SX-70 and 600 series camera in it. I went in to take a picture, with some real FP 100C I have sitting in my Polaroid back to prove it to you, and wipe the smugness out of your posts, but I was too late. Those cameras got junked. I'm kind of bummed that the SX-70 is gone because I probably could have gotten $20 out of it on eBay or something from an artist, but on the 600, honestly, no loss.

 

Polaroid made (makes?) crap. The Impossible Project makes more of the same, crap. Yeah, they have brought a lot of hype and marketing into instant film that has increased its exposure to the public (no pun intended), but when that detracts from a REAL WORKABLE QUALITY product, like Fuji, then it is ultimately a loss to the medium.

 

I couldn't care less about flashbars vs. flashcubes. Both are obsolescent crap.

 

 

Flashbulbs are the only item of powder-based technology still made, and even they are on their last leg, ,for specialist cave photography.

 

 

You want to argue semantics with me? PROFESSIONAL means something someone uses to MAKE MONEY, or MAKE A PRODUCT. That means Spectra is the most professional Polaroid film out there, because cops used it in the course of MAKING MONEY, far more than most photographers or filmmakers make. SX-70 is less professional, or not professional at all. It is practically landfill material now.

 

As for Impossible film being "art" that is a bunch of fluff. Same with Diana cameras. I've actually seen interesting work done with the latter, but why not just slap a diffusion filter and a vignetter on a MF rangefinder? You'd get the same result. It's like a disposable 120 camera, an interesting child's toy or novelty, nothing more.

 

Polaroid narrowly beats out Kodak in its trail of obsolescent junk filling land. The trail of dead formats they left behind them could probably go around the world several times.

 

 

So, how much S8 or Polaroid do you use every year, internet hero? You're just out for big talk and to pick a fight. You don't actually DO anything to keep the media alive. You just expect it offered out on a silver platter, instead of understanding simple supply and demand.

You've come back out from under your bridge, eh Karl? I was merely reciprocating a bit of the superciliousness you've spewed in this thread.

You seem to regard all in this community as hobbyists, seeming to assume that as a film loader you must know more than anyone here... but you don't realize with whom you're engaging. I for one worked up through camera crew at a time when we still shot film and Polaroid, and witnessed the transition to HD and 4K Digital Cinema acquisition. So that vainglory of yours doesn't float with me. I do realize you have to try on your 'big boy hat' somewhere and it's best if we put your online persona in it's place here, than for you to have to be put in place on set.

More on the topic of a new Super 8 camera, I entirely agree with Anthony Schilling's statement above.

Nice job. Very useful. Bookmarked. Thanks, Friedemann!

As you point out, not all Super 8 cartridges are punched correctly... So although your camera may be able to

properly index with a particlar speed of stock, it's also a good idea to check the notching.

Tim... I wanted to point out there's plenty of wide angle lenses in D-mount from regular 8mm cameras. Also, there's ultra wide angle (3mm) c-mount lenses available for 1/2" and 2/3" CCTV and machine vision cameras, specifically from Fujinon and Schneider-Kreuznach, that perform wonderfully on Super 8.

Karl... by saying 'legacy' when we speak of gear, we refer to a product line or format that has been surpassed in favor of newer, not necessarily better technology. In some instances, like this Polaroid example, the equipment is no longer supported by the manufacturer. Old Polaroid cameras are legacy equipment despite their age, their original sale price, or what flash or lens they used. It's not a quality descriptor. I don't know what your understanding of the term 'legacy' is... but if you want to argue semantics, you can do it in that upstairs closet of yours.

What else? SX-70 used flashbars, not flashcubes. Spectra is not very 'professional' either, despite police enforcement and continuity use. T.I.P is supporting Spectra. The Fuji stocks are superior to the Polaroid instant film in nearly every way except contrast.

You seem to not understand that the people shooting The Impossible Project products, or Polaroid for that matter, are not interested in fine image quality. They want a look, they want something moody. They like the cheap Diana plastic lens. They like soft focus and vignetting. Some of them affix their DSLRs to old super-cheap bake-lite TLRs through a cardboard poster tube to fashion a 'TTV contraption'... in other words they photograph the image on the dirty viewfinder of an old TLR with their DSLR. The dirtier the better. Why? For mood, for a look, because they're bored. Because they could care less about your conception of 'professional' or whatever you think 'legacy' might mean.

Karl... Fuji Instax film is in no way 'identical' to Polaroid instant film. Instax cannot be used in any legacy Polaroid camera, not even with modification, because Instax is exposed through the back of the instant print, whereas Polaroid is exposed through the front of the print.

I understand your criticisms of The Impossible Project's stocks, and I agree. But regardless of how we feel about the Lomo toy cameras and the limitations of these initial stocks, you must admit this is a huge accomplishment and T.I.P (The Impossible Project) is continuing to develop other, more stable stocks. There's better stocks to come, and they're now working on a camera similar to the Polaroid SX-70. I welcome any involvement they might have with Super 8.

Their work reviving film for the legacy Polaroid cameras has motivated 'Polaroid' (aka Summit Global Group) to remanufacture new versions of classic Polaroid instant film cameras (such as the PIC-1000 http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/01/07/next-gen-polaroid-film-camera-spotted/) which will use T.I.P stock (some of it re-branded as Polaroid), and another Polaroid branded camera, the Polaroid 300 (which is actually a licensed, re-branded Fuji mini 7 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-300-Instant-Camera-Black/dp/B003B2ITI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287309708&sr=8-1) which uses Polaroid-branded Fuji Instax film.

My point is that the work on the part of T.I.P has created new interest in instant film, even on the part of Polaroid who had abandoned their own product line, and more importantly, a very dedicated user base. A new super 8 camera, of adequate design and with a well publicized product roll-out, could generate similar interest among new users and stock manufacturers. This would be good for the format.

Personally, if I had designs for a new super 8 camera I'd endeavor to meet with the folks at T.I.P. and/or LOMO. They have manufacturing in place and may have entertained the S8 notion already. I don't necessarily feel confident about the quality of an S8 camera manufactured by T.I.P, but I do welcome the attention such a release would bring to S8.

Sorry... KENKO, not Konica.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19892

There's a reassuring recent example with Polaroid which may provide some insight.

As some of you may know, Polaroid ceased the manufacture of film in 2007. All of their film production equipment was set to be demolished when an individual approached Polaroid and offered to purchase their factory in Enshende, Netherlands which was equipped to produce Polaroid integral materials. The aim was to continue the manufacture of Polaroid-esque instant film, despite the discontinuation by Polaroid. The endeavor came to be called 'The Impossible Project'. One of the partners in The Impossible Project is also behind the LOMO brand of 'toy' cameras (for lack of a better term).

As I understand it, The Impossible Project purchased the factory and the equipment, but that purchase did not include either the patents, licensing or the technical knowledge to reproduce the Polaroid instant film materials. Furthermore, many of the suppliers of components for the film materials had ceased operation as well... So The Impossible Project had to RE-INVENT instant film from the ground up. It was truly appearing impossible, and many doubted they would ever be able to pull it off.

The Impossible Project first set about selling the last stocks of Polaroid cameras and instant film. They did this on their website, PolaPremium.com, as well as in shops like Urban Outfitters. Meanwhile, they spread the word that The Impossible Project was re-inventing instant film and would be releasing a new instant integral film product in February of 2009. There was much anticipation and when February arrived, the film was not yet ready for release and the press announcement was delayed until the following month.

In March, The Impossible Project released their first flush of instant film called 'SilverShade'. From what I've read, it was very low contrast B&W stock which had to be developed in darkness and within a rather narrow temperature range. So, it was not an ideal replacement for the Polaroid integral stock. Many users knocked it because of the 'tempermentality' of the stock and the high prices, but it was a start... others remained very positive, anticipating better products to come.

Since SilverShade, The Impossible Project has developed and released other stocks. Still not ideal replacements for the Polaroid stocks, but old Polaroid users are purchasing it and there is a dedicated user base. The Impossible Project continues to research and develop new stocks and you can look them up at www.The-Impossible-Project.com They've even hired some of the old tech guys behind the Polaroid stocks.

So, it's not impossible to manufacture a new Super 8 camera. I think such an endeavor would be less impossible than re-inventing instant film. For me, I agree with Martin's point above. There is such a resource of quality used cameras out there, that I would prefer to purchase another Beaulieu and have it serviced rather than to splash out on a new Super 8 camera. And, typically, Super 8 users tend to be rather budget-minded and may not have the thousands of dollars to spend on a new camera when there are working machines available for a couple hundred dollars.

However, I do think that a new camera of good quality and design could create a surge of interest among new users, and provide the format with the shot in the arm needed to secure it from discontinuation.

Another tangential example is with micro 4/3 cameras... there has been an increase in demand for legacy c-mount lenses as m4/3 users have been adapting these small, wide and fast c-mount lenses onto their m4/3 mounts. As a result, Konica is now developing a digital camera with c-mount to be released in 2011 and with it we may also see new c-mount lenses.

I have to agree with Martin, not only because he knows what he's talking about, but also as a former Chinon 2500GL owner.

Nearly 10 years ago when I was living in the US and film-chain transferring my own S8 footage, I owned the 2500GL and loved it. It was very lightweight, loaded easily, had a variable speed control and it gave me few problems.

However, it is not the brightest projector to begin with, and the lens is not the best in terms of image quality.

Also, I do remember having a few jams and when this would happen, it would burn a whole in the film at that frame which was very pretty for that one second, but not when you don't intend to do it.

Later, after having owned nice Elmo's and having used projectors like the Eumig, I realized the awkwardness of the 2500GL. I have a soft spot for the 2500GL because it's nostalgic and it's pleasant to look at, but I must admit the Eumig is a much better projector.

But it is a good candidate if you want to transfer to NTSC video by film chain method, simply because the variable speed control makes it very easy to do so with no modification to the projector.

Interesting. Good job.

Looks like a Scheider Krueznach lens? What is the other lens behind the Schneider? What motion vision camera, what size sensor?

I guess it's sort of limited to 50' reels at the moment?

Have you checked out Avisynth?

I don't have any uploads to point to, but I've used the UWL III rather extensively on a Canon 1014xl-s and a Beaulieu 4008zmII with 6-66.

It's a great ultra-wide lens attachment. The objective is actually acrylic (if I remember correctly), which allowed Schneider-Kreuznach to achieve very little distortion. The effect is that you don't necessarily realize how wide you are shooting because it does not have a fish-eye effect. It dramatically increases your focal width, but I wouldn't call it 'radical' because of the lack of distortion.

One thing I will say is that as a very large, wide objective it does catch flare quite easily.

Do get one, you'll love it.