Doug Palmer

I've got a IIC and yes it's certainly loud. I had thought of making it a blimp. One I made for the less noisy Bolex worked well. A wooden case lined with carpet. The camera floating on soft rubber. Although Tyler's long-lens suggestion good, if that is made the style of the film.

People don't mind paying their $30 for feature-length Imax's. And 15/70 proper screen. The one thing theatrical has that is unique, is being part of an audience. Not just your friends etc. If you think of your most memorable film presentations, they were with a large number of folks each taking in the experience and somehow sharing it remotely with eachother. Some even stuck through the end credits as well ? and emerged with satisfied faces.

Do you mean film Imax ? Without getting into the arguments of film v digital, 15/70 is obviously the better experience, that cannot be seen in the average home. So people will pay for that experience. And because of the low wear from their unrivalled rolling loop projectors, the prints arguably don't need replacing often. However, there need to be more Imax cinemas in smaller cities, as was the case a few years ago, to go without the long car journeys.

Did anyone here experience Cinemiracle ? Apparently 'Windjammer' was shown at the Chinese Theatre in Holywood way back in 1958. I'd be interested to know how it compared technically with Cinerama. At the Cinemiracle site it says: The three Eastman Kodak 27 millimeter lenses were electronically controlled—and shifted their optical centers depending on the focus. Not sure what this meant in practice. I'm wondering if they produced a less distorted effect. Yet they were wide lenses similar to Cinerama's 27mm. It's interesting though they confined angle curve of screen to 120 degrees, not 146.

Although the horizon is bad, the rest of the image is acceptable, aided by this fence layout. Aerial shots I recall also had the horizon curvature broken, more obvious from up in the gods of a theatre. I wonder whether they ever experimented with perhaps tilting the camera's lenses in relation to the film. I don't know if this could have improved the result or not. I never saw Cinemiracle which was similar in many ways to Cinerama. I think it used 3 separate cameras with mirrors, and was arguably better at the joins. Presumably they also encountered this horizon problem, but you'd think they could have had adapted it to fit longer focal length lenses for some footage.? Have just seen Brian Siano's comment from 2011: he thinks Cinemiracle overcame the horizon problem ?

I don't recall these effects on those exciting boyhood outings. Perhaps those shots were few and far between. I especially remember the medium-closeups in HTWWW where a tree was placed along the dividing line between the panels. So it made the image look continuous and gave an impressive 3D look. When the 70mm Cinerama took over, I think I was disappointed at the slightly smaller screen.

The picture seems to show a bayonet mount possibly? Interesting lens. When new back then I would have given my eye teeth for it.

Or is the shakiness done intentionally by the operator. It almost looks like one of those earthquake movies where they maybe attached camera to a power tool ? But the shots in the camera-store look fine. Yet there's so much uneveness... the processing ? and of course the specks later on. Wonder where it was processed. Maybe they wanted a look like 'Bait' (a good 16mm movie).

The summer Orwo announcements are exciting, hopefully something could happen soon. I see they were delayed in getting stills film out because of covid in China. It goes without saying there's a need for more motion picture stocks in all formats, and let's hope they can make prices attractive ? I'd think C41 film would be easier to process at home too.

Years ago in airports I always used those special lead bags for films. Then someone remarked that the X-ray operator probably turned up the dose to see what's inside ! I don't know if that was true or not. I wonder if they could be a help against CT scanners, or the normal ones, potentially damaging movie films after a few doses.

It would be good if we had a list of the airports using latest CT scanners, so it would be possible to plan trips differently.

I usually tend to post-flash Ektachrome to knock down the contrast. So more detail in the shadows, although maybe not wanted always.

Can't remember the name, there was once a BBC show that sent people off to remote parts of the world with super-8 cameras. Presumably with Ektachrome film or possibly Kodachrome. Again, I could be wrong... Clare Francis I think had super-8 Nizos attached to her yacht. Video cameras very bulky and gave poor results in those days.

I may have this wrong. Didn't somebody in US use S8 for news-gathering ? I know 16 was used a lot.

I'm sure it would have looked far better if done cleanly without the specks. And we shouldn't forget super-8 was once used as a professional medium to make TV docs for small expeditions etc. Attractive because it was light to carry. Of course the TV resolution then was far less. But the prints certainly were clean, and would look even better if scanned now.

I find it a bit wierd with all the dust and marks. So people will assume that's how super-8 always looks. Or maybe if they had made it all clean and fog-free, the viewers wouldn't have accepted it was film ? In contrast, the 35mm stills looked as they should, so that was a good advert for analog film. And it's refreshing that younger folk everywhere are very much into these classic cameras.

I mentioned earlier Regular 16 or 4:3 for faces... also ideal for any kind of closeups where too much space either side becomes merely a distraction. Hopefully that is recognised commercially also, and I think I've noticed recently some 4:3 content in TV ads. Thanks Robert for Ultra-16 scanning information. I wonder how far is possible either side. I managed to go out further (2:1 approx) without hitting the dreaded edge-markings, but only by going into the non-perf area that S16 would normally use. So I guess that wider ratio would scan OK?

I guess it all depends on what the project's about. 4:3 is ideal for anything that shows height or tallness (think IMAX). Or for fast cutting of faces etc. And on TV nowadays there seems more freedom of allowing different ratios within a show, whereas before they may have cropped the 4:3 footage. Or if widescreen is desired, I don't know if you've considered Ultra-16 as a cheaper alternative to S16 (usually easier to mod). So then you'd have 1.85:1 ratio. Possibly wider, without going anamorphic.

Hopefully the auto aperture works OK when you test it. This is a nice, sharp lens that can be highly useful when the lighting changes during a shot, as you pan or zoom etc. I much regret getting rid of mine.?

It does indeed look like a cartridge issue. I had a Beaulieu 5008 once and it had pretty good steadiness. (Even better with the old sound cartridges. ) Thanks hugely Martin, for your tips prior to loading any S8 camera. I've never done any of these before, but in future I certainly will. A little concerning if Kodak aren't checking their cartridges properly. Tyler, look forward to getting more on this story.

Extraordinary. Who needs the sun ? If this is what the camera sees, I'm wondering if the human eye/brain sees it in a different way possibly. Apart from ignoring the colours ?

I had a similar issue once with another S8 camera, and found later I hadn't pressed in the cartridge properly. Yet the film was being transported OK so I didn't realise. But maybe in your case as Mark says, there could be something preventing it seating perfectly.

There's always the option of a Bolex Aspheron lens that fits on to the front of the 10mm. Or a cheaper option is use the Super-8 version. It's not quite as wide an angle but quite close. You'll need a ring to attach it. https://filmisfine.com/shop/camera-lenses/8mm-movie-lenses/bolex-aspheron-lens/

That's how it looks to me. So maybe if you use a good loupe (which could be an old projection lens) over a lightbox, you'll see if there's a sharp image there or not.

I seem to recall the Eclair c-mount receiver is fairly standard like on other 16mm cameras ?