Doug Palmer

Or...as Jim adds, just after the shot taken, maybe more reliable I don't know. One thing which may be of concern: the actor's performance could be upset by the loud noise from the camera. Grimacing ?? Shouting ? Maybe the best way with an unblimped camera is the tele end of the zoom lens. But blimps are fun to make if you have the time, an old box and some carpet etc.

All depends I suppose on the duration of the dialogue. In any case it must be quite short due to the spring motor wind of K3, so you have maybe already planned for this. Regarding the speed fluctuation, if the camera is in good order I think it should hold a fairly constant speed for the first 10 seconds, so not great but enough for short snatches if that's OK for your project. Jim's suggestion of recording during the rehearsal is a good one and should work hopefully.

Yes the 1930s stuff I myself am fascinated with so others would be too I'm sure. That period of peace when 16mm film-makers felt able to do some very interesting stuff. Coming back to Roy's problem, I wonder if he may feel differently about his work in say 10 years time, maybe not "marginal" but something greater. And he may also have different thoughts of putting it in future films, who knows.

I have the terrible habit of not chucking stuff out. Trouble is 16mm and 35mm film does take up enormous space. Old workprints surely are the least vital to keep. But then one has the question of somebody else using your work in a not good way possibly, so you'd have to destroy them all first? As for camera original footage, I couldn't get rid of any except obvious rubbish etc. I guess that task will go to my kids. Or maybe by then they'll just get their robot to do it ? As you say, it's a difficult one when the footage itself is not likely to be of any historical interest for future generations. However, I have some old 1930s amateur drama film, amusing and quite well-acted with good sets such as a gypsy caravan, and somehow it opens up the character and perseverance of that unknown film-maker to me, also those who were persuaded to take part. So maybe even drama film that you consider as not important, may enable others in the future to know you as a person.

A quick point in favour of super-8 v 16.... there is much more depth-of-field. So eg. in the harvesting shots from Heikki, the foreground and background are in focus (I think) despite using a tele lens. Although the lighting was good, this may not have happened as well on 16mm. That's assuming good focus near and far, was intended. Another use for S8 where big depth-of-field is a bonus: foreground miniatures. Also, because this Gentoo camera has good registration, maybe it could be used for plate photography, to use later in SFX shots.

I'm not usually in favour of sharpening movie film but on my PC I can see it helps slightly in the first example. I've never shot with 50D in super-8. I see it does bring out the best in the format, if that's intended. And the Gentoo's pin regn. will be very welcome. Also, the fact that it's c-mount, so can take some really nice glass including still prime lenses. Let's hope though something can be done to make the super-8 film cartridge more affordable for the many who'd like to shoot with it. And it does have the advantage over 16mm of getting quick shots of faces etc, also fast changing.

That's very encouraging ? Max8 too. Maybe it should be considered as a 16mm camera alternative, with fine grain film. Look forward to see how it performs.

I can't really see why professionals wanting the super-8 look would choose a pin registered camera like this one. One of S8's charms is its slightly imperfect registration ? If looking for coarse grain surely a very grainy 16mm stock/processing would suffice, or even regular-8mm if colour available, both of which are likely to offer reliable (old) cameras. More choice of speeds too. The old high-end super-8 cameras may suffer from reliability issues, and so this Gentoo camera is nevertheless very welcome for some. But the high cost of super-8 film when compared with other formats needs to be addressed. It puts off a lot of people now.

I won't be buying one myself (not so much into S8 now) but I don't think the price is exorbitant, if it's as they describe. I can remember paying at least that... in today's money.... for a new Beaulieu. If it really is a new design of pin-regn. movement that surely makes it superior. However, the problem with super-8 now, seems to be its high running cost.

Typo sorry ! non-XR should be non-XL

If making a projector run the camera in sync with a flexible shaft, I should add you will need to remove two of the three shutter blades (the ones that would normally control flicker). And then adjust the position of shaft so that the camera sees only the open section. A non-XR shutter camera would be best.

Just thought...I suppose it's not the sync lamp (if fitted) ?

Wierd. And it seems to extend right out between the perfs ? So that would rule out almost everything .... the viewfinder and shutter etc. It rather points to the film then ? And if it is doing it on different batches it surely must be a processing fault.

The flash in the Falls movie does look like possibly an object out of frame causing it, or as Simon says a technical problem on the film ?? However, with the single frame of the time-lapse, my bet is on a leak somewhere in the camera, as there has been considerable time between the exposures allowing it to occur. I've had similar issues wth Bolex cameras, and I ALWAYS now tape up not only the filter 'handle' but also the whole edge of the door. (Sometimes previously I've had a flash near the start or finish of a shot, ie when the film is at rest.)

Pav, in this movie I don't think tripod would be better? As handheld gives a sense of tension and perhaps being watched. But maybe slightly more stable would have helped. Agree a dogleg can slow things down sometimes, and with small primes you can get a reasonably accurate frame, also 250D film gives good depth of field. Pity the closeup of paper is overexposed.

Quality looks very good Pav. Amazing when you think it's so old. Never used a K100 myself, super-16 a real bonus. I guess being non-reflex you had to be extra careful for the framing in this disturbing little drama.

Sharpness can be improved by adding a black washer to the front of the projection lens. So the aperture is reduced a stop or so. Projection lenses are not normally as good as camera lenses and need stopping down. Agree with Martin use a small white matte card. Don't know what film stock you will be using, but it's likely you will get more contrast on the copy. To control this, place a table lamp about a meter or so away from the card, and direct at the ceiling perhaps, (not near the card) . So the projected image will look a bit washed out, though the copied result should look normal. If using daylight film your camera lens will need some kind of blue filtration of course. btw the unevenness I mentioned and also by Tyler, may not be objectionable depending on subject matter. A possible way to prevent it: put a grey wash of watercolour paint over middle of card, or make a similar kind of filter for projector. Syncing yes a much better solution. It can be done fairly easily with a flexible shaft between camera and projector inching shaft. So the projector motor runs the camera. Sankyos etc quite straightforward to get access their 1:1 shaft.

One point to be aware of, sometimes projectors give a much brighter central part of the image, and this may be accentuated by the camera film. Projectors with the old-style tungsten lamps and condenser lenses often give a better image for copying.

I think you're right John. It would be interesting though to compare these kinds of 'informal' documentary shots showing human faces, when taken digitally and also with 35mm film (in the same project). I'm assuming Uli didn't use any or much additional lighting but maybe I'm wrong on that. Also I think it's great how he has captured the expressions on faces simply by being extremely quick off the mark, and then moving to the next one after just a few seconds. Maybe this kind of documentary filming is a bit more 'free' in that respect, with so much happening around the camera, needing similar attention. And I guess the 35mm film charging through does stop you lingering on one shot too much ?

His feet look all ready for another expedition somewhere ? Have you any plans for putting this film in a TV slot for good causes etc ?

Nicely shot and cut and it said everything in the 4 mins. Good to see Michael Palin ! I think all his travelogues were done on 16. So I guess he would have been comfortable with you with Arri's ?

I shudder to think of the wear on the film. Maybe it's possible to glue in some velvet strips or similar to prevent that happening, so only the film's edges make contact.

Gosh me too ? I see, so they presumably had done all the tests to make colour film ? It must be a much more tricky thing to get right than monochrome. Such a shame their asbestos problem. But you wrote this a year ago, so maybe things are better.

It's good that Kodak have come clean on this, if that's the expression ? They are on the side of us film-makers after all. In the distant past there were issues with Kodak's quality control. I'm thinking particularly of scratched super-8 Kodachrome during processing, in the huge mass S8 era, which caused some like me to use other makes of film. And over 20 years ago I had some really dusty fresh 16mm Kodachrome... my complaining didn't work. So when these issues happen extremely rarely, as I suppose is possible in any factory process, it's very relieving to know that Kodak is serious about resolving them quickly. I think I too in future will examine the first leader when loading, just in case. I hope you can reshoot these scenes successfully, or possibly rescue the shots you have taken.

Another thought... presumably your lens isn't one meant for the H8 ? C-mount but different focus.