Matt Kemp

Thanks for your post, Frank. Again, excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by 'LUTs'? The grade and output to 35mm will be done at Cineco Amsterdam, using their Nucoder Filmmaster.

It is possible to open the lens body quite easily on these cameras, and probably worthwhile doing if the only alternative is a Nizo paperweight (I think if you have to pay more than $50 to get the camera fixed, you're probably better off getting another one instead..) Towards the body end of the main lens barrel there is a tiny inset screw. Undoing that (do it over a piece of white paper nowhere near the table edge..!) will allow you to easily remove the entire main body of the lens, and see if you can get at the loose element to reposition it. It's also quite straightforward to replace afterwards. If doing that doesn't allow you to fix the problem, things get much more complicated, and is out of the hands of an amateur with a set of jewellers screwdrivers (like me). Anyway I've done it a few times to get dust out of the inside of the lens and such, and if I can do it I'm pretty sure anyone can.. Hope that helps Matt

Thanks again for the reply. I found out from production today that the actual plan is to edit the TK'ed footage and then blow up to 35mm direct from the digital file for cinema exhibition. In your opinion does that mean I should create an uncompressed 4:4:4 master from the original image sequence, edit offline at a lower resolution, conform the uncompressed master to the offline EDL and use that to print to 35mm? I get the feeling I'm really missing some basic foundation of knowledge with these issues but, as always, any advice appreciated.

Hi Adrian, Thanks very much for the reply, very useful. If I can ask, do you choose that format based on a quality/practicality compromise? For example if equipment or software were no object, would you still choose it? Thanks again, Matt

Hi All, I recently shot a feature on Ektachrome 64T, and have sent it for scanning at a TK facility in Eindhoven. Thing is, at the same time I took the 250 or so rolls for scanning, I also picked up five or so test rolls I had shot beforehand. While the scan quality itself is excellent, the files I received back are in a non-standard format, basically a BMP image sequence, with each frame dimensions 1220x860, wrapped in an .avi container (and a massive 47Gb for ten minutes of film..!) I can of course convert these files into any standard video format for editing and exhibition, but as someone much more at home in the analogue world, I was really hoping someone here might be able to give me a bit of advice on the best format to convert the files to. I have created test exports using the DVCPRO HD codec, the 422 10-bit uncompressed codec, and with various flavours of XDCAM and HDV formats, but am still at a bit of a loss as to which to proceed with. I realise of course that the whole process also depends a lot on the ultimate delivery format, which I envisage will be HD on either XDCAM or SR tapes for cinema screening. I apologise in advance if this post brutally displays my lack of insight into the digital post production workflow, but any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Matt

I'm not sure about the actual light loss through the prism, but I shot some rolls of 200T with the same camera and they came out very well. I kept the daylight filter on the camera set to tungsten and then used an external 85b on the lens (when shooting in daylight). This camera then meters the film as 160asa, which gives the 1/3 stop overexposure Kodak recommend when shooting negative. I pull processed by 1/2 a stop, and the film looked pretty nice, particularly the interior shots. I regret using it for exteriors though, very grainy compared with 64T. Good luck Matt

A nice way to some scratched up film is also to develop it yourself 'spaghetti style' in a bucket. Tetenal make an E6 kit which can be used very easily to process your own Ekta 64T, and while the film is wet after the last rinse the emulsion is very sensitive to dust and scratches. Perfect time to throw it on the floor, rub it together, attack it with sandpaper.. Some examples of some film scratched up by other means is here.. http://www.vimeo.com/user1950999/videos Matt

Hi Andries, Thanks very much for your reply. I did exactly as you said, lifted the leather and opened up the side. A bit of gentle blowing and prodding inside got the motor running again! It seemed the motor at the top straight up from the trigger, was having difficulty turning over. A little loosening did the trick nicely. Unfortunately I'm no electronics wizz, so I couldn't say what the mod switch was intended for, only that it was wired with four cables, two going to the reverse/forward switch, and two to the main motor, if that rings any bells. Anyway thanks again to all who replied, it seems like I now have a working R10. Nice.

Andries, Thanks for the message. After some more days messing about with the camera, I think you're right, the only way of seeing if it will ever run again is to tear off the leatherette and open it up. Kind of a shame, I wonder how the person who added the mod managed it. Maybe I could re-cover it with faux carbon fibre, or some other contemporary equivalent of leather embossed pvc. Cheers Matt

Hi Andy, Thanks for the reply. Crystal sync mod would be nice, but I can't see any other tell-tale signs.. I'm not sure if the mod could be that advanced that it stops the motor drive running unless it's connected either.. To be honest I'm a bit in the dark with Nikons, I've only ever had Nizos. Anyway thanks for writing, any more thoughts welcome. Cheers, Matt

Hi All, I've been given a Nikon R10, which I'd really like to get up and running. The electric zoom and lightmeter both appear to work perfectly, but the motor drive does nothing at all when the trigger is fully depressed.. I've never used a Nikon camera before, so was researching if anyone had experienced similar problems, and realised that this camera has a switch on the back which is not in any of the manuals or pictures from the internet, and so can be assumed to be some kind of modification. I wonder if anyone has seen anything like this before, what the mod might be for, and indeed if it's possible that it's this switch that is causing the motor not to run. I've attached a picture below (apologies for the quality - it's supposed to illustrate the switch at the back). Any help appreciated, would be great to get this lovely camera working Best, Matt

Only the Nizo Professional generates a 50Hz tone, through the DIN15 575 connector. The 561 and 801 models only produce a 1000Hz once every fourth frame passing the gate. But in answer to your question I don't think any Nizos came with a 60Hz option (although I'm in Europe so perhaps the US market is different) Hope that helps

Hello All, This week I've been using my Nizo Professional to shoot some timelapse footage. Thing is, if the frame rate is any more rapid than about 1fps, it starts getting very irregular. Each 'click' sounds different, it sometimes stutters and stops, the intervals become closer together or further apart; in short the camera is not having a nice time at all. Furthermore on processing the films I can see that the sequences are suffering badly, with about one in every four or five frames completely black. All the other frames are exposed perfectly. I spoke to a Nizo expert friend and she said that she had heard of this happening before, but that it was a problem with the internal electronics or intervalometer, and therefore very difficult to fix. I was kind of hoping it was a mechanical fault that I might be able to fix myself with a basic service. I should point out that all other frame rates (18/25/54) run as sweetly as they ever have. As always, any help or ideas appreciated. Best, Matt

I had my Nizo 561 Macro serviced by a guy at Golborne Cameras, Golborne Rd, London W10 a couple of years ago. I can't really say in much detail what he did or whether he's any kind of Nizo or super 8 specialist, but my camera ran beautifully afterwards, and has done ever since. I think he charged me around £40.

The red lever on the side of the Nizo controls the variable shutter angle. When locked at the halfway position, the shutter angle is slightly reduced (you can see this by looking at the gate through the back of the camera with the film door open, and pointing the camera at a bright light source while moving the lever). This reduced exposure time, and can be used as a kind of ND filter in too-bright conditions. With the lever locked all the way back, the shutter angle is significantly increased, and much more light is let in. When used together at night with AutomB (which automatically calculates how much exposure time is needed for each frame to be properly exposed), you can create streaks of light. I've attached a picture from some tests I did a while ago. If you shoot with AutomB without locking the lever all the way back, the effect is much more strobey than streaky. Hope that helps, good luck with the filming.

In case anyone is interested. Item numbers are 110347040483 and 110347049191 respectively. Cheers, Matt

Thanks guys, I knew you'd understand. Thanks also Michael for the technical info. I was under the impression that apart from the power supply and 25fps thing, the two cameras were basically the same inside. The fact that they're not may well prove to be the deciding factor. Unless that is I follow both your advice.. Thanks again

One of my cameras has to go, but which one.. It's either a mint Nizo Pro, or a mint black 801 Macro. Both have an ultrawide lens, Braun metal box and the rest, and also a Nizo underwater casing and matte box. My girlfriend gives me till Friday, but I just don't know. My head says keep the Pro, but my heart is with the 801. Which would you sell, and which would you keep? Actually a genuine question for all the Nizo heads out there. Apologies to anyone who feels they've wasted their time reading this ridiculous post.

Thanks Sean, I'll give it a try. In the end I just used Mpeg Streamclip to transfer the formats. Cheers

Also, just to add, I did specify Quicktime files when I got the scan, but the guy told me they were basically the same, and that .avi was just the container.. It's obviously not quite true, otherwise the files would have played with no problem in Quicktime, but the guy who did the scan is a total pro, he worked in the imaging/scanning department of Philips all his life (he's now retired), so I trust his knowledge of video file formats much more than I trust my own.. Also incidentally, on my search for a way to convert these files, I tried to burn them to a dvd in Toast. Toast came up with an error message saying a necessary Codec was missing, the 'VIDE' Codec. I've never heard of this, but I think it might be a Windows thing. Anyway, Streamclip converted them to 720 x 576 Quicktime files for me, which drop into FCP with no problem, so all's well that ends well.. I hope!

In the end I used Mpeg Streamclip, a free download to convert video files.. They look ok, I hope it hasn't caused any quality down-grade or stange effects I haven't noticed yet..

Just add, Michelle was exactly right, it was the underexposed areas which suffered worse from the extreme grain. Thing is, for sequences such as a time-lapse dawn, I was deliberately underexposing the dark sky hoping for the rich blacks of classic Super 8 images. It's probably a very basic cinematography technique, but if anyone reading this knows how I can correctly expose a dark image to get proper blacks, I would love to know for future reference. Or am I missing an extremely dark elephant in the room..? Good luck Eugene

Hi Eugene, Just wanted to write and say that I recently had to make a similar decision with regard to choosing stock for a Super 8 short, and went with the negative Vision 200, for exactly the same reasons as you have described (more exposure latitude, more choice in post production and so on). I shot twenty rolls, and got them processed and best-light telecine'd on a Rank Cintel to Digibeta at ToddAO in London. I am now sincerely regretting my choice of negative stock. It is extremely grainy, even though I overexposed and pull-processed half a stop to deliberately try to reduce grain, and the colours are, for the most part, thin and under-saturated, with precious few of the qualities for which I chose Super 8 for the project in the first place. I know there will be a lot of people who read this and feel that very good results are possible with Vision 200, and that somehow I did something wrong to make the image so grainy and weak, and to be honest they are probably right. But as someone who took the decision you are about to make and invested many weeks and a couple of thousand pounds in a Super 8 film, only to have it look like an extremely poor imitation of 16mm, I would certainly encourage you to invest in a camera with a working lightmeter and shoot reversal, either 64T or 50D. Personally, I'll never use negative Super 8 stock again, unless the lighting conditions absolutely demand it. Also, maybe look in Germany or Holland for stock, process and telecine options, that's where I have found the cheapest deals. Cheers Matt

Art, That's exactly it. I chose Vision stock for my last film because I thought it would be a more advanced emulsion, with more latitude for colour correction in post than the old Ekta or reversal films, but I wish I hadn't. I suppose it's my own ignorance to blame, but for sure that'll be the last time I use negative super 8 stocks. In terms of the colour correction at the capture stage, I had a best-light telecine to Digibeta on ToddAO's Rank machine, and even they couldn't get the colours balanced the way I was hoping.. Live and learn I guess.. Thanks for the tips. Matt

Art: Your footage looks great. Can I ask you if you had to crush the blacks heavily in post? My main problem with the Kodak 200T was that in dark sections (for example a timelapse sunrise, while the sky is still dark), instead of getting nice rich blacks, I got in incredible grainy blue-ish tone. I guess this is where the film has been underexposed, and only the biggest grains have reacted to the extremely limited light. Thing is, if I underexpose film, it's because I want it black. It feels almost like the stock is trying to correct what it feels is a mistake somehow..