Andries Molenaar

4 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

Have you ever seen Super-8 camera reversal originals projected? That can have quite good steadiness. I project 8 mm films five feet wide. The only unsteadiness comes from the camera not being placed on a tripod. Everything exposed cam on sticks is steady.

People want easy filming to become next Spielberg.
Dedication is not so strong that they will carry and use tripod ?

2 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

All fixed now. I used the stabilizer function in Davinci Resolve. I'm happy with the results. First few shots are from a Canon 310XL and the clip finishes with a Bell & Howell 670XL. It's just rough test footage to get a feel for how the cameras shoot. The footage was scanned at HD and next time I might try a 4K scan to get a slightly crisper look.

 

Good to have usable images.

That is however not really fixing it ?  The scanning shoudl adopt another strategy for locating the frames.

10 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I've recently done some film tests with four Super 8 cameras: Beaulieu 4008, Canon

..

.

 

Compared to Tyler's footage, posted above, my footage has a slower, more uniform movement of the frame up and down.

Many scanner setups align the frames using the perforations. This was never meant to be used like that. First of all the perf of a frame is three frames down the strip. 
There is variation in the perf's position and thus the images will become shaky when the perfs are aligned perfectly.  It easy to observe these days as so many publish super-8 with overscan to impress the audience with their good taste and money spent ?
It were best to align on a mark at the edge or a corner of a frame. The VIC scientific camera exposed a small dot near the edge to allow measurements with a fixed reference point.

4 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

I’m not talking about a „super 8“ group. I am talking about the official „filmshooting“ group: https://m.facebook.com/filmshooting

Very dynamic with a most recent post from 2020. The super8.nl 20th anniversary ?

1 hour ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

Hi!

While his forum was down for a „short maintenance“ (actually nearly one year), he created a group on facebook as an alternative. So he still might have an active facebook account. Good luck!

Jörg

It seems a/the super-8 group on facebook has a large membership. Andreas posted there a number of times. So he must have an account. It is not his group.

6 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I don't believe ORWO has any intentions on doing much besides releasing what they have in small batches. 

They are a manufacturer and this a new product. It is not an old recut stock from elsewhere.
Having a lower ISO like 100 or 200 should really be an enrichment of their portfolio. And our EU film industry.

Don't open it. It is just too much intrusion.
Just give it a power-supply through the DIN plug at the rear where the grip connects.

Any chance of lower ISO ORWO film?

Well, that looks beautiful.   
Well done, a lot of detailed labor which pays off!

Likely it has a trimmer to set the speed properly. The question is if the 24 fps is in reach of the trimmer. Otherwise things get more difficult. When opening this camera isn't enough difficulty ? .   Other cameras have been modified from 18 to 24 fps simply by adjusting the speed-regulator. No need to swap the motor or to soup up the power of the batteries ? 

This happens rather often with these Silvery Nizo. Some components detoriate in the trigger/run circuit, likely a electrolyte capacitor.  A trick is to set to single frame and have on a intervalometer (or manual) and have it triggered for several hunderd frames. Somehow this will revive the component. 

Really nice images. And purposeful ?  

I am using my cartridges from stock. Mostly. How real are these troubles with today Kodak cartridges? Haven't they found the problem yet and resolved it?

The cause of super-8 jitter is either the cartridge is feeding to difficult or the pick-up drive of the camera has its friction too tight. Or are there other causes?

1 minute ago, Uli Meyer said:

There is lots of Super 8 footage being shot for fashion adverts and promos. I've seen quite a few on Instagram, they love that Super 8 look. It would be interesting to hear from a big lab how much Super 8 footage they handle. You may be surprised.

I rented out an Nikon R10 for that once. Incredible footage from that machine when using proper film and skilled people in a studio.   No need to find another camera. 

3 hours ago, Heikki Repo said:

One very important thing to notice: this camera is not intended for poor owner-operators, who want to shoot a cheap film format. This is for rentals companies who have customers with deep pockets and who want to have reliable tools for shooting the next music video for an A-list 

Really? Poor?

13 minutes ago, Doug Palmer said:

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.

If the Beaulieu cost like 200 film equivalents. The new camera could be considered cheap as it costs 100 film equivalent. Or possibly film is just as affordable.

Here and there they may be a professional filmer with plenty budget but this is going nowhere.

Likely they are not going to sell more than from the earlier Logmar which only sold out the beta-serie and only after a long time.

BTW NATO is into setting standards for grip equipment?

8 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

no you misunderstood...    the ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPHIC EMULSION came off of the film leaving only the CLEAR FILM BASE behind and no image whatsoever (because there was NO emulsion left at all, only the clear film base) . The end result looked like I had just clear 2x8mm leader instead of having any kind of real film with an actual image.

I have been able to reduce this effect by skipping pre washing completely and keeping the intermediate washes in absolute minimum (risking contamination) but still needs more experimenting (I haven't made new batches lately and will continue in May or so with the reversal stuff).  with these changes the emulsion does not come completely off but it still is cracking a little and is extremely soft.

Never experienced that. The only thing is to use the Foma bleach as single shot. I tested it using a second time immediately after 1st use but it bleached incomplete/poorly. Very artistic but not good.  

On 6/19/2020 at 12:04 AM, aapo lettinen said:

I am actually mixing my own developers. The bleach solution being the same one-shot style I am mixing from Potassium Permanganate and Sulphuric Acid.   I like to cheap on things so I am diluting the acid from 96% to the working strength (Much cheaper that way) so I'm used to work with nasty chemicals ? 

The problem with the first test batch was that either the Bleach stage was too long OR the Clear solution was way too strong. It seemed fine initially but at the final developing stage the emulsion came completely off as a black goo leaving just clear film base behind. I followed the Ilford reversal process but already halved the Bleach and Clear strengths. Is someone familiar with that process, or more accurately does someone know what is wrong with the Ilford recipe and how to fix it to work properly?

At the moment I suspect the problem was that there is the wrong concentration of the metabisulphite stated: "Add 25g sodium or potassium metabisulphite to 800ml water. "

Maybe it should be 2.5 grams per 800ml? maybe they just forgot the decimal mark from the recipe? Because the current solution is so strong that it removes the manganese dioxide stains in, like, two seconds ?

seems I missed this post ?
More or less you can't over-bleach or over-clear.
The foma reversal kit works like a charm.

The black matter is the anti-reflection layer on the back. This needs to be removed.
The Foma bleach does this and produces the brown grit from that.

A nice long list of contents!
Graphic design as super as ever ?

2 hours ago, Raymond McVeigh said:

Andries, "Nope, the M flange is way too much forward. I.e. the C lens can't produce sharp images then. Is there a C-lens on M-mount adapter. It would only make sense for lenses without retro-projection and then in a macro set-up. "
 

would it be possible to have the C mount changed to an M mount as the lens itself looks identical to my M mount Optivaron 

The rear part is completely different. Is has a different retro-lens/setting and the tube is shorter.  Finding an original Leicina edition is the simplest way to go.

Nope, the M flange is way too much forward. I.e. the C lens can't produce sharp images then. Is there a C-lens on M-mount adapter. It would only make sense for lenses without retro-projection and then in a macro set-up.  

Good luck, I hope it pays off. One day ?

5 minutes ago, Jeremy Saint-Peyre said:

That is foreign language to me ?

Clearly it is.  The camera shorts the terminals in the connecting point. Take it from there. Best were to find a Sony Walkman with recording opion or a MiniDisc recorder withproper input. Possibly a Digital recording thing wiht a simple iinput exits.
I would not start a project of constructing a digital apparatus using Arduine and what more. You will never win back the time and effort. 
simplest were to record just using a shart ahead, a clapper thing and stop after the scena was filmed.

Good luck.

Just now, Jeremy Saint-Peyre said:

Thank you for your expertise ! My Zoom H4n do take remote control 2.5mm input, but i have doubt it'll work by plugin it in directly. Also i wanted to stop both recording simultaneously.

 

INdeed, the physical apperance is less important ?  The cameras supplies a shorting switch. It connects the terminals when running. On classic taperecorders the remote was a switch in serial with the switches in the recorder.