Claus Harding

I fully agree: to shoot one roll of Super-8 negative and paying to have it telecined in a pro place is the worst of economy as far as that workflow goes. The first time I shot Vision, I ordered one of the special packages of 6 rolls of film of your choice with processing and Cintel scanning included. You pay more upfront, but the economy per roll is better and you can shoot with the calmer notion that everything has already been paid for. For your one roll, I would say one way is to put money aside for such a package (4-6 rolls in your case), calling and explaining to them that you are new at this, and if they can help you out by inluding your existing roll at a reduced scanning price, you will take such a package. It never hurts to ask, and you know you will use more film anyway, so they will see you as a new customer. There is always more than one facility that does this work, so it's just a matter of customer service..... If you don't want to spend that kind of cash right now, then the homemade telecine is a cheap alternative, but it won't be pro looking (and could potentially damage the neg with scratches.) Claus.

Raul, DuAll in N.Y. should be able to help you: http://www.duallcamera.com/ Claus.

To add: Once you have a high-quality transfer of the film, Sony Vegas Movie Studio is a good package for editing and outputting to your medium of choice (it also has the option of either PAL or NTSC.) It has the benefit of costing less than other systems and is very versatile.

bc, I can't help but feel you'd be working yourself into some kind of hole with all the manipulation you are talking about. I don't know what 'doubling' frames would look like if not done on a pro film chain, but the simple solution is to shoot at 24fps and have a good transfer done. It's a matter of money, nothing else. Maybe there is some software that can help you, but I just wonder what the final result would look like, as opposed to sending it to a real telecine place. One thing I would not do is shoot two different speeds, unless I specifically wanted the effect of the action slowed down by a 1/3 when running at 24fps compared to 18. 24fps gives you 2mins, 40secs per cartridge. 18fps gives you 3mins, 30secs per cartridge. 24 or 25 look better, period. The shutter speed per frame is shorter at 24, so less potential for blur in each frame, thus better-looking images. Also, the grain moves faster at 24, so to the eye, it helps with the clarity of the image. Good luck with it. Claus.

Michele, The filter diameter on the Nizo Pro is 62mm. Claus.

If the film is German and takes place in Germany in the 20/30es, it is "German." It should be in German. You can always think about dubbing it afterwards, but at least the "core film" is in the correct language, with the option of regional German accents, much like in "Das Boot." I will never understand why many people won't read subtitles. For me, listening to dubbing ruins a film and takes away the mood (there are unavoidable exceptions, such as some of Herzog's international work.) Good luck with the project, Claus.

If you want to use the 100D outside, get one or two Neutral Density filters to help knock out light and get the iris more open. Then you won't be bottoming out like that, and you will be running the lens in its more 'optimum' range, in terms of optical performance. Claus.

Just to add: The Beaulieu uses an HTI lamp for its high-intensity model, not a Xenon. The ST1200 is a solid banger of a machine, and a lot less fussy than my GS-1200. The GS does use "old state-of-the-art" electronics, and while it is a sexy beast, it doesn't inspire the 'plug and play' confidence of my old ST-1200.

For light output/reel size/features, there are three 'Big Beasties' in the Super-8 world: The Elmo GS-1200. 200W lamp, 360m reels, copious features The Beaulieu 708. Different configs, very precise focus mechanism, 700m reels The Fumeo. Different configs, 700m reels. Stereo sound for the GS-1200 and, depending on model, also for the Beaulieu and the Fumeo. To really go to town, try (and I do mean 'try') to locate one of the above with the Xenon lamp option. Those are as high as Super-8 ever went. The prices for the latter will still be very steep, but you will be up where 'the air is rare' and have a killer picture. Claus.

I shoot broadcast SD and HD. I never brought my own rig, and now with the LittleCams offering a lot for less, I am tempted (again.) A trusted colleague will sell me his home-use HVX-200, low miles, 3 cards, total 40Gigs with it, the usual accessories. I am quite willing to add cards and such. Tripod not included. Apart from being a killer home-video rig, is this camera still, in your opinions, worth $2200 for professional applications? By that I mean: Is the look up to what can sell in a broad corporate market today or does it have specific shortcomings that the 200A fixed, and which are deal-breakers? I am 'old-style' (focus, iris, good lighting and rigorous image control) so it needs to live with that, no semi-auto applications unless it's fast events for less critical applications. Lens, picture quality are bottom lines on this. I am well aware of price points, so within those considerations... I wish to provide corporate/documentary high-quality images for smaller clients where the end result could wind up in a number of outlets, combined with the 'quick-call' ability of owning the gear. I have one client where my main competition would be some 10 years of BetaSP broadcast footage I shot for them. Also, for independently shot projects (possibly dramatic stuff) I would want this to at least be respectable in terms of image possibilites, i.e. 'looks' that could help in post. I know this is broad and subjective to an extent, but I would value any and all comments on this camera, as the info on it is fading with the newer models coming along. Thank You, Claus.

Hi Tony, Do you have verifiable info that this camera, in its current condition, is rock-steady in its transport, with no vertical or horizontal weave in the finished, projected films? I ask because I got burned on that once, so I would want to know that the camera will run completely to spec regarding camera tolerances for gate stability, as it is being sold. Thanks, Claus.

Glenn, Thank You! It seems we have solved at least the issue with the Leicina. I did not know this about the lens. Now I will just have to test run the Nizo "with/without" to see what to do about that one. Claus.

Ian, Thank you for that; I didn't know about the thin filter models. If it turns out the filter thickness is the problem, I'll definitely look into those B&W filters, Claus.

Ian, That is definitely the next step as soon as I get more film. I just find it hard to believe that both cameras, with two top lenses on them, will do exactly the same thing (but hey...you never know.) Best, Claus.

Hi All, I just got my test rolls back from scanning, shot with my Nizo Pro and Leicina Special, and while they look good, I see vignetting on both cameras in full wide mode; something I didn't see in the viewfinder Both cameras have the same filter diameter, and I used two UV filters of the same brand, yet I am still getting them "in the shot"....The lens shades used are original Nizo and Leitz ones. The question is, can I thread a bigger filter on (step-up ring?) or is there a specific UV filter anyone recommends that is wide enough not to interfere? Thank You, Claus.

I shot a test roll with my Leicina Special, most of it around 5:30pm outside. Nice dense image with medium grain and rich color. Very "filmy" looking in the best possible way. A better image than from the cheaper-looking 64 (or the horrible old 160) if not as fine in resolution as the Velvia. A good general shooting/projecting film that won't break the bank, as these things go now. Claus.

Anthony, Du-all in NY repair many kinds of Super-8 cameras: //http://www.duallcamera.com/ Not West Coast, but they are one of the good places for the format. Claus.

Patrick, Your best bet is to buy a camera with its own mic to ensure technical compatibility with the camera. In particular, different cameras may have different plugs, with the mic being matched to the camera. The 'mini plug' is quite common, but sometimes it will be wired for a specific camera, so best to get both at once. That said, you'd better get going. The official word is that there will be no more K40 processing at the one lab left, after the end of 2010 (at Dwayne's in Kansas.) Good luck, Claus.

Since we are throwing ideas around, is is of any help? I shoot Super-8 and I collect some films in 8mm. The collecting side of the market contains people who shoot too. I am wondering if there could be a tie-in in the magazine (on-line or in print) where both sides could benefit as there have been some rumblings from some collectors about trying to get new product out there in terms of collectible films. This would need labs and supplies, so the overlap is there too. Some folks on the 8mm boards know about the magazine already, but I suspect many don't. I know that ideally one shouldn't "dilute" the message of the magazine, but given the realities (both financial and in terms of the condition of the 8mm market on both sides of the hobby) this might be something to help reach as many people as possible who still know about Super-8. Just an idea. I am Danish; I read German and can still speak it a bit; I live in Washington DC. Let me know if anyone feels this has some merit. Claus.

I just signed it; let's hope the "voice of the people" can make a difference. Claus.

Hi, Try as I may, I have not been able to find this info anywhere: The "Analyst" series of machines for Reg-8mm; what was the speed range? I know their selling point was variable slo-mo, but what 'normal' speeds could they run at? Anybody know? Claus.

Cinematography is shot with a camera. Film or, now, video. With lights, mostly with sets, dollies, grips... Cinematography is not difficult to define. It has been around since before 1900. It is not made inside a graphics computer. That is called 'Digital Special Effects." Digital Special Effects have been around for a while now. There are lots of people getting paid well to sit and do this. The issue is why so many want to call Digital Special Effects "Cinematography". Because it potentially frees them from the "small-ego" bondage of being "graphics artists/computer geeks" and allows them to be called......Cinematographers. I wish I were kidding. Whenever a set defitiniton or job function that has been proven through decades is under heavy attack, there is usually a good reason that very often goes beyond both facts and debating points and into whose...equipment.....is bigger. Or whose job is seen as more "glamorous." Or, sadly, as a chance to ride the coat-tails. Digital Special Effects are now, for the first time in film history, being compared to Cinematography. And that in itself is silly enough, even without the desperate hairsplitting to get the "gray area" wide enough that they be seen as the 'same thing.'

Leo, You mention IMAX only, so I don't know if you want to include 35mm in this. I think the director has to have final say in this. It is one thing if the director takes the DPs advice on the best aspect ratio to shoot a given film in (depending on story, visuals, et. c.) However, to use variable masking, say, on a 35mm 1:2.35 image is a quite unusual approach that would have to come from the director. At that point you are not just playing with a "very large" image getting "differently shaped" but still huge, as in IMAX; you are changing the dramatic focus of the scenes very noticeably, compared to the wide image that the viewer has gotten used to since the film started. Max Ophuls did this in "Lola Montes" and it is a variant of the selective masking that was popular in silent films. Because you don't see it that often, it has a power all its own. To me, esthetically, this is a separate discussion from the use of 'multiple images within the frame" as in "Woodstock" and such. As a viewer, I have one main requirement: the film must be in the aspect ratio intended by its creators (or the closest thing thereto, vis a vis someone like Kubrick.) I will not watch a film that has been chopped/modified or "adapted" just because the aspect ratio doesn't "fit" for the same reason I wouldn't go to a museum to watch great paintings having a 1/3 or more cut off compared to the original. It destroys the artwork, and the viewing thereof. My two cents, Claus.

Max Ophuls/Christian Matras "La Ronde" "The Earrings of Madame de..." "Lola Montes"

Check basics: Are the contacts inside the battery compartment clean (no corrosion or battery deposits on them)? You shouldn't need a cartridge for it to run. (However, as a footnote, from what I have read, you do not get the red 'run' light to glow on the camera if you use silent cassettes.) If you haven't done so, try it at different speed settings to make sure it is not the speed dial that is the problem. Barring all that, if the motor or circuitry is dead where did you get it, and what is the return agreement, if any? How was it described when you bought it? Claus.