Dom Jaeger

This is one of those ideas that sounds like a good thing but could actually prove to be a hindrance. Unless it's incredibly well engineered and machined, having a large sensor on what is presumably some sort of motorised rack and pinion mechanism could introduce all sorts of problems. For one thing the sensor needs to remain flat with respect to the mount to within 10 microns from edge to edge (both vertically and horizontally), so any contamination of the sliding surfaces, wear or play in the mechanism could result in a slightly tilted sensor. It needs to be held in its setting securely enough that a knock to the camera body or any external vibration won't cause even the slightest change in the flange depth. How will the mechanism cope with temperature changes? How easy is it to accidently adjust? I can foresee scenarios where each time a lens is changed the flange depth gets adjusted. Of course I could be wrong, and it's a fine idea. Time will tell I guess.

The widest aperture on the T-Rex is T7.1 compared to T5.6 on the Optex, however with just the borescope head on the T-Rex the maximum aperture opens to T5.6 as well. While the Optex is basically a borescope with a periscope module the T-Rex has many more features - 360 degree image rotation, a lens head that can pan 360 degrees around a horizon that can be tilted by up to 18 degrees, and a 2:1 zoom barrel. The Optex is probably a bit sharper, with less fall off at the edges, though they're pretty similar if the T-Rex is simplified to just a borescope, and there are more lens options with the T-Rex. For straight macro work like shooting a fish tank the Optex is probably a better (and simpler) option, and most likely cheaper to rent. We've never had any issues with either system used on Alexa.

The third film by Jaques Tati featuring Monsieur Hulot, Playtime, is arguably his best. There's precious little little character development in the Hulot series, but by the third film Tati's exquisite eye for the absurdities of modern society is fully honed, and due to the success of the first two Hulot films his budget was enough to shoot it in 70mm and recreate an entire city block on the outskirts of Paris. It's a masterpiece, but it was a commercial failure at the time, and bankrupted him.

Definitely metric, and if it's smaller than M2 I'd be willing to bet it's M1.6. M1.4 is really tiny and usually used for set screws, and I've never come across M1.8 in a cine lens. Sometimes M1.7, but M1.6 is much more common.

Hi Billy, that's a good camera to start learning about film, and Canon made great lenses for their movie cameras right from the start. Yours probably dates from around 1963! If you don't have a manual you can download one free from here: http://static.cineinformation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Canon-Camera-EEE-motor-zoom-8-User-Manual.pdf Double 8 film is what you want and if you're in the US, buying it from John Schwind is the best thing to do. The camera takes 25 ft spools, and you can use colour or black and white. It's actually 16mm film with double the perforations - the first time you run it through the camera it exposes only half the film width. You then turn the exposed spool over and run it through again to expose the other half of the width. After processing it gets slit down the middle and joined together to make a 50 ft length. That's enough for a little over 4 minutes if you shoot at 16 frames per second. To watch it you can either get the film transferred to a digital file or do it old school and run it through an 8mm projector. It's great fun to project your footage up on a screen, but for editing it's easier to use a digital file. One thing to know about your camera - the light meter takes an old 1.35V mercury battery that is no longer available. There are replacements but I think they are either the wrong size or a slightly different voltage (1.5V, which will alter the meter reading). You can make adapters out of metal to fill out the battery length, or change the camera's ASA setting to correct the meter, but either way it's worth using an external meter to check the camera's built in one. Your camera has a manual override for the exposure so you can actually not worry about the camera's meter and just set the aperture manually using an external light meter anyway, which is what I'd recommend if you want to learn about using film and about cinematography in general. The user manual tells you the exposure times for different frame rates. Here in Australia Nano Lab is the place to go for processing. Someone else will have to tell you about labs in other parts. Hope you enjoy it!

Well I just watched Rocky 3 on telly the other night (the one with Mr. T), and I gotta say, for laughs per minute and glorious slow-motion homoerotic hugging in the surf, it's by far the best of the 3. They really should have stopped there, so I'm including it as a trilogy..

Taylor-Hobson (the original Cooke) were for many years Bell and Howell's standard lens supplier, and Eyemos were often sold with Cooke lenses. For decades Cooke Speed Panchros in their various incarnations were among the best and most widely used 35mm cine lenses available. http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/history/1930s.html As Patrick mentioned, given their age, each lens needs to be individually assessed. Any damage to front or rear elements, internal fogging or fungus, shiny or oily iris blades, loose elements etc will impact on a lens's performance.

Still no takers for Richard's fantastic offering? How about, as an alternative, I offer a free i-Phone 4 to the first student who responds? Pick up is in Adrian's cellar... :D

Sounds like the mirror is not flat - it's wobbling on its axis, high spot at one mirror wing, low spot at the other. The camera needs to go to a repair tech I'm afraid.

Yes, up there with the Bolex EL in terms of pain-in-the-arseness to service. Years ago when I was just starting as a tech in the Sydney Panavision service department the service manager gave me a Scoopic to work on. In hindsight I'm sure it was one of those jokes people play on the newbie.

I'd be curious to hear what those recommendations were. Having just shot with some of the 7363, the grain is indeed very fine and the contrast beautifully punchy, but I found the latitude very narrow, especially on skin tones. In sunlight a slight underexposure resulted in skin shadows going black. I guess due to the lack of red sensitivity. Next time I use it I was planning to overexpose and stick to overcast days. I tend to agree with Simon, though I'd put it a little less harshly. I'm sure experienced Super 8 users are aware of the failings of the cameras, the cassettes and those tiny perfs, but that's part of their charm. The main disadvantage to Double-8 cameras is the lack of information about them. There are dozens of Super 8 websites but virtually nothing on the older format. To that end, in my spare time I've been disassembling, servicing and testing every Double-8 camera I can get my hands on. I've gone so far as to manufacture a d-mount adapter for my work projector/collimator in order to project and assess 8mm lenses. Probably a loopy project, but I'd like to create a database of practical information about the format, maybe spark some interest. I work with Alexas and Arricams, but when it comes to recording the intimacies of family life, or just having fun with film, nothing beats a beautiful old clockwork camera that fits in your pocket.

The funny thing is, compared to every other viewfinder Arri has manufactured since probably the 70's, the Alexa viewfinder is crap. Every time you adjust the eyepiece it moves the diopter, and there's no way of locking the diopter off. Not even relubricating the diopter threads with heavier grease solved it. The best solution I found was using an eyepiece from an Arri cine camera. That said, it is the best non-optical viewfinder I've seen.

Great, now there'll be a run on antique lenses, they'll triple in price and I'll never afford the brass Steinheil I've been saving up for.. :P Certainly makes the 5d look cute though.

Wittner in Hamburg have a good range of double 8 stock: http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/d8_filmm.php Also Kahl Film & TV in Bruhl: http://www.kahlfilm.de/content.php?nav=15 The Widescreen Centre in London sells a high contrast d8 stock (actually orthographic film) which I would avoid if you're just starting to play around with 8mm. Not sure about UK/European processing.

It's an interesting tidbit of cinematographical history that the 35mm still camera was first invented as a device to test the unreliable emulsion speeds of early cine film. In 1913 Oskar Barnack was working for Leitz on a precision cine camera, and devised the Ur Leica as a small testing unit to expose individual frames of 35mm cine film. The film ran horizontally through the camera, rather than vertically as in a cine camera, so Barnack enlargened the 18 x 24mm cine frame by doubling the 4 perf cine height to make an 8 perf width. 24 x 36mm has been the 35mm stills standard ever since. http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ur-Leica

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Templates/OpenFlash.aspx?path=/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_flash_en_motion_filmCalculator.swf&pageTitle=http://www.kodak.com%20-%20Film%20Calculator&flashWidth=600&flashHeight=400&flashBgColour=FFFFFF&WindowBgColour=FFFFFF For 2-perf, just double the running time of 4-perf.

Most Kern lenses designed for 8mm have a D-mount and much shorter flange depth than the C-mount fitted Beaulieu 4008. The only 8mm Kerns with a C-mount are for reflex H8 cameras, but the back focus is still too short. So the only compatible Kerns are for the H16, preferably non-reflex ones (ie not marked RX). As far as 8mm Zeiss lenses go - Zeiss did make some interchangeable 8mm format lenses for the early, pre-war Zeiss Ikon Movikon 8 models, with a bayonet mount. Their later 8mm lenses were fixed onto the cameras (Movikon and Movinette, Moviflex S8). The East German Zeiss (Zeiss Jena) made a range of lenses for the Pentacon Pentaflex 8 - the only 8mm camera ever made with a spinning reflex mirror - but I believe those lenses also have a bayonet mount unique to the camera. Personally, I think 16mm Super Speeds (that aren't too beaten up) would be more than adequate for Super 8. But Switars or Kinetals would certainly be nice too. As someone previously noted, the biggest problem will be finding a wide angle.

That was a rather beautiful post , Karl.

By that rationale the expensive restaurant meal I enjoyed the other week was a waste of money and I should have eaten McDonalds instead. In fact I should eat there every day, it would save me thousands. This is a tired argument. Aesthetics is a matter of taste, each to their own. I just felt one glib response deserved another.

Well, erm, yes.

Perhaps because the arrival of crayons never threatened the existence of pencils. Even acrylic paints - cheaper, faster and less toxic than the oils they were supposed to replace, never really threatened oils because so many painters refused to give up the texture and colour richness of oil paint (sound familiar?). But digital cameras will kill film. I give it about 10 more years - optimistically - before the film manufacturers and processing labs will call it a day. And cinematographers will have lost access to another option, another tool. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "so it goes".

Easiest thing would be to just re-terminate the cable with whatever plug fits the battery pack you get.

RX lenses were designed to include the prism in their optical pathway, and account for the abberations introduced. Changing the back focus on non-RX lenses won't solve that issue. Stopping the lens down several stops is effective, and the abberations are less pronounced on longer focal lengths. There was a long thread on 10mm vignetting in Super 16 a while back: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=37152 but Jean-Louis probably just covered it in one post!

On professional film cameras the shutter is also a mirror, set at an angle so that during the portion of its rotation when it covers the aperture it reflects the image into the viewfinder. In this way the operator can see exactly what the lens is seeing even as the camera is running. A very clever idea that was invented by Arri way back in 1937, still used in the very latest motion picture cameras. To avoid a very flickery and dim viewfinder image, and also because the camera needs to mechanically advance the film to the next frame during the period when the shutter covers the aperture, most film cameras are limited to a maximum 180 degree shutter angle. The Arri D21 is the only digital camera that utilises a mechanical shutter/mirror, which allows it to have an optical viewfinder (generally preferred by operators), and a slightly more 'film-like' look, especially for fast motion capture, compared to other digital cameras that use a rolling shutter.

Try warming the ring a little with a heat gun or hair dryer and then using a thin strip of rubber to grasp and turn the ring. It undoes clockwise when looking from the camera rear. When you have undone it, clean the threads and apply a thin smear of gn paste (dry molybdenum lubricant) so it won't lock up again.