Martin Baumgarten

Non-synchronized refilming [optical duplication] will result in some strobing of the image with density changes. It varies depending on the refilming technique and method used. I have gotten the best results using an XL Super 8mm camera with a 220 or 230 degree shutter opening filming at 18fps of footage that is being projected at 18fps. I have also refilmed Regular 8mm footage at 16fps and gotten pretty good results. Unless you synchronize the camera and projector, you will get this gentle density variation. If you use a non-XL camera, then the variation will be faster and more annoying. In such an instance you could use a slower filming speed such as 12fps. Anyhow, I've duplicated Regular 8mm film so it could be on Super 8mm Sound film. - - - To achieve full frame by frame synchronization, you will need a projector such as the ELMO GS-1200 with its ESS feature which will 'slave' the projector to a 1 frame per sine wave signal, using a simple sine wave generator and hooked up to the camera's Flash Synch Terminal. - - - - The image with either technique can be filmed off a small projected image onto matt white card stock, or onto thick ground glass or milky glass using a front surface mirror. I cannibalized the mirror for this from an old BAIA large screen film editor. Initially, I wanted to have Titles over a background, namely time lapse of clouds moving. But later decided I could optically duplicate entire sound film reels of my own along with the main sound Track, or Duo Tracks via mixing them, but then all on one Track only of course. - - - - My first Super 8mm Sound Projector was the CHINON 7000, not all that different from your 7800, but this was for unsynched duplication. - - - - Unsynched, I wouldn't want it to be too long, but it works. Don't dedicate an entire cartridge to this, just experiment in small bits an use the rest for other stuff. Then you can decide if this method will work for what you're trying to achieve. Of course pay attention to the usual, Focus, Exposure, Framing etc. - - - - - - To get as accurate framing as possible, once you have setup your camera on a tripod and the projector etc.....mask off the corners of the projected white gate with black masking tape. Then turn the projector off.....and using a maglite or similar, run the camera with the light projecting thru the film gate and check the now projected camera gate against your tape marks. Make adjustments as needed to get it all aligned. This will minimize having to crop the projected image any more than necessary to fill the camera's film frame. Of course, once ready to duplicate, double check your film framing on the projector, focus, and camera focus etc. Good luck!

Even IF your Development time was too short and/or your Developer worn, the image would just looked reversed but with weak/thin density. The image example you gave shows even overall effect, thus the problem lies with perhaps no enough bleaching time. You can't really over bleach, and you can't really over expose for the Positive Image. The Bleach is supposed to attack all the black metallic silver image created during First Development into a Negative Image breaking it down so that it can then later be removed by the Fixer. If this doesn't happen, then a ghost of the Negative Image remains. True Solarization [Sabbatier Effect] which your image resembles quite well, is IF the film [or photo paper] is lightly fogged about halfway thru development. So, if you are having a light leak somewhere around your tank lid, that could be the cause. With the LOMO tanks, I make sure they fit tight, and even use rubber bands and/or good electrical tape to prevent any leaks. Also, a little known culprit is the drain hole on the agitator rod bowl.....cover it over with black electrical tape, or it will fog film image near the center of the spiral reel. It's best to place the loaded film reel into a dark container or film changing bag or similar, fill the tank with your solutions, and add the reel to the solutions thus fully immersing it within seconds. Also, it's a good idea to Pre-Wash the film, and fully Wash/Rinse the film between all processing steps. Especially after the Bleach, to avoid wearing down the Clearing Bath, and helping to get rid of the Bleach out of the film's emulsion. Carefully, eliminate any issues, by going step by step through your processing methods, and you will fix the problem. It is so frustrating to spend so much time and care and precision and get such results. Lastly, the results are pretty cool! It would be nice to know exactly how it happened to be able to repeat this for some special effect in a film. Best of luck in your next processing work!

No, an F-Stop is a mathematical determination [based on the diameter of the lens opening, and relative to each lens.....it's commonly used for exposure. Only a T-Stop [transmission stop type lens] that has been calibrated/checked will give you the exact light transmission. However, for all practical purposes you will be fine since that is used to determine exposure for most lenses......of course, factoring in any other light loss via filters, prisms in cameras, light diverted for built in light meters etc. The F-Stop generalization is used for determining depth-of-field and depth-of-focus, and hyperfocal distance. That's why, on reflex type cameras, any other light loss has to be factored into the exposure determination. Just make sure to be careful with other C-mount lenses to make sure they do NOT protrude into your prism! So your modification is to maintain proper focus range with other C-mount lenses, that's great.

Always do a film test PRIOR to ever shooting anything important or even just playing around factoring in what film and processing cost these days. A short test of foot or two can be self processed...even as Negative B&W chemistry for an exposure and focus check. Longer length would be necessary to check for even running of course. AND...thanks for the IB Manual Link Dom,.... always default to the Factory Owner's Manual. My 18fps shutter speed was probably more for 16fps....but anyhow, always best to double check via referring to the manual, and doing a film test. For a more decent film test, you could shoot several feet and get an idea of how smooth the camera is running etc. I don't think there's much difference if any exposure and shutter wise between the link to the BOLEX H8 Reflex and the H8RX4, other than the addition of the 1:1 drive shaft and flat base etc. I have to stress the importance of testing........when I was 15 and got my first BOLEX H-8, I did a dry test and figured all was well. Well, I ran that 100ft roll through it and got it processed (yields 200ft of course in Double 8mm) and there was shutter ghosting, film slippage etc.....I was not happy! Had I done a small test, I would've caught that early on. Film and processing was cheaper back then, and also I could've processed a short test...but didn't have 100ft 16mm film width processing capability back then yet. Anyhow, it was sorted out before the next roll! So sure, check the meter, meter your test shot and do a film test. You'll be so glad you did BEFORE you commit to running full roll of film, of any length [those BOLEX H-8 cameras are capable of running the 25ft, 50ft and 100ft spools....though 50ft ones have been long discontinued].

I suspect something is going on with the projector, perhaps some tiny short somewhere in or to the lamp socket. A quick fix is to run a separate power lead to the lamp socket with an inline switch and by pass the projector. Or you could try using a much lower cost LED equivalent lamp, they often cost in the $9 to $15 range and see if that works. Sometimes they are a bit longer and thus you'd have to allow the socket to float on the rear of the bulb since the bulb holder keeps the lamp in position. Those replacement lamps for your projector will eat up money rapidly and you're not getting any use from them! Thus my suggestions here. Or, consider another projector for now, unless you're able to do repairs and tests yourself since sending it to anyone to fix is just too costly; you can usually just buy another projector, either the same or better for much less than what all that would cost. Good luck though.

Okay, let's begin with your BOLEX, the shutter angle on the Reflex models is typically 133 degrees, so, use 1/65th second for 24fps or about 1/43rd second for 18fps [this is where having the original owner's manual comes in helpful]. Also the viewfinder prism diverts about 25% of the light to the viewfinder, thus anywhere from about 1/4 Stop to 1/3 Stop light loss to the film [this is relative to the condition of the prism as well. With a small light meter probe it is possible to remove the pressure plate from the gate and actually meter the light coming in via leaving the shutter open....of course...not practical for most, but possible for evaluating the camera without having to waste film]. The shutter angle is much small than on non-reflex versions and older BOLEX cameras due to the mechanics of the variable shutter involved. Exposure of course, is relative, relative to the film type since reversal film requires perhaps some slight under-exposure for saturation density....and negative films can benefit from and tolerate over-exposure to maintain detail. To truly benefit from using your camera, you could shoot a very short length of film test on any stock, remove that and have it processed or do it yourself. You don't need to shoot more than a foot or two. Now to the Light Meter questions. [1]. Yes, light meter sensors can wear out due to age, regardless if stored in the dark. However, as long as there's some decent life left via strong response to light, they can be calibrated [adjusted] to compensate for their aging. You could and should download any one of the various free apps for your cellphone that are Light Meters. Compare the reading off of an 18% Gray Card....or something neutral if you don't have one, or a white cardstock, and see how they rate. It would be nice to have a known accurate light meter to reference to here......and using either a good 35mm SLR or even a DSLR or cellphone and reading the Data on a given shot to see what the exposure is.....and comparing those would be helpful. Anyhow....once you do a few exposure reading tests.....if the meter needs some adjustment, there is usually a fine adjustment on it. Set that to render it correctly to the Zero setting....then compare again. [2]. The Cine frame rate setting on most hand held light meters are based on a standard 180 degree shutter opening [usually] at whatever frames per second speed you're using. HOWEVER, with the BOLEX Reflex, we know the shutter angle is NOT 180, it's 133 degrees so less light is getting in at the same frame rate. AND...the viewfinder prism robs some light....so you have to factor these into your hand held Light Meter. So I figure you would need to increase exposure by about 1/2 Stop for the variation. It might be closer to 1/3 Stop if using Reversal Film, but for Negative, definitely a tad more. This exposure variation increase would be the same for either 18fps [why shoot film up faster in 8mm...not necessary] or 24fps, since it's due to the difference between the Standard Cine Exposure Rating on the Light Meter versus the actual Exposure Factor on the camera due to the shutter angle and reflex prism. [3]. For lower light levels, you can run the BOLEX at 12fps to get more exposure power, albeit the slower FPS rate means speeded up action on anything that is moving....but great for more static shots. So, once you have determined your Light Meter works fine and is calibrated, and you understand that at the Cine Rate Set, you will have to adjust exposure to allow about 1/2 Stop more exposure, you're all set. Other than making a practical test on the film types you want to shoot, which is easy with roll film....[since you can cut off the test part and still have practically a full roll of film remaining], you're ready to film! [4]. Remember, exposure is relative....relative to the subject. A light meter is only a tool to get you in the ballpark range.....thus a person standing in front of a white or light colored wall, much lighter than an 18% Gray Card, would require metering the person up close first....and/or factoring in that the Light Meter will give you an exposure reading that will be under exposed. Alternatively the reverse if the subject is standing in front of a very dark wall etc. Cinematographers professionally will use either or both, an 18% Gray Card for metering each shot, or will take an Incident Light reading....which is the amount of light actually falling on the subject [here you would use the Incident Light Meter Dome on your Light Meter].....which works fine since they usually shoot Negative Film Stock. Before you go off and shoot lots of film in that wonderful camera, do yourself a favor and do those short film tests.....then analyze your results and make some determinations for what works best. This is time well spent. Good luck and best of success!

Uh, sorry not presently. Those posting are over 4 years ago! Many sites change hands or disappear. Some sources for repair manuals and copies have dried up as owners of those libraries have died. There is a vendor on eBay that posts repair manuals, and they might have access to what you need. Hunt around and then message them, maybe you'll get lucky. Sadly, FUJI ceased all support for their formerly beloved Single-8 cine film format and cameras. I don't understand why, and ELMO did the same some years ago. Good luck though! If I find anything, I'll post it here.

The R button on top is for the Dissolve Film Rewind Feature. Normally, one you depress this, the variable shutter closes while the camera is running thus depressing the trigger continuously, the camera stops momentarily, then rewinds the film back to the starting point. Then to fade in over the fade out etc, you will need to depress the R button again after first pressing and holding the trigger in. The camera will cycle thru and clear itself. If it does not, then the cycle is jammed. Sometimes playing with it a couple times will clear it. I hope this helps.

Erik Whitlock I'm sorry to hear of this issue. I think I have to agree with Frank Wylie that due to clogged or partially clogged video recording heads, this was recorded in the original recording. Being a user of the Video 8mm format as well, I have experienced similar issues in all 3 versions of this [Video 8mm, Hi-8 Video, & Digital-8mm]. What sometimes happen is that the clog clears up, thus later sections being recorded normally or close to it. [actually the clog isn't completely cleared up, but enough has been removed via tape transport to render a better recording]. If any of the other machines you used were working fine and had clean playback heads, then this would've disappeared. As for tape transport, it is a good idea with all types of video tape to forward them to the end, and then rewind them evenly [a slight tilt to the machine helps, if the tape doesn't wind up evenly....do a short test first]. I also need to add.....keep ALL of the original recording materials [home movies, photos, negs, slides, video tapes etc] and keep them safe somewhere in the living space. While digital is handy, it also can be fleeting due to technology changes where migrating to the newer tech in time is necessary.....and of course....do NOT rely on lifetime storage for DVDs, CDs or Blu-Rays, and back up any computer or external hard drive storage. Keep in mind....the original material, can easily outlast your own lifetime, and thus should be protected for future transfers, should anything happen to the digital files or storage devices. Best of luck with digitizing all your family's precious memories!

It's fairly easy to repair. You will need to purchase some contact cement, or Goop which works well also. First, using a small screwdriver or sharp knife, remove as much of the excess dried up adhesive from the cover plate. Then turning the camera sideways, try to remove as much of the adhesive from the plate mounting lip as you are able to. Actually, you probably can get away with just gluing the plate back on, but cleaning all this off makes for a better fit. You will need to be very careful NOT to get any of the dried adhesive into the interior of the camera. If you have a helper, or not, you can use a vacuum cleaner with the crevice tool......BUT make sure you rotate the suction control collar on the hose so the suction is weak enough to suck the debris but not cause any risk to the camera! Working alone, you can lay that hose and/or tape it into place on your work table, and place the camera near it....preferably on some thick cloth or folded white towel, or corkboard or some rubber.......this will help you hold the camera in position as well as avoid it slipping and any body scratches. Do a gentle test first to see if the vacuum sucks the first bit of debris away from your work, and then you'll know how much suction you will need, how close etc. Once the old adhesive has been cleaned away, use a wooden toothpick or a plastic disposable one or something similar, and carefully wipe some of the new adhesive around the lip ledge for the cover plate in the camera. Using a piece of either Bluetac or some wide rolled packing tape, attach this to the cover plate so you can more easily maneuver it into position. Hold it firmly into position with one hand and remove the Bluetac or tape from it.....continue holding it for at least 30 seconds to a minute [or per any instructions for the adhesive]. Allow to cure fully, usually overnight I would recommend. Then you're ready to go. I need to add here.....if the cover plate has come loose.....and it will......all the original adhesive has dried up....and quite frequently the exterior leathered/leatherette cover plates will come off. This tends to happen when it use sometimes and can be very annoying...especially the control side of the camera! So, if you want to avoid this.....using a small screwdriver, gently tug at the edges of the external cover plates, ONLY slightly to see if they are loose anywhere and ready to come off. If so, then I suggest removing them and regluing to the camera body after cleaning things up. On the control side of the camera though.....be EXTRA CAREFUL since the drive motor, electric contact switches etc are on that side and you don't want any debris to fall inside there. If you have time in the future, you might just want to consider removing the cover plates & reattach them with fresh adhesive anyway, so they don't come off on your while in use! Just work carefully and gently, and don't allow the new adhesive to slop into the interior of the camera. Any slight excess on top can be removed with a clean soft cloth moistened with Isopropyl Alcohol and using your fingernail. You could also wipe a small swath of Petroleum Jelly using a Q-Tip around the trim areas you don't want any adhesive to stick to......so after the adhesive has cured overnight, it's super easy to just clean things up as the jelly will prevent any adhesive from sticking the camera body parts. Hope this helps.

ASA stands for the former American Standards Association...replaced by ANSI, American National Standards Institute, but film ratings now use ISO - International Standards Organization, which also replaces the former DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (German Institute for Standardization; similar to US ANSI), as well as the Russian GOST, and several others now discontinued [Weston, Scheiner etc] Now on new film, you'll usually only see ISO 100/21 with the later being similar to DIN, a logarithmic rating, but worldwide ISO is used and understood for film exposure ratings.

The video is available here: https://www.imdb.com/video/vi332923417 The 10mm lens is quite sharp and for a prime, at that focal length, will deliver better results than the zoom at the 10mm setting. If you have any interest in shooting with an Anamorphic lens, the 10mm would be a good candidate for some A-lenses. Or just to have a lighter weight option on the BEAULIEU Super 8mm [sorry, Pro8 is NOT the name of the camera]. The lighter weight and smaller footprint can be very useful in many situations. And due to the lens' inherent sharpness and higher contrast, even if you fit a wide angle attachment lens to it to bring it wider, say down to 4mm etc, it still would be sharper than the Angenieux zoom. Just my thoughts, having used all these lenses before.

Hi, I process a variety of current and mostly outdated Super 8mm movie films here. From my own use and what I get in from customers, the image quality varies, dependent on the age of the film, and how it was stored. I get film in that is over 30 years old but has been stored frozen since new and it still looks great. I have also seen film only refrigerator stored since new and while not as good as film stored frozen, it's still quite usable. New Super 8mm Sound film will most likely not be made. I have considered it and have experimented with B&W and Color Reversal film, only applying the Main Track to the film [original KODAK etc sound films had 2 tracks, Main Track and Balance Track]. Some others have also done similar experiments over the years, as well as someone in Spain. It would just be way too costly on a tiny scale, with each cartridge costing close to $100. The materials, filmstock, adhesive and special magnetic stripe eats up most of the cost, leaving very little left for all the very time consuming labor involved. There is still a glut of unused Super 8mm Sound film (and silent) out there, and lots of it shows up on eBay. Sadly, the majority of it has not been cold stored and results will vary from fair to very poor to nothing at all! Even so, old sound film can be useful to test the film transport and audio recording functions of a sound camera. The film can then be removed and run through a sound projector or sound editor to hear the results. Sometimes, you will find a vendor on eBay that has film that has been cold stored. I have seen a seller on there from Rochester, NY with lots of films, but they have only been refrigerator stored, selling at $15 each plus shipping. I haven't had the time to buy any to test out, but that might be worth a gamble on just one cartridge to see how it fairs. Keep in mind, processing can be quite expensive unless you plan to do it yourself or send it to me (since I'm a lot cheaper than the few other places that process old films, having seen prices as high as over $100 per 50ft cartridge. I'm not promoting anything here, just want you to be forewarned as the processing costs will be higher than using fresh new film). Lastly, as Tyler pointed out, there is the issue of the cameras. Many Super 8mm Sound Cameras may not function any longer, most of it is due to the capstan belt having broken from age. While this can be repaired, it can also be quite costly due to the degree of disassembly required with some Super 8mm cameras. Of all the sound cameras I own, NIZO belts being made of good rubber seem to be holding....although....sadly, models higher than the 20XX versions have other issues related to failed Cmos chips which controls most everything in these cameras. My SANKYO XL-620 cameras still seem to work fine so far. Sadly, the well made CHINON cameras, either under their own name, or rebranded GAF, PORST, REVUE, SEARS etc have suffered from belt failure. The earlier built like a tank ones though, look like they could be rebelted somewhat easier....I haven't gotten around to it yet but plan to. I have a MINOLTA that still works. Anyhow, you need to make sure you have a functioning camera. You can check to see if the capstan is still functioning by opening the film chamber and depressing the trigger, then push the small button to the side or below where the recording head is....this is to activate the sound system, otherwise a silent film cartridge didn't require it to run of course. When depressed, you'll see the capstan shaft rotate, and the camera will make other running sound adjustments dependent and relative to the system used [Hall Effect in the BEAULIEUs, Quartz timing in others, and just a speed change from 20fps to 18fps on many of the CHINON made designs that only used a single speed]. Just don't consider any of the KODAK made sound cameras....if they even run at all, they won't even make it through one roll of film. They all used a neoprene drive gear on the motor shaft that turns to crumbs with age, let alone the quality of the capstan belt. Most things can be repaired of course, if parts were available and cost were not an issue. Just find a working camera, or check your own camera first. Use a scrap cartridge to test the sound recording functions, and using a bottle opener on the non label side of the cartridge, gently work around the lip of the cartridge...the seam will break easily allowing you to open it up, remove the film, and still save the cartridge for reloading again for future tests if desired [you'd have to use a bulk sound eraser or large magnet over the scrap film before reloading it to use it again].

The difference between a hand held Exposure Meter and the Super 8mm camera's built in meter is significant. Some cameras, usually lower end models or those intended for very low light filming use an exterior meter window on the camera and are not TTL (thru the lens metering). The early KODAK XL cameras had a great design, 230 degree shutter opening, non reflex and external meter window to avoid robbing any light going to the film. So they are still unbeat in low light filming [of course, 99.9% of these are no longer running due to the neoprene drive gear on the motor shaft having crumbled to dust, but that's another story]. Most Super 8mm camera's instruction manuals will point out this exposure variation when filming in Manual Exposure Mode. Depending on the size of the zoom lens etc, and beam splitter system used, the exposure variation is any where from 1-Stop to 2-Stops. Even so, it's best to conduct a test to synch your hand held exposure meter to using with whatever Super 8mm camera you have. Do NOT be fooled by the aperture display in the viewfinder. This is the F-Stop, which is determined by the lens opening size and affects exposure and depth of field, BUT....it is NOT the same in determining exposure due to the light loss from the built in light meter which has some light deflected to it, as well as the beam splitter deflecting light to the viewfinder. Some later Super 8mm cameras used a wedged cut type prism so that there would be less light loss or none at all, and some others used a tiny optic fiber cable or tiny prism just to bring light to the viewfinder, again, not any light loss. This was mostly common in later XL cameras, and it depends on the model. I know my SANKYO XL620 Supertronic camera, despite some of its oddities, can film in very low light due to hardly any light loss, and is accurate to a hand held light meter within 1/3 stop or less from my own tests. This is one reason I chose this camera for Anamorphic filming since there is some additional light loss caused by the huge A-lens....totaled...since much less than most Super 8mm conventional prism design cameras. The caveat here is that with some cameras such as the BEAULIEU interchangeable lens cameras, exposure can be measure accurately with a hand held light meter without any extra adjustment, except for favoring some over or under exposure by the filmmaker. They use a mirror guilotine shutter design deflecting 100% of the incoming light from the lens to the viewfinder and the film. Some Super 8mm cameras rob more light and others less, and to do a full review would be exhaustive. It is best to just conduct your own test, factoring in any information the instruction manual provides, and try some brackets shots, slating them so you will know what setting you are using and/or what deviation from your hand held light meter. As always, don't waste an entire cartridge of Super 8mm film on such tests....each shot can be very short, only a couple seconds or so is needed per exposure bracket. Then use the rest of the film for whatever you would like. I of course, have the luxury of shooting a few feet or less for such tests, removing the exposed film to process, and reload the film cartridge for continued use later. I realize this is beyond the scope of most here....so just be careful and do write detailed notes for yourself to avoid exposure mistakes and wasted film later. Super 8mm use has gotten so incredibly expensive in recent times, sad, but I'm glad new film stock is still available. To minimize costs, I am as careful as I can be, and also process my own films as I have done since I was a young teenager long ago at 14. I would've added my comments sooner, but others quite knowledgeable have shared their information, which is terrific. There was a recent posting and seeing the new activity, I thought I would add some information of my own. I hope it helps.

Since you asked here though, I will answer. I have pushed and pulled both new and old films. I have pushed my own Super 8mm EKTACHROME 160A films up to 3 stops, and yes, there was a huge increase in film grain, and some contrast increase, and possibly some color shifting, but shooting at low available light levels, color was odd anyhow. Remember, you can't really increase the film's sensitivity, so what actually happens is that this is compensated processing to get the film's density up near normal. Those areas within a scene that fall well below the film's sensitivity rating, and thus are below the Characteristic Curve's Toe range, won't have any density anyhow. You can only build density on those areas that actually affect the film's silver halides. This can be done a variety of ways, but for 1 to 2 stops, usually just adding time to the Developer will suffice. For going higher, and/or for very poorly illuminated scenes, film can be stagnation processed to allow shadow areas to build more density yet keep the highlights from blowing out. This works best in B&W film, but can be done with color. As you mentioned, yes, working with Negative film, either Color or B&W allows some extra leeway for both exposure and processing, compared to Reversal Films. However, Reversal films can be pulled and pushed processed as well. Rating a color reversal film at a Stop lower and processing it that way, for film shot in bright light and a very contrasty scene, will lower the effect contrast in that scene. So there's all kinds of options. As mentioned above, the film processing portion of this forum might yield more helpful insight and information.

I thought I'd add something else. I recommend doing just a short test using the lens cap method. If you don't have either a Craven Film Rewinder or the EWA Film Rewinder, no problem. Use this method: First film anything for at least the first 5 feet of the cartridge. This is to avoid a jam or pulling the film off the take up core when pushing it back into the supply side. Tape over the cartridge take up core, this will prevent it rotating and taking up the film slack. Set your lens cap half over the First Side, shoot your scene of not more than 100 - 300 frames. Remove the cartridge in a film changing bag or darkroom, gently lift the film upward in the cartridge gate to get a small loop, depress the cartridge pressure plate inward and hold it there with a finger, the using your other hand push the film upward into the cartridge, and keep pushing it until all the film slack is gone.....then you will have pushed/reversed all the film you just exposed, back to the beginning of the shoot. Remove the tape over the film core, replace film cartridge into the camera. Now move the lens cap half to the Second Side, and film the other sequence, above or below water as you desire. The purpose of this experiment is to see if you like the results, without having to waste an entire cartridge of film just on this experiment. Use the remaining film to make titles, film other things or do some other type of experiment. Just remember, film the first 5 feet of anything, BEFORE you conduct this test to make it easier to not pull the film off the take-up core or jam the cartridge when doing this Double Exposure Split Screen test. If you like the results, move on to the next stage of whatever you will need to fully rewind the film cartridge.

Already there have been many useful and articulate replies to help you sort this issue out. I just want to add some information. Covering the cartridge, as mentioned, isn't possible....since the claw needs to advance the film on the one side.....and tape would be problematic, so this is not an option at all. To mask the tiny Super 8mm gate, while possible (if you were to use the very thin aluminum metal tape) just isn't practical and even with the greatest care, you might still have some split registration issues. The tape is thin enough, and if wiped with Silicone and the gate as well, the film will glide over it fine. Depending on your camera though, it needs to be side loader in order to have such access to the gate. I don't recommend it, even though I've done it before many years ago. Trying to carefully tape one side and then the other and having to fiddle with tweezers etc is tricky. If you're not careful, you'll scratch the film gate. It can be done though, just add the other side of the tape first, prior to removing the first segment, that way you'll have as clean a registration as possible. But, it's very tiny, still easy to have a small gap or overlap. You didn't exactly state how accurate a split screen effect you would like. Since you state you'd like to film underwater, I think that you're only real options are either a mask or half lens cap over the lens (easier method and these are available or make your own mask.....mark carefully the top and bottom of the lens filter ring to replace it on the other side accurately for the 2nd exposure). For what you seem to want to do, this is your easiest and safest option for underwater. The metal tape masking of the gate can also be done IF you are very careful and have side access to the film chamber, such as with a EUMIG Nautica. The other split screen methods using a Matt Box or Compendium etc are fine, but not practical for underwater filming. The biggest hurdle here with Super 8mm will be to Remove the film from the cartridge, Rewind it properly, and Reload it into the cartridge and seal it back up. Unless you have one of the Russian Kaccema reloadable cartridges or those reloadable ones that ADOX sold film in, you'll have to carefull open up a Super 8mm cartridge (have a reusable spare available that is all prepped for reloading), and remove the film, rewind it in a jig setup so the Supply Load will fit easily and rotate on the stationary Supply Side Hub in the Super 8mm cartridge, load the film, attach it to the take-up core, close the shell over the chassis and seal it up with high quality thin black electrical tape. UNLESS you are able to reload a Super 8mm cartridge or have it done, you won't be able to fully create a split screen effect, except in short segments of not more than 100 to 300 frames backwound.....using a backwind device such as the CRAVEN Film Backwinder or the EWA Film Backwinder. Another option would be to use the FUJI P-2 Single-8 camera with the Marine Case. The Single-8 cartridges are easier to reload, and/or buy one with the filmstock you need from RETRO-8 etc, mask off the lens, shoot your film, remove the Single-8 cartridge, and then rewind the film in a darkroom or film changing bag, by hand, similar to rewinding an audio cassette tape with a pencil or small spoon handle or small butter knife to rotate the core. Then reload it into the camera and go film the 2nd exposure....after moving the mask to the other half. Hope this helps shed some more light on what you'd like to achieve.

These were well made cameras. Sound striped film was available for quite a few years for these cameras, offered by both ESO-S Pictures and Superior Bulk Film Company [which sold KODACHROME-II, Anscochrome, DuPont and 2 of their own brand, as well as offered raw stock sound pre-striping at $4.00 per 100ft with $10 minimum...so that's 2 sound stripe tracks on the 16mm width Double 8mm 50ft spool film]. These days aside from getting film custom sound striped on raw film stock, the camera issues are the rechargeable battery, and hoping the recording electronics still work. All this can be sorted out of course if desired. That huge 56 frame picture to sound separation is based on the 16mm film format counterpart's ANSI specs. Had Super 8mm not come onto the scene, I suppose Double 8mm [aka Regular 8mm] could have continued to evolve with other options, such as sound recording at 16fps or 18fps, and a smaller picture to sound separation such as the 18 frame gap in Super 8mm magnetic sound. The Fairchild 8mm sound projector was well made, but the odd drive belt is difficult to replace and is toothed to maintain internal component synchronization. I couldn't find a replacement for years, so ended up substituting a gear drive instead which worked fine. I had thought of changing the camera to run at 16fps so the film would last longer. KODAK's Sound 8 projector allowed audio recording/playback at both 16fps and 24fps, and 16fps sounded fine to me at the time. Regarding old magnetic sound stripe on these 8mm films and others, a lot of the flaking issues are due to the fact that most films never got proper cleaning and lubrication ever.......film lubricant would minimize the abrasive wear not only on the film but on the mag tracks. It is interesting how some films hold up well for many decades (I have 2 rolls of ancient Kodachrome film from the first offerings that still look great) and other films break down with dye fade and worse with vinegar syndrome. Besides storage and film treatment, other issues contributing to this age deterioration have to do with original manufacturing and of course film processing quality. So many films processed throughout the years did not have sufficient washes to remove residual chemistry from the film emulsion. I know KODAK did their processing right.....as KODACHROME films I had processed by other labs doing K-12 and K-14 processing, have had all kinds of processing related artifacts show up over the years. Well, processing of film and photo paper for that matter, is subject for another topic. I just thought I should add some input regarding these venerable old cine cameras.

Yes, thank you. I should've mentioned the ADOX cartridges, but haven't seen one in my hand yet. Since Fabrice is in France, he might have easier access to obtaining one of these. Sie sind doch 100% korrekt Herr Doktor, Friedemann Wachsmuth hat sich einen ausgezeichnet Video hergestellt. Sein Deutsch ist ein bischen schnell gesprochen, aber Ich kann es folgen. Der Video ist aber trotzdem benutzbar auch wenn mann nicht Deutsch verstehen kann. [The video is quite useful even for non german speakers, since it displays all necessary to reload those ADOX cartridges. And some of his methodology is similar to what is required to reload the used KODAK cartridges].

Those reloadable cartridge prices are outrageous! Just get some old cartridges and practice with the ones you are able to open successfully. Use a single edged razor blade, carefully, and score all around the seams of the cartridge, paying special attention to the small plastic weld spots that they are cut/broken through [on the label side is important since that is the film supply side]. You will have to be quite firm with the razor blade or X-acto knife, or box cutter blade, when scoring the core film takeup side of the cartridge. It is best to go over these areas and score it fully to know that it will come apart. Then using a couple of small knives and/or flathead screwdrivers, work one under the top label side of the cartridge....then insert another next to it and while keeping one in place, begin to slide the other one all along the seam of the cartridge and it will break the seal. Once you have broken the seal along both the supply top side of the cartridge and the bottom core takeup side of the cartridge......you can begin to work on separating the outer shell from the inner chassis. Once apart, pay attention to where the film pressure plate and spring are located (they easily slide out of their slot), as well as the film supply side plastic slip sheet, and the film supply slip ring (some don't use the slip ring in later cartridges). Examine critically all along the seam lines for burrs and roughness. Cut off any burrs with a razor blade/X-acto knive etc, and use some fine sandpaper to smooth other areas if necessary. Prior to reloading you will want to double check that the cartridge is clean. To reload a film into the cartridge, you will need to make a film loading jig.....use a 50ft projection reel, Super 8mm or Regular 8mm. You will need to remove one side of the reel, leaving only the core and the other side wall. Wrap some cut to fit vinyl electrical tape around the center reel core so the core is a bit larger in diameter from the stationary film supply hub in the cartridge. Practice with scrap film, ideally, the scrap film that was in the cartridge. It is important to keep the film perforations in the correct position. I use a tiny piece of tape to secure the film to the prepared 50ft film reel. [NOTE: If reloading a film that has already been exposed for double exposure purposes etc, you will need to first rewind the film onto a normal 50ft reel (in the dark of course!). Then tape the end of it to your prepared 50ft reel, and rewind the film onto it.....using a finger to maintain film tension against the single wall side so the film winds up evenly. Once completed, you will remove this tightly wound film from the film reel and remove the small piece of tape in the empty center area. Then place the wound film onto the stationary hub in the cartridge, so that it unwinds from the front portion of the cartridge to make the turn and thus have the emulsion in the outward position as it travels over the pressure plate. [Note the film is always wound emulsion side in when on the supply side]. Carefully holding the cartridge [use small pieces of thin cardboard or plastic and rubberbands or tape if needed to keep the film from getting away from you on the open chassis], load the film so there's a few inches of slack to the take up core side. To attach it to the takeup core, you can use some film tape or good vinyl electrical tape [you will need to wipe the core surface with some isopropyl alcohol{91% or higher} to clean it of film lubricant, so that the tape will stick]. Wind the film onto the core at least two revolutions. Prior to all this, make sure the film ratchet is okay...if it's bend a little you can easily straighten and adjust it using good tweezers or needle-nose pliers. When ready to assemble the cartridge, you will need to remove the rubber-bands or tape from your thin cardboard pieces (if you used them to hold the film on the chassis), otherwise, carefully keep the film in place, and supply side facing upward, as you slide the outer shell over the chassis, working around carefully to make sure it's tightly together. When done, wrap some rubberbands around it to keep it tightly together. Using dim light, or a night vision camera or googles ideally.....use some black electrical tape of high quality, and tape all the seams snuggly making sure the tape is tight against the outer shell. This will seal the cartridge, so it can be opened and reused over and over many times. If you reloaded an original Super 8mm film, the film has already been factory lubricated, however if working from bulk film, it should be wiped with a film lubricant, or cloth with plastic safe Silicone, in the dark or course.....so that the film is lubed for smooth transport through the cartridge. Some people don't bother to lube the film, but if not, make sure to wipe the stationary surfaces in the chassis areas with a cloth moistened with plastic safe Silicone, as well as the pressure plate. This all may appear to be very difficult, but once you have practiced this in the light with scrap film, it will become easier each time. The hardest part is opening a cartridge that you wish to rewind the film with, and do it so to be able to reuse it. This doesn't always happen, even with the best of care, since sometimes the outer shell will crack in a bad spot or part of a chassis wall will break from force. About half of the cartridges to maybe 75% will survive for successful reloading, sometimes even more. It's tricky. I keep plenty of good used cartridges on hand for reloading, should the original one not survive. Other things to pay attention to are the notch codes for similar film (or cut your own if using slower speed shells in which you will be loading a higher film speed into, or you may have to glue in a piece of plastic to shorten the notch etc). Lastly, be VERY careful with Single Edge Razor blades or other such cutting tools! I wear leather gloves when doing this to protect my hands if I should slip. When I need to open a cartridge to rewind the film, I will score the cartridge in the room light, and then crack it open carefully in the darkroom working around the seams. So, don't buy those expensive empty cartridges unless you feel wealthy! I can buy good working cameras off eBay for those prices! I hope this helps you.

Usually the black edge, or rather, the surrounding region other than the image frame....would be indicative of a Reversal Film, either original or print. Clear surround usually is a Negative, but if a Positive it would usually be a print, contact print if the emulsion position is inward....or optical print if emulsion position is outward.

You can use most M42 Praktica/Pentax type screw mount 35mm SLR lenses on the K-3. The exceptions would be a few ultra wide angle lenses that are of older design and intrude into the lens chamber risking hitting the rotating mirror-shutter......and some very old designs with have deep flanges.....from the days long before automatic apertures....just the old preset lenses. Just keep in mind that the effective focal length is longer. A 24mm ultra wide angle lens from a 35mm SLR on a 16mm motion picture camera would only yield a 'normal' focal length. So you can also make use of various extension tubes and bellows attachments, as well as slide duplicators etc, and cross make lens adapters that will work, as long as they provide infinity focus. Many newer such adapters coming out of China have a negative correction lens in them to provide infinity focus. However, using most of the M42 lenses is not a problem: all the ones I have used work fine. Good luck!

Sorry, no......the film is either in focus or it's not. Low contrast, incorrect processing causing severe color cross-over, can make an image seem softer...but upon critical examination...if it's in focus....it's in focus. Despite what you said about that lens....I would just double check everything. A critical focus examination of the camera's optical system would be helpful. If you can mount the camera on a tripod, bring it close to some newsprint taped to a wall, and focus.......if you open the back of the camera, keep the shutter open, and use a small piece of frosted glass or ground glass with the etched/ground side against the film plane.....you can then examine it with a strong loupe and compare the focus against that of the viewfinder. If nothing else is available, you can also use some Wax Paper or even white typing paper....cut to fit the film plane and help taunt with tape on the sides. Use a strong desk lamp aimed at the newsprint to help get a bright crisp image to focus on and check focus. If all is well, you will know it's not the lens. Although....some lenses can fail in focus due to something going off inside. I have a clean 24mm lens that just is totally off focus out of center.....optics are fine...but some internal adjustment went off on a name brand lens before I got it. Another issue.....if you wear eyeglasses.......and/or favor one eye for focusing.....compare the focus setting with both eyes.....if one seems better.....it could be an RX change needed for eyesight. Those small focusing magnifiers also work great...a bit of a bother...but great for focus checking.

It looks a lot like remjet particles sticking to the film after it was dried. You could examine those sections of the film with a strong loupe, and then try removing it with some 90% or greater Isopropyl alcohol. If it comes off, and the image area under still shows normal density and develoment...then that is the problem. If on the other hand, that part of the film is blank/clear....then something stuck to the emulsion and also prevented effective development of that part of the film.

The BOLEX is a wonderful camera in any of its incarnations. Ultra 16 seems very practical, but there are downsides to it....namely lack of sufficient laboratory support, and along the one side are the edge code numbers for editing. Personally, I would leave the camera as is, and consider shooting anamorphically. There are now 1.33x anamorphic lenses what will give you that aspect ratio usable in the 16:9 to 1.85:1 ratios........or you could use any of the more standard 1.5x, 1.75x and 2x anamorphic lenses. There are plenty of 2x affordable lenses on eBay these days coming out of Russia and the Ukraine. I have been using the KOWA 16-H [8-Z outside of north America] since 1981 and once you get used to filming in Widescreen using anamorphic lenses, it becomes second nature. The cost of a true professional camera modification to your BOLEX would be more than you could pick up a good used anamorphic lens and adapter or bracket to use on your camera. Once you modify the camera, and if you're unhappy with it....it will be costly to return it to factory condition again. Even Super-16 requires modification of the Turret plate to re-center the lenses on the new film frame size. Although this isn't needed for Ultra-16, there is the issue of grinding down and mirror polishing the film sprockets, although those doing this DIY usually just leave them alone. If you really want to try this format, I suggest just getting an older cheap BOLEX or other camera to experiment with. All the other issues regarding film transfer, possible scratching from the film pull down pawl etc have already been mentioned. In Anamorphic filming, you utilize the entire film frame, yet still obtain a Widescreen image. In film transfer, the image can be digitally stretched back to whatever format you filmed it in. Or via using an anamorphic lens in a DIY film transfer setup to render the image in Widescreen digitally. The original main anamorphic lenses as well as the new 1.33x lenses will yield the following effective aspect ratios: 1.5x lens........2:1 aspect ratio 1.75x lens......2.25:1 aspect ratio 2x lens..........2.66:1 aspect ratio (aka full CinemaScope) 1.33x lens......1.85:1 aspect ratio (useable for both 16:9 and 1:85, thus fine for 2k......for 4k equivalent etc....I would consider another lens unless you don't mind either cropping the image or letter boxing the film) Lastly, if you desire to have a projection print, the advantage with anamorphic lens use is that you still can print in an optical sound track....or add a magnetic one if that is doable. Hope this puts some other useful ideas in mind for you. Good luck!