Martin Baumgarten

If excess Halation is such a possible issue with the new forthcoming VISION film, I don't understand why KODAK just doesn't use a disolvable anti-halation dye as in their former VNF Ektachrome films. The dye dissolves in the Color Developer. Seems like such an easier fix, unless there's environmental issues with that dye they used.

It's important that all electrical contacts have clean untarnished surfaces: thus switches, relays, dial potentiometers, etc. The motors rarely fail in these cameras....you'd have to have run tons of film, way beyond 100 cartridges or more. Figure even at 100 cartridges, the motor for film transport runs for about 333 minutes if filming at 18 frames per second. Less time if using 24 fps, but of course it runs a bit faster. The motors are sealed pretty good, but depending where the camera was stored idle for a very long time [years] mild corrosion could've built up on the internal commutator and brushes. This would require removing the drive motor, opening it up and cleaning after checking it out first. However, I would first eliminate all electrical connections that bring power to the motor......and the two weak areas are the trigger switch contacts and the Frames Per Second Rate Switch. Thus the contact wiper on the resistor surface must be clean and free of tarnish as well as the surface. Some may use a Dialectic Grease for lubrication and tarnish prevention as well. Another easy way to know how the motor works, would be to run it freely by power it separately......so disconnect power to the motor from the camera, and power the motor directly from an equal power supply. If she runs fine, you'll know for sure the problem lies in the camera body somewhere. Of course....a motor running freely isn't the same as under load, but close enough to know that's not the problem. You can create some drag on the motor shaft with two fingers while running it to see how powerful it is. Good luck, be careful in all your work!

Well folks, to be fair, despite what anyone thinks or knows.....he's offered excellent equipment for sale, and is probably open to offers from seriously interested persons. I wouldn't pay that much, but then it's way out of my price range. BOLEX cameras are being made SLOWLY in LOW quantities from remaining parts left over at the factory where only two guys now work. Like anything else.....a items are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. Lastly, everyone here has offered a heartfelt response and regardless how taken, is still interesting to read and ponder. I'd personally prefer the standard aspect ratio and shoot anamorphically, so there's room for either a magnetic or optical sound track. So my older BOLEX H-16 is fine for that.

Sadly, years ago when there were many labs processing KODACHROME film, the quality was all over the place. I've also experienced deterioration of KODACHROME film processing from the 1970s done by Drewry Photochrome Corporation in California. From my own analysis the problems stem from poor washing, certainly in final wash, and lack of Stabilization. This has caused severe brown casting and also large brown spots. The overall look at first is one of the film being darker, but it's due to these awful processing stains most likely from unwashed chemistry later in the process. The damage is done, and not much can be done to repair this. To a limited extent, the film can be digitized and adjustments done. Perhaps with the newer A.I. software out there, such as from TOPAZ or similar, it can be repaired to a greater extent than it is now. For the actual film, even rewashing and stabilization hasn't been able to fix this since these are severe chemistry stains that bloomed out in the film emulsion and crystalized deeply. Good luck though. I want to add that ALL of my KODAK processed KODACHROME films still look great. I even have a uncle's old films from the late 1930s and they still look fine, except for emulsion cracks from poor storage prior to my getting them. You get what you pay for....and for saving a lousy couple dollars per roll, going to a cheaper lab, a lifetime of images ruined resulted.

Sorry, just saw this question today, 14 December. No, I've stopped processing customer films this past Summer, and am working on completing all customer jobs soon. I will take a sabbatical for awhile and try to get my own work done, as well as various laboratory upgrades [machine processing, HD/2k/4k film transfer setups, and lots of other stuff I just never seem to have time to get to]. It's been 50 years now, I should've stopped 2 years ago, but wanted to reach 50 years. In the meantime, anyone needing old films processed, there's FILM RESCUE, and of course, for 8mm, Super 8mm and 16mm Ektachrome 100D there are various labs, with Dwayne's Photo being the lowest cost. We're fortunate today to still have a few good labs out there supporting Super 8mm film making.

I just saw this age old posting regarding the SuperMag 400, which was designed and built in Arizona. A lot of work had gone into it and it was sadly plagued by film transport problems. It relies on the film claw to move the film through, and that is just too difficult. I own one, and had hoped to one day modify it so it has a center sprocket internally similar to the Beaulieu-Ritter Super Drive 60m/200ft magazine [which is a reworked Beaulieu R16 magazine for Super 8mm]. Had they adopted a similar sprocket drive driven off the film core advance cog in the camera as was done for the Beaulieu, then it would've worked. No matter how careful I was, all my tests showed unsteadiness. The initial advantage was that it was made to run in any Super 8mm camera that was built to accommodate the original KODAK 200ft Cartridge [but the KODAK 200ft cartridge has an internal plastic double sprocket and an internal spring motor that winds itself while running the film and sits in the middle of the double coaxial Supply/Take-up Reels. That's how KODAK was able to avoid a mechanical linkage to the camera other than using the core cog drive and the film claw]. Even the Beaulieu-Ritter Super Drive Magazine was only made in small limited production numbers and had/has limited support for those few still using it today in 2024.

Despite how nice this is of Jenny to offer to the community, and I thank her for it.....I have decided to keep locating used or unused FUJI Single-8 cartridges for reloading. Most I have bought off eBay, and there are Japanese sellers that are selling 'new' film expired decades ago for crazy high prices [not all that dissimilar from folks here in the USA not knowing anything about film expiration problems selling various Super 8mm film types for crazy prices]. Early FUJI cartridges open easily as they were only sealed with two pieces of tape. Later ones are sealed, but can be opened to varying degrees of success via a couple different methods: gently but firmly twisting the shell to try and break the seals, and also via scoring all around the seals with a single edged razor blade or Exacto Knife or similar to weaken them prior to prying the main cover off the chassis with a butter knife, pocket knife, gentle twisting method etc. The originals were offered in varying ASA/ISOs: 25 Daylight, 50 Daylight, 50 Tungsten, 100 Daylight, 200 Tungsten, some in Black & White Reversal Neopan, and in Color Reversal for Daylight (ISO 25) and Tungsten/Artificial (ISO 50 and 200) but with #85 Daylight Filter for Daylight Color usage. As mentioned, the cartridges indexed most Single-8 cameras with the curved notch on the bottom of the chassis of the cartridges, and for a couple others using these nibs near the film gate. Anyhow, despite some limitations in reloading ease and the lower amount of cellulose triacetate film that will fit into the Single-8 cartridges, it's doable! On another historical note, KODAK had originally planned/experimented with putting 100ft of Polyester [Estar] based film stock into their Super 8mm cartridges. The only ones sold this way were the "Surveillance" films made in both Black & White and Color Negative, with later Color Negative ones reduced to 50ft acetate film in their long running ASA/ISO 200T film, before the Vision Films were introduced years later.

I'm sorry you're having such problems. Since the "shadow" appears identical in each frame....it is not a processing problem. This is most likely being cause by something in the camera. It could be a beam-splitter prism issue where the prism block is cemented together, the cement is staining/separating/or developed a fungus. This would not be necessarily visible in the viewfinder since the split wedge of the prism is diverting lens imaging rays to the viewfinder...and the remainder, the bulk, are passing thru the prism to the film plane. However, some later XL type Super 8mm cameras used a tiny prism or fiber optic to pick up the image to the viewfinder. This design doesn't rob light from the film path. I can't remember which design your camera uses, and am unable to locate my CANON 514XLS which uses the same viewfinder setup optically as the silent 514XL. - - - - What you can do, is shine a bright flashlight thru the viewfinder end of the camera and look into the lens and see if the visible light is offset from the center of the lens. This is one clue, another is to shine the light into the lens and examine carefully if you can see an off-set prism or fiber optic. Lastly, or maybe firstly, shine the light thru the camera's film gate while running the camera. Do this on a tripod with the camera setup near a white wall or tape some white sheet paper to the wall. Focus the gate outline image via adjusting the focus and zoom until it's as clear as can be and examine that for that odd effect you were getting. Whatever is causing it...should be visible this way. You might have to adjust the flashlight so it's not as bright [many small modern ones allow you to click them for brightness variety]. Also, while shining the light thru the film plane gate.....look into the viewfinder to see if the light doubles back into the viewfinder....if it does....the design uses a beam-splitter. If not....try the light from front and compare. IF the problem is not a beam-spitter, it could also be a small piece of film fragment stuck somewhere and causing a glint of light to create this image on the film......or....if the camera uses a built in UV Filter as part of the optical path, which replaces the #85 Daylight Filter when that's moved out of the way.....it could have an issue. With so many cameras that I've repaired over decades.....I frankly can't recall which setup this camera uses without examining one as outlined above. Either way...DO NOT use this camera since film, developing, and scanning are SO expensive these days! Use another camera. Once you either discover what the problem is....either way, you'll probably want to use another camera. Repair costs to fix this issue, is way more than the camera is worth. And...there are zillions of Super 8mm cameras out there! Good luck!

This is a very doable project. I've done this many years ago, but without digital assistance. We just used various devices to photograph the Super 8mm frames onto still camera film, either 120/620 [using the Testrite Instrument Co. CineLarger device which were made for 8mm, 16mm and 35mm....older ones used 620 film and the later models used 120 film] or 35mm [using special slide copying devices also made for movie film frames]. In the 1930 the MOVIEMATIC 16mm movie camera also shot still frames and was advertised as the 3-in-1 camera: shooting home movies, still photos, or Flip Books. The magazines are a simple design as is the camera, with short lengths of 16mm double perf film. You sent the film back in for processing, and depending on which film length [40 frame, 60 frame, or 80 frame length mag] determined which service you received. They would process and put together a small flip book which was actually small printed photos of the movie frames and bound together. This can still be done photographically or via digital and an inkjet printer to make your own. The copy devices will fit various DSLRs to render the still images needed for printing. Flip books from personal home movies were popular decades ago. I often thought of using a motorized 35mm camera to make some as well, but now with digital it's a lot cheaper using "burst mode" on the cameras which even tiny pocket digital and cellphone cameras have.

Hi Kevin, that was just one of the ways the early NIZO low cost models were sold. Thus the printed sheet explaining "Ten tips for shooting your first film". The case is about the cheapest you could get....nothing at all like the NIZO quality aluminum cases BRAUN made available for their camera lines. It's sort of a throw away type case....or with care could be used....but it really just displays the camera as it was sold. This sold closed of course and came in a cardboard printed sleeve with nice graphics on it, the way other NIZO cameras came in either hard styrofoam or foam shells in fancy cardboard sleeves. Nice looking though.

Fallen Angels is newly presented in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, a format that Wong had originally envisioned for the film. This is a WIDE Image Aspect Ratio, not just wide. The 8.6mm lens in 35mm motion picture format, would approximate roughly twice that focal length in 35mm still photography, thus 17.2mm. Keep in mind...Super 8mm is 1.33:1 aspect ratio with the original format. In later years, there has been a gate widening to get it closer to but under the 16:9 TV HD aspect ratio [now that's been super ceded crazily with 2k, 2.7k, 4k etc making TV sets wider and thus now movies being cropped again on top & bottom to show the full aspect ratio. Anyhow....are you looking for a WIDE ANGLE viewpoint on a Super 8mm camera? If that is all, there are many Wide Angle add on lenses of various wide focal length changes that will work [e.g. 0.75x, 0.054x, 0.50x, 0.45x etc]. Many of these will work fine on existing cameras, just using step-up filter thread adapter rings [all that stuff is so cheap these days from China via eBay etc.....and even the lenses being made there....and from my own experience are all decent performers]. So, ULTRA Wide Angle? Or WIDESCREEN [larger than 1.33:1 aspect ratio]? Or a WIDESCREEN ULTRA Wide Angle [doable in Super 8mm via using Anamorphic lens & a Ultra Wide Angle Adapter on that lens......it's a LOT of glass surfaces of course.....but with care in composition/light and using a good lenshade, can be sharp and vibrant despite all the glass] This will not be cheap though, since if you want zoom on your camera for various focal lengths.....you will have a hefty rig setup. Anamorphic lenses have risen in their prices on the 2nd hand market due to various interest in special effects, not necessarily WIDESCREEN. There are very small Anamorphic lenses made to fit Cellphones, and they might/would work with some fixed lens Super 8mm cameras that only have their prime lens, not a zoom. It's all bit complex of course...but anyhow....an Ultra Wide Angle Lens can be added over that to get an Anamorphic Wide Aspect Ratio in Wide Angle. The ones I've seen are 1.25x 1.55x, some less that those. The 1.55x is extremely close to the WIDESCREEN 1.5x lenses such as the Iscorama and others, which would get you to a 2:1 aspect ratio in Super 8mm.......not the same as "Fallen Angels", but widescreen and wide angle. Using anamorphic lenses requires some technique adjustment since a tall and skinny image is presented in the viewfinder on an SLR type camera [unless you get a tiny A-lens and turn it sideways in front of the viewfinder to see the full aspect ratio, which means more cost and playing around of course]. You'll also need Anamorphic Lens holders, adapters etc to fit what you buy to your camera. - - - - - - - - - - - Since all this could be quite expensive.......it's not in the realm of your budget expenses. So....Ultra Wide Angle alone would be since you can get a good lens and filter ring adapters all under $100 from eBay vendors. IF you get a very wide angle lens.....you could just mask the image and compose inside the masking. There will be some grain increase since you're cropping the Super 8mm frame to achieve a WIDESCREEN format aspect ratio...but it has been done many times by enthusiasts over the years. Usually they didn't crop more than for a 2:1 aspect ratio...but with the modern Color Negative Vision films from KODAK, the grain is fine, and of course.....you are working with a small gauge film here. Want to really save? Just use a cellphone, with a cellphone frame which allows ease of tripod, monopod, selfie stick etc support and get one of those multi-lens kits available from various eBay vendors from China. Yeah....it's NOT film.....but.....IF you project is all ending up on Digital anyway......and money is tight....heck, you can do all kinds of things...and then play in post production software to get what you want. Film WILL BE Expensive.....there's not a way around that, so think this all over carefully of course. Best of luck.

While this is exciting news.....I'm dismayed that KODAK didn't offer a press release and extensive advertising. Also, after reading the Instruction Manual PDF.....sadly....and I don't know WHY.....but this new Super 8mm camera from KODAK will not record sound on the SD card at the "default" speed of 18fps. Perhaps they can change this in their software?!

Hi, I own a couple of Keystone Double 8mm cameras and the one you have is one of them. They all only run for about 20 to 30 seconds and the owner's manual also states this. This is quite common for the majority of USA built Double 8mm movie cameras from that era, same for my Revere cameras, and even the Bolex cameras of the 50s only have a similar run time.

Hi, if the images projected are not centered...then they are not centered on the film. The tolerances for projectors is such that there is a small amount of cropping of the frame in the projector gate.....but it's even all around the film. If there is any bias, it will be on the sprocket side of the film...but it would not be that severe! You didn't mention which Single-8 camera you are using. The simpler ones that are not SLR in design will be be very accurate......but you state TTL, so I'm assuming it is an SLR design. I would suspect that the viewfinder alignment is off center. Depending on which model, this can be adjusted/fixed on most cameras. To double check alignment quickly without using film.....shine a bright maglite or similar thru the camera's gate. Set the camera up on a tripod and near a piece of typing/inkjet paper A4 size, so close to it.....place some aluminum foil over the pressure plate in the camera to help reflect your bright maglite or pocket light/torch into the lens.....run the shutter.....and observe the illumination of the frame on the paper.....and compare this with the viewfinder. If they are not in alignment, you will see by how much. Until you are able to repair this, use this offset for composition if you continue to use this camera. I wish you best of success!

The EUMIG Nautica despite its underwater design, is basically the same camera as the EUMIG Mini-3. The lens is the similar short zoom non-focus design. The meter uses an external window in front and is not TTL. The film cartridge will move the Built-in #85 Orange Filter out of the imaging path via the push switch in the film chamber.....if the cartridge does not have the Filter Notch. And TRI-X film does NOT have the Filter Notch....so it doesn't mater if you set the Filter Switch on the side of the camera to Daylight or Tungsten...the cartridge pushes the Filter out of the way. In order to make use of the built-in Filter, you will need to break off a piece of the cartridge front wall to make your own "filter notch". This is easy enough to do with a pair of needle nose pliers, or a very sharp knife.....cut down a slit on either side where the notch should be, then just break off this tab you make. Okay now to your questions: [1]. TRI-X will be rated at ISO/ASA 160.....and the only way to drop that rating down via adding the built-in Filter is to make your own filter notch. So have set the filter switch to Daylight....didn't do anything...the cartridge had pushed the filter out of the way, thus rating the film at ISO 160. [2]. Yes, you are correct, it's 2/3rds of a Stop less light......IF you had a filter notch on the cartridge. But that was not the case so the film was shot without the use of the built-in #85 Filter and was rated at ISO 160. I have always made the Filter Notch on those cartridges that don't have one, IF I ever wanted to be able to make use of the Filter especially with B&W film to take advantage of the orange filter effects...absorb blue, render great sky and cloud details, and water looks great as well. TRI-X is rated at ISO 200 under Daylight and the ISO 160 rating still works fine within the film's exposure latitude, for most shots. [3]. As far as "pull processing" TRI-X goes, yes, it can be down and still looks fine. 1-Stop will not hurt it. I have pushed it up to 3 Stops also. IF the film is over-exposed.....as a Reversal Film, processed as Reversal......you will lose detail. If processed as a Negative, it will still have details, despite having some more density in it.....unless you pull the Negative processing a bit as well....then just normal density and still have all the details. [4]. Regarding "post digital processing", the best quality is achieved similar to Color Negative film, meaning exposing TRI-X for and processing it as B&W Negative. The "Look" is different between Reversal and Negative, so you would have to conduct a test, having a given cartridge film removed and one half processed as Reversal and the other as Negative......and compare the results. I prefer to project my films, but I do hope to digitize everything as a backup. Film backups are too costly compared to digital and in digital there isn't the generational loss that happens each time a film is duplicated another generation. [5]. Your idea to process ONLY one of the film first...is excellent.....this way you will be equipped with the information you need to make an informed decision of how to proceed. I would examine that processed film....and if you do feel the need to make a lab processing adjustment....try it ONLY on one film first....and then examine that one....before proceeding to the others. Reversal film can not be digitally repaired in post compared to an over-exposed Negative Film, since the detail is not in the film. Processed as a Negative, it should be processed in a good continuous tone B&W Developer, and NOT in the Reversal Process without Reversal....as it would be too contrasty. I have used TRI-X in bright sunlight.....always made use of the built-in filter, and used Neutral Density Filters to cut the light down [or Polarizing Filter, similar filter factor to some ND Filters]. I've had the effective ISO down as low as ISO/E.I. 20 on some setups.....always looked great. To use and ND filter on that camera though, you'd have to also place a small equivalent ND plastic/gel filter over the meter window port to compensate for the filter that you add to the lens. Best of luck on your project!

Directly compared to the BEAULIEU alone, the exposure gain is a little over 1-Stop. While the 6mm-66mm Schneider is a great lens, there is also some light loss in that. I think that Super 8mm shooters should have a few cameras in their arsenal for various tasks. Other Super 8mm cameras are not mirror shutter designs, but employ usually a beam splitter prism method, and a few out there use a combination of that and a small mirror. The Super 8mm XL type cameras fall into a couple design types....one using beam splitter but with more generous amount of light going to the film, and others, usually the smaller compact cameras, use an optic fiber in the viewing path, which is placed behind the lens/zoom lens assembly but does NOT rob any light going to the film. Often, the XL cameras will have anywhere from an F/1.4 maximum lens opening, but more common are the F/1.2 and F/1.1, and a few with F/1.0. My SANKYO XL 620 has a moderate zoom lens range, bright viewfinder, 220 Degree Shutter, F/1.2 lens, and diverts very light robbed light to the viewfinder. I have been able to film in very low light conditions with this camera and various other cameras. Film pushing in processing can also help, and a 1-Stop Push won't kill the images......some grain and contrast buildup, but very acceptable. Besides.....most of you Super 8mm folks nowadays are going to Digital Video and doing all your editing that way as well. There are various fixes in software to minimize grain, and other adjustments. I like the grain look personally, and have Pushed film to 2 and 3 Stops for very low light situations. Really, if your project is ending up on a Digital Format anyway.....even the small frame line variation that exists between camera marques won't affect things since it's all adjust in post in software. For those of us that project films, we have to be more careful for some technical variations. I also shoot at 18fps, and that also gives a bit of a boost in lower light exposures over 24fps, something else to consider. After all, it's a certain look and feel of the event you're looking for. Only you can decide what works best for you. While I love the BEAULIEU cameras, and my first one is the same as yours, the 4008 M3, for low light work, I only used it as slow running speeds and on either static subjects or for a certain effect. The same goes for using the NIZO etc.....I got my best results and easier to use filming out of my XL cameras.

Both cameras, as well as the high end BAUERs use a similar method. Your NIZO S-480 is from just before that feature was added to the NIZOs.....it was available on the S-481 etc. NIZO calls it the Automatic-B, and uses an external meter sensor near the name plate on the front of the camera to read ambient light. BAUER has a flip out external meter sensor for their long time exposure system. The problem with doing time exposure in Auto mode is that an change in ambient light not only changes the exposure per frame, but also the running speed. For example.....using the NIZO [or the others] in their Automatic Time Exposure mode, if a car were to come whizzing by...the bright headlights will suddenly cause the camera to speed up.....since that is how the exposure is shortened per frame. While a nice feature for some situations......I always found it more stable exposure wise to calculate the exposure needed via an exposure scale for low light, use a low light external light meter such as a Gossen Luna Pro, Sekonic etc....and then factor in my own figuring based on how I'd like the main subject to appear. All these cameras will yield a maximum exposure of 1 minute per frame, which is pretty long and works for most things. I was able to film a fountain in a mission courtyard under a full moon using KODACHROME 40A many years ago with my first NIZO. Pretty amazing....but that was a static scene....so no weird speeded up motion. I did this at a factory....and the smoke stack smoke moved crazy fast. The EUMIG has manual exposure control, so just don't use the automatic time exposure metering. Somewhere there is a switch to open the shutter vane fully......since the time exposure done manually is via that and the Intervalometer Timer set manually anywhere from 5fps to 1 minute, similar to the NIZO and BAUER. I haven't held one of these EUMIGs in my hands in decades.....so l must refer you to the instruction manual, or perhaps someone else can chime in here with more details. Best of luck!

It would help if we knew which make and model device you are planning to use. Yes, there is some light loss due to the beam-splitter prism in the BOLEX H-8 Rex, and this should also be addressed in the Bolex Instruction Manual, which I HOPE you have and refer to! Careful reading, and making notes for yourself will help avoid various problems. The fractions you cite out of reference make me wonder if they mean a Half Second or 5/10ths second exposure? http://www.vintagecameras.fr/images/MonSite/BOLEX/H8_Reflex/_Doc/Bolex_H8REX_Manual_en.pdf The light loss due to the prism is about 20% according to BOLEX. That is a small amount, so less than 1/3rd of an F-Stop. BOLEX has exposure factors printed to compensate for that loss, as well as for when using the Variable Shutter. But if you don't have those, then just factor in that you will need to exposure an additional 20% more. Also, importantly is the film stock you plan to use. If it's REVERSAL Film, then that slight under-exposure could be helpful. If it's NEGATIVE Film [either Color Negative or B&W Negative or B&W Reversal to be shot & processed as Negative], that small amount is still insignificant in many situations, but you could benefit to expose extra for to compensate. I recommend conducting a very short test of just a couple feet and processing that to see where your results are, and what adjustments to make. You could include a Color Chart/Density Chart in the image scene to help make fine tuning adjustments to your notes for when you tackle your project. Some Intervalometers I have seen for the BOLEX have the exposure determined by the Single Frame setting [I for Instant].....or the actual timing of the unit when the Exposure Setting on the camera is set to T [for Time]. I hope this helps you somewhat in setting up your camera.

The metal bodied 4008, 3008 and 5008 models can be easily modified so that the power zoom still works when the cameras are set to Manual mode, then only affecting the exposure system by shutting that off.

Here at Plattsburgh Photographic Services, I've been processing KODACHROME movie films as Negative, Reversal, Sepia Tone Reversal, and High Contrast Negative since 1981. It picked up more since the stoppage of KODACHROME Color Reversal processing in Dec 2010. I'm just a tiny one man operation, so I don't advertise and am difficult to find on purpose. Since I offer a large variety of laboratory processing services, I'm easily swamped at various times in the year, especially after Labor Day to New Years. There's Film Rescue in Saskatchewan Canada that is larger with several employees and processes all types of old films.

These little black lines happen at times.....usually a hair or something that got into the viewfinder system. With fixed lens cameras, they often enter via the film gate. It's only in the viewfinder and not in the film imaging path, so there's nothing to worry about. It's just an annoyance. I do have to add though.....it DEPENDS on your camera. Some simple models from the 60s and early 70s had a full beam splitter prism which the imaging rays passed thru to the film and the viewfinder. IF yours is like that...then it could show up. Use a small maglite or some similar bright hand torch lamp and shine a light thru the film gate, while the camera is on a tripod and close to a white wall [or tape some white paper to the wall]. Run the camera and you'll see an image outline of the film gate...and then adjust the focus and zoom to different degrees to see if you can see this line/hair on your screen. You can't really adjust focus ahead of time since the hair is not on the film plane but somewhere either on the prism or the viewfinder. If it's NOT showing up in this test, you're good to go. I mention all this, since you did not let us know which camera make and model you are referring to.

Automatic B is just that, it uses the front photo cell on the camera to determine the exposure automatically when coupled with the Time Lapse. The only problem with this like I mentioned, is that IF any stray light hits that cell, it makes the camera run faster, thus a shorter exposure per frame to compensate. You can use the Automatic B setting to determine what the exposure setting should be [unless using a fine external light meter]. Upon testing and running it in Automatic B mode....note the frame rate......count the timing. For example if it seem likes it's 30 seconds between frames.....you can set the Timer Interval to 30 seconds manually for forgo using the Automatic B for actual filming......IF there's any stray light that might show up. IF not, and you're fine......go for it with Automatic B. Keep in mind, that the light meter, as all light meters, is calibrated based on rendering scene exposure to correctly expose and 18% Gray Card. So, if you have dark areas and you want to look more natural, you'll need to adjust your exposure manually to compensate since the Automatic B will want to increase exposure to lighten darker than 18% Gray subjects. Likewise, it works the other way also....of course.....lighter subjects will be rendered darker, like a white wall would look dark gray. But you desire to film in low light so that most likely will not be an issue. Sorry, but I only just noticed your question today, November 2.

I'm not familiar with that type of measuring. But....another way would be to put a small mag light or similar in the film chamber aimed at the film gate, and then using a App if available or digital camera etc, film the light coming thru the lens and count the frames and compare the speed to a digital counter etc. I'm a life long analog guy and am used to using various analog methods. There are other ways like filming a pattern placed on a record player and then examing the process film, but that's a longer process and costlier. With the cost of film and processing at most places these days, I would use some other testing method that didn't eat up film, unless it was some old junk film that I didn't have to pay a lot for.

When J.C. Penny had a camera department is AGES ago! One of the most often rebranded SANKYO Super 8mm cameras from that era would be the SANKYO CM-300 and CM-400 and yours is very likely the CM-400 since it has a 4:1 zoom ratio and cosmetically/physically resembles the J.C. Penny branded camera you have. The camera's film speed settings are cartridge based, and on the older more common KODACHROME 40A and EKTACHROME 160A or G films. So yours should accept quite easily the following films: TRI-X 7266 ISO 200 but rated at ISO 160, so slight over exposure not a big issue. VISION 50D which setting the camera to Tungsten to remove the onboard color conversion #85 Filter, will be rated at ISO 40, some slight over exposure which is perfect for Color Negative. VISION 200T, which can be used in Daylight using the onboard #85 Filter and it'll be rated at ISO 100, again some slight over exposure, and in Artificial Light minus the Daylight Color Conversion Filter at ISO 160, also some slight over exposure which is fine for negative films. EKTACHROME 100D without use of the built in Color Conversion Filter, thus setting the camera to the Tungsten Setting [but please note......most of the better Super 8mm cameras have a notch finger detector which if the cartridge does NOT have the Filter Notch...the onboard filter will be pushed out of the way to the Tungsten or Without Filter setting....and usually also cues the Light Meter to adjust accordingly. This can be confirmed via the Aperture Display on the side of the camera in it's own window]. EK100D will be exposure automatically at ISO 160 which would underexpose it buy a half a stop or close to it. However, many have found this works okay.......but for dead accurate setting, you'd have to set the camera manually and open the aperture up a little bit more than what automatic determines. How well the camera exposes your film would require a test of course....but using an external light meter and factoring in any exposure/shutter/viewfinder light loss variations [refer to the instruction manual for setting manual exposure which usually lets you know if you need to fine tune exposure due to the viewfinder system] Other films can also be used, via Manual Exposure......however....even in Automatic in low light situations, many have discovered that using VISION 500T still works okay in most but the brightest lit subject scenes. Even if over exposed, the Color Negative films are more forgiving and will still yield detail that can be compensated for when transferring to Digital Media etc.

Hi. Yes, virtually all light metering systems in any camera can be adjusted. Some are easier than others, but your CANON will require you to open the side panel to access the circuitry and tweak the exposure potentiometer. These are set at the factory and then usually set in position using some red or green adhesive. It breaks freely easily enough, and you normally would just a small non metallic screwdriver in the center slot to adjust this. Generally, turning it to the right means more sensitive and to the left less sensitive. However, you will need to refer to the repair manual schematic to see where it's located. Often, it is coupled with another or two other potentiometers which if there, are to offset the high and low exposure settings. BUT BEFORE you do anything....first conduct an exposure test. Read your User's Manual for the camera for how to set and determine Manual Exposure. You will need a cartridge in the film chamber of the camera to key the metering system and let the camera know a cartridge is loaded. You do not have to actually film with it. Turn the camera on, and using an 18% gray card see if the exposure matches the Instruction Book Reference for determining manual exposure. If you don't have an 18% gray card, then you could use white, off gray, or brown etc, or the palm of your hand. These can be used via metering them with the same illumination as testing the meter in the camera, but measuring the reading with a known working camera's meter [still or other type], hand held exposure meter, or using a Light Meter App on your cellphone. Compare the reading the camera gives you to that of the other meter reading, compensating for change in exposure via the viewing system loss as explained in most Camera Instruction Manuals [often anywhere from 1/2 Stop to 1.5 Stops drop or increase due to the light being diverted to the meter, film, and viewfinder systems]. For example, the camera instruction manual might state on a large zoom lens camera like both of yours, to increase exposure by 1-Stop. So, your hand held or other light meter reads the card at F/8, so you'd have to adjust it to F/5.6 for manual exposure. On AUTOMATIC, the camera should show you this in the viewfinder aperture display.....which would probably then read F/4 possibly. There are other variables involved here since the CANON XLS is an "XL" low light camera with a large shutter opening and Fast Len....and the CANON 1014 Electronic is older with a small shutter opening vane and slightly slower lens. On AUTOMATIC, if all is fine, the camera will be in agreement with a known accurate light metering device [camera meter, hand held meter, cellphone app meter etc], minus the exposure increase and thus lower reading due to the viewfinder and meter light diversion system. IF all is fine.....leave the camera alone and don't worry about opening it up to make any adjustments. Unless you film in Automatic often, and the image density is too dense or too light for your preferences, then perhaps a tweak is in order. But if all is fine after testing it out light I described......you could just end up having more problems just trying to open the camera up, which is complex enough. Determining the film/run speed accuracy would require a special strobe light and/or sensor setup. A cheap way would be to pull down 18 or 24 frames of film, mark a Large X prior to pulling it down, and a large X afterward. If you need to, you can draw a line on a couple frames before and afterward. Then push the film back up into the cartridge until you get to the first X mark or one frame before it. Either way, it'll be visible in the cartridge window. Insert the film into the camera, and set your desired running speed test....18fps or 24fps. Using a stop watch or any accurate timing device.......set the camera up on Lock Run Mode with the Power Off if possible....and using a separate Remote Switch to run it.....or set it likewise and use a cable release. When you view the Timer where you want to start it.....depress the camera and stop it after 1 second. Open the camera, remove the cartridge and you should see the 2nd X mark in the cartridge window gate. If dead accurate it'll be in the center....if slightly too fast it'll be below and if too slow it'll be above. If you don't see it at all, pull the film back up slightly to see how many frames down it when. You could also draw a line from the First X mark to the Second X mark and a little past it....or make extra 3rd and 4th X marks. These will help you observe where the mark is. A synchronized setup would be more accurate whereby the Timer begins when the camera starts.....but with some care, you can measure it quite accurately with this method. If you don't have an old junker cartridge, you can use a new one, since you're only going to use a tiny bit of it for speed testing, and can use if for filming whatever once you've done your testing. You can do this test quite a few times if necessary and still have plenty of film left to use, so you're not wasting much. Regarding adjustment of the Running Speed.....this works also with a speed control potentiometer on the circuit board......left is slower and right is faster. Usually each speed will have it's own, except for slow motion which often is the maximum default speed. Hope this helps. Good luck!