Martin Baumgarten

If the KODACHROME has been cold stored since new, it can still be processed Reversal, either B&W Reversal or Sepia Reversal(a rich brown tone, with some other yellow tints from the film layers). Thus using the filter in the camera with help make cloud detail stand out, or darken down the blue sky from white to a gray tint to render separation [just as in any B&W film photography]. The film ideally should be rated at ISO 10, thus manual exposure to allow normal B&W Reversal processing and obtain the best image quality. However, most still just shoot it at ISO 40 and it has to be push processed nearly 3 stops to render decent image density. You'd think it would terrible, but it still looks pretty good. I'm looking forward to shooting my long expired KMA sound film and B&W or Sepia processing it, as it looks nice if done right. If the film has not been cold stored frozen since new, only at room temperature, then it comes down to how old it is; film over 10 years old will look poor to fair done as B&W Reversal and will yield better results done as B&W Negative (image can be flipped to a Positive upon transfer to digital). Here are some image samples from various tests:

http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/MartinBaumgarten/library/?sort=3&page=1

As you can see, they look pretty good, and these are without any digital image enhancement to lighten or darken them.

The EKTACHROME 64T films should still yield fair to good images with reversal color processing. You do have to use the builtin Daylight #85 filter when shooting in daylight conditions for the color to be correct. Any off color after the film is processed, it not too bad, could be corrected in film transfer to digital. I suggest doing a test roll first and seeing how it comes out. That way, you are not out of a lot of money. Dwayne's Photo Lab in Parsons Kanas USA is the cheapest place in the world for E-6 processing and do pretty good work. Even with the cost of postage from Spain, you're still ahead if you end up finding out the film isn't any good. Or send it to Andec in Berlin, or to the Super 8 Lab in the Netherlands, much closer to you.

Good luck!

I still have frozen Super 8mm film from the late 1970s and 1980s as well as later in my freezer. I occassionally get in frozen stored EKTACHROME 160 film for processing and it still looks good, as does the stuff I have stored frozen. There's some contrast loss and some filmspeed loss with film 20 years + stored frozen, but still very usable. With B&W stored frozen, you could most likely use it 50 years from now and get acceptable results, if you had a running camera at the time to shoot it with. Color Neg films cold stored from 2009 will be fine. Back in the US Air Force we had a cold vault for filmstock and tested it annually. Even films set aside for training, camera tests, and machine processing tests, were still fine even after 10 years in the cold. Color correction varied a bit more, which was the only indicator that the film might be older. Go ahead and shoot with confidence. - - - Lastly, I would allow the film to come up to room temp slowly, put it into the fridge for a few hours, then at room temp overnight. Open the film envelope in a non-high humidity are if possible. Tap the cartridge flat surface with label upward down onto a tabletop a couple times. Wipe some silicone (sprayed onto a clean white flannel cloth first and letting the propellant evaporate first) onto the film gate and even the film in the cartridge gate. Also, you can push down the film an inch to make sure it's not stuck, or more if necessary, and takeup any slight slack via winding the film core clockwise a bit. Usually, if the film wants to jam, it's after opening it as the emulsion will swell due to the higher humidity. Good luck!

This is one reason I ceased doing camera repair some years back as I could see it leading to such a backlog. And it ate up too much time away from the film processing services I do here. It's tough being a one-man show, and to add my two cents here, it's darn near impossible to get any decent help of any kind for our unique analog world. My recommendation is to just locate and buy any good working Super 8mm Cameras while they can still be found. I understand that generally speaking, all mechanical units will eventually need some servicing. So many of the Super 8mm cameras that were made, even top name brand models, seem to have been engineered without any real regard for servicing/repair....thus making them minefields to work on. An issue with many sound cameras now is that the capstan belts are getting so old they are breaking....and it's a super frustrating task to replace them in many cameras so often not worth it. And yes, there is still TONS of sound film out there, sitting in the freezers of many filmmakers and home movie enthusiasts, as well as all that old crap that folks sell on eBay that has only been room temp stored. Back to the camera repair issue though: For CANON, the earlier autozoom 814 is better...from a repair point of view, the NIZO silent S series cameras are good, and GAF ST-xxx series (and their Chinon/Porst/Revue counterparts), and the lens interchangeable BEAULIEUs which are readily servicable. The more complex the cameras were made, the more of a nightmare they are to service. My beloved SANKYO XL-620s are a good example of total frustration where just to get at the inners, two layers of circuit boards have to be desoldered to fix even just a simple trigger jam. The NIKON R-8 and R-10 models are complex, and the higher end CANONs, also, seem to have been built without much regard for repair. Of the earlier late 60s and 70s cameras, those that are more accessable aren't worth bothering with since they so often are only autoexposure (with perhaps a bias adjustment knob). Buy several cameras, use ONE cartridge to test several.........Slate each shot so you know which camera it was used in. Then you're only out one cartridge and processing etc, to test several. Sort the runners from the junk and forget about repairing the junkers (shelf display only, unless you're feeling brave!). Anyhow, good luck and keep shooting....SUPER 8mm!

I also have noticed the decay of color and emulsion problems on various filmstocks as they aged past 25 years. The exceptions were all those I processed myself, having given them longer times in the Color Stabilizer Bath (Final Rinse E-6 type chemistry) than what any machine processing did in those eras of AGFAMoviChrome and Ektachrome filmstocks. I will look forward to comparing this Agfa 200D longevity in the future. I for one, personally prefer reversal films, since I like to see film projected; however I do see the use for negative filmstocks, even though I rarely use them.

Is the vignetting even all around the viewfinder? If not, and only in one corner or along one side of the viewfinder frame, then the viewing tube is out of alignment. This won't affect focus, just viewing and accurate composition. The BEAULIEU 6008 models, both early and later Digital LED counter versions, and both Pro and S models, have a different focusing/viewing tube setup compared to previous models and later ones. The ground glass circle is fixed in a different setup from those with a full focusing screen. BEAULIEU offered a retrofit upgrade later on, after the 7008 series came to market. So, there are a very few 6008s out there with this upgrade, but most do not have it. Why BEAULIEU experimented with this setup, only they know. It was not well appreciated, and always made focus and collimation setup more complicated. Other than that, if all else works on the camera, it's still a good camera. I recommend NOT messing about with the focusing viewing system unless you know what you're doing; let an expert handle it. It is very easy to make an error and damage something; I have worked on BEAULIEUs over the years. At least they can still be more readily repaired compared to most other Super 8mm cameras. Good luck on using yours!

I just checked their website and it only mentions that the film is coming soon, no pricing or processing details. Since it's ADOX B&W, the pricing will most likely be similar to their ADOX Pan-X 100 Reverso. Probably not much more than a 5 Euro difference. It is nice to see Wittner supporting the 8mm film gauges with all that they offer. The only issue for us in the USA or North America is the cost to import these on a small scale.

Aside from the possibility of the switch being defective, the main issue with trying to use any of the KODAK Super 8mm series camera is that the KODAK used a neoprene drive gear on the motor shaft. This gear crumbles or has crumbled to pieces when old and ALL of these camera are now old. Sadly many of their XL cameras would be nice to use, but virtually all would need this gear replaced; and no replacements are available. The only KODAK Super 8mm cameras that didn't have this cheapo gear are the very first two models, the M2 and M4. So, even if the camera seems to run, it will unlikely ever transport an entire cartridge of film. My recommendation is to just get another decently made Super 8mm, of which there is a plethora of cameras to pick from out there. Get a well made camera that has manual exposure mode on it. The CHINON made for GAF cameras are usually good low cost options; select one from the ST series with ST-100 or higher. Even if the light meter doesn't work, the manual mode will allow you to adjust the lens aperture, with a scale in the viewfinder. Good luck and enjoy shooting in Super 8mm!

KODACHROME 40 IF it has been cold stored frozen since new if very old, or refridgerated if made within the past 20 years, or if the film is under 10 years old at room temp...can be Reversal processed as Black & White Reversal, or in Sepia tone Reversal (rich brown tone which also has some yellows and orange hues to it due to the nature of the film). It can also be processed as a Black & White Negative, either smooth continous tone or high contrast. This all applies to newer film or cold stored film.

Now for OLD film, not cold stored: These films if not over 20 years old and kept at room temp, will sometimes still process as B&W Reversal, but with some image clouding which will vary, so you take your chances. Otherwise, ALL such old film should be custom processed as B&W Negative, from which the film can be reversed to a Positive upon transfer to digital. This is normally done for such old films that were exposed back when the films were still new. IF you attempt to use such old film, it should be exposed at ASA/ISO 10 for Negative processing, and keep in mind not only has the film lost filmspeed, but there will be image mottling due to age fogging in the images.

Lastly, IF the film is still good, you can expose it at ASA/ISO 10 for the best results, OR it can also be exposed at it's 'normal' filmspeed, since it will then be 'pushed' in processing to render the density correctly. I process these films here at Plattsburgh Photographic Services all the time, so this is all based on my lab experiences with customer films as well as my own filmmaking.

So, any remaining KODACHROME, that is still good, can be used for a variety of work. It costs more than regular B&W film processing, but I feel that it can still be used for film work or experimental work. I personally like the Sepia tone, but then, I like projecting my own films. If your work ends up for digital editing etc, then it probably doesn't matter as you can give the film any tonality you like in a NLE program. Hope this helps Email me for more information if interested in my lab services. There are other labs around that process these films as well, but prices vary. For those that do their own film processing, it's quite doable despite the care required. Best regards, Martin Baumgarten

It is possible, but there are strict focusing limitations since the D-Mount lenses have a much shallower depth, so they can only work in a macro mode. To use a D-Mount lens, you will need to get a BOLEX extension tube set, which has tubes made in the C-Mount, but has adapters to use them on a D-Mount camera. The front portion removes and is a D-Mount to C-Mount Adapter. This will allow you to use such a lens for extreme macro work on a BEAULIEU 2008-9008 series cameras.

The only way to use such a tiny lens 'normally' would be to modify a basic fixed focal length Super 8mm camera by removing the lens, and constructing a mounting setup. It would require collimating the lens so the focus would be correct. This was done on a modified Super 8mm camera we minimized the weight for a rocket shot stunt we did on a film. It had to be made very light so it could fly of course.

Lastly, some D-Mount lenses have too small a circle of illumination for sharp corner to corner coverage of the Super 8mm frame, so you'd have to experiment. That being said, the D-Mount BOLEX lenses seem to cover the Super 8mm frame fine on the converted BOLEX H-8 cameras for Double Super 8mm film. Hope this helps.

The only way to know is to ask the labs yourself. I (PPS) will process the two segments for the same price as a 50ft cartridge.

Regarding reloading of the FUJI Single-8 cartridges, the new AGFA 200 Color Reversal film that is available in Super 8mm cartridges would fit into the Single-8 fully, since it is a polyester thin filmbase. Wittner jsells bulkfilm of this as well, so check with them if interested. Even if only 45ft fit, that is still a lot better than 25ft splits.

Lastly, I do not recommend trying to file/grind down the inner cores, since any gain you get would most likely cause other cartridge and film transport problems. The cartridge was designed around the FUJIChrome polyester based filmstock, therein lies the problem for reloading with cellulose triacetate based filmstock.

Best of success in your Single-8 filming endeavors!

Hey guys. I realize anamorphic Super 8 has been covered multiple times on these boards, but I figured I would post my situation and see what my options are.

 

I currently have in my possession an [2x] ISCO Cinemascope Ultra Star Plus 21 projection lens. It is quite small and compact, and the lens unscrews into two pieces, separating the anamorphic element from what I can only describe as a magnifying element. I have used the anamorphic element to desqueeze scope films projected through a 4:3 native projector, and the results have been pretty awesome.

 

I'm in the process of purchasing my first 1014-E, which I believe has a 58mm thread size. I am currently unaware of the thread size of the anamorphic lens, but I have a lens technician friend who is going to measure it for me so I can attempt to locate/purchase the appropriate step up/down ring. I understand that should I decide to mount the lens to the front of the 1014-E zoom lens (a 7-70 macro), that my focal length would probably have to remain pretty consistent.

 

Anyone have any experience in attaching anamorphic lenses to the front of zoom lenses? Vignetting will most likely occur on the wider end, but once you zoom in to eliminate the vignetting, are you free to play with the remaining focal lengths, or will zooming past the "sweet spot" of the anamorphic element cause distortion?

---> I answered an email Liam sent to me, and here is the bulk of it, which answers some of his questions and should be of use to others persuing anamorphic lens use.

---> The Anamorphic lens you have is too small for the camera you wish to use it on. It would be better suited to a small prime lens camera or small zoom lensed camera. Most Super 8mm cameras have front lens standards that rotate upon focusing. That's one reason I always use a lens support to hold the A-lens in front of the camera lens so that the orientation doesn't change. One setup has a metal block that screws into the tripod socket (some movie light sockets can be used on some cameras from the top), and a two metal rods that intersect and are adjustable (in and out from the camera body and up and down, as well as rotation to set the lens in front of the camera lens etc and secured via allen wrench grubs), and to keep the lens in exact optical alignment on a later setup, I used stepup rings so that the rear of the A-lens sits attached to the main lens.....however.......only slightly screwed in, so that when the camera lens rotates while focusing, it has the slack to do so, without unscrewing itself, nor being too tight. This has worked great for me for years now. A similar unit was made years ago by The WIDESCREEN Centre in England and sold under the name Custome Mount Deluxe (versus the basic Custome Mount which just held the lens in front of the camera lens.....the first one I ever bought...works fine and is quite useful to rig up on projectors).

I've seen filmmakers use "mesmerizers" in front of their lenses before, and this thought always crossed my mind.

 

Any help appreciated!

---> Oftentimes, those are just anamorphic lenses which are rotated to give that effect.

---> From a technical and optical point of view....the lens you have is a dedicated type that mated to a projection lens. Anyhow, the cameras you mention have large diameter zoom lenses, really, too large for using most 2x Anamorphic lenses. A HUGE ISCO-54 1.5x anamorphic lens was made some year ago, and it will work, and allow full zoom range...but....at a price...the lens is expensive, very large, very heavy. That being said, those that used it were happy with their results. I opted for 2x compression, since it yields full CinemaScope 2.66:1 aspect ratio, there's plenty of lenses, mostly quite affordable. So, that's why my cameras that I use for WIDESCREEN shooting have smaller lenses, generally not more than a 5x or 6x zoom. My SANKYO XL620 has a 5x zoom and 52mm filter threads, allowing a max wide angle of about 15mm (which is really 7.5mm on the horizontal axis since the 2x A-lens gives you double the width on the horizontal, something to factor in of course). I have used my 2x KOWA 16H lens on larger lens cameras: NIZO S-800 and BEAULIEU 4008 with the 6mm-66mm zoom.....and as you have discovered....yes, the widest you can go is about 40mm (20mm actual width focal length when you divide the 40mm by the lens compression factor which is 2x). A crazy workaround is to add another wide angle 0.5x or wider lens to the front of the A-lens...but then you're adding a LOT of glass to film thru. More weight, more abberrations and more flare potential etc etc.

---> So, for Anamorphic Lens filming, or photography, just get a camera that works well, a shorter/smaller zoom type camera, or in the case of a BEAULIEU, which has interchangeable lenses, using a smaller zoom or fixed focal length lens. You don't sacrifice quality this way either, actually you gain. For example, a smaller lensed NIZO S-56/560/561/48/480/481 still have great optics and all the same fancy camera features....just a smaller more compact zoom that works fine with the A-lens. In the CANON range, that would mean using a 514 or similar model. Some less features, but you don't need all the ones on the 1014, or if you do, use a similar featured other brand camera, but with a smaller lens that will work.

---> As long as the lenses are in optial alignment or very close, there won't be any distortion and you can zoom and focus thru the range up to full telephoto.

----> In a perfect world, the alignment marks on some of the A-lenses would be ideal, but they will really just get you in the ballpark, as you will actually need to do a visual check in the viewfinder. Use true verticals and a bubble level on the camera to double check everything....even then...sometimes there is something in the camera viewing/filming system that might be off just that little bit and you may end up adjusting the lens one way or the other away from the marks slightly; just something to keep in mind and not fret over.

---> Some filmers just use smaller A-lenses and step-up/down rings and readjust the lens each time after they focus it. A royal pain....but cheaper to fit it to the camera. A vendor on eBay sells grub screw attachment units to fit several different A-lenses to various cameras, well made and decent prices.

---> Focusing can work fine with the in camera viewfinder split image etc......but you have to get used to the regimine; focus the A-lens first via setting the distance scale to approximate the distance....fine focus the camera lens, and then fine tune the A-lens again if necessary. It sounds iffy, but in practice you get used to it, and it can work fast even for on the fly shooting of kids, sports etc.

---> There are many small lens Super 8mm cameras what you could use that Isco lens on: the small Chinon 132PXL and 133PXL models and similar, the small ELMO 103T, and many others. I wish you the best of luck and success in this exciting venture. The firsrt time I projected test footage, my own widescreen image on the screen just blew me away......and it was shot while holding the lens in front of my movie camera at the time until I cobbled up my own holder system. I've seen rigs to hold A-lenes made from wood, plastic, cardboard, aluminum, and other metals, as well as more commercial rigs which also began life as one-off designs. Lots of fun in using Anamorphic lenses, and due to so many variables involved, a topic that can be deeply discussed. There's pro and con for using them of course, and fans in both camps. I can understand and appreciate both points of view, but as with anything, both sides of using them or not, have both up and down sides. For projection of Super 8mm film (or Regular 8mm etc), having a good projector, bright light source, and good widescreen that reflects plenty of light, there is just nothing like it.

Best regards,

Martin W. Baumgarten

There are still caches of frozen Super 8mm Sound film in the hands of many filmmaking enthusiasts. I would image film will still show up for processing many years from now. The cartridges are KODAK's design, and while minor variations of it were made by both AGFA in Germany and Sakura film in Japan (Konishhiroku)....and under the other store brand names; only the KODAK cartridge was robust and allowed lap dissolve functions to work the best. The design was used under license to KODAK, and those companies that sold cartridges with KODAK made film used KODAK cartridges. Getting new cartridges made these days would be very costly. KODAK does sell new empty loadable SILENT cartridges, but long discontinued the SOUND ones. That being said, used cartridges can be reused many times. I conducted some tests years ago, refilling two cartridges a dozen times each or so, and they ran fine, and I still have those two test cartridges in my collection and they could still be used. So a lot to say for what was supposed to be a disposable piece of plastic after it was used for some 3 minutes.

Using a sound film camera in Super 8mm is a fun experience. Camera noise, well, if you don't apply professional filmmaking technique in 16mm or 35mm, you'll also have camera noise. A little care, using a long microphone cord, a directional microphone, or a wireless microphone, careful placement of the camera if indoors, blimping if doable, will add to gaining fine sound. The original ELMO demonstration film showing the Stereophonic capability of Super 8mm film, that came with their flagship projector, the GS-1200, showed how wonderful sound can be even at 18fps! I got great sound even on my first sound camera, a SEARS badged Chinon made 195XL which only had auto exposure and ALC audio recording. For family and fun goofing about films, yes, sometimes you do hear the camera noise, but so what, you could also hear the zoom motor or fingers fumbling on the buttons of many video cameras, or the sound of finger moving on the body of the video cameras or digital cameras of today. It's part of the ambience of shooting live-sound when doing such spontaneous filming.

Anyone wanting the best results, will use proper technique for a production where the results should be higher. For that matter, what about the projector noise when projecting a film.....how many build their own projector booth? There are some fans that do, others place it far enough away from their audience, but not all. And for silent films, you'll often hear the projector, it's part of the experience. In fact, some places that offer film transfers, will add in projector noise if desired, instead of some bland elevator music soundtrack.

The BOLEX 5120 was made by Chinon Industries along with the majority of cameras they made for others. Some Super 8mm Sound cameras were quieter than others, and the NIZO models were the best for quiet. That being said, I have gotten and still get great results from my SANKYO XL-620 and some of the other sound cameras I have. BAUER also made some very good ones, even their rebadged PORST ones are fine. The older GAF SS models I have made by Chinon will probably last for many years, with only the drivebelt going bad (the weak link in any belt-driven capstan audio recording mechanism).

I've been experimenting with films bought off eBay and those that often come with older cameras one finds either on eBay or yard sales, that still have old film in them. These old sound films, poorly stored over the decades of time, will more than likely not yield decent color, since it shifts to mostly green with the old EKTACHROME films.......and even very old KODACHROME which can only be done as B&W now, will also suffer from age. The film fog from age affects both film types, as well as any old AGFACHROME, AGFAMOVIECHROME, M-CHROME-BOOTS-PORST etc(Agfa made films and others), so really they are best processed as Black & White Negative. But even so, you'll have a B&W neg with a magnetic audio track, in synch, for transfer to video. Sometimes, they can even be done as reversal, but not well.

Old Sound film can be used to test a camera's sound recording mechanism. With opening of the cartridge and reloading, it can be used over and over again for such testing; using different microphones, cables, techiques etc BEFORE you use any good film. Just erase the audio on the old film with a degauzer before reloading the cartridge for the next test. Film removed from such old cartridges can also be used to practice recording technique on a Super 8 Sound Projector, BEFORE ever doing so on a film you shot. All this can help avoid mistakes.

When my first child was born, I shot the birthing experience (tastefully) in the hospital on Super 8mm Ektachrome 160A Sound film, in full CinemaScope as well, and if you were to see this film, you would say, wow, that's cool. So is the camera noise in the background, as are the other noises, nurses with instruments, the heartrate monitor machine etc. Believe me, I wasn't concerned in the least about any camera noise being picked up in the tiled serile room with lousy accoustics. Between takes, I held my wife's hand and helped out where I could. It was not a professional production, but a family event, just like many things we photograph and record in life. If it had been a professional production of a birthing event, I would've used other techniques, since I would not have been so personally involved.

That Revue SuperChrome clip is precious! The blotches that you see at times is the darn remjet that AGFA used, it's rubbery coating that is nearly impossible to completely remove when processing such now old films. In that respect, the EKTACHROME 160A films are better, but even so, sometimes small minute traces of the remjet might show. With manual film processing, we don't have the dedicated buffer rollers with rinsing jets as the large KODAK EM-26 film processors had. I have processed old film that looks mostly green, and it's still enjoyed by those that are in it when projected. It can be made B&W or Sepia when put into a video format later on if desired.

So, yes, you can shoot Super 8mm Sound film in a sound camera and get great results if you are careful and truly wonderful results if you use professional techniques. If just shooting family or personal events, or even artistic stuff, any noise might not be that bad. I shot a field of wheat moving in the light breeze years ago on vacation and the camera mic did a great job and even picked up the distant sound of a train, yet no camera noise. That was outdoors of course, without a wall to throw back the sound to the mic of the camera as it could indoors. Processing is available for virtually any film ever made. I process most anything here, except Color Neg which I'm experimenting with again later this year to see if it's viable. In the past, the handful of labs that sell and deal with Color Neg films in Super 8mm, have that market. Pro8mm state they can process EM-26 films for $90 each 50ft cartridge, Spectra state they do it for $65 each 50ft cartridge, Film Rescue in Canada do it for around $44 each, and the Super 8 Lab in the Netherlands also was doing it, in addition to myself here in Plattsburgh, New York at much less. Anyhow, I suggest asking each of the labs that offer such processing what their rates are, turnaround times etc, and then figure out whether or not you think it's worth it to you. I think ideally, everyone that ever shoots any Super 8mm film, should experience shooting at least one roll of sound film, while it can still be found out there somewhere. Or via FUJI's Single-8 system which also offered Sound Film and Sound Cameras.

Lastly, as for making new SOUND film, it is an expensive proposition, which I have experimented with over the past several years. The gentleman in Spain who has a camera shop has made a few sound striped films available and might still be doing so. It is not cheap, and as with anything done on an ultra tiny scale by one person would be quite expensive. I had done up some B&W Sound film some years back and had thought of offering that. But from a practical cost standpoint as well as labor-intensiveness, it is really only doable with a single main track on the film (not with both sound tracks as when KODAK and other companies were mass producing it via large machines). The cost was easily going to be upwards of $55 to $70 each 50ft cartridge and that just seems too expensive to me.....especially when there was and most likely still is, caches of Sound film out there in the hands of filmmakers freezers to still use. i suppose, in the end, should all Color Reversal chemistry cease, any remaining film can still be processed as B&W, since those chemistries can be mixed up to formula from readily available raw chemicals.

Well, I've rambled on enough, hope I haven't put most of you to sleep!

I agree, it is best to err on the safe side with the NIZO higher end sound cameras. They were quite expensive when new back in the day, as I did buy one new, and other used. The risk of having the light meter go out when using 6 Alkaline batteries is true, and it is a costly repair....IF you can even get it done correctly anywhere. I paid to have it done once since if I purchased the circuitry and did it myself, there was no warranty, so despite being a repair tech as well, I had Leitz in Luton, England do mine at the time. The early Cmos technology on these NIZOs has not had a good track record for longevity. The previous sound models which did not have the elaborate lap dissolve/double-exposure provisions often seem to hold up longer, but not by leaps and bounds. They are great when they are working though. If you have one, and the automatic light meter doesn't work but it will still function in manual mode, you can still use it. I have also made use of one with a totally dead light metering system, just using it wide open and using Neutral Density filters to adjust exposure........only did that a few times though, and mainly without any filters, since it a lot of it was inside, Tungsten lighting, with EKTACHROME 160A Sound film. Camera still ran ultra quiet and the sound recording system still worked fine.

As for any old ME-4 process film, even if kept frozen, processing is rare and expensive, and those films can have odd emulsion cracking, despite maybe having tolerable color....often random in the films....could be due to storage changes, thawing etc. Anyhow, I would only use such ancient film and process it as B&W Neg, unless you have a small batch of a film type that had all been stored together, and can actually just test one to represent the others results-wise. Even then, consider the costs versus the results.

Regarding KODACHROME, IF the film has been well stored, and/or isn't older than 10 years, it will usually still look fine with the Black & White processing options: as a continous tone B&W Negative, as a High Contrast B&W Negative, as Black & White Reversal, or as Sepia Tone Reversal (this looks pretty awesome, since the Kodachrome film yields some tinges of yellow and orange in there with the deep rich sepia tones). So, it's not worthless film, and I'd rather use it as B&W Reversal and have sound as well, than none at all.

Regarding the KODAK 200ft cartridges; they were a valiant idea and worked okay 75% of the time, as some tended to jam occassionally. It's a complex design with a large spring maintaining the balance of the two co-axil 200ft rotating film reels, one supply and the other the takeup. Reloading these is a complex frustrating process, and not worth it in my opinion since the components are so cheaply made. The sprocket is a flimsy plastic one, and the film path a minor nightmare to deal with by hand in the darkroom. I had heard that someone had remade a metal reloadable version of this, with high quality parts in Michigan at a filmschool, but never saw any photos of it, or the unit itself, so that idea remains a mystery along with some other oddball Super 8mm related topics over the years that never saw the light of day. Frankly, I would stick to the 50ft cartridge, and of the two 50ft designs, the sound version is the better one since it has a reversal film core rachet. In the end, the uniqueness of Super 8mm filmmaking, for the most part, is that the cartridges only hold 50ft (those few mylar film ones which had 100ft in them notwithstanding). The same can be said of the Regular 8mm (aka Double 8mm, Normal 8mm, Standard 8mm, 8mm) and FUJI's Single-8 cartridges. A few years ago, a technician/enthusiast even produced a 400ft Super 8mm magazine, which was problematic, and production was limited to a few and was discontinued. NOTE: Everything I ever mention, unless I state that it was something I heard, is because I first hand experience with having used it or done the task, or used the camera etc.

As Andries stated, "be glad there are still 50ft cartridges"!

KODAK's decision to stop all production of their last remaining color reversal filmstock, was a BIG MISTAKE! I don't care what excuses they state, they are all bull. This was afterall, the ONLY remaining Color Reversal film they were manufacturing, and there was and is a sufficient niche market to make it available in the small gauge formats. IF KODAK can justify making Color Negative in Super 8mm, they could've kept making the EKTACHROME 100D since it had just as wide a use market.

AND, IF they had only advertised at all, that Super 8mm film was still being made over the past 20+ years, there are many families that would've loved to shoot some movies of their events, even if only a few rolls per year. That extra amount would have added up.

There's no bones about it, this was a MAJOR blow to the Super 8mm and Regular 8mm and even 16mm filmmaking world. While we still have other filmstocks to use, NOTHING beats the incredible experience of seeing one's footage projected on the big screen. Maybe, after their bankruptcy reorganization, they could be coaxed into introducing a Color Reversal filmstock again, but it would take a millionaire willing to put money into it, regardless if it earned enought back to justify it. This exact same thing happens in other hobbies and pursuits, where there are those that will pay to get something made or keep it going, regardless of cost. I would do it, IF I were wealthy.

Film will live on as long as there is filmstock to shoot, and perhaps even with what we have left to use. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not some electronic format has higher quality. It's like telling an artist to stop bothering with Water Color paints, Pen & Ink, Charcoal, Oil, Acrylic paints, or even pencils, and start using a computer digital palette. All bullcrap, people will pursue whatever their passion or method of expression will work for them.

Even if all film ceased tomorrow, there will be those using their frozen caches of film years from now, albeit sparingly, just so they can still indulge in using an analogue film camera and all the associated equipment. Is it worth it? Well, is anything worth it? Is it worth it for somebody to pay $10k or more for an old Ford model A, or any other automobile, or pay more for a restoration??? Who's right is it to judge what flavor icecream one person prefers over another? If you really want to, you can use virtually any camera ever made, with a few limitations of course. Try telling a 9.5mm filmmaker that their format died officially back in 1961 and they should cease their passion. I bet they would bury you in the sea weighed down with tons of now passe video cameras. So, long live Film, as long as it can. If this is your passion, pursue it to whatever length you're able to, and forget what some idiot tells you.

Yes, you can use most C-mount lenses easily on your BEAULIEU 4008. From a technical standpoint, every lens in an ideal world would be collimated to the camera, but in practice, you should be fine. If you can focus the image sharply in your viewfinder on the 4008, and lens is in good condition with the focusing and aperture range working fine, it will perform the way you want it to. The interchangeability of lenses, and especially being able to use ultra telephoto lenses is one of the main reasons I even bought a BEAULIEU series camera years ago. I have used a 400mm Vivitar lens coupled with both a 2x and 3x teleconvertor to capture the craters on the moon! I do recommend using a fluid head tripod that is very sturdy and heavy(or weighed down) when going to ultra telephoto (as you will be on the high end of your 12mm to 120mm zoom Angenieux lens). But that being said, I have quite acceptable footage shot handheld using both freehand and telephoto lens stocks; and shooting at a somewhat higher frame rate to smooth out any handheld bumps....e.g. at 24fps for footage projected at 18fps or at 32fps for footage projected at 24fps etc. Have fun using that long lens!

What piece of junk this camera is! I just can't believe that someone took such great pains to go to the trouble of designing this device, and then having it made in China, without any regard to a few other basics of movie camera design which would've made it so much better; such as a film sprocket...just one...to help with frame registration. However, I suppose if that is what someone is looking for, bouncing filmframes, changing registration and all the other visual irritations of this camera, then by all means get one.

--> Now, some other poster mentioned that this isn't 8mm film format related (other than the aspect ratio being similar to the original Pan-8 format, aka UltraPan8 format), and we should stay in the 8mm format realm in this discussion group. He's correct of course.

Here's a much better idea than using the LomoKino:

---> My suggestion is....for anyone that would like a handcranked look to their film;  use a BOLEX H-16 type camera (since this is the Super 8mm group...use a BOLEX H-8 in either Reg 8mm, DS8mm, or the UltraPan8 formats....Switch the Motor to OFF.....set the film speed dial to the fps rate you're interested in.....crank the camera with the handle until you feel the resistance of the speed governor....could the number of crank rotations per second.....THEN....move the dial to the next higher setting.  Now, the load the camera with film, and get ready to film, via counting the crank rotations.  Since you'll be cranking slower than what it would take to engage the film run speed governor, the filming will have an unsteady/imperfect FPS rate.   Some undercranking to speed up action can be done easily....and some overcranking to slow things down a bit, from the mental counting rate you're doing as you crank the camera.  

---> This way, you'll have sharp images due to quality optics, correct frame spacing due to accurate film claw pulldown and sprocket drive, and the motion will be every bit similar as to the early days of pioneer 35mm filmmakers.  NOTE:  Those cameras had good film claws and were sprocket driven, despite the lack of a speed control governor in the very early years.

---> What's even worse than the LomoKino itself...is the LomoScope viewer!   Again a sense of sprocket guidance would've allowed the frame to stay put in the window.  Among other things... the illumination window is poorly designed in that it's not wide enough and creates a 3 prism field effect due to light reflecting off the inner side walls.  And, the magnifier is not at the correct spacing to the film causing the image to look blurry to the eye unless you move your eye a few inches back.   What a waste of my money and time!  If it had been designed for 16mm film, I at least could rebuild it using available sprockets and other parts I have lying around, but nothing here for the 35mm format, unless I use still camera parts.  I may look into it if I ever have time for it....but for now....a waste of money and I will NOT recommend this to anyone. What with the cost of film and processing.......there are so many decent cameras around to use which are available at reasonable to low cost. Those that persist in trying their efforts, good luck. I'm sorry, but I just had to pipe in here after being thoroughly disappointed after what I had hoped would be a nice little gem in the movie making world. The original idea and concept is very clever, so had a few other things been done, it would've worked much better.

The CHINON 506 Sound Macro XL(existing light 220 degree shutter opening) was designed around using the former KODACHROME 40A Tungsten/ASA 25 daylight with filter, and EKTACHROME 160A Tungsten/ASA/ISO 100 Daylight With Filter. So, in auto exposure mode, the only two films made by KODAK that will work fine are: TRI-X 7266 ISO 200 Daylight without Filter (will be rated at ISO 160) and VISION 200T Color Negative (will be rated at ISO 100 Daylight With Filter or ISO 160 Tungsten without filter). However, since the camera has manual exposure mode, you can use any other film, and just compensate by adjusting the meter until the exposure is correct. For example, with EK100 Daylight film, the camera will read it (with the Filter out of the way) as ISO/ASA 160. So knowing it will be under-exposing the film by 2/3 of a Stop, just reset the meter manual setting via the knob on the side until the viewfinder needle is in the correct setting.

I'm not sure on this camera, but CHINON has an auto exposure fine tuning knob that you set with a coin on many of their cameras. If yours has this, the lines are set in 1/3 Stop increments, so if you adjust it to the over-exposure side by 2/3 Stop, you will be able to also shoot EK100D on automatic. Good luck!

The SANKYO XL-420 Supertronic camera is a nice portable slim sound or silent Super 8mm camera. It offers manual exposure control, and since the camera's light meter is designed only to read the previous ASA/ISO 40 KODACHROME and ASA/ISO 160 EKTACHROME films, you'll have to use manual exposure setting for most films. You can still shoot TRI-X 7266 automatically, since exposing it at ISO 160 is close enough for most users. I do suggest finding an owner's manual for it, as even one tip of help that can avoid a major mistake, will save time and film costs.

Hi Kevin. Do you have the owner's manual? Check the batteries using the battery test position of the main control and then the meter button. If the needle doesn't deflect with either test, then there's something wrong with the needle display. This may or may not also affect the aperture control. To see if the meter is even responding to light....run the camera in automatic and look thru the film chamber from the rear without a cartridge in it. As you move the camera from a darkened area to a lighter one, you should be able to see the aperture open and close while running the camera's motor. If not, then there's more wrong with the camera than just the needle viewfinder display. Good luck!

I think, that as long as raw bulk filmstock is being manufactured by someone, motion picture film can continue as long as there is a place to slit and perforate it down to the gauges desired. Having seem Super 8mm film sell at crazy prices all over the place; some Sound film has sold in excess of $50 per 50ft cartridge.

If it ever comes down to it, were film is produced in extremely limited quantity at very high prices, I would just be forced to shoot less of it, but would still do it. There's a magic in film presentation on the screen that just can't be replicated the same way by anything digital. The projector running, the lights darkened, the screen comes alive with film grain, contrast, hues, and a unique image structure that makes this analog realm so special and wondrous.

FOMA is back making filmstock again, and although Black & White only with their Fomapan R-100, I could settle for just that in the end, if I had to. I was outside shooting some EKTACHROME slide film earlier, and with an ancient KODAk made in the 50s, which has a sharp lens. Telling film based photographers and filmmakers not to use this wonderful analog technology, would be akin to telling a water color artist, oil or acylic painter, pen & ink, pencil, charcoal etc artist to forgo all that and just do something digital on their computer using a palette. There are so many ways to express oneself artistically, and who is to say one way is better than another. Anyhow.....I would stock up on enough film to keep me going to the end of my life, if they all ceased production tomorrow!

Hi Pav, nice to see effort going into processing information. As the film world shrinks and things keep adjusting, I think there will be a few more smaller processing labs once many of the large ones shut down. Did you like using the BRAY machine? The website states it can process film as small as 8mm, so have often wondered if it would be any good for doing Super 8mm film.

This sounds more like a problem with the lens itself. Have you removed the lens and examined it critically using a small maglight to check for fungus or some other lens deterioration problem? There could be some kind of lens or coating damage or grease on a lens surface deep inside this multioptics lens. A severe off-collimation problem would be across the frame, not just in a small area as you mention. Rule out an optical problem with the lens first before considering collimation. Try another lens if available, even any decent C-mount lens and check for a similar problem.

I've push processed films here many times, for myself and for customers. Going with a 1-Stop Push does increase grain and contrast, but marginally. Pushing is relative to the light level, since technically film isn't actually pushed to a higher filmspeed. What happens is that you are boosting the information that is actually recorded on the film, so that the image density comes up to a 'normal' level. If anything in a given scene is below the threshold of a film's ability to record it exposure wise, it won't be recorded, so there will be nothing to boost. That all withstanding, the parts of a scene that do get recorded by the imaging silver, albeit very low due to technical restrictions of the light level and camera's specs, will be increased in density so that the resulting images will be usable.

My personal and professional recommendation here though, besides pushing the film....is to purchase a couple of low light Super 8mm cameras [XL types which have anywhere from a 1.0 to 1.4 lens opening and a shutter vane opening of anywhere from 200 to 235 degrees. The more light they let in, the better for such work. The gain will be easily 1-Stop over your NIKON or greater, so that in some situations you won't have to consider push processing the film....or by doing so, will still gain a 2+ Stop advantage over your NIKON or any other non-XL type Super 8mm camera. You don't even have to spend a lot of money to do so, as so many of the ones I'm thinking about are very cheap to buy off eBay; CANON 310XL, GAF 220 XLS, SANKYO 320/420 XLS, YASHICA 50 XLS, YASCHICA 20 XLS, CHINON 132P XL, 133P XL and many others. Of course, many or most of these only shoot at 18fps, so I hope that's in your workable range....since that will still give more exposure power gain over filming at 24fps in Super 8mm. If you want a fancy looking camera that will cost you more money, there's plenty of those as well. Don't worry that a given "XL" camera might be a sound camera, since they shoot both sound and silent cartridges. So many of the later generation sound Super 8mm cameras are very compact anyhow, often just as small or even lighter weight than previous silent models. And for image sharpness, used with care they will be fine in most situations.

TRI-X 7266 can be push processed as well, and I've pushed it up to 3 Stops. It looks still very good going 1-Stop up, but the grain and contrast really show at 2-Stops or higher. Even so, the grain can add character and mood, and sometimes that can be an advantage. Tri-X as reversal film is ISO 160 under Tungsten illumination (as all photographic film loses some filmspeed in the absence of blue and UV daylight. Exposed for Negative processing the filmspeed drops down some more, to an effective ISO/E.I. 100 under Artificial Lighting, but it can be pushed processed to ISO 200 or IS0 400 easily, with of course some gain in grain and contrast. I recommend doing a test under various situations so that you can refer to your test film(s) as a guide to any future filmmaking projects or jobs; and of course carry some detailed shooting notes with your camera bag. As a B&W Negative, the Tri-X film can be processed in a variety of developers to alter the 'look' of the film and grain structure. For example, processed in B&W Reversal chemistry but without reversal, it will have a high contrast look to it. Processed in a continous tone Negative Developer it will have great image tone, and your choice would have to be whatever the lab offers, or if doing it yourself, however you would like it to look after doing some tests. You can do lots of testing with only ONE cartridge; just shoot a series of increments intended to be processed differently and break down the film and process each segment the way you want to test it. One cartridge can yield 5 test segments if you do each in 10 foot increments, or 10 test segments in 5 foot increments. It will take some work to break down the film in the darkroom, and then container and mark each one for however you want to process it. But when completed, you can have as thorough a test film under a variety of lighting situations and processing methods, to reference to for the future.

Hope this helps.

I'd like to add to some of the wise comments already posted regarding this topic.

I've been shooting anamorphically in the Super 8mm format (and Regular 8mm at times) using mainly a 2x compression lens format (2.66:1 aspect ratio nominally), since 1981. Having tried all three pre-HD-era A-lenses (1.5x, 1.75x, 2x), I decided to settle on the 2x compression format since that is what the majority of printed films that are in "Scope" are/were released in, and for simplification and standardization. My main lens of choice is the famous KOWA Prominar Anamorphic 16-H (aka 8-Z) which is small enough to make it easy to use, yet large enough to allow use on a vast variety of Super 8mm cameras. Due to realistic size and weight limitations, this combination has worked great allowing me to use the camera for on-the-fly-filming, as well as more serious tripod work over the years.

Some years ago, it was relatively easy to buy these custom made adapters which screw into the camera's tripod socket and support the lens in front of your main zoom/prime lens. With a variety of adjustments, it could also be fitted overhead to the movie light socket on top. These items can still be hunted down, but you'll have to search for them amongst the circles of users/former users........thus try contacting The WIDESCREEN Centre in London (although, they're not into it anymore like they used to be years ago, but might still have items or can get them), contact the remaining camera clubs, and also The AUSTRALIAN WIDESCREEN ASSOCIATION. Most of these can all be found online nowadays.

Having tried various adapters, I ended up settling with perhaps the simplest adapter made, "The Custome Mount" which via a small metal drilled out base block, attaches to either tripod socket or movie light socket, and has a long rod coming out which can be adjusted back and forth and locked via a small Allan Key Screw. This is likewise threaded on the front end and has a threaded knuckle or fitting attached to it, which has a vertical shaft drilled through it. A vertical rod fits into this and is held in position by an other Allan Key Screw. The top of this shorter vertical rod is also threaded to which it fitted a "lollipop" ring, which has been drilled and tapped also as the rods are, with 1/4 Inch Whitworth threading. The large ring has two further drilled holes with are fitted with two nylon/plastic grub screws. The diameter of the ring is custom, so they had several to fit a variety of Anamorphic Lenses. The entire setup is attached to the camera, the main rod is slid inward until the rear of the A-lens meets the front of the zoom/prime lens. I used a couple Series Adapters to create a cradle for the rear of the A-lens, and adjusted it all with the zoom lens on my SANKYO XL-620 focused to minimum distance....thus maximum physical extension. But lining the inner lip of the Series Adapter on the Camera's Zoom Lens with high quality vinyl electrical tape, in a couple layers, it made for a snug usable fit. The A-lens is held in the ring via the 2 Grub Screws.....but to ensure security, I also wrap a couple layers of high quality vinyl electrical tape around the rear of the lens barrel so the 2 Grub Screws have something to grab/bite into. I heard a horror story many years ago, how one filmer had his KOWA lens drop out this setup and get damaged. I have never had mine come loose using this setup, even filming from a helicopter over Niagara Falls years ago and in other precarious positions.

Now regarding some of the facts:

[1]. Yes, the rig is now heavier and larger to handle, so you have to be more careful. If using a rig that holds the A-lens in place and keeps it from rotating, you won't have to worry about realigning the A-lens each time to the correct orientation. You CAN shoot as easily as standard format once you get the hang of it, and depending on what A-lens and camera and adapter combination you are using. And.......you're going to get super wondeful CinemaScope images!

[2]. Yes, with most A-lenses you will have to focus BOTH the main/prime AND the Anamorphic lens. This is no big deal most of the time. Since the distance setting will coincide between both lenses, for planned shots of action, preset things up. You can film family, kids, sports...etc.....once you get the hang of it, it's almost as fast as not having the A-lens rig setup. And....you're going to get super wondeful CinemaScope images!

[3]. Yes, there is some light loss, usually about 1/4th to 1/3rd of a Stop, very little really and in general use, you won't notice it exposure wise most of the time. And....you're going to get super wondeful CinemaScope images!

[4]. Yes, there are focal length considerations due to the physical size of the A-lens and camera lens, and the optical relationship between them. e.g. on my SANKYO XL-620 the widest focal length I use is about 15mm. But since the KOWA is a 2x lens, the actual relative focal length in the image on the horizontal axis will be 7.5mm....so as wide as the zoom lens is anyhow. And....you're going to get super wondeful CinemaScope images!

[5]. Yes, it's a hassle.....but then so is anything filmmaking related at times. Scripting, acting, lighting, processing, editing, sound scoring, filming, filtering, etc etc. Tell me what isn't a hassle? And....you're going to get super wondeful CinemaScope images!

This takes some getting used to, but you get used to it fast. It varies from camera to camera, with smaller lens cameras being able to use most of the zoom range. So, Super 8mm cameras with a zoom lens not larger than 5:1 works best with the KOWA lens. This doesn't mean you cannot use others, just that the minimum usable focal length will be much longer than you want. e.g. on a NIZO S-800, the minimum focal length is around 40mm, yielding a 20mm effective result. However, the purpose of using it on a NIZO or BEAULIEU at the time, with their long large lens, was purposely to film at a super telephoto length in CinemaScope. For much smaller Super 8mm cameras, there's also the KOWA D-16 (compact) which is smaller and lighter. For those wanting an ultra tiny compact setup, there's the famous HYPERGONAR-8 which is very tiny and can be used on small Regular 8mm camera lenses, some 16mm cameras, and any of the small fixed lens or tiny zoom Super 8mm. This lens works great on the FUJI P-2 which is a Single-8 camera. While it's a 1.75x lens, it's close to the 2x format for some scenics to be shown with a 2x projection lens in some projects. From a pure standpoint, you'd want to use it for a project in that resulting aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

There's more to this entire subject to discuss, and it would take more to read and ponder and I can tell some of you are falling asleep already. So, in the end, is it worth it? I and many other Widescreeners thought so and still think so. I don't shoot as much in Widescreen using a A-lens as I used to, and that's probably because I began to think....gee....if I die off, people are going to go thru my films and think they are all distorted and then just toss them out! So, lately I've been using Super 8mm as it was intended, just to document my life, family, friends and whatever. But for more serious productions, the A-lens Rig comes out into use!

With HD TV, they couldn't even agree exactly what they should use....and settled somewhere in the middle. They could've at least made TV the same as the theatrical cinema release standard format of 1.85:1. So, even if you watch a proper film in it's correct format on your HDTV, it will still have masking lines on the top and bottom of the screen. What I'm getting at here, is that it really doesn't matter if you prefer an odd format over that of others......even a 'normal' cinema film still has to be either cropped or masked to be shown on TV via DVD or BluRay.

Finally, remember.......you're going to get super wondeful CinemaScope images!

I don't own the UWL lens for the NIZO, but have used the AMBICO Hemispheric (aspheric) wide angle and also the CANON aspheric Wide Angle, and they will work if using 2 of the 4x close-up lens behind it. The focus is set to Infinity, and for sharp results you'd want to be closed down at least 2-stops from wide open or more. Sharpest results are obtained around F/8 or better. The other problem is the NIZO since it will begin to vignette quickly, so you will actually have to move the zoom slightly to avoid that. This setup has worked on a SANKYO XL620 at the widest 7.5mm position, the NIZO 560 and 480, and on a BEAULIEU using the smaller Angenieux 8mm to 64mm F/1.9 lens (note the Series filter thread is different at 48.5mm versus the 49mm closeup lenses. Anyhow, you'll have to check for vignetting and slightly adjust your zoom, since the degree of vignetting depends on the design of the aspheric lens you're using, and the spacing of the closeup lenses and necessary adapter ring(s). I never purchased any of the UWL lenses since they aren't made of glass, and I thought they were thus overpriced for acrylic. The AMBICO and CANON ultra wide lens adapters are glass and also well coated. Good luck, hope this helps.