Martin Baumgarten

Hi Wayne. The ELMO 1012 XLS is a pretty complicated camera, even though is looks pretty basic externally, and has fewer features than many of its long zoom counterparts. I would only recommend attempting repair IF you are: a camera repair tech, audiovisual repair tech, electronics/computer repair tech, or have experience at attempting repairing any fine mechanical and electronic items using fine hand tools etc. This caveat aside, here's some information that might be useful. Try to determine what is not functioning or not functioning correctly on the camera. The various different camera sections can usually be repaired from their physical locations rather than completely dismantling the camera to its chassis.

Camera body shell screws are located in various corners of their respective covers, and most are underneath the leatherette covering which must be peeled back/or off to remove the screws. I suggest having a clean work surface to do this, and it's helpful to make notes to yourself as to what goes where. To help avoid losing the tiny screws, you can tape them down in groups onto a large sheet of white plastic where using a permanent type felt tip marker you can write notes as to their location points. The LEFT side of the camera as you hold it with the lens forward contains all the main function controls, with the respective circuit boards underneath [exposure adjustment module, camera speed control, sound recording electronics, Sound Capstan Flywheel and Belts etc]. The RIGHT side of the camera contains the Lens Aperture Control Unit, Zoom Motor Unit, Filter Switch and Filters, Film Cartridge Chamber with all related meter and filter indexing parts. The Top of the camera contains the Sound Recording Hot Shoe for Telescopic Microphone Input, Movie Light Socket and Filter Switching Mechanism etc. The Rear of the camera contains the dioptric viewfinder control and film use indicator mechanism etc. The Front of the camera contains the Zoom Lens module of the camera which interfaces with the zoom drive motors, aperture and filter mechanisms (NOTE: Do not remove the lens focusing shell off the lens unless you are familiar with resetting the lens correctly to its Infinity and Focusing Range again since it very easy to mess this up).

I have photos, but can't figure out how to upload them into this window from my computer. Email me at Super8mm@aol.com and I'll send them to you or tell me how to upload photos.

There will be a grain and contrast increase, as well as a color bias shift towards the red/orange range. I would first take a light meter reading of whatever subject matter was lit by the lighting and see what Exposure Index [iSO equivalent] range it falls into. For example, if there was a person in the scene, put someone in that spot, meter the light falling on the subject with a hand held light meter or 35mm SLR or DSLR and see what exposure range you have at ISO 200, ISO 400 or ISO 800. Anything in the scene that falls below the threshold of the film's ability to record it in low light, will not have anything anyway. By pushing film you are increasing whatever is actually being recorded on the film to bring the image density to a more desirable range. Once you have determined this, you can then go ahead and push process the film, either 1 Stop, 1.5 Stops,2 Stops or even 3 Stops if necessary. [Note: a 3 stop push would be extremely dramatic and needs some careful consideration, but up to 2 Stops should be fine]. I have often pushed the now discontinued EKTACHROME films similiarly and gotten good results, with the caveat of the grain and contrast increase, and under tungsten lighting a very warm color bias. For what I was working on, I was pleased versus having a very dark unusable image. If you doing your own processing, I always recommend shooting a few feet of the scene that you might want to push, and then remove that strip and process it and evaluate it to see if the push is necessary. You could do that from the end of your film, but you'd have to sacrifice a second or two of runtime of your film for that purpose. Only you can determine if it's worth it to you. Good luck!

I'm very sorry to hear about this. Totally unprofessional service on the part of Ritter Media. IF they do not want to use foam, they could still use cardboard filler which would have offered similar protection. They answer to the packing issue is so silly, it sounds like a child would say that. I've had my share of bad repair experiences with a variety of places, and being a repair technician as well, I can easily spot poor work. I had a SANKYO repaired under warranty just 2 months into it, and the camera worked somewhat better. I ended up dismantling it myself and found that the solder points were extremely poor. Once I redid all those, the camera worked fine. Seemed it was a rapid and sloppy board replacement. Of course, these days, we can't just drive to a repair shop any longer (aside from the few that might live near one of course), and not everyone is able to learn how to repair their own equipment (and even if they could, there's still the issue of parts). Sad story indeed, and I do hope you get that fine machine back into full service.

Many good points brought up. For technical clarification, I never said to spray silicone into any Super 8mm camera. I did state that to avoid jamming and sticking especially in hot humid areas, "wipe" the Super 8mm film gate with a soft white cotton flannel cloth that had been sprayed with some silicone spray (the kind not harmful to plastics!) and time allowed for the propellant to first evaporate since it is a solvent. This will help prevent the film from sticking. I have received and continue to receive old and new film here for processing that has never been exposed! And it's due to the film sticking initially; upon critical examination of the film emulsion with a loupe, one can see a small rut or groove in the emulsion from the film claw trying to pull the film down, and once this rut has been made, the film will remain without moving. This can be fixed easily by pulling the film downward an inch as it will free the emulsion that has stuck to the cartridge shell above the film gate and held in place firmly the the Super 8mm builtin pressure plate. I have always achieved very steady Super 8mm footage over the years this way, and mind you, many films I have shot in full CinemaScope using a 2x anamorphic lens......so when that wide footage is projected on a huge screen, you want it to be steady. Actually, we all want our footage to be steady!

In most cases regarding older projectors, especially any that have sat for a long time, the belts will usually need replacing. The rubber only remains supple for so many years or so many hours of use. That SANKYO is a fairly well made projector and should serve you a long time. New belts, clean the entire film path and track and film gate, and wipe the path again with either movie film cleaner with lubricant or a silicone lubricant intended for safe for plastics (spray a clean white cotton flannel cloth, allow propellant to evaporate and then wipe the film gate, pressure plate and film path. You can use a small piece and move it around using soft wooden skewers or cotton swaps. If you use the cotton swaps alone, you might end up getting small fibers in the film gate and they could show upon projection. Also, make sure your films are clean and lubricated so they will glide thru the projector smoothly; this will minimize wear and tear on the films. Best of luck.

If the other remote control you have for the CANON is a simple electrical release switch 3.5mm mini plug, then yes it will work. The BEAULIEU 6008 must have it's Run Control locked and the switch will then allow the camera to operate once activated to the On setting. You can also use an old cheap microphone, just break off the microphone tip, and use the smaller remote tip that remains (such as a tape recorder mic or the cheap mics that came with many Super 8mm Sound Cameras). This is a good time to bring up how important it is to have the owner's manual for whatever camera you use. Even one tip will make having the manual worthwhile. Good luck best of success on your project!

Hi, sadly the HANIMEX Loadmatic M200 is a very basic camera made by the Haking Camera Corp in Hong Kong, and was made under a variety of names: GAF, Sears, Montgomery Ward, Chinon, etc. It was also sold under the Australian Hanimex company world-wide. This is the somewhat upgraded version of the fixed lens model since this had a manual zoom lens added (non-SLR) viewfinder type. It's built in light meter was intended for use only with Tungsten 40/Daylight 25 (with Filter) filmstock, which was available from KODAK (Kodachrome), AGFA(Agfachrome 40), ANSCO (Anscochrome 40) and some others). In the right lighting situation, you could use TRI-X 200 in it, but you'd have to use a separate light meter to know that you are within exposure range. The camera's shutterspeed at 18frames per second is about 1/40th second, and factor in the lens being at wide open, F/2.2 I believe but examine your camera for that. Setting a light meter for ISO 200, you can film once the light levels show an equivalent exposure range of 1/40 @ F/2.2. You could also cover the external meter window with black tape so the lens will stay fixed wide open, and use Neutral Density Filters over the lens to decrease the light to equivalent exposure F/Stop levels of F/4.5, F/5.6, F/8 etc....but it would be far easier, better, and better image quality to just find a much better Super 8mm camera. Best of luck, hope this helps shed more light on the situation for you.

Forgot to add, do not forget to filter your chemistry! This is very important and can be done quite easily with cheesecloth and/or various water filters. Once strained clean, the chemistry will be fine for reuse.

It truly is much easier to just remove the remjet after processing when using manual methods. Just soak the film in a Borax solution warmed to the same as processing temperature. Let the film soak for at least 5 minutes. Use at least 2 tablespoons household Borax per Liter, more if the backing seems to stubborn. Due to the low cost, I use a fresh batch each time I process any film with remjet backing. Anyhow, it really helps to have a few sponges, photo grade or equivalent on hand and a film rewinder or set of rewinds. I have them mounted onto a 2 x 4inch board about 4 feet in length so it can be clamped to a work table or lab sink with a large C-Clamp. After the film has soaked, I transfer all the film from the developing reel to a 50ft projection reel. This reel sits in a small tank or tray also with a Borax solution. This way, the remjet will come off physically and less will get onto your reels and equipment.

I manually wipe off the remjet the first few feet so I have enough slack film to wind onto the film reel on the Rewinder. Then, I have a large sponge soaked with the solution placed so the film will run over it remjet side down. With another solution soaked sponge folded over the film, I slowly wind the film onto the takeup reel on the Rewinder, and every few feet I rinse out the sponge in a bucket and resoak it with solution again and continue. Keeping an eye on the large sponge the film runs over, I wringe out that sponge as well and resoak it. Once the film has wound onto the takeup reel, I then switch places and do this again. The second pass will get anything not removed the first time. Only thing left is then to Wash the film once again 2-4 minutes to remove all traces of Borax solution in the emulsion. Then to soak the film in a Stabilizer/ Drying agent prior to hanging it or winding onto a Film Drying Rack to dry.

For equipment cleanup, you can use old toothbrushes (soft bristle ones work best) and some Borax or Washing Soda solution and soak in a bucket, light scrubbing with the brush in the reels, and a good rinse off, and then wipe dry which will get off other residue onto the towel.

Once you have done all this a few times, you'll establish your own work habits for it and it goes quickly. Good luck!

Cropping the tiny Regular 8mm frame would increase visible grain, but it is doable. A lot depends on the grain and image quality of the film stock you use. However, going Anamorphic Widescreen works great also. There were several 1.5x compression anamorphic lenses made in the 1950s to 1960s that are small and compact. The most expensive is the BOLEX Moeller 1.5x lens, which coupled with its dedicated lens holder mount is very nice. The lower cost alternatives were: Yaschica, Elmo, S.T.O.P. Hypergonar 1.75x(which now seems to be very expensive), KinoScope, VistaScope (made by Delrama in Holland)iand others. These were all small lenses originally intended to fit the Regular 8mm camera lens, some with lens adapters or using a small tripod socket mount.

Some other lower cost 1.5x compression lenses were the Palamorphot 1.5x and the MagnaScope 1.5x.

If you don't mind the 2x compression format (yielding a 2.66:1 aspect ratio) then rigging up anyone of the many affordable 2x anamorphic lenses out there would work. It might look a little odd with a large lens rig on such a tiny camera, but I've done it many times, and works great. Consider the affordable KOWA 16D or F, and the very affordable often under $100 LOMO lenses from Russia or Ukraine on eBay.

Then there's the new tiny I-PRO anamorphic 1.33x lenses being made for cellphones which should easily fit the tiny 8mm camera lenses from Moondog Labs and other similar type attachments (not the Wide Angle lenses you see sold!), B&H Photo's price is $175 and they also make a 52mm filter adapter for it. This lens will yield the 'modern' 16:9 aspect ratio format which all modern Televisions and digital video cameras are set for.

For cement splicing the BOLEX 8mm/Super 8mm dual format splicer is one of the best out there. It makes a beveled edge splice that runs through the projector smoothly. There is a bit of getting used to it at first, but once you get used to it, it's great to use. HAHNEL made a nice beveled edge splicer that many consider perhaps the best type of Cement Splicer. I have used these also and they are great but run on batteries and you have to be mindful of the fine grinding dust as well as knowing that the grinding wheel will wear out eventually. Replacements are harder to locate. The BOLEX splicer uses the same grinding block as it's 16mm counterpart, so one from a 16mm version could be switched out if it were to wear out.

For tape splicers, the WURKER is well made and easy to use. While many types were made, avoid any that use a wrap around splice, since that can be finnicky in some projectors. I used to just shave off the wrap around part with a single edged razor blade when I did use one many years ago. I would only consider this type for film repair these days. The KODAK PressTape ones work well, and are preferred by those having to repair sprocket hole damage, but they are long and easily visible. The WURKER splice, is fast and small if using the 2 frame ones. I used to buy the 4 frame ones and cut them in half to become 2-frame tapes, both the 8mm and Super 8mm ones. But once I got used to cement splicing using the BOLEX splicer, I have stayed with it. The CIR Italian made splicers are nice, but can get gummed up since they perforated the tape. I have one also, and decided to only use it for film repair. In the end, you have to use what works best for you, of course.

Those 3 inch diameter fat rubber bands that various office supply places sell work great for the 50ft reels. I put a twist on one while placing it on the film and it makes it easier to grab the rubberband to remove it. I do suggest the film be snug on the reel and not loosely wadded up of course. The tape suggestions are good too. You can get a bag of rubberbands for pretty cheap though and they are reusable as well.

That's terrific news Vincent, thanks for sharing. I looked up the specifications on the Ilford PQ Developer, and it is a high contrast strong working developer. It's chemical makeup seems sufficient to produce good results and thus would make a viable alternative for anyone processing that was using the now discontinued KODAK D-19 Developer (which is available being made by Photographer's Formulary but at $25 per gallon mix and sold by others such as Freestyle Film and B&H Photo etc). Nice to see others processing their own cine film these days.

Usually the earlier pre-1982 manufactured film which requires prehardening is the more expensive to process. The EM-26 films while costing a bit more are still not out of this world to get done, with rates at $25 each 50ft cart at PPS. There's a vendor on eBay selling out of date Super 8mm sound film of both KODACHROME 40A and EKTACHROME 160A versions, stating that they have all been stored refrigerated. If so, the KODACHROME should still process well as B&W or Sepia Reversal, and the EKTACHROME might still yield some tolerable color. If it had been kept frozen, it would be very good. I was going to get a roll of each to test out, but have many other projects in line here anyhow. Even with long out of date expired film, and the results in color being virtually all green, it can be fun to play around with a single system sound camera. The other options of processing such old film as B&W Negative and scanning it in afterward to a positive and still having synch sound is nice. It's amazing how much unexposed film is still out there from decades ago. As for the mag stripe being affected by any of the process methods, all films have been unaffected regardless how I processed them here: Color Reversal, B&W Reversal, B&W Negative or Sepia Tone Reversal. The mag stripe is stable and fine. This was KODAK's Sonotrack Coating, a liquid paste stripe track, not a laminate one, so it bonded chemically to the film base. Their long discontinued post sound striping was the same and very good. I for one, will continue to shoot single system sound film using any one of my sound cameras when I want lip synch sound or just plain location sound, especially in home movies. As long as the camera is working well, the capstan belt is intact and snug, and you're careful with recording just like you would be with any audio recording methods, the results should be good, even at 18fps.

Also, don't forget, www.dwaynesphoto.com still has the AGFA 200Daylight film available under the Wittnerchrome 200D name. This is Color Reversal E-6 process film for $38 each cartridge, which they also process for $12 each. Since this film is much more light sensitive at ISO 200 than the former KODACHROME 40A (rated at ISO 25 in Daylight with the Filter), you'll have to use a Neutral Density filter on the front lens to cut the light down. A 4x ND filter will knock it down to where you need it for bright light. You could also use a Polarizing Filter if you have one available, as that will get you within a decent exposure range as well. Most of those era BAUER Super 8mm cameras had either a 49mm or 52mm filter thread, and there's plenty of low cost filters and step up adapters if needed, available on Ebay.

Hopefully, in due time we'll have EKTACHROME 100D color reversal film back from KODAK, and also another 100 Daylight film from FERRANIA. Good luck and have fun with the camera, nice viewfinder on it too.

If the KODACHROME film is in good shape, thus of late manufacture and under 12-15 years old and stored well, or regardless of vintage and cold stored frozen since new, it should work fine and can be reversal processed as Black & White or Sepia, or as a either a high contrast negative or continuous tone negative (for those only wanting a negative film for transfer to a digital format). I had begun working in sound striping Fomapan a few years ago so that I could have a B&W filmstock to shoot in Single System Sound Super 8mm, but there's so much KODACHROME still in existence in the hands of many filmmakers, with much of it cold stored either refrigerated or frozen, it's easier to just use that.

At the moment, there is a seller on eBay selling off his entire stock that has been kept refrigerated, both KODACHROME Sound, and EKTACHROME 160A Sound (as well as silent varieties) for $18 each, a bargain if they are truly usable compared to what it would cost privately to custom manufacture something similar. All my film processing tests on my own stock of frozen films dating back to the late 1970s still show pretty good to very good color on the EKTACHROME films, and nice B&W results on the KODACHROME films. NOTE: B&W or Sepia Reversal processing of KODACHROME requires Push Processing to yield normal density for those films exposed at ISO 40(without builtin 85 Filter) or ISO 25 (with builtin 85 Filter), so there will be some grain and contrast buildup, depending on scene brightness range etc. The only way around this is to expose the films at about ISO 15(w/o Filter) or ISO 10(with Filter). Since it's easier to use the camera's metering system, as well as the advanced features allowing lap dissolves and fades on my SANKYO XL620 camera or Braun NIZO 6056 and similar cameras, I just use the cartridge indexing and push the films to compensate to gain normal density.

Before I get to image samples below, please allow me to add, that while enjoying the Super 8mm forum of this Cinematography group, I have to say, there has been far too many negative type comments from more seasoned professional cinematographers who in all reality are using 16mm and larger formats. Unless what you have to say supports and helps the Super 8mm users or those desiring to use this film gauge despite whatever one's perceived bias is for or against it, don't post it here. Consider sticking to the forum that is relative to what you are passionate about and are using for cinematography. No offense is intended here, but those of us involved in Super 8mm should be helping each other, not someone who doesn't really care about this gauge and wants to just bash it because it's small, or doesn't have the high quality they desire etc etc. I'm sure you all understand what I'm referring to. Anyhow, thank you in advance for your consideration for this forum.

Those that are into processing their own Super 8mm cine films, and wish to do their own 'good' KODACHROME as Reversal or Sepia, it is quite doable at home [since virtually all of my custom lab cine film processing here is done via manual processing methods]. Many desire using older filmstocks for the unpredictability of results, or purposely for aging effects, as well as those wishing for predictable results with good quality. Personally, I'd rather have B&W Sound Film than no sound film at all. And there is still so much of it out in the form of KODACHROME.

I hope this helps answer some questions those of you might have being able to use older sound films.

Below are some image samples taken directly from Super 8mm frames to show relative results from processing KODACHROME outdated film as B&W and Sepia Reversal.

BELOW: KODACHROME film cold stored original expiration 1981, B&W Reversal Processed.

BELOW: Same batch of cold stored KODACHROME Sepia tone Reversal Processed, expiration 1981.

BELOW: KODACHROMEcustomer's film that expired about 2005 and was processed as B&W Reversal 2015, thus 10 years past expiration, only room temp stored.

If you're shooting at 18fps, then the shutter speed will be lower, closer to 1/30th per second. Anyhow, a cheap ND filter if you don't have any are dollar store sunglasses. Get the glass lens versions, a nice dark one and a medium one, pop the lens out and use some good grade electrical tape to put it on your camera lens. Before you do however, aim either a light meter thru it or another camera (film or digital) and see what the light loss value amount is. This will help you figure out your exposure. That "Filter" now coupled with the builtin #85 Filter will drastically cut your light down quite a bit. I mean, you could put two "filters" on top of each other, just make sure they're real clean of smudge; you'll be shooting thru an extra layer of course, but this works in a pinch. I know, I have done it many times. I even sometimes just use my own sunglasses to cut light down or for polarization even with whatever camera I have on me, if I don't have filters along. Use what works. Super 8mm (and Regular 8mm) have been, are, and continue to be great DIY formats for those on low or no budgets. At least this way, you won't grossly overexpose that 500 speed film.

Hi, you didn't provide us with the make and model of your Super 8mm camera. Most of the Super 8mm cameras that were made usually only were set for the Filmspeeds of ISO 40 and ISO 160 (and the Daylight ratings via the Builtin 85 filter of ISO 25 and ISO 100). Thus, your camera cannot read the ISO/ASA 500 rating and will default to the ISO 160 rating. Depending on the lighting situation, you can still use the camera with the ISO 500 film. Taking into account the Shutter speed per frame at your running speed (18 or 24 etc) and whatever your maximum lens aperture is, and the size of your zoom lens (to figure out the light loss factor to determine the actual working aperture working value of incoming light), you can use an external hand held light meter and figure out pretty well if the film will capture usable images in various low level light situtions.

If for example, you are shooting at 18fps, and based on your camera's shutter design the exposure is 1/40th per second, and your lens is an F/1.8 aperture, and you have an 8:1 zoom lens (which coupled with the viewfinder prism will rob about 1/2 Stop of light at least, then figure 1/40th second shutterspeed at F/2.8 to program into your hand held light meter. Without knowing exactly what camera it is, we can't help you further than this example. Suffice to say, even with the most basic Super 8mm cameras, using ISO 500 film in many low light situations will still result in decent images (deep black regions and bright washout situations notwithstanding of course).

Lots of good and exciting suggestions here. I applaud the caffenol and low toxicity formulations. I suggest using one roll of film cut up into short lengths to experiment with to avoid the higher cost and effort in handling with complete film rolls per experiment. Kraig brings lots of good information to this forum, for those wanting to experiment and also use safer compounds. The end goal is the result, if it works for you and you like it, then use that method that best suits you.

The Caffenol formulations are fun, but as Richard mentioned, it needs to be really strong to work for Reversal Processing. Caffenol is a basic film developer formula, a soft working developer which doesn't have the usual components of accelerator or preservative, thus its life is short once mixed. Unless you are trying for using only a low toxic brew of processing soup here, I recommend using a more traditional First Developer which should be a higher contrast strong solution, such as KODAK D-19 (or the other formulations of D-8 or D-11), but not a line film developer (too high in contrast and not as controllable in a blind processing environment), or even possibly something similar to Polydol or Dektol in a straight mix formula. Then, you can still use Caffenol as the Re-Developer (2nd Developer) and get that stained look which is seen in B&W Negatives processed with Caffenol.

For another look, you can use the T-19 Sodium Sulfide formula for the Re-Developer (in which you do not need to re-expose the film at all!) and get a rich deep Sepia brown tone to the film. I warn you though, use gloves, use lots of ventilation, it does stink to high heaven, but boy, nice images.

Roger mentioned available sources for Color Reversal. Yes, it's coming back this fall, our beloved EKTACHROME, terrific! There is still tons of unexposed outdated film that shows up for sale on eBay and elsewhere; some of my customers have film stockpiled in their freezers. Film that hasn't been cold stored frozen since new will not have good color or results, but I see so many variations in old film processing here, a lot depends on where it was stored. Plenty of KODACHROME out there yet, and that can be used for B&W Processing experimentation, as well as decent images (if the film has been cold stored or isn't too old).

Richard's suggestion for sodium bisulphate is good. I personally don't mind using Sulfuric Acid, it's easily available from auto supply shops here in the USA (just be very careful with it of course). I often wish I had more time for experimentation, but would have to forgo doing films for others to allow more time for myself. My suggestion for safety is to use plenty of ventilation, use rubber gloves, eye goggles and a breathing surgical mask when mixing up solutions. If working in a dusty environment and with hazardous powders even a good breathing mask with filters works great ffom keeping that stuff out of your lungs.

It's so nice to still be able to shoot film in this highly digital era! There is still plenty of strong support for film and I hope it will continue that way long into the future.

Hi, yes, I always modify the TRI-X cartridge by cutting out a "Filter Notch". Easy to do, just use some needle nose pliers and snip out part of the lower front cartridge wall where it pushes in the Filter Removal Button in the film chamber. If you can just cut down a bit on two sides with a single edge razor blade and then just bend off a square piece to make your notch, that works fine. Anyhow, this way, once done, you can make use of the builtin 85 orange filter, which truly works great in Daylight shots to render decent sky tonal density and cloud detail(if there's any clouds). If not, I still use it, as then my film isn't so highly sensitive due to the light reduction, and I still get sky tone versus a washed out white sky if not using it. Then using the Filter Switch on the camera body, move the position the Tungsten or Without Filter position, and you can then just screw on whatever type of filter you would like.

If you have other Filters (Red, Green, Yellow etc), you could shoot just a few feet with each and see how it affects the tones. This visual reference that you shoot yourself, will help you in the future. Also, even if the film is processed as a Negative (which can be done as either a nice continous tone negative or high contrast negative depending which developer you use if you do it yourself or have a lab do it) or in Sepia Tone Reversal (which is a rich brown tone image, not sure what labs might offer this, but I do here), the same visual effects of filtration affect the tones. Of courses if processed as a B&W Negative, you won't see the tonal changes until it's transferred and flipped to a positive, but they're there.

NOTE: If you ever want to shoot TRI-X and have it processed as a Negative, you will have to adjust your Exposure Index from ISO 200 to ISO 125, and then all other aspects of light reduction apply off that ISO rating. And, if shooting as a Negative, you can also easily change the Exposure Index via PUSH or PULL processing, thus rating the film higher such as at ISO 200 or ISO 400 or ISO 800 (with notable changes in film grain structure and image contrast) or lower to say ISO 50 or ISO 25 (with finer grain structure and also lower image contrast).

Lastly: Filmspeed boosting via PUSH or lowering via PULL is also doable for Reversal Processing, but with differing image artifacts. In the beginning here though, stick to the factory ratings and work off that range for your shooting and adjusting for any filtration. Once you feel comfortable with that, and then want to experiment with other possibilties, you'll already have a feel for how TRI-X works for you and what your camera is capable of producing.

Finally: Great to hear that you plan on projecting the film! Nothing like seeing it up on the screen. If you're able to before to have it digitized or do it yourself, that would be good too, as then you'd have it prior to the film getting any run scratches or tram lines etc. But, I have tons of film that I've yet to transfer and they have been played many times over the years and still look good. Just make sure the projector's film path and film gate and pressure plate are clean, wipe the down with 91% isopropyl alcohol, and then, using a piece of clean white cotton flannel cloth, spray some pure silicone into the cloth, wait 5 to 10 minutes until the propellant has evaporated, and wipe the Pressure Plate, Film Gate, and any Film Guides with it. This will make the film path nice and clean and slick, allowing the film to glide through it easily with a steady image projection. You can also use a Film Cleaner with Lubricant Solution to do the same thing as above. But I mention the foregoing in case you don't have any, since the other items are easily obtained locally at most super market shops.

It's nice to have options. I've been processing my own films, both movie and still (except for KODACHROME back in the day) since 8th grade. As I've said many times over the years, if a kid can process film and get professional results, so can an adult. I know this isn't for everybody of course. But that's why for many years, there were places that sold equipment and chemistry and instructions to process your own movie film and do all kinds of lab related stuff. With the Color Negative films, the situation is more complex but can be done. Many have processed their own Color Negative films using C-41 still film chemistry, and used Borax solutions after processing to remove any remaining remjet backing. Some have substituted the Color Developer and gotten good results as well. Some do their own scanning, anything from a lower end SD camera to a higher end HD setup, and then tweaking their work in software on their computers. The 8mm format has always had a large DIY side to it, just as 16mm filmmaking did in the first decades since it was introduced; and some 16mm filmers still do a lot of DIY today.

With EKTACHROME 100D coming back this fall, you can learn to process your own film, and maybe even do B&W as well. It's quite possible to get the per roll cost down to under $10 for Color Reversal or Neg and under $6 for B&W. The remaining expense is your own time and expertise (the latter having to be learned via practice). There's quite a bit of outdated stuff for sale on EBay at times, and while not fresh film, it can be used to learn how to load Spiral Reels or Developing Racks etc, learn how to process film and so on. If you decide to stay with Super 8mm, and do much of it yourself, you can process 8 to 10 rolls yourself for within $100 on average. Shave off the postage costs and you factor in more savings.

Some here will protest at my even mentioning all this, but it's fair to say, that many have processed their own films over the years. I'm not trying to take away work from the labs, far from it. The majority will send their films out for processing and scanning (for those that want that done elsewhere), just as it is in the still film world. But, necessity is the mother of invention and innovation. Many of us that got into photography and film at a young age, needed to save money since we didn't have it and couldn't afford much. I used the bulk of my newspaper carrier money and income from cutting grass and snow shoveling to pay for photography interests. By learning how to do some or all of it myself, I saved a lot of money that I didn't have, as well as allowed myself to do more with the little I could afford. This same formula has worked worldwide for many in various pursuits. For many years people living in the former Eastern Block nations had these options, and film was sold to reload into reloadable Super 8mm cartridges, film in bulk, home processing equipment and chemistry right up to the time of the political change in those regions. Then of course, things there became more like elsewhere, sending film out became more common amongst the new generations of budding photographers and filmmakers and hobbyists.

Anyhow, so, the bottom line is, save where you can however you can. If you have ever processed any still film before, with some care and learning, you can process your own movie film. With the equipment, you can transfer your own films. You do not need high end gear. In the beginning, even doing a chain type transfer with a good variable speed projector will get you in the ballpark. Do what you can afford, and as you stick with it, when you can afford it, buy some better gear; plenty of used stuff shows up all the time. Someone mentioned the WorkPrinter, still a good gizmo, despite having now been discontinued as that company has moved on to other designs. But, it's a tool, and if whatever it is works for you, and you're happy with it for now, well, that's fine. As a buddy texted to me earlier today, when I sent him some pics I took with my cheap 2mp Tracfone of some snowy mountain scenary. He said, it's always amazing that to a large extent, it's the photographer and not the equipment. One can be as professional as one can, within the limits of the equipment. This applies also to type of film, camera, processing, transfer, and individual technique. I say, do as much as you can on your own and save where you can, as you learn and have fun. Just my two cents here.

Everything David says above, and I'll add my own information which might help also.

[1]. ALL panchromatic films (those sensitive to all main spectrums of visible light, being Red, Green and Blue) lose some of their sensitivity under artifical lighting (tunsgten etc illumination) due to the lack of Blue and UV light to which silver halide crystals are more inherently sensitive to. It's not super drastic, but it's there, and it helps to be aware of it for certain critical shots in some situations.

[2]. The Filter variation, the change in effective filmspeed due to the builtin Filter in most Super 8mm cameras, is due to the light being reduced such as when you wear sunglasses. This is NOT the variation between Daylight and Tungsten lighting as that is due to the lack of blue and UV light. It contributes but is slight. Thus, when using Tri-X Reversal, in Daylight, it's ISO 200 WITHOUT Filter, or about ISO 130 WITH Filter. In Tungsten/Artificial light, WITHOUT Filter it's ISO 160, and you really wouldn't want to use the Filter in artificial light anyhow, as it would reduce effective filmspeed to about ISO 100. In cameras that meter automatically, they will rate TRI-X Reversal at ISO 160 Daylight WITHOUT Filter and ISO 100 WITH Filter. As David mentions, it's not that big of a deal for most things, but if you have manual exposure control, you can tweak your exposure for some shots to compensate. I have never really seen a big need for this in most of my usage for TRI-X Reversal amongst many different Super 8mm cameras.

[3]. When using Black & White panchromatic films, either negatiave or reversal, in both still and motion picture applications, it's often a good idea to use some form of filtration in daylight shots where there will be expanses of sky and clouds. A medium yellow has been the usual recommendation, and also an orange filter, as these will help render a more 'normal' tonal range of the sky as well as allow tonal separation of blue sky and any cloud detail. You can get more dramatic using deep yellow, or various red filters. Otherwise, due to the inherent blue and UV sensitivity of black & white panchromatic films, the sky will tend to wash out to near white and any clouds will appear faint and weak compared to how they looked when you were shooting the film. The built in Wratten 85 orange Daylight Conversion Filter found in most Super 8mm cameras was originally intended to correct the Color of Super 8mm Color films, since in the beginning they were all Tungsten balanced. KODAK also recommended using this filter for B&W films, especially PLUS-X Reversal, for the very sky and cloud reasons I just mentioned, as well as reducing the effective filmspeed so the camera can record in Bright Light. Otherwise it would mean having to shoot at F/45 or smaller, something most Super 8mm cameras can't do and due to aperture issues you really wouldn't want to. This also works fine for TRI-X Reversal as well. I often use TWO Filters, a 4X Neutral Density Fiter AND the built in 85 Filter, which gets that ISO 200 TRI-X film down to about ISO 20, great for bright daylight shooting (just like using KODACHROME which was ISO 25 in Daylight). You can use any strength ND Filter to reduce the light of course for whatever your exposure needs are. Doing this will allow you to shoot with any high speed film in bright light, even the ISO 500 Color Neg, without any issues. But that's another topic.

[4]. Lastly, regarding your concern about how to store partially used cartridges. If in a high dust and humidity region, you can put them into ziplock bags. Otherwise, you're fine in normal room temp just like you treat still film. The only exception here would be, if you plan to not use the film within the next 3-6 months, I would put them into good quality ziplock bags in a room with normal humidity if possible, and then store them in the fridge. If you think you won't get to them for 6 months to a year or longer, then freeze them. Aside from very high heat and high humidity regions, you'll be fine. Just bagging them to avoid getting any dust or crude into the cartridge's film gate will help significantly and that would be your immediate concern. It's great to be able to switch out cartridges for different reasons. For example wanting to create an effect of flipping from a positive to a negative universe etc and back again later. I know, so much of this is now done in post, but for those of us that still project our movies, it's great to be able to do all kinds of special effects right on the film, lap dissolves, fades, superimpositions etc. Just MAKE SURE to note the footage already filmed BEFORE you remove the cartridge, and then write that or what's left on the cartridge or on a piece of tape affixed to it, so you'll remember how much footage remains to use.

That's it, have fun, make movies and enjoy the image quality of your CANON 814 zoom.

Well, I guess then some of you have not heard quality audio recorded on the Super 8mm sound film stripe. Even the balance stripe which is smaller is capable of some good quality audio. The main stripe is about as wide as one track on a cassette audio tape, which we all know is capable of fine analogue audio. Poor audio on Super 8mm sound film is and was mainly due to poor recording techniques, lousy microphone, bad acoustics etc, camera run and build quality notwithstanding. Sometimes, in hot humid weather, there could be some jitter in the gate due to emulsion swelling (easily cured via always wiping the film gate with some movie film cleaner with lubricant or silicone prior to loading a cartridge). Even with my first Super 8mm sound camera, I was quite impressed with the audio quality on such a small magnetic track, and that was a Chinon built SS250 equivalent which only had ALC recording, but as with many cameras, a Hi and Lo bias switch.

These days, if it were desired, it might be quite possible to digitize the audio recording. I do know of Super 8mm filmmakers that used DBX encoding on their audio tracks, of course done afterward on the projector, but it could be done via audio input if desired. Even with a cheap condensor microphone, with care, and placement away from the camera, it was more than possible to record very decent audio. Film projects I worked on with others were often at 24fps, but my own personal films were and still are done only at 18fps. 18fps is fine, is more gentle on the film's movement thru the camera and projector, and via ELMO's own DEMO film that came with the famous GS-1200 projector, showed that quality audio was very achievable on Super 8mm. For the record, I have seen decent audio on Regular 8mm sound striped film as well.

So, is it on the level of DAT quality, or some high end TASCAM unit etc? Of course not, but I would say, at least as good a quality is achievable as with decent optical sound 35mm release prints back in the day; without the blips from any dirt on the track of course. I will agree that the 200 foot cartridges were problematic. Had such a design been better built with reusable metal parts and precision, and thus reloadable, it would've done better. I have so very often over the years had to break down jammed 200ft cartridges and reload the film from them into 50 footers for myself and customers. At least, the film wasn't a total loss. The 50ft sound cartridage (aka EKTASOUND Cartridge) runs better than it's Silent counterpart, and due to a reversable rachet, more easily allowed film rewind for Double Exposres, Superimpositions and Lap Dissolves. So lastly, yes Will, my films do NOT sound like an old telephone in audio quality, nor do some of those high end films I've seen from other filmmakers, with Stereo soundtracks using both Main and Balance stripes and shot in Full CINEMASCOPE via anamorphic lenses. In the end product, it's all relative to a combination of equipment and technique, within the parameters of those limitations.

I would most certainly use it, as I still use frozen stored sound film from my personal reserves these days. The 18 frame gap could be worked with, various work arounds. The big issue these days, is how many of the Super 8mm sound cameras, still have their capstan belts intact? Only the ones that used high quality rubber belts might still be working. The majority in my collection have broken, and replacing them is not for the light of heart. Some are nearly impossible to get to, such in my beloved SANKYO 620XL in which it requires removing two layers of circuit board to get at it (yes, meaning desoldering in several places and then redoing them up upon reassembly, but thank goodness so far, they still work). NIZO used good quality rubber, but even so, they will eventually break. The issue with NIZO is the darn weakness of the CMOS circuitry, rendering so many of these otherwise fine cameras unusable. An exception might be with the very early 2048 etc series which was a basic camera without all the bells and whistles of the later high end 4056/4080/6056/6080 models.

Single-system sound has many benefits especially for those wishing to record family memories on film with live sound. I was experimenting a few years back in using FOMAPAN R-100 for sound film, but it proved to be too costly. I had started again with EK100D but when it was canned, I didn't want to risk wasting any stock. Rawstock magnetic striping was only via the main track, since it was just way to risky and costly to try to add the balance stripe in the darkroom. While not nearly as high in audio quality (and yes, it was quite possible to have very nice audio quality on Super 8mm sound film, even at 18fps), I have been toying with the idea of converting a Super 8mm sound camera to record in optical sound. FUJI did this initially, producing a now extremely rare small production run of their camera, before going to magnetic sound to follow KODAK's lead on this. Their system used variable density, similar to the original optical sound prior to variable area.

I think it would be doable, would take some minor re-engineering of an existing Super 8mm sound camera, and could easily use the existing Super 8mm Ektasound cartridge design. I have been saving them for years for either project concept, magnetic or optical. With the wane of use of Super 8mm over the years, and the discontinuation of various favorite filmstocks, I felt that the work would far outnumber the need. These days, so many that shoot on Super 8mm film, end up just digitizing their footage and finalizing their work to end up on some video playback format, versus projection. Either way, I hope to get back to one or both of these projects again, when we have EKTACHROME 100D back in our hands. That all being said, there's still tons of unused and expired Sound film out there. The KODACHROME films can be processed as B&W Negative or Reversal (or Sepia Reversal) if they're not too old or haven't been exposed to a lot of heat over the years being stored somewhere. Many of the EKTACHROME 160A Sound films, if stored well, will still produce pretty decent color; my frozen stock still looks great considering the age.

Anyhow, just some musings from me regarding this topic.

Hi Hunter, I thought the titles were fine; I prefer to read a book that has a title page, same with movies. I liked much of the way you tried to incorporate ultra wide shots with regular ones, the use of some filtration near the house, the music seemed fine, I loved your folly effects for location sound. I agree with the statements of scan weaving.....it was annoying and the SANKYO normally does a decent job for steadiness. I would avoid showing the perforation, it just distracts in this short story. The only other thing I feel is the editing.....one weakness so many of us have is cutting down our own work (that's why there's brutal editors in the professional industry, but even then, many a lame commercial release has been made and will be made). So, some tighter editing will help it flow better. Not sure of your story, but hey, it's art and it's experimental, so I watched it with that in mind. The grain variation is to be expected for the day and low light shots; this was common back when so many of us shot with KODACHROME in bright light and EKTACHROME 160 for low light (and even pushed it then to ISO 400 if needed, I've pushed EK SMA 7244 to ISO 800 years ago, and knew it would be super grainy, but I like the look, and it was worth it for the low light levels I was using). It was nice to see some nice exposures, good angles, and a valiant attempt. Press forward, keep shooting, have fun, and don't let any doomsayers get you down. Do check on the scan issue though and/or find another place or work on doing it yourself eventually [super 8mm and 8mm in general has long been a DIY arena]. Best of luck in your next work!