-
Posts
363 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Martin Baumgarten
-
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.
-
Low volume, affordable Super 8 processing/transfer?
Martin Baumgarten replied to Nick Collingwood's topic in Super-8
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.- 7 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- processing
- transfer
- (and 6 more)
-
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.
-
If super-8 sound film was available, would you use it?
Martin Baumgarten replied to John R Woods's topic in Super-8
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. -
If super-8 sound film was available, would you use it?
Martin Baumgarten replied to John R Woods's topic in Super-8
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!
-
Now I have two Beaulieu's: questions about lenses and power
Martin Baumgarten replied to Bruce Nachbar's topic in Super-8
Collimation notwithstanding, the lens can be reset to fit correctly to your BEAULIEU. You'll first have to make a mark on the lens mount just above the threaded part with either a small piece of white tape or mark it with a felt tip marker. Then with a small piece of white tape on the camera body, make a mark with a felt tip marker lined up with the mark on the lens base. This will be your reference point. You'll have to figure out how far off the lens is from correct seating. To adjust the lens (this is assuming the motor zoom and iris motor drive unit is removed), loosen the screws closest to the rear. These will loosen the threaded portion so it can be rotated left or right. If it doesn't move easily, wear a plastic dish washing glove so you can grip it easily. Rotate it ever so little right if you want the lens to mount more to the LEFT, and move it every so little to the left if you want the lens to mount more to the RIGHT. There are other screws on this rear barrel, which you may also have to loosen a little to do this; sometimes the rear unit is very tight due to such great manufacturing qualilty. NOTE: This does not collimate the lens to the camera for focus, only adjusts the lens mounting position, since there is a small variation often from camera to camera. Oh yes, don't forget to retighten the screws once you have it in position, and BEFORE you try mounting the lens on the camera. As for the built in Filter, remove the lens, with the battery or power source removed, remove the Rewind Shaft Cover, then while depressing the Trigger, rotate the Rewind Shaft using either a Rewind Knob or wide thin flat screwdriver or similar, just enough to fully open the camera's shutter. You'll know, as the mirror shutter will open up. Then place a small flashlight in the film chamber and examine the filter visually from the lens mount. You should be able to see clearly thru it, as well as note whether or not the filter is warped. A badly warped filter can catch eventually on the slide mechanism (which holds two filters, the Wratten 85A and a clear UV Filter). To check for warpage, you can move the filter in and out and observe how it looks and works (you'll need the Filter Removal tool for the grip slot, or use a small piece of metal or cardboard or a large coin that fits the slot....better something that you can grab and push in and out. You can also put a small piece of scrap film with a sharp image on it, into the film gate, and use some tape to hold it there, and then shine the bright small flashlight thru the film, thru the lens, and focus it onto a piece of white paper on a wall using the 5 foot (1,5m) setting, and examine the image for sharpness. While these are visual tests, final confirmation of clarity would require some more specialized tools to examine the filter, or an actual film test. You need only shoot a few feet to test this, then you can move the cartridge to another camera to use, so as to not waste it just for a test. As for the FUJICA wide angle lens, I suggest trying it out to see if it works okay. Usually if you can get a clear focus in the viewfinder of the BEAULIEU, the lens will work as is. The only real issue is with Infinity Focus using other lenses, but that also can be determined visually most of the time. The high inherent depth of focus on that wide angle lens will usually allow a decent image unless it's truly way off. Hope this helps. -
It can be a couple of issues. But an easy check is to remove the battery source, then remove the cap cover on the Rewind Shaft, then while holding the trigger in, rotate the shaft using a small flathead screwdriver. Then put the battery back in, and try it again. If still no go, try rotating the shaft again, but this time with the power applied and the trigger pressed. If no go, try using a cable release and see if that makes it run. If it does, then the issue is with the mechanical switch of the trigger mechanism. If not, it's more involved. It can also be light corrosion on the switch inside, but obviously you'll have to open that side of the camera. This is not that difficult, but you will need the fine tools for it. To remove the side cover, there's a small screw just below the viewfinder for the outer cover, then remove the Ground Glass Knob via a tiny set screw (don't remove the screw, just loosen it so you can pull the knob off the shaft), then remove the Rewind Shaft trim plate (you'll need a wide thin flat screwdriver or tool you can make if you don't have a small spanner wrench for this. The cover then lifts off easily (make sure the batter has been removed as well). Inside, you'll be able to see the trigger mechanism which the exterior trigger button presses against. Make sure it's making contact with the switch. You'll note, it does two things, it closes the power contact switch so the motor will run, as well as release a lock on the motor drive shaft. That's why in the earlier test, you had to depress the trigger first in order to be able to rotate the Rewind Shaft. Sometimes the contact switch gets weak with age, and you can both clean it and also bend it a bit so it makes contact again. While the cover is off, you can clean up any areas that need cleaning, as well as give everything else that is visible a once over. When ready, replace the side cover carefully, front to back, then replace the rear body shell screw below the viewfinder eyepiece, the Ground Glass Knob (don't over tighten that tiny set screw!), and the Rewind Shaft Trim Circle. Hopefully it will be something easy and your camera will run again soon! Good luck!
-
Just need to add, that that site requires users to register. I know not everyone likes doing this, but it's one source that's out there. There is information on the Super 8 Wiki: www.super8wiki.com/index.php/Fujica_Z800 Also visit this site for similar help, and also to view similar cameras for other disassembly pics and instructions. Use the translator for the webpage for Japanese to English: www.nakanocam.com/8mm.html
-
It's much easier to follow a repair manual than to try and explain it all in detail here. Here is a link to download the PDF repair manual: http://www.manualslibrary.net/FUJICA-Z800-SINGLE-8-CAMERA-MANUAL-REPAIR-MANUAL.html Best of success in your repair work!
-
There hasn't been a practical demand for Super 8mm contact printing in many years. I stopped doing it also, not only due to lack of demand, but never liked the quality. The best prints were emulsion to emulsion, which then put the print into an emulsion in wind. If sound striping was desired, it was a pain, required 'rutting' the emulsion to reach the base so a mag track could be added. The better variation was a liquid sound track application which didn't require the rutting, such as the now long discontinued KODAK Sonotrack Coating, and some services from other labs now also long gone. Optical print duplication is better, more expensive, but doable. Some went the route of having the color internegative made on 16mm, which could then be printed to 16mm or reduced to Super 8mm. I did like making some of my own contact prints onto KODACHROME stock, back when it was available, but that mainly for Regular 8mm film. I was going to experiment with EKTACHROME 100D, since once filtered down for Tungsten Lamps, it would drop the filmspeed to something manageable in the lab, but then it was discontinued and I reserved remaining filmstock in the freezer for other projects. How nice though, that it's coming back later this year! I might revisit contact printing again.
-
Schneider Optivaron 1.8 / 6-66mm does not focus! HELP!!!
Martin Baumgarten replied to Lee Heimberger's topic in Super-8
Odds are, when you detached the motor unit for the zoom and iris, you moved or bumped the macro shift slider, thus putting the lens into partial macro mode, in which everything will look blurry unless you are very close to your subject. Slide the black macro knob back down and it should look fine again. Another possibility is that the viewfinder dioptre lens needs to be reset for your eyesight, or that the guillotine shutter has moved slightly throwing things off a bit more as well, or lastly, you don't have the ground glass focusing screen in position, thus are only seeing an aerial image, in which focus changes aren't really noticable, especially while there's something amiss somewhere, in the lens, diopter, shutter, etc. I do hope you have an owner's manual, as it REALLY helps, with any Super 8mm camera (any camera for that matter). Hope you can sort this out! Good luck! -
You do not have to shoot an entire roll of film to do a focus test on various lenses. Just slate each shot so you know which lens is being used, once the tests are completed (keep them short, just a couple feet), you can then remove the exposed film in a darkroom or film changing bag and seal that up and have just that processed (by yourself or a lab). Since it's just a focus test, I suggest using some old film, color or B&W and processing it as B&W Neg. The goal here is to check for image sharpness, which a few feet is plenty, examine it with a strong loupe on a light table.
-
E100d in Super-8 cartridges, eBay NOS
Martin Baumgarten replied to Andries Molenaar's topic in Super-8
Sorry, wasn't 100% sure that the eBay ad meant to be a minus symbol. Looking at the ad again, it would seem so, so my mistake. Even so, it's a high price, but, IF the film was truly deep frozen so it will be perfect in color, I would be willing to pay that much IF I had to. Again, let's hope FERRANIA pull through and come out with their filmstock. KODAK higher ups said earlier this year that they would be willing to make most any filmstock that they had the formula for (their own films of course), but the minimum order to startup is cost prohibitive. Maybe we could interest Donald Trump or some other wealthy person to throw some supportive money to assist in getting Color Reversal filmstock made. What we need are weathly hobbyists; they exist in other passions, why not film? -
Anyone still developing Kodak Tri-X and Kodachrome 40?
Martin Baumgarten replied to Alexander Boyd's topic in Super-8
FOMA R-100 B&W Reversal film should NOT look yellowish! If so, then it was poorly bleached and not cleared out, thus the resulting yellow stain in the film. FOMA should look rich in contrast, deep blacks, clear highlight areas. It's an older formula silver rich film, which yields great results when correctly processed. The only issue with it, is that the film base is thicker than other B&W films. True Sepia processing is really nice looking. Films made during the silent film era (which were never truly silent since they were accompanied by music and sound effects) often used several tinting processes to convey a feeling, change of scene or time, or other effect desired by the filmmaker. Thus we see red, yellow, green, blue and sepia used in many of those old films. -
A long straw taped to the end of a vacuum cleaner hose will reach all areas of the NIZO film gate and suck the crud out, rather than risk blowing it past the gate area towards the shutter. Another method is to remove the right side camera body cover, pretty easy to do, and then just be careful, pay attention to the position of the filter knob etc, and replace it the same way as when you removed it. Once removed, you'll have easier access thru the chassis frame of the gate area. Using a strong magnifier and light source, you should be able to see this hair, and then remove it with tweezers, or even a small piece of tape well attached to a small wooden skewer, plastic screwdriver or similar item. This is a common issue with the rear cartridge loading film cameras, thus the side loaders have an advantage in this regard. Hope you get that bugger out!
-
E100d in Super-8 cartridges, eBay NOS
Martin Baumgarten replied to Andries Molenaar's topic in Super-8
Well, this price hike on discontinued films has happened before. Now, EKTACHROME 100D is getting rare. IF and WHEN Ferrania being film production, prices will be in a more realistic range. And IF they are successful in producing color reversal filmstock, few would consider paying Euro 89 per EK100D film. AND, notice he stated that it's NOT even stored Frozen as it should be....just at 18C. Unless stored FROZEN, the film will continue to rippen and age normally. I have films that have been stored frozen since they were new, over 30 years now, and still yield good color. I wouldn't buy film at that price or anywhere near it for stuff that hasn't been stored frozen all this time. Even in a refridgerator would be colder than 18C! -
Hi, looks like some form of condensation damage to me. If not done previously, always make sure film is warmed up to room temp before opening the foil package. In high humidity and high temp situations, this becomes even more important. Good luck!
- 4 replies
-
- film spots
- film problems
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Anyone still developing Kodak Tri-X and Kodachrome 40?
Martin Baumgarten replied to Alexander Boyd's topic in Super-8
ORWO, AGFA Scala, TRI-X, Plus-X, Fomapan R-100, any KODACHROME film that has been cold stored frozen since new or isn't older than 10 or 12 years(after that, I would test it, since any reversal film stored at room temp will lose contrast and gain age fogging affecting reversal density). Kodachrome is a bit unique since it has filter layers that will often also cause some additional yellow to orange tinting of the Sepia image tone. If and when I can figure out how to place photos in these text windows, I would include image samples. -
Anyone still developing Kodak Tri-X and Kodachrome 40?
Martin Baumgarten replied to Alexander Boyd's topic in Super-8
Hi, if the film is very old, and has not been stored well, processing both as B&W Negative is the better option (due to excessive age fogging lowering image contrast to a very flat gray tone if processed as B&W Reversal). Other than that, Both can be processed as B&W Reversal or even in Sepia (brown tone) Reversal, which I still offer here at Plattsburgh Photographic Services. But, there are most likely labs closer to your location as I'm in upstate New York, USA. -
If you have all the pieces, you could use a good grade fine epoxy, gorilla glue, or a gel Super Glue (must clamp any of these for it to be effective). Or just put some electrical tape on the splines, just enough so the reel will fit real snug. Actually, I recommend getting a better projector, since the Whisper is a Dual 8mm configuration using the pull down claw to do all the work rather than having a proper sprocket to run the film and thus relieve the additional stress on the sprocket holes. I mean, it works fine for a couple runs or so, but I wouldn't want to put lots of wear on any film with this. It's gentle enough, but this is a cheaply made projector. The only things going for it are dual 8mm, quiet running, and variable speed (for cheap film transfer DIY). You'll be much happier, have better results (brighter, sharper, steadier image on the screen), if you opt for something like an ELMO. Just my two cents here.
-
The original KODAK 200ft cartridge is a nightmare to reload! It uses a cheap plastic sprocket drive which advances the and takes up the film, and has a somewhat complex and total pain-in-the-neck would spring (which helps feed the supply reel's rotation, as well as 'balance' the internal load so the film can be backwound for special effects. The discontinued Ritter-Beaulieu Super Drive 60mm (200ft) magazine is a superior design, all metal, well made, but can be a bit finnicky to use. The cameras must also be modified (except for the last version of the BEAULIEU 7008S/Pro and 9008S/Pro which had the option available). The Super Drive Magazine is a reworked Beaulieu R16 60m(200ft) Magazine that is reversed from how it is used on the R16, since Super 8mm film is loaded on the opposite side from the 16mm counterpart. There was one for sale on eBay a few months back, which had been gone thru by Ritter in Germany (yes, while the former shop is gone, they still exist in Mannheim and do servicing) and had a 90 day warranty with it. I don't think it sold, it came with the 7008S camera as well, which also had been serviced. A man in Arizona spent considerable time and money making a 400ft Magazine, and with wonderful intentions but it was problamatic in use at times. It was made to work with an unmodified camera that could use the former KODAK 200ft Cartridges. Unlike the Super Drive, it does not have a sprocket drive which is run off the film take up gear in the camera, so tension issues were a concern. Not sure how many he made, but the he ended ceasing making these. I own one, so I know. MINOLTA had a modification of their fine D-12 camera which used a 200ft Magazine, and these are quite rare, but I saw one show up on eBay about two years ago. The exact name of the Magazine eludes my memory at this moment. Lastly, KODAK did make a B&W polyester based filmstock which was 100ft long in the standard Super 8mm 50ft cartridge. So, having a 100ft load in that small cartridge using a polyester based filmstock could work. I had thought of reloading that AGFA 200D, but its availability is waning now since AGFA ceased manufacturing the rawstock from which the Super 8mm filmstock in bulk was made.