Zac Fettig

Probably have to load it yourself. Kodak only does 200' loads for the A-Minima, which is A-wind. And don't give the engineers too much credit. Pretty much all the books on tribology written came out after this camera was already out of production. They probably just grabbed a common lube, tested it, and said "good enough!" Just try and find something roughly the same viscosity (thickness). Modern stuff will lubricate WAY better.

I'll agree whole-heartedly with Matthew. When I've had short projects recently, I still grab for my XL2 over my 60D. It can function all day long, instead of overheating after 8-10 minutes. The lens in the front is (usually) a 14x manual lens, and is WAY easier to operate than a still camera lens. I can throw XLR mics with phantom power right on it. It doesn't have the artifacting problems the T2i does. When I go to edit, I can keep more footage handy on the hard drive than I could with HD footage. I don't go for shallow depth of field as much as some, so the extra sensor size doesn't mean as much to me. It's a professional piece of equipment (well, semi-professional) and doesn't need a kludged together kit to get decent results. The XL2 has about the same latitude as the 60d. And I'll be a lot less upset to damage it than the 60d, meaning I'm more likely to take chances with it (for example, going into a REALLY bad neighborhood to get shots). I've shown the results in front of ~200-300 people in the past few months, and not been embarrassed by it in the slightest.

I have a CZJ 135mm f3.5, in M42 mount. It takes beautiful pictures, but the aperture tends to stick (usually full open). The build quality leaves a lot to be desired compared to my Pentax Takumar 135mm f3.5. It 's cheap and plastically where the Pentax is metal. But then, Carl Zeiss Jena was the East German half of Zeiss.

You're welcome, Nicholas.

It'll look like this:

How would you detect virtual sprocket hole in undeveloped film? The common way to do virtual registration is with light, a machine vision camera and edge detection routines. And it still isn't close to as good as a registration pin. You could do this with developed film (i.e. in a projector) but not really possible in camera.

I second this. It's why projectionists are required to be licensed. Too much risk of fire, even with safety stock. At the very least, keep a fire extinguisher close and visible.

$399.99 is what Pro-8 charges for a Canon 310XL (the Rhonda Cam). It's a camera worth maybe $40 in perfect condition, on a good day, with a real sucker for a buyer. If they do a full teardown and rebuild, $600 is more than worth it. If they just glance it over, and say "good enough", not so much. Courtney, if you're looking for a cool looking, but functional piece; not a high end cinematographer's camera, look for a Technicolor Mark 10. They're fairly cheap (typically between $10 and $60, depending on condition and accessories), and look awesome. They have nice lenses on them (they were really made by Minolta) and look like a miniature 1960s studio camera. They can meter correctly for most modern films, except for 500T. If nothing else, it'll look awesome sitting on a desk. You can get film from Spectra (listed above), direct from Kodak (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Product_Information/Ordering_Info/index.htm), or from B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/)

A Beaulieu 4008 would also be a good choice. Serviceable, fairly common and with a lot of features a cinematographer wants. Most of the ones listed above are excellent cameras. Pro-8 has always done OK by me, but a lot of people have really bad experiences with them. And their super 8 refurbs are a huge ripoff. Typically 2-4 times what the cameras are actually worth.

I've had good luck uprezzing footage on my MiniDV Canon XL-2 (at least, I was happy with the results). I hated throwing it on the trash bin of history, so it gets used for a variety of projects, over my 60D. I like that I can pull it out of a bag and be ready to shoot; without having to rig it up. I shoot, do pulldown removal in Cinema Tools, edit it as per normal in Final Cut, and output it using Compressor. It does add some grain, but not as much as you'd think. It has a slight advantage in that it shoots progressive, but a Honestly, the glass on the front makes more of a difference. If you can do deinterlacing before editing, and can live with 4:3, it'll be an awesome camera. I think the standard lens for those things was a f1.4 Fujinon. Beautiful glass.

Mechanically, it's the same as a 16S. It's a little better to use with mags than the 16S, since the mating flange is flat. It doesn't take daylight loads though. Personally, I think that's a little steep. If you sold your 16S, look to move to a better camera; not just a reworked version of the same thing. Save the money towards a SR or SR2. I've seen a few SRs pop up for around $1500 from time to time.

Those two spots and the two bushings. Be sure to use lithium grease, not petroleum. And just a small amount. Tribology is a whole weird world unto itself.

This was the most impressive I've seen in the last few weeks.

It is quite possible that the motor is shot. It's also possible that a wire is broken between the batteries and the drive system. See if you can jumper the motor directly with an external power supply. That way, you'll know where the issue is. If the motor turns, it's a wire break somewhere.

I love it! I'd love to have something like this for small runs with 16mm, before paying for a full TK. Love that you ran it through with negative. It looks like it doesn't have much noise for what it is. Maybe it's an advantage to the lng cycle time? Did you get the stepper motor from Sparkfun?

In general, any place with a mating contact gets grease. A general purpose lithium grease is usually good with nylon. Do not use a petroleum based grease, it'll break down the nylon. I'd put a small dollup on every gear contact, especially that gear interface by the motor.

I have no idea if those guys are still around. I don't own a Scoopic. A friend of mine does, but his still works just fine, so no point replacing the boards. A better approach would be to establish a relationship with a repair shop. Unless you plan on repairing the boards yourself, let the shop figure out where to get replacement boards. That's what they're there for. If the boards break, call them up and see if they can fix/replace it. I know Duall is still around.

Thank you! It looks beautiful! If you get a chance, post some negative clips. I'm dying to see a few.

Try Du-All. They might be able to replace them, if you need to. I wouldn't worry about it too much, unless the thing is on the fritz. The nice thing about older electronics, is that there's a lot less to break. As far as I know, no one else is making new boards, other than the guys here: http://canonscoopic.com/Scoopic/summary.html The wiring diagrams can be found here: http://www.apecity.com/manuals/pdf/canon_scoopic_16m_repair_manual.pdf Everything you need to know about the boards is in there.

http://www.super8data.com/database/projectors_list/projectors_noris/noris_norisound_342.htm It's German and the lens is a Schneider. It'll probably be an excellent projector. That said, I'd never heard of the brand either, but their stuff looks like it was (is?) squarely marketed at the European market. The company started making magic lanterns in 1866, so they weren't a fly by night operator.

Expensive for a Super. I wouldn't go above $100 for one personally. There are a lot of them out there much cheaper. If you're really just looking for an old home movie look, just buy a cheap old home movie camera. That's how people got that look in the first place. Stick to slow films. Velvia 50, Vision3 50 should work in almost anything. Tri-X 200 will work in almost anything. The Velvia and Tri-X can be projected. Roll the dice on a cheap cheap camera, and shoot a test roll of Tri-X. If you've got access to a projector, the test roll will cost about $35, with developing.

Leicina Special. If you are VERY lucky, you'd be able to get one with the rare PL mount adapter. Easily the best ever made in S8.

You sold a Nizo 481 to pay for an 814?!? Why!?! That's just crazy! I can see doing that for a Leicina Special, but not an 814! I think the only speed your 814 is missing is ISO400. If you're using Vision3 500T, it'll expose it as a 250T film, so it'll over expose by about a stop, which is fine with that film. If you want quiet, your best bet is to build a barney. Or order one. Super 8 cameras aren't meant for snyc sound use. That said, I never find them to be all that loud, when a mic isn't present. And a 220 degree shutter is great in low light! A 155 degree shutter is the biggest drawback of the 814 AZ and AZE.

The low low low budget stuff is often R16. El Mariachi (dir. Robert Rodriguez) and Following (dir. Christopher Nolan) are good examples.

Prices must be a lot higher across the pond! I'm paying $19.99 a roll (Vision3 500T) retail at B&H, and $17.16 direct from Kodak for fresh stock.