Stephen Gordon

Thanks Scott - I will certainly let you know the results (by posting into this thread I guess..?). And I think you are right: it's a beautiful piece of kit and if the results are good I'll be very reluctant ti let it go!

Thanks very much Jon - I understand your note of caution. And the advice on fixing jammed cartridges is also noted should I have the misfortune to encounter that problem - thank you!

Scott - Thank you very much indeed for that clear explanation of what is actually happening inside the cartridge! I will follow your advice exactly and BTW this is a 'test' cartridge to see what the 1014 XLS will do. So far the only control which does not work is the exposure compensation dial which will not rotate in either direction. Very reassuring to hear you've had success using the lap dissolve with current stock. I'm about 20 feet into the cart so will go ahead and try it out this weekend. I agree the whole point of S8 is the fun you can enjoy - I'm just sorry I can't be as helpful in relation to your own enquiry not having used Single 8. I hope the forum will provide an answer for you and thanks again.

I've been testing a recently acquired 1014 XLS before the return window expires. So far everything checks out - fps at all variables, interval timer at all settings, self-timer at both 10 and 20 second settings - in short the electronics seem to be A-OK despite the camera being stored in a loft for 10 years! I purchased it for two specific projects (weddings in low ambient light) after which I want to sell it as 'fully tested with film'. The only thing I haven't tested yet is the lap dissolve and my question is whether users of that camera have experienced problems with that function? It involves the camera's electronics rewinding the film in the cartridge and from what I've learned on this forum film stock in any current Kodak cartridge is not the same (thickness I think..?) as users would have been shooting when the camera was released. So maybe a difficult strain on the motor..? Has anyone done this recently with success? I know dissolves can be easily accomplished in post with scanned film but I like the idea (potentially) of a time machine from the Seventies arriving back to the world for which it was intended in perfect working order! Hence my desire to test and report back. Any thoughts appreciated!

Yes I love the stock as well and have had some good results so far. I've shot it with different cameras including Canon 518 AZ and Canon 514XL which can both (I believe) read the notches for Daylight 100 ASA. I've shot on auto exposure with both cameras (before I saw your advice about increasing exposure) and have been generally pleased with the results when projected using an Elmo GP De Luxe projector (chosen for its 150W bulb). I've also shot the stock (a while ago) in my Beaulieu 4008 M3 with the ASA dialled in to 100 and I will project that tonight to remind me of the result. I recall Kevin at Gauge Film told me he had to keep adjusting the scanner when digitizing the cartridge (due to overexposure) which surprised me because the projected film looked pretty good - but as I say I'll check and get back to you. BTW Martin: I bought a Sankyo XL620 but it arrived with a detached lens element so is sadly being returned. I'm now waiting for a Sankyo ES 66-XL which seems to offer similar features (fast lens, 220 degree shutter and 24fps) so hoping that might fit my bill for low-light situations in future. Do you care for that model at all..?

Thanks Joerg - I will need to seek out some online footage shot with the Canon 310XL to see if the quality would be up to wedding coverage standard. Thanks also to Shane - I've seen your previous posts about giving Ektachrome 100D (which I shoot and project for my own holiday films) an extra stop over the box speed and actually made a note of your advice in my growing notebook of 'Tips from the experts'. Your response is appreciated!

Thanks Joerg - I'll look into that DIY techniques though I'm not confident I would have the skills. Thanks Martin for your usual thorough consideration and highly detailed response to an enquiry! Your contributions to this forum have taught me a huge amount - in this case I had no idea that there was a frame line variation between camera marques. Your success with pushing gives me hope because I have found very little latitude in the scans I have had made of reversal stock (which I was using in this case). I definitely agree with the idea that you need different cameras for different jobs and the 4008 M3 certainly does well when light levels are good. I'm going to see if anyone is looking to sell a tested Sankyo XL 620 now... Thanks again!

Thank you Simon - I wasn't sure how the guillotine on the Beaulieu translated to the traditional shutter so that's very helpful. Single 8 not my format but I didn;'t know that had 'XL' models as well. Joerg - you make some great points: the original 85 filter was removed and I use an external one when necessary. I will bear your advice in mind when I consider whether to add one of the Canon XL's to my kit. 500T is a good suggestion and the Beaulieu can be adjusted up to 400ASA which I think could be close enough. Thanks! Do either of you (or others) think that pushing the Tri X at the lab by a stop might help with the underexposed shots? Can that even be done..?

I shot my first wedding at the weekend using Tri-X in a Beaulieu 4008 M3 (with Schneider - Kreuznach 6 - 66mm lens) and had difficulty getting an exposure at times even fully open at f/1.8. The couple didn't want me to use lights and spoil the dimly lit vibe of the event which is fair enough. I'm now wondering if I need a camera with a 220 degree shutter (Canon 814 XL or 1014 XLS say) for situations like this in future. My question is therefore for those with better maths than me - how much extra exposure would I gain (in terms of stops or fractions thereof) with a 220 degree shutter over the Beaulieu? Thanks in advance if you are able to advise!

The postage may be prohibitive but it looks like DuAll camera in New York, USA might be able to help: they list an overhaul for the 1014 XL-S at $365 (any parts needed charged extra). Hope this helps!

Thanks for the detailed replies David - I've always considered your advice to be pretty definitive and this is no exception - I note the fact that a 35mm lens should be considered 'normal' for 35mm cine format. I did not know that! Your formula for getting to the equivalent of a 100mm (when using 35mm cine film) using Super 8 is really helpful, as is your more detailed calculation to arrive at 23.5mm. I shall try some testing with these starting points over the holiday. That link is a great tool for learning - thanks! Doug - you make a great point. I have found it very difficult to get much shallow DoF even at the telephoto end of the zoom using small stops.

Thanks Tyler - your response is appreciated and I take your point. I had read that 50mm is considered 'normaI' (most approximating human field of view) in relation to S35mm so interesting to hear your own preferences. I guess I was looking for a rule of thumb but from what you say it sounds like experimentation is the best approach. Cheers!

Research I have done suggests that when shooting 35mm feature film projects, a lens focal length of around 100mm may be considered to offer the most flattering rendition of the subject with little distortion of features. I am interested to know what forum members might consider a similarly flattering focal length when shooting portraits on Super 8. I'm thinking of a lens like the Optivaron 6 - 66mm commonly found on the Beaulieu 4008 series cameras. Anyone have any experience to share?

You know what Mark? I didn't know that. And the manual I found online for my L-308 didn't explain that properly, if at all. I clearly have a lot to learn about reflected readings, but your starters-for-ten are super-useful - thanks so much! As for the venerable Mr Mullen, I spent a good part of lockdown working my way through every page of 'Ask David Mullen anything' on REDUSER.net (I feel sure you will know it well yourself). An astonishing resource. Doesn't hurt that I've loved every piece of work of his that I've been able to acquire...

Thanks Mark - I've sent myself to the foot of our stairs. I didn't know, though, that that this was the exact difference to expect, so thanks for making that point clear and continuing my education! I've always found your posts among the most enlightening on this forum - your replies here have been no exception to that rule.

I woke up last night realising I may have made a rookie error: my Canon 518AZ is taking a reflected reading, but I was taking incident readings with my external meter! Oops. Will do some more tests this weekend to establish whether or not this accounts for the large discrepancies, which in that case will not actually be discrepancies at all.

Thanks Mark - I will follow your advice. Shane - your reply is appreciated, and I am reassured by your experience with the stock! Dom - thanks very much: the Sekonic L-308B meter provides readings which exactly match my recently-serviced Sekonic L-398, so I'm happy to rule that line of enquiry out. The camera meter batteries are new, and the correct voltage (2 x 1.35v) but I'm interested in your theory that the calibration has simply drifted after so many years, and your other point about the optics is also good. You also seem to agree with Mark's original idea. I'm very grateful to you all for your time. I've just retrieved another 518 AZ I own which was at work - I will try comparing readings from the two cameras and see if I can garner any useful additional data!

Thanks Mark - I will follow your advice. Shane - your reply is appreciated, and I am reassured by your experience with the stock! Dom - thanks very much: the Sekonic L-308B meter provides readings which exactly match my recently-serviced Sekonic L-398, so I'm happy to rule that line of enquiry out. The camera meter batteries are new, and the correct voltage (2 x 1.35v) but I'm interested in your theory that the calibration has simply drifted after so many years, and your other point about the optics is also good. You also seem to agree with Mark's original idea. I'm very grateful to you all for your time. I've just retrieved another 518 AZ I own which was at work - I will try comparing readings from the two cameras and see if I can garner any useful additional data!

Thanks Mark - Yes, I've read about the light loss from the beam-splitter but was puzzled that the reading was smaller. You seem to be suggesting that the camera's meter may be showing a misleading f-stop while nevertheless providing the correct exposure? I never thought of that - thanks. Anyone else have any other ideas..?

I've just been comparing the auto-exposure readings from my Canon 518 Auto Zoom to those taken with a Sekonic L-308B light meter set to 100 ASA and 18fps. Camera was loaded with Ektachrome 100D, so no filter engaged, and set to 18fps. In all the lighting conditions in which I tested and compared results, the camera's internal meter (set to auto) showed an aperture two full stops less than the external meter. So: if external meter read f/2, camera would say f/4. I understand that reversal stock has very little latitude for over/under exposure, so these results seem to suggest that using an external meter with this camera is not a good idea, as the film will be highly over-exposed. I wondered if anyone more technically savvy than me might be able to suggest a reason for this huge difference? I have to say that when I have exposed reversal stock in this camera on auto-exposure the results have been pretty spot on, but the difference between the two readings is very puzzling indeed! I wonder what Martin Baumgarten might have to say..? All replies welcome - thanks for reading.

Thanks Mark - sound advice for sure, but unfortunately the charges are already paid. Half the roll was used to test another camera, however, so 50% chance of getting something usable back! Looking again on ebay, it seems the Canon 518 Auto Zooms are going for more than I paid for mine even when they are sold 'spares or repair'! The one I had previously worked fine except the auto zoom buttons died, as did the 36fps. Hence my selling it in order to replace with one sold as supposedly fully functioning. To be fair to the seller, I asked every question except whether if it had been tested with film - caveat emptor indeed! Still, I'm hopeful of selling mine as spares or repairs in order to partially cover the cost of an 814 Auto Zoom - which seem pretty sturdy according to folks on this forum...

Great to hear about your positive results, Shane! I have a cartridge of 100D waiting to be exposed as soon as we have some consistently sunny weather here in the UK, so your advice about optimum conditions under which to shoot is very welcome indeed. I will also be projecting, on my recently-acquired Eumig projector, which also has a 150W bulb. I hope it will work out as well for me! Did you also get a scan, and if so, would you care to upload to youtube or vimeo so we can see what you mean..?

Thanks very much Dom - It's clear you are in broad agreement with Mark, and your comments are equally helpful in my understanding of what is causing the intermittent overexposure - the possibility that the film was intermittently jamming and so double or triple exposing occasional frames had not occurred to me. I had already shot another cartridge before I got this one back and saw the problem, so if I get the same result I think I can be pretty sure you are both right and it is the camera. If all is well, I would have to suspect an occasionally jamming cartridge (although, as I've said, I don't remember reading here about anyone having had that problem before). I'm very grateful for the huge experience and highly analytical minds of the members of this forum!

Your analysis of the potential problem is much appreciated. I was puzzled because I hadn't come across this problem before, or read about anyone else having it during the seven years I've been following this forum. Your theory would certainly account for the occasional double image, and the shutter staying open too long would certainly account for the overexposure. I think it is the intermittent and random nature of the problem which most perplexed me in identifying a cause. Thanks again for taking time to look and respond! Would any other members care to chip in, as Mark suggests? (I'm not sure I can really go back to the seller given the several months which have now elapsed since the sale)

Thanks again Mark - I just uploaded the screen grabs to Imgur.com - site says they should be available to view shortly. Link here: https://imgur.com/gallery/6KY2gFo