Heikki Repo

I'd say it's just a flat scan. After levels being set:

If you refer to the video rental business I'd be careful. Apparently there are still some franchised stores left in operation around the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_LLC#2011.E2.80.93present:_Kelly_era.2C_bankruptcy

I have found helpful hint re:color negative to overexpose one full stop per decade when using expired stock.

No disagreement there. Anyway, I really have to recommend trying the process of shooting some negative film and then having a print struck from it. I shoot my home movies on Vision3 super-8 negative film and have had prints made from it. Beautiful! I haven't tried it for 16mm yet, but watching some Agfa 200D projected was truly magical.

AFAIK, there are still people who know the (unfortunately disappearing) art of cutting negative. You scan your film, edit it and deliver the final cut with an EDL to the negative cutter. Print is then struck from the negative. Google "negative cutting" and you'll find at least two people offering the service on the very first page.

Have you noticed Super-8 is nowadays located on Kodak website in consumer products? :) There are even "Super 8 Tips - Making a movie, camera to subject distance, composition, lighting, common problems, storage and more..." with tips such as "COMMON PROBLEMS: If film is black--absolutely no pictures: * lens cover not removed" http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/default.htm I have a feeling Kodak is serious about trying to bring new people to motion picture film. While super-8 might not be (usually is not) the right tool for making feature films or the best example of how beautiful film can look, there are good reasons why super-8 can be a good way to achieve Kodak's final goal of growing the user base: - it's not too easy to mistake super-8 footage for some new digitally originated footage - super-8 cartridge system paves the way for those who feel insecure about loading film in darkness (most newcomers do) - easy new camera package with built-in light meter and enough digital stuff to keep the new generation comfortable while shooting expensive film material Now then, all they need to do is either bring back Kodachrome 40 or at least remove references to it from their Super 8 Tips ;)

There's even Vision3 50D negative film available in 2x8mm: http://toeppenfilm.com/

Angenieux 9.5-57mm apparently pretty much covers super16 cropped to 2.35: http://www.vintagelensesforvideo.com/angenieux-9-5-57mm/

I predict that the future will be even more medium-pluralistic than it has ever been. While the mainstream is nowadays in the music world about downloading (or better yet, streaming) at the same time analog medium has come back. Who would have thought when CD broke through that we'd see the day when CD is dying of unpopularity and some bands are instead selling their albums on cassettes on their tours again? Or that vinyl would be this strong? How and when will this play out for motion pictures? I think it already has. Digital is strong, we have Netflix, YouTube...but at the same time there are people exposing film and making experimental bucket processed films that won't be distributed widely, perhaps only shown as a part of some performance. And we have everything in the middle of these extremes. Digital is improving and won't go away. Quite probably film is also staying and won't go away. It might even get its own share of improvements, who knows. I for one will keep on shooting super-8, ds-8, super16 and 135, 645 and 4x5. My mobile phone and its camera will best serve the more throwaway needs of WhatsApp messaging.

I got to say, Provia looks great:

Some years ago I bought a Beaulieu R16. Comparing it to the manual I have been able to find online there seem to be some differences: First of all, the lighting meter scale is in DIN. More importantly, there is a compartment for a battery for the Gossen meter. This has led me to believe that there might be differences also in the wiring of the 3-pin din power connector. If I use the battery and cable I have built for my Beaulieu 4008 ZM, one of the 3.6 V battery blocks starts to heat up. Maybe in my model the pin for 3.6 V is wired in such a manner that a short circuit appears? Ihave now once rewired the power cable and the battery, and the problem doesn't occur with my super-8 camera... Perhaps I need a separate cable for R16, without the 3.6V pin?

I bought for my new used BMPCC a XTPower MP-10000 li-pol battery and decided to try if I could use it with my Eclair ACL as it provides 12V power. I have discovered my earlier batteries a bit impractical to use, as they are meant to be carried on one's belt. XTPower, on the other hand seemed perfect for on-board use. I crafted an adapter from 4-pin XLR of my camera (DIY modification) to the 12V output connector of this battery. To install the battery on-board I used 3M Dual Lock tape. So does it work? For speeds 8-25 fps, yes. 50 fps seems to draw too much current and the battery shuts down. No surprise though, as the max current for 12V is 2 A and apparently for 24 fps the heavy duty motor draws some 1.1 A. Anyway, for 25 fps work it seems very fit. I think I'll build a small NIMH on-board battery as well for those situations I need higher frame rates. On-board is just so much easier on both operator and the power connector on the camera...

Sad news: Jason Hinkle, a member of this forum and the administrator of eclair16.com passed away on Sunday, March 20, 2016. :( His contribution to Eclair knowledge on this forum and on his website was remarkable. He'll be missed! Obituary can be read here: http://kokomoperspective.com/obituaries/jason-michael-hinkle/article_89a4a33e-ef82-11e5-8225-87fbb1e89481.html

Geoff, my experience with many cameras has been that while it's easy to take something apart, putting it back together is ... well, let's just say that the quantity of cameras I have put back together doesn't come close to the quantity of those I have taken apart... :) My gut feeling is that it might be cheaper to buy another higher end super-8 camera than to have it repaired. I'd go for a Canon, they seem to be quite reliable and work well with current films (i.e. the exposure meter works with modern film speeds).

I take it Les didn't give you a green light... :(

You could also ask about replacing the default mounts with a mft mount. Is there really any mount that can't be mounted to it with adapters? Even c-mount is possible, as its diameter is so much smaller that it can be recessed.

Theoretically yes, in practice I doubt it. M43 mount diameter is -- if I remember correctly -- larger than TS-mount so with so narrow difference in flange distance it wouldn't be possible to get the glass close enough.

Only mounts with longer focal distances can be adapted to mounts with shorter distances. Otherwise it won't be possible to focus to infinity. Hasselblad flange > Canon flange > Sony AFAIK there are no M43 to Nikon F adapters, because Nikon F flange distance > m43.

Just for the record some flange focal distances (in mm): C-Mount 17.526 m43 Micro Four Thirds mount 19.25 Nikon F-mount 46.5 I do wonder though if it would be possible for Les Bosher to modify an Eclair ACL so that the C-mount and TS-mount would be entirely replaced with a M43 mount. Might be possible.

I have thought about this. Unfortunately there really is no incentive for Metabones to make one that'd work with an Eclair. Modifying a M43 Speedbooster wouldn't probably work, as the difference in the flange focal length is too narrow between M43 and C-mount and in addition to that, if mounting on the C-mount there isn't enough space due to the TS-mount... Thus at the moment I use Switars (10mm and 16mm) for wide angles and for longer lenses Contax Zeiss C/Y with a C-mount adapter. It's not a perfect solution, but probably the cheapest one with relatively good IQ.

C41 and ECN-2 aren't the same. C41 uses as color developer CD-4, while ECN-2 uses CD-3. ECN-2 film processed in C41 has the contrast and colors a bit off and its color dyes won't be as stable (= your processed film will age faster). That's probably the reason why your moving images -- processed with correct chemicals -- look better.

For .40/foot (.12 for processing, .06 for prepping and .22 for telecine) I have had great 16mm processing, prep and HD (1920x1080) film-to-prores 4444 in the US. Pretty economical, all of those are list prices.

Correction to the earlier message -- when I mentioned Connor's first post, I was referring to this: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=70893&p=451962

For a while there was, in fact, Velvia 50 available:

Connor, making film is complicated and can be expensive. It is possible, but not really for motion picture film uses. There are too many precision requiring steps. If you want to achieve nice looking footage relatively cheap, just buy modern color negative film for 16mm camera and buy process+scan package for it. Processing costs money, but can be still relatively cheap (like $0.4/ft., including good quality HD telecine). By going DIY route you won't get the results you asked for in the first post. Period. Manufacturing color film at home is not possible. If some sort of black and white film with its own home brew characteristics (it won't be perfect, it'll have its flaws) is enough, sure, you can dedicate years of your life to this endeavor. You'll need solid knowledge of both electronics and chemistry and you have to be comfortable with designing machines and sourcing parts for them and then building things with your own hands using different tools. In five years you might have some sort of film manufactured, then you'll have to find a way to get it slit and perforated with good enough perforations in order for it to run well in your camera and give you stable image. If your passion is making films and not engineering/chemistry, I strongly suggest just buying a K3 and some film for it. Shoot it, process it, telecine it and then decide what you'll want to do next.