Heikki Repo

Wittner: http://wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/s8_meter.php

Chris, your link probably doesn't show up as an embedded video because you use the url shortener (youtu.be).

That was shot with a Pentaflex? Wow. Your trailer really proves that it isn't the gear used, it's the one using it.

It was a common practice of professional motion picture film labs here in Finland even when film was the only real choice for filmmakers to only replace the raw material in case the lab had ruined the film. There are no such labs that are going to pay for your lost production days, equipment rent etc. You take a production insurance to cover such catastrophic but rare occasions.

Then there's this company: http://www.k3camera.com/k3/k3ordering.php Maybe they have one available?

I don't know whether this seller is reliable or not, but there seems to be one S16 modified K3 on Ebay right now: http://m.ebay.de/itm/191158395790?cmd=VIDESC

I just shot a small production with a Pocket last Saturday. In the rented package was a Cineroid HD evf, I found it rather good solution. You'll need some good solution to take care of the power since it does eat internal batteries very fast. However, if you have electricity near, one can charge them quite fast (faster than camera eats one). For lenses I used Contax C/Y mount Zeiss lenses. Very good sharp and cheap lenses, available on Ebay. Just buy a C/Y to m43 adapter. Make sure you buy quality SDXC memory.

To find the light leak insert a high power led light inside your camera when in a dark room. That helped me find the one causing me all my problems with my ACL.

You could ask how much servicing would cost here http://whitehouseaudiovisual.com/10multi_serv.html

if it moves while the shutter is open you have a timing problem which causes the streaking.

Sure, 700nm might cause problems. However, there is also 850nm and 940nm IR equipment available. I have hard time believing that professional labs wouldn't use IR.

I don't mean to get this thread off topic, but I'd like to point out one important difference between the two groups: for the actors their tool of trade are they themselves -- they don't need anything else. For DPs on the other hand the work is rather technical. They need the right tools to make everything happen. Taking an example from a completely different area of life: if you were to hire someone build you a house they probably would want to have the tools they need and are used to working with. Even if you supplied some tools that were ok for the job they might have preferences which are also linked to their ability to do their work well. When working with lower rates (or for free!) question about tools becomes more important. The question is then for many DPs, does this work let me improve myself as a cinematographer? Or, is the work I'm doing something that I can put in my reel and resume? If enough resources aren't given there is a risk that even some paying gig might become a stumbling block for finding future work...

Nightvision goggles (IR) can be used. In fact, most labs use them. Much easier to work with film when you see it. Many film processors have IR sensors or cameras to monitor the process and control it. Normal motion picture film isn't sensitive to IR and Kodak doesn't manufacture IR motion picture film anymore. So if you are going to work with film a lot in the dark, do yourself a favor and buy nightvision goggles, then install some IR lights on the wall or ceiling. John Pytlak wrote 10 years ago: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=505&p=6099

There's one serviced Konvas with a Nikon mount listed on BB List currently: http://www.bblist.co.uk/item.php?item=33374

I just have to add this -- Frame24 (filmstockclearance.com) is now selling Kodak stocks as well! The price is really good also! http://www.frame24ltd.co.uk/

From Norway: http://www.fomafoto.com/index.php/vm/b-w-film/cine-film

About Logmar: apparently the way the film transport and gate are built pretty much ensures that no cartridge has yet jammed on this camera (this is what I have heard but testers would have to confirm this). If that's true, Pro8mm cartridges are no longer a gamble (had many of those jam on my Beaulieu 4008 ZM). The option to use 200 ft daylight loads in the camera also makes it future proof in that sense that it's no longer dependant on Kodak cartridges -- you can continue shooting if you just are able to buy super-8 perforated film.

On some other forums some seem to be wondering if this is Kodak's first step to kill off super-8. Apparently Kodak has done some big prices hikes just before stopping production of same products.

Hi Dirk, the cause for this problem was a light leak from the front of the camera (not filter holder). From a small hole to be precise.

It was a light leak but not through the filter holder.

I think there is still a certain special look that can be only achieved with super-8. Modern negative stocks work with it really well. However, I do agree that super-8 isn't that economical choice anymore. Modern super16 cameras can be bought for very low prices and the price difference between Kodak Vision3 16mm and super-8 isn't that big anymore -- not to mention that if one buys remaining Fuji film it's already cheaper to buy than super-8 (26 Euros for 15 meters of super-8, 73 Euros for 122 meters of 16mm). Nonetheless, I myself am still keeping my super-8 cameras. One never knows when one needs them for some special look uses (and I just love the small weight of Beaulieu 4008 ZM). Also, if I had the time, I could buy some cheaper bulk and refill used cartridges. That way one cartridge would cost only about 12 Euros which isn't a bad price (ORWO UN54, Wittnerchrome 200D, ..). Not to mention that we don't know yet what kind of film FilmFerrania will bring to market later. As for Logmar, just some days ago it was revealed that it will be able to use 60 meter daylight loads in the same camera. That is a big plus. It means one can buy those cheap stocks (http://wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/s8_meter.php) and shoot some 10 minute long takes if one wishes AND one isn't dependant on Kodak cartridges anymore. :)

I sent you a PM.

I'm happy to tell you I have found the cause. The problem was caused by a light leak, however not from the viewfinder. Many thanks to all of you contributing to this discussion. :)

Well, that's something I'm about to check by putting the whole viewfinder inside a black bag during next tests :)

First half of the material was shot with those Contax Zeiss lenses with long lens hoods. Despite that there is still that odd light...