Heikki Repo

Friedemann, we really need to see some nice Switar+Logmar+Vision3/Velvia footage so don't keep us waiting! ;)

Please people: there is no Nolab! This is only a designer's take on how something like that would look like. Take a look at what Hayes has done: -- There are no projects requiring engineering, it's only about design! Just because something is mentioned on some website doesn't mean it is real. Especially if the website went online on first of April and there has been written absolutely nothing about the project before or after that. This is as real as http://re35.net/

It seems that article was published on first of April 2012. I wouldn't hold my breath... ;) http://blog.nextfabstudio.com/weekly-staff-picks-april-1-2012

A bit OT (or metadiscussion), but ... the good thing about heated conversations is that they show that there are people interested in super-8. Lasse and Tommy haven't sold any cameras yet but apparently they have already been able to energize people and renew interest in this format! ;) Good times for super-8: Vision3 50D, Logmar camera, new Ferrania starting film coating... Now we'd only need some nice compact and affordable machine for doing contact prints from these negs to super-8 positive film with automatic optical audio recording on print from digital files -- and having print film in super-8 available without the large minimum order. Then even those who aren't interested in digital projecting could have the benefits of both this camera sound recording and the look of Vision3 filmstocks! :)

Erkan, that isn't my film, just something I have come across during surfing Filmshooting.com and Youtube. And as I mentioned, I posted it only to compare to reversal films shot on super-8, not to films shot on negative stocks. My main point was to point out that there is no use to say that one hasn't seen as good or better DS-8 or 2x8mm film as Jose's super-8 because there is nothing that it can be compared to -- no Vision3 stocks available in DS-8 or 2x8mm, only reversal. Thus one should compare reversal to reversal and negative to negative, just as you Erkan say. :) Anyway, I think it is best to lay this discussion about the pressure plate and sharpness to rest until we get to see some examples shot with Lasse's camera...

Here's an example of 8mm film that I found and which I think looks really nice, much better than any super-8 E100D I have seen. Only thing this clip is missing is HD scan: Anyway, you really cannot compare Jose's best looking work to any DS-8 or 2x8mm footage -- because there is no Vision3 film stocks available in DS-8 or 2x8mm.

Yeah, I hope for that too :) For the record, the unlucky commercial: Super-8 has a lot of potential, a new camera to harness it all is certainly welcome! :)

Erkan, the thing is, with old cameras you might have it serviced just to find something totally unexpected breaking down because it was just old. This is the biggest problem with old cameras and I have had it happen once. Had my Beaulieu 4008 ZM first serviced by Björn. Everything was fine, but somehow the holding pin that keeps the cartridge in place during shooting was breaking down. That was found out only after having shot 10 cartridges, processing them and telecining them on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. I really would have preferred to have good looking footage, but none of this could have been prevented -- my camera had just returned from service, everything should have been good to go. But yes, I shoot latest stocks with old cameras as well and I like my old cameras despite their shortcomings. But given my earlier experiences I'd be hesitant to use them for paying work.

For me in a professional camera the single most important thing is reliability. Really, if it exposes film correctly and doesn't jam (especially with pro8mm cartridges!) or do something other unpredictable it's a good camera and already much better than the old high end cameras that are now turning at least 30 and sometimes misbehaving even if serviced. Nice design or special features are secondary to this. If I shoot something I want to get it back looking the way it was shot -- not having frames on top of each other (Beaulieu 4008 ZM) or some other nasty surprises. It's also important to have a camera with easy to access settings so that there is no need to fiddle with some badly designed plastic exposure dial (Bauer A512).

I have trouble believing that because I had my own C-41 films processed in the same batch, no problems there. But sure, I can ask the lab about it, it's a very high quality one man business that only processes film (C-41 and E-6, 35mm to 4x5), nothing else so he should be able to answer my question. Regardless, this film was in the checked luggage on a trip to US from Europe so I'm quite positive it has been subjected to x-ray.

One with fogging and too much blue (normally the images would turn out colorwise neutral, this is portra 400 after all and not some cheap consumer film): And another one with an odd blue area which is quite certainly x-ray damage:

Fogging. Different parts of the film had different kind of x-ray exposure damage but all frames had that base fogging problem (blue "channel"). Processing certainly OK. I can post an example.

My friend visited US this year. He put a good portion of his photographic films in the checked luggage because he didn't know of the x-ray problem. Damage was rather evident when I scanned his films. The film (Portra 400) looked rather grainy and there were some odd blue circles. However most of the frames looked rather nice despite all that. Had it been cine film though it would have been quite *ahem* arty film. I wouldn't worry about the hand luggage scanners. Should be okay. If it's work, buy and process film in the country you are visiting to avoid having to think about something like this. After all, here in Europe even courier companies such as FedEx or UPS can't promise not to x-ray, at least not unless you are some big customer.

Hi Christopher, Could you give some more information: Was this stock new or expired? When was the camera last serviced? How was the footage telecined / scanned? (For example, is the black area in the left of the frame intentional at around 0:41-0:57?) Could you post a frame sequence from around 1:20?

Unfortunately it can't be done. Flange focal distance of C-mount lenses is too short to be able to use them with Arri.

According to Les Bosher it isn't necessary to modify the mags unless they scratch film. I have two French mags and have done some tests with them. Having inspected part of the film (exposed&non-exposed) there is no scratch but there is some kind of stripe. I'm still waiting for those tests to be processed and scanned to find out how it looks like.

Searching for those lenses in Flickr might give you some idea, there are people using them on MFT cameras. That won't tell you about the resolution or angle of view because the sensor size and thus the used area of the lens is different than on R16 camera but it can be useful regardless. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=berthiot%20cinor

Yeah, Ebay certainly isn't the best place to find pristine lenses. Usually one has to service them even if they are in good condition according to the seller. These days Switars aren't even that cheap -- all micro fourthirds users are buying them to get that vintage look and it isn't uncommon to have to pay over $200 USD for something that is in dire need of cleaning and servicing. You could always buy some new glass too, although these might not have the same "look" as cine lenses -- at least resolution doesn't seem too bad: http://kowa.eu/lenses/en/cat.fa_serie_1_hc.php

With a non-reflex Bolex I'd suggest you stick to C-mount lenses. Reason? Adapters to C-mount are quite often in some ways lacking. I bought for my Eclair ACL a Contax to C-mount adapter from Ebay. The first adapter was otherwise quite nice but the flange focal length was wrong: I could only focus to objects really close. Next adapter was advertised allowing focusing to infinity -- which it does, but unfortunately I can also focus past infinity! Infinity marking on the lens and all other focus marks are off. Through the lens focusing it is then! With Bolex H16 M you haven't got any way of making sure your focus is right. Thus I recommend staying with lenses that you can trust to have the right markings on them so that you can use cine tape or estimate the correct focus.

I wouldn't be too worried. They are now reworking the emulsion and that's rather slow work. Not much to write updates about at the moment I guess.

Thank you Gregg and David! Your explanation sounds quite probable. It's rather interesting that the problem is so bad with so small lens as Kern Yvar (sorry, not Switar but almost!) while almost non-existant with 28mm Contax Zeiss which is 35mm SLR lens. I have done some testing with both 28mm and 50mm Contax lenses and should have the film processed soon. Today I also did some further testing with the 75mm Yvar -- this time I tried it with the behind the lens filter holder taken out & opening blocked with gaffer's tape. Having examined it certainly has seen its best days and become somewhat reflective (even those that didn't have that much wear seem to be closer to reflective black rather than matte). I also did take the same footage with the filter holder in so It'll be interesting to see if there is any difference between those two. If this is a problem that will only present itself with that long lenses in lens flare situations I guess I'll just have to refrain myself from trying to emulate the look of the new Star Trek movies ;)

Resurrecting this old thread. I had my Eclair ACL 1.5 converted to super16 last summer by Les Bosher. The first footage looks great, except that there seems to be some --- yes, you guessed it --- flicker! Now then, I live in Europe so not modifying the shutter angle to 144 is the way the things were done with my camera. Thus it can be seen that the mirror is a bit in front of the open gate. The curious thing however is that in the footage I shot the problem was only evident with longer focal length. With focal lengths of 10-28mm I didn't notice anything. With 75mm on the other hand... Take a look!

You could also transfer that edited film on Kodak Vision3 50D (frame by frame) and then have Andec print it on super-8 print film. Thus the original wouldn't be affected and you'd have a copy that is much better suited for continuous projecting (polyester based). Since your film is short it wouldn't be too expensive I think.

Here's one little test of mine (watch in 1080): Not that scientific (expired film, shaky footage, no good plan what to have in focus) but might give you some idea. For example, for 1.78 Switar 10mm seems to cover, for 1.62 not. Had my Eclair ACL modified to super16 by Les Bosher this summer.

Yeah, most likely that account was hacked. "Unfortunately we cannot process PayPal payments for a moment." Ha! Not to mention that the rightful owner seems to be mostly selling beret patches, not cameras or other very expensive equipment.