Simon Lucas

That's an idea. I could ask Andries to delete them and then I could start again.

Photoshop levels applied to boost blacks, gentle low-pass filter added to increase sharpness. Maybe my best Tri-X test so far, and a good alternative to the previous gritty Rodinal (APH09) look. I like the poetry in this frame. Out of focus, perhaps due to the fact it is a hand-held panning shot, made in haste whilst the sun broke through he clouds. Of course HC110 is cheap and has a long shelf-life. My sealed glass bottles are now over 2 years old. Note. Pan X in HC110 lacked compared to APH09, so this is a nice surprise. Next up will be D19, later in the week, But maybe it will be hard to match this.

Here's the next. Same part of the strip as before in HC110. At 7m. I'm not sure if this end of the strip is focused. I had this focussed using the Nizo's split focus screen. But when I measured the focus distance, it seemed to be 6" out. The other end of the strip has some shots focused using the actual distance measurements, so I'll get that processed tomorrow. The HC110 does nothing much for me over the APH09, and is no improvement in contrast. If anything this is flatter. Can be opened up to full 2500 pixels width.

Josh, thanks for posting your work. I'll be interested to check the D76 processed film.

Yes, neg because it's an easier process and I was never happy with the results I got from reversal processing. And yes I'm doing a series of tests with the developers I have. I'm going to keep at it until I have one or two workable options for my filming. But not too many as it is a distraction from filming! I also thought it would be useful here for people to see the look they can achieve in Soper 8. The results I get are overall quite flat and need post-processing, which here, I am doing in photoshop from RAW files. So, now I have decided to pursue some d19 or equivalent to get a contrast boost. But I will also try another HC110 and post that.

Sorry, I now realise this should probably go in the film-stock forum.

I ran TX in dilute APH09 dev. for 1 hour. Far too long, so tried a strip of Pan X for half the time. The grain is nice and the edge enhancement very apparent. I will repeat with TX.

Thanks. I'm going to go back a re-assess some of the other tests I have done.

Yes, I also think Tri-X is quite forgiving. I'm still working on best exposure rating and dev times. It makes life much easier to be able to adjust curves or levels. I felt it was cheating doing this at first, but now I've accepted that my film-making is going to be a hybrid process.

btw. sorry I wouldn't/couldn't believe the flat-bed scanner was at fault. :D

I shot a bit of Tri-X film, dev'd it and then decided to try Carl's advice. Enlarger with 80mm Componon S projecting into a Nikon d70, horizontally . Focussing is slight guess work, as it whether the sensor is in any sense parallel to the film plane.... but, I shut down the lens to f11, to help. First attempt, I'm very happy with this. All my doubts about quality of my footage now evaporate. I'm excited – I feel that i'm getting there! Thanks to everyone in the thread and a special thanks to Carl for this simple and elegant idea. (And I had everything I needed to do this, already!) Notes relating to image quality below..... NOTES: I try and shoot some test footage whenever I can. This time I used a bit of Tri-X. Lots of things have contributed to this look. Mainly I forgot to reset my meter to 200ASA, so this was shot as 100ASA. So shot 1 stop over, which along my decision to to use APH09 as the dev, has made it quite grainy - but I like it. I even guessed the dev time (1:50 at 8m) as there is no real info on developing Tri-X Super 8 as a neg - so pleased to get anything this good. I'm still confused as to whether Tri-X in a Super 8 cart is the same as Tri-X in 35mm still photography form,which as we know is rated at 400ASA. Is Super 8 rated at 200ASA because it is reversed processed or is the emulsion different? Or another factor? So not really sure whether my film footage is 1 or 2 stops over exposed at this point.

Got it. Thanks.

Complete syncing. Sounds fantastic, and very advanced. Did you use this on that beautiful example footage I've seen of yours. I think there some shot on a Logmar, for example. How easy was it to put a stepper in a projector?

Carl. An amazing project. Green with envy. So, the stepper is controlling the location of the lens. Is this to gain accurate positioning of the lens at initial set-up or does it have some feedback purpose that applies continuous adjustments during scanning/printing? And, are you using a projector to print the film from, or have you built something with a stepper for frame-by-frame printing? Thanks for the encouragement. I'm looking forward to scanning still frames at the moment, but also I'm now thinking about the potential larger goal of scanning whole films.

Looks wonderful. The quality is so good, it makes it all the more exciting and important to me, to persevere with my own tests and experiments. It means I know it will look great, once I have my own technical issues sorted! thank-you. Btw, why 16.66 fps?

Josh, are you digitising whole films this way? IF so, how do they compare with commercially scanned films? Are you projecting into the digital camera, the same as Carl? Another question I mean to ask Carl, is - how do you get the film projection perpendicular to the digital camera axis? I have Componon S in 50mm and 80mm, so I can experiment.

Carl. Nice idea! I've also just realised that this lens is well-regarded amongst numismatists. To use it as a 2x macro, I can mount it on my d70 and have bought the reverse mounting ring and a step-up. Photograph the frame on my lightbox. But, I have to say that there's something very satisfying about the idea of projecting a film-based image directly onto a dSLR sensor. Almost poetic. Care to speculate which will give best results? And what were your aims?

I've just found a 28mm Componon lens for my enlarger. 30mm is recommended for printing 16mm in my enlarger manual, and I hope the 28mm will give me enough magnification for printing 8mm.

>Reverso is acetate base. No problem to perforate. I wonder why they chose polyester for the CHS and not for the Silvermax? BTW. I hope someone (Andries, please?) can delete my mistaken thread.

Martin. I do still have the cart in. But nice to know about that switch. Carl. I'm not aware of the contacts being dodgy. The thing you describe with the metal contacts, is though, what has happened inside my remote control box, the ST-1. I will look at that, though. BTW, I did test the voltages coming out of the battery compartment. There seem to be two different sets of circuits in that box. I could not quite understand why, but I was getting voltage from them.

That image is new to me and I visit there quite often – unless I have accidentally come across a widowed page? I didn't know the punch issue. Does that apply to Reverso, too?

I've agonised over the scanner focus issue. I tried all combinations with neg holder and without, sloping the neg away from the glass to find the focus point. And I always wonder what it is that is 'focused'. Is there an actual lens? But whatever, I had to return to the very first naive scan of Tri-X 35mm I did, stuck on the glass - it seemed to clearly show the grain. And my recent Silvermax tests seemed to support that that was the sharpest, although I never feel like I can resolve the grain any more. One note is that our scanner says 4800 dpi but it is clearly interpolated and I suspect the true res. is 2400. But the Super-8 edge/sprocket does not seem to be as sharp as the 35mm sprocket. So, I have an enlarger but my lenses are for 35mm and for 120. And I would need a minox sized lens (20mm or smaller) to really blow up 8mm. Or I wonder if I could set the enlarger to project across the room and make a print? I do have a Super 8 projector on loan. I will still have to shoot a good length of film to see it for long enough. I have been shooting 7second strips. But I will be tempted to project the film when I finish it, before it is sent for scanning. One question - what kind of macro lens would I need on a dSLR (I have a d70, not full frame), to get a suitably large photo of a Super 8 frame? I guess larger than 1:1. And would it cost more than a £100 scanner? If it worked it would be a justifiable investment.

I read about it but was not sure it would happen, until I saw this on their site.

Thank-you, I'm going to have to shoot a whole roll and get it developed and scanned to see what's going on. I've been doing small strips to test developer/exposure. But it's hard to get a good idea about the results, without seeing it scanned, first. I may also try a dSLR on my lightbox. Thanks for everyone's input.

Martin. I forgot to say that I have also tested the camera using the external power supply/remote box. That did not work either, but I reloaded the battery compartment, cleaned the contacts. Still nothing, so it's going off to Germany.