Luigi Castellitto

What do you think of DP3? I know it should be the predecessor of the DP31. For an experiment, would it be possible to shot it directly in the camera and develop it for projector? How many Asa would be indicated to do it?

Thank you all for the info!

I imagined that there must be bureaucratic problems. I don't know if the DS8 buyers are so numerous... We await events, for now... let's shot in b/w.

Andries, I agree! Maybe they could sell stocks in DS8 not cut in "unofficial" form (not on official site, etc.), maybe at some labs... In some places, there was also talk about the request to Kodak of 35mm Ekta100D whole, without perforations, by laboratories that would cut them in 9.5mm. I wonder: in these times of fast business, it's really more important to have film to create a 40-dollar cartridge, which allocate a small percentage (5%?) for a direct and paid instantly sale to a laboratory that then would sell it under another format? Bureaucratic terms slow down this "easy" and instantaneous business? Kodak could do an online poll (signed, by email, for not having false votes) to know the formats that buyers are interested in? I don't understand much about economics, I'm curious, I don't want to make controversy.

Some rumors say that it is possible to develop the film for intermediate negatives Orwo DN2 as if it were a positive for normal projection. It's true? http://www.filmotec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/V-I-TI-DN2-e.pdf Thanks.

Thanks, Lee. It's true, many expired particoulars film are in ebay at similar. The time or the different emulsion type make them have characteristics for certain projects. I invite those who use films from the Easter Bloc, Svema, Tasma, etc., to post impressions (even laboratories where they can develop them, results ...) I would be interested. :) Also in the forum section film stocks and processing. :)

Taking into account what Martin says, there are also excellent expired films that still give good results. I wanted to ask at Lee: I'm always tempted to take the Soviet films (not the DDR) like the Svema OCh-50 you mention. But I knew that they had a proprietary development, and I know only osome laboratories that want to develop them. Do you know about Svema (or similar Soviets) that can be developed in E6 or some other easy way? The same goes for the black and white Soviets.

I have to shot a Kodachrome 40 expired in '90s, both indoors and outdoors, and I'll have it developed in positive black and white I was wondering ... the K40 had this kind of settings: ISO 40/17 Photo Lamp (3400 K, without any filter) ISO 32/16 Tungsten (3200 K, filter Kodak Wratten 82A) ISO 25/15 Daylight (5900 K, filter Kodak Wratten 85A) Should I develop it in black and white, if I don't have to use filters? Right? And since it is a film expired in the '90s, how much will I have to overexpose it in tungtsen and daylight? Thank you. :)

Yes, Tyler, I had gone a bit off topic. Also because recording directly on magnetic strips was the norm for Super 8, but not for 16mm. Apart from best sync, timecode and possible technologies, do you prefer optical sound to magnetic sound? Always and even in commercial films? In 16mm, but also in Super / 8mm? I have often found, on the small format forums, people who said that magnetic sound may be better than the optical (for audible quality), but I don't know on what basis, I am not technically good for understanding it.

Simon, speaking of magnetic stripes in general, I use two stripes for Regular 8 / Super 8, a classic Bolex Weberling DS 240 and a Juwel Mini 8S8 (of which I have always heard bad, but that works well), which give me many satisfactions. Obviously, with solvent! I have a friend who has a very rare 9.5mm striper, but he still can not use it. For 16mm, I buy service form Alberto Vangelisti, who say Webster C, He works with 16mm/8mm/Super 8 with, so he can also stripes on polyester. He does a great job, and cleans tracks and film. I know little about the magnetic on 35mm, more complex, in fact. Of course, even the 8mm has its stripes placed differently, see Toei etc. I've never been interested in sound direct in camera, I'm slowly deepening the culture of it with the 16mm. Tyler, sorry, but I always mess with English. I was wondering what kind of tape used the COMMAG technology. I don't think the tape used on 16mm is too wide. :) I can say that there is disinterest for direct sound on 16mm and 8mm/Super 8 cameras , but I'm seeing some interest for the post shooting sound (on 16mm, rightly also because the cameras are rare). Less interest compared to digital audio on PC, of course, but on ebay many people buy magnetic tracks, some people ask where can find solvent, many ask notice to Alberto, etc. There a minimum of market, even if I don't explain why only for the sound post and not for the direct audio. For example, I did not read about anyone who would like a new Ekta with pre-stripe. Of course, a new technology for digital audio on film would not be bad...

If with the COMMAG were used classic magnetic tracks measures for 16mm (almost all the space between frame and right edge. Compensation track I believe it is not used), but, as they say, yes, the dimensions are the same. On the other hand, it would not make sense to cover less magnetic track space.

A mono track for sync would actually be useful! A COMMAG technology on Bolex Pro: But how does a film appear with the COMMAG audio? With a normal track?

I knew the Auricon, I did not remember the others. The Sinmor is a beautiful piece of artillery! Interesting the COMMAG technology! And were there cases in which the negative sound was impressed not directly with the camera but after shooting? I know that it may not make sense, but maybe there may have been some cases in which it was preferred to apply the sound and synchronize it on the negative for reasons of archive and not for not lose it with the positive copies distributed.

Do you know cases in the professional and non professional cinema of sound track application directly on the original negative? Magnetic sound, optical, etc., in 16mm, 35mm, etc.

All useful mods, but I must say that the K3 has an already bright viewfinder. I have always felt good with all closed iris and with use of ND filters. @Will: did you have bayonet or screw lenses? :) Although the viewfinder of K3 has always had a particularity: it is slightly yellowish, I saw it in every k3 I saw. I've always wondered if it's a problem that take K3 with time or it's the original to be like that. About brightness, a Bolex H is a camera that much needs to have a brighter viewfinder, really dark without great lighting, with its 20% of diverted light. I have an H8, not a H16, I have to ask Bernie if he can do the work too on H8.

Does anyone know laboratories that repair Zeiss Super 8 equipments? Thank you.

That type of battery is fine, it's the one that was used in the past with that lightmeter, now no longer on the market for for mercury pollution. As long as it's fully charged is fine, then you'll have to look for alternative solutions. I feel good with the Orwo UN54, I development (at lab) it in reversal and not in negative, without pull or push, I like the "basic" effect. I never use UN74. The dynamics of digital post production are really endless, even with a scanned 8mm film. The Fomapan R100 is also a great film, and the film, apart from development, it's cheap. I write you on email!

I solved with a release cable with very long internal thread (original Bolex), screwing it in lower hole of the Rexofader. :)

1. Simon said right, the Octameter does not affect the film, it's a separate accessory. I have always noticed the fact that with Octa at 5.5mm with glass attachment (I don't remember if even at 6.5mm, without attachment) you can see little parts of lens. I also use a zoom lens, it covers half window of the Octameter! This is because the Octameter was not think for use with zoom. Another curiosity: there is a very rare accessory, a bracket that lengthened the distance from camera to Octa, for solve the problem. I have it, but at 5.5mm a bit 'of lens are seen the same. This "arm" had been made for use with the Newest Bolex. 2. Simon says well. 3. Yes, correct for Simon. 4.Them are a bit 'delicate, I would have a little' fear, but it's true that the focus is more easily accessible. If the repairer is skilled you can do it. 5. The Bolex Gossen lightmeter (there are two models, but almost identical) will have a very small difference compared to the other lightmeter, because it was produced to consider the light deviated in the viewfinder of the Bolex H models. It worked right with the 1.35v cells that says Simon, at past mercury type, no longer on the market, so you'll have to find a replacement with the current 1.35v calibrated batteries. I use the zinc air, not cheap and with small life, but they do the job well. There is also an adapter+other new types of batteries solution, you can see it by writing "adapter 1.35 cell" on Google, but I've never used it on Bolex For the manual... give me your email address! 6. Ok for Simon

Than you, Stuart.

Thanks Stuart, maybe it's a non-existent problem, but the bubble is not in level even if I stop, for example, at half panning. When head is stationary, yes, but after a part of panning (at start is in level). Indeed, with panning "in running", it is less evident because the bubble is repositioning itself.

I don't have much space to do a complete panning and shoot with cameraat the same time, but here I also show the bubble on the other axis. It seems to me that the fluid head is imprecise, otherwise I don't know how else to explain the matter. In the shot films with the tripod, fortunately, the thing is not visible (maybe yes in line with a millimetrically precise horizon, but it never happened to me), so it would not be a big problem, more a curiosity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-NHKhz8368&feature=youtu.be

JD, do you mean that you don't see the other bubble? The one on top? I thought it was superfluous to show it, the horizontal bubble already explains that the panning does not remain in level. I will try to make another video with a wider field. :)

This is a half panning (sorry for the quality, it's not clear), the bubble moves at side. If I complete the 360 panning (I could not move well with the camera in my hand, sorry again) the bubble goes back into central place. I also tried with a carpenter's level on tripod, the same thing happens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOpZ1uzDs-E&feature=youtu.be

Thank you both. I noticed that when the bubble moves position, the plane is imperfect because of the tripod head. It is not a poor tripod, but not as precise as a high level tripod. The head, looking at it in a 360 panning, does not always seem perfectly leveled.