Peter Woodford

Hi folks, I'm auctioning my GK Film metal Super 8 pressure plate. I found that it worked great with both my Nizo S80 and Canon AutoZoom 814 (old style) but it doesn't suit my working style because my girlfriend and I usually shoot at the same time with different cameras and we prefer our footage to match as closely as possible. (In an ideal world where our currency wasn't doing so poorly vs the euro I'd get a 2nd GK Frame Master...) http://www.ebay.com/itm/251589641155 Auction ends Jul 22, 2014 14:00:21 EDT

Thanks for checking Alessandro. Do full screen Vimeo vids usually play fine on your system? What would be the benefit of checking on a CRT (I'm still a bit of a novice)?

Yeah, I definitely think it helped. Vimeo in particular scolded in warning dialog that uploading a file with such a high bitrate could lead to playback issues. I have a lousy Internet connection so I can't really tell the difference. Can anyone tell if it seems to have slower or more stutter-y playback than usual for Vimeo?

Hi folks, Here are the results of my own tests, if anyone is curious. Screenshots of Vimeo at 720p my usual compressed upload (I deleted the original file but I believe I used H.264 w/bitrate set to minimum 9Mbps): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimRkJPZUZHRkNxR2M/edit?usp=sharing prores422(LT) quality=80: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimVkFveS10cHN1YlU/edit?usp=sharing Screenshots of Youtube SD my usual compression: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimbHNXWG42Nkw0Tnc/edit?usp=sharing prores422(LT): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimWlhTQi1wRmFHd0E/edit?usp=sharing Final ProRes422 at Youtube Final ProRes422 at Vimeo (HD=720p)

That's interesting about HTML5. According to this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5845484/force-html5-youtube-video you can use the ?html5=1 parameter to 'force' html5 playback on compatible systems. Not sure if it still works (youtube seems to deprecate and change these parameters all the time).

Hi David, That's a really interesting discovery. I don't think my internet connection is up to the task of streaming 4K but based on stills, it looks like the grain survived really well. I also tried uploading Prores files to both Youtube and Vimeo and found it helped quite a bit. Long encoding time delay on Youtube though (and much longer upload times natch).

Thanks Josh. Even at 480 the grain looks pretty nice to me. It's a shame how lossy the compression gets for 360 and lower. Love it in HD! Great sound as well.

Hi folks, Thanks for the tips. And thanks especially to Carl for the very clear explanation. I'll definitely try ProRes to start (it's always music vids for really short songs so the file size isn't a huge deal for me). Does anyone have an example of a grainy clip that they uploaded to YouTube using ProRes? We're working on another vid, this time it's using relatively grainy Tri-X (you can see a few stills: here) so when it's done I imagine it'll be a YouTube SD torture test.

Thanks for the responses folks. I'm personally OK with either Vimeo or Youtube's HD quality. My suspicion, however, is that Youtube's HD option is too hidden away for the average viewer to notice. So if someone finds a vid by 'related videos' or by the search engine, I suspect they're most likely going to see it in SD. I've noticed some people on this board use Neat Video. I would much prefer the natural look of the grain at HD resolution but I'm curious if a reduced-noise vid would survive the Youtube SD grinder less scathed? Phil's comment was very interesting but way over my head. I really have to read up on this stuff! Also, I did come across a partial solution for the lack of HD playlists in Youtube--I learned that Vimeo lets you create 'albums'.

Thanks Josh, do you happen to know if there's a way to force 720 playback on playlists? I experimented and it seemed to ignore the tags. I can't seem to find any master Youtube url hack list that's up-to-date. The other thing that's a bit of a disappointment is that the 'related videos'/social component of the site will almost always lead to people seeing the lo-fi versions.

Hi folks, I'm a still a novice at Super 8 filming but I'm continuing to plug away and trying to improve my skills. The brick wall I've hit recently is the SD compression artifacts on Youtube vids. My theory could be totally wrong but it really seems as though its settings are fouled up by film grain and the compression ends up being very destructive--very blotchy/blocky. I've tried uploading the maximum quality file (since the videos are short) but it really doesn't seem to help much. I find the greens particularly bad: Here's the Vimeo version for comparison: Just wondering how others here have dealt with this-- does anyone treat the video slightly differently when it's destined for Youtube? I actually really like and embrace grain but if that's what causes the blotchiness, I'd consider having a separate version for Youtube (since the vast majority of people will see the SD version there).

Hi Tom, My Canon has slowed downed a little a fair bit a few times. It *seems* to only happen when the batteries are low, but I haven't used it enough yet to say that with certainty. The camera also seems to go through batteries more quickly (3 or 4 carts) than the manual would suggest it should (10 carts).

Thanks Mark. So does that mean the variance in filming speed has more to do with friction and/or the difference in take-up tension between the beginning and the end of a cart?

Oops, the topic should read 'Do Lithium AAs make for better film drive batteries?' Can't figure out how to edit my post.

Hi folks, Just wondering if anyone knows if Lithium AAs perform better than Alkalines in a typical super 8 camera? (I have a Canon AutoZoom 814 and a Nizo s80). I was thinking that their more stable voltage output might lead to more consistent filming speed throughout the life of the batteries. Better cold weather battery life would be nice too (I'm in Canada). It'd be great to know if anyone has done any testing.

Thanks for chiming in Simon. I'd like to eventually try a Bolex 16mm, but given my minuscule budget and novice-level knowledge, I think Super 8 is safer choice for now. I quite like the look of b/w 8mm reversal film too.

Thanks for the great explanation Dave. I was completely unaware of the film plane mark before your post. I'm going to try both methods for my test cartridge and see which works better with my eyesight.

So glad to hear that you're loving the old 814s Will. I really love its ergonomics; I've always had a hard time holding cameras steady without a tripod, but that strap on the top of this canon really seems to allow for holding it perfectly still. I've found with mine, the diopter seems appears in focus for a pretty wide (quater-turn or so) range. Do you find it's pretty forgiving? Or did the camera take some getting used to before you got sharp images? Aside: I had a go at fixing my Agfa MoveXoom 10 to no avail last night. The aperture control, zoom lens, light meter, and even the (nowadays useless) sound cart capstan (?) work. But the cartridge drive and gate still don't run when I pull the trigger. I think I got the battery corrosion mostly off and cleaned some internal contacts. The battery compartment has a sticker boasting it's 'leakproof', and I did not see any corrosion outside the battery chamber so I think they're must be another issue. I wasn't bold enough to remove the PCB. If anyone wants this for spare parts, I'll take any reasonable offer. It's complete with box, manual, earpiece and microphone.

Thanks for the great info David. The Canon 814 version I have is the very earliest with microprism focussing. Hopefully I can get good results with it. The diopter seems to have a pretty big 'sweet spot' for what looks to be in focus to my eyes--hope it translates to film. Glad to hear the Nizo is OK. The previous owner didn't seem to think much of it compared to the non-working Agfa.

Hi all, I recently got into super 8. I joined a local film co-op and rented a Canon 814XLS for all the shooting I've done so far. I really like that Canon, but it I have to pay a large deposit each time I use it also has a slight issue where the diopter doesn't lock in place so it can lead to fuzzy focus if I'm not careful. In the meantime I happened upon a lot of five cameras for very cheap. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or experiences with these models? I'd like to shoot a Tri-X test cartridge, does anyone know of any guidelines for shooting the most effective test? (I was planning on shooting a test card at a few different distances under both bright and dim light; and maybe a bit of my cat walking around for some motion). So here are the cameras: 1) Canon Auto Zoom 814 This one is very good shape. No battery corrosion. It runs well and the light meter looks to work with zinc air cells with a little kludge adapter I made. The potential issue I noticed was some foam rot under the film cart door hinge (I wonder if is this foam essential for light-tightness?) http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Canon_Auto_Zoom_814 Am I correct in thinking that this camera will light-meter any kind of film? 2) Agfa Movexoom 10 Sound MOS This one isn't currently working properly. It had severe battery corrosion in the AA chamber. Since cleaning it, the camera turns on and the zoom works, but the film trigger is still non-responsive. I might try completely disassembling it (I luckily found the oddball 'snakeyes' screwdriver needed). http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Agfa_Movexoom_10_Sound_MOS_Electronic 3) Sankyo LXL-225 This one appears to be new in box. It seems a bit flimsy but the manual claims good low light performance. http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Sankyo_LXL-225 4) Nizo S80 This also seems to work well (albeit very noisily at 54fps). The battery spring was tight enough that I could use 675 zinc air cells without an adapter. I'm intrigued by the half shutter setting (manual claims it prevents the need for an ND filter). I wonder if this would give very sharp images in bright sunlight? It seems to be a not-so-hot choice for low light, would you all agree? http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Nizo_S_80 5) Bentley BX720. I read that this one is 'the worst super 8 camera ever'. It does seem to run OK though. http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_bentley/bentley_bx720.htm In addition, there was a Eumig Mark M Super 8 projector which works very well (but it's a bit tricky to load without crumpling film); a Goko Dual 8 (works but is really loud when winding, is that normal?) plus a Bolex B8vs 8mm camera (needs oiling; not sure where I could developed film slit); and a working Gossen Lunasix 3 light meter. I'd really appreciate anyone's thoughts and opinions on any of these pieces (reliability, image quality, flexibility in accepting film cart types, etc.). Thanks in advance. -Peter