Guy Bennett

The readings from your camera and light meter are going to differ, independant of whatever techniques you might use to take a light reading, because of the light absorbed by the lens elements and the viewfinder, and the longer the focal length, the more light absorbed. My camera (a Nizo 801m) shows anywhere from 1/2 stop to 3-3 1/2 stops difference at shortest and longest focal lengths, when compared to readings in the same light from my light meter (a Gossen Lunapro Digital). The difference between them is described as the difference between f-stops and t-stops.

Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't you be the greatest beneficiary by testing yourself the specific materials you're interested in with the very gear and lab you would use to shoot and process it? I'm not trying to be snide (apologies if it comes across that way), at one point I had a similar question myself. A while ago I was wondering about using a particular film stock (Tri X) with a camera I had just bought (a Nizo 801m). I wasn't sure that the camera would read the film speed correctly and thus feared that the film would be over/under exposed. So I posted my question on a forum and got a lot of conflicting responses which left me perplexed. In the end I just went out and shot a roll, had it processed, and saw that my camera had no problem with Tri X. I guess the lesson was: no matter what anybody else's experiences are, you won't really know what your own experience will be until you've had it.

Why not actually shoot some of both stocks yourself, and try processing some 64T as negative, and see if the results are acceptable to you?

Hmm... In my area, there are 2-3 camera stores/film labs that stock 1.35v Wein Cells, and since they're available on-line, you'd think this would pretty much be a non-issue...

I'm currently in Europe and have seen a number of films here this summer that were shot on Super 8 and blown up to 16. They retained the Super 8 look, which I personally find beautiful,* but when projected as 16mm prints gave, as you would expect, a bigger, brighter image than the Super 8 films that were shown in the same programs. The process of blowing the footage up also allowed for some interesting manipulations (the use of different film stocks, varying of film speeds, etc.), that add to the creative possibilites of the Super 8 format. I am pretty sure that the filmmakers did the blow ups themselves. Over here there are a couple of independent labs (L'Abominable, just outside of Paris, and No.w.here in London) that offer filmmakers the training and access to equipment necessary to process and edit their own film on professional gear, make copies of their work, or blow Super 8 footage up to 16mm. Does anyone know of anything like this in the U.S.? *I agree with Douglas' point about Super 8 sharpness, and the unique aesthetics of Super 8 as a film format.

Why not use the proper 1.35v batteries + no exposure compensation?

I'm sorry Sam, I misread your earlier post!

Non-mercury replacement PX625 1.35v batteries (i.e. Wein Cells) are available for between $5-8 USD from: - Du-All Camera - Freestyle Photo - myoldcamera.com - Super 8 Stuff - Wittner and probably from a number of other places as well. It has become my personal mission to repeat this information each time the question comes up in those fora I regularly read, which it does about two times a week...

That makes me wonder if Brakhage ever worked in Super 8. Does anyone know if indeed he did?

Perhaps that's why Bresson describes it as "notes" on Cinematography... Are you sure it was shot in Super 8 and not in standard 8? I thought it was the latter.

IMO the Bresson book is quite interesting. As someone has pointed out, it's not about cinematography, technically speaking. It's more a book by an artist about film.

I don't know the Hunter-Blair edition, so cannot say to what extent the materials are the same. What I can say is that this edition runs some 600 pages, and includes the complete text of his diary (1970-1986), as well as a number of reproductions of drawings, photographs, and ms diary pages. There have also been a number of additions to the first French translation of the diary, published by the Cahiers du Cinéma in 1994. Regarding the additions, here's a rough translation of the opening lines of the preface by Tarkovsky's son: "This book is the latest revized and augmented edition (after the Italian edition) of my father's diary. It has been enriched, following its first French translation, with many pages and notes found in both the Florence and Moscow archives of the Andrei Tarkovsky International Institute. It can be considered, with its additions and corrections, as the definitive version." I should add that it was published in 2004, not in 2006, as I had imagined. I'm not sure what book by Brakhage you're refering to, but if you want to get a sense of his writing, check out Essential Brakhage: Selected Writings on Film-Making. It's a compilation of writings from throughout his career.

...*sigh*...

Folks, The last several posts have nothing to do with the subject of this thread (Super 8 books). Could we get back to it? Perhaps there could be a separate thread for those wishing to discuss Santo. Or better yet, maybe people could just talk about filmmaking.

There's also a substantial recent monograph on the films of Kenneth Anger, if you care for his work, and a couple of interesting books of essays by Brakhage. For Tarkovsky fans, his diary has just been published in French by the Cahiers du cinéma.

If you're willing to do some basic research, you can probably get answers to all of your questions in a few minutes. Check out On Super 8, where you'll find links to film suppliers and labs around the world. Most of them will indicate prices for film, processing, and transfer on their websites.

In the "film as art" category let's not forget Arnheim's Film as Art, which is currently available in a new printing.

I'll second those who recommend Lipton's "Independent Filmmaking" for general small gauge info and techniques, and his "Super 8 Book" for more Super 8-specific stuff, and echo those others who suggest exploring on-line resources as well. I've found a number of useful articles about a variety of technical issues (shutter angles, shutter speeds, editing, cleaning film, refilming, optical duplication, etc., etc.) on various filmmaking websites. As someone pointed out, forums such as this one and the one at filmshooting.com are also very helpful. I also enjoy reading books and articles by contemporary small gauge filmmakers, especially those that explore both technical and aesthetic issues, as well as books on filmmakers I admire. Don't forget that there are also two magazines on small gauge and Super 8 filmmaking currently being published in English, and books and mags in other languages as well (such as the French journal "Exploding," and the publications of both Paris Experimental and Scratch Projections, all of which focus on experimental filmmaking).

I'm aware of the EPFC, which I'm very happy we have, and its microcinema, which presents some interesting work, though its scheduling is a bit of a mixed bag IMO. And I don't mean to make more of this than I already have, but I guess I'm just surprised that given the place and role of L.A. in the history of cinema, you'd think that there would be more happening there, and that there would be a more dynamic, diverse, and visible scene with respect to small gauge film making. I'd be curious to hear more about the group you've founded (BTW where do you teach, if you don't mind my asking? [and if you do, no problem]), and also wonder if there might be others in town interested in a small gauge filmmaking group. You never know.

If the idea is to actually watch the films we're shooting (and if it isn't, then what is?), then the points I'm bringing up are not sidebar points, they are *the* points. Also, I'm not talking about projecting Super 8 originals vs DVD copies, my point is that in L.A., only one, maybe two places are showing small gauge films, and that just a few times a year, whatever the media. And the other types of organizations -- film collectives and workshops with classes, facilities, etc. -- don't exist at all.

I also live in L.A., and while I agree that for buying and processing Super 8 film, the situation there is difficult to beat, I find that there is little to nothing happening there in terms of organizations of small gauge film makers, studios where they can work on film projects, and actual screenings of Super 8 films. I'm currently in Paris, where I spend a few months each year, and there is an extremely dynamic small gauge film making community here, with several associations and collectives actually making and screening Super 8 films on a regular basis. This week alone, for example, there have been screenings every night at L'ETNA, with up to ten Super 8 films projected in one program (in addition to a couple films in 16mm and mini-DV). And this is only one organization; there are several others here that frequently present small gauge films to the public. Super 8 film and processing is so readily available in L.A. because the US film industry is based there, and I suppose that we should be happy about that. But when it comes to public screenings of small gauge films, which in the end is what it's all about, L.A. simply can't compare with what is happening here. Frankly, I find the same thing to be true of "large gauge" cinema as well. Whether we're talking about the latest, greatest studio offerings, or "art" films, either old classics or current works, from around the world, the L.A. movie scene, so to speak, is downright poor compared to what you can see in Paris on a regular basis, and I say this as someone who lived his whole life in L.A. L.A. may be the capital of US cinema, but it is nowhere near as dynamic in terms of actual public screenings of all types of films as the French capital, and the same may be true of other large cities around the world.

Check out Superosma. You'll find some of the info you're looking for in their links.

Leo A Vale is right when he explains that An aspherical lens simply means that the lens has one or more elements with aspherical surfaces.

I forgot to add that, though the screen on my viewer looks a little yellow, the film image is nonetheless bright and clear when I use it. Also, if you think it might be your bulb, you can easily get a replacement. It takes a 6v10w halogen bulb that you can find here. Good luck.

I recently picked up a SB2 viewer, and the screen is a little yellow looking to my eye. I don't know if that's the way they came originally, or if the screen has yellowed with age. There are currently 3 SB1s on ebay as listed here.. You might want to check out the pix to see if these look like yours (they look a little yellowish to me). While that doesn't really respond to your question, it will at least give you an idea of whether this is common or not. BTW, my viewer did not come with a manual, so iIf anyone has a copy of the manual for either the SB1 or SB2 that they'd be willing to email me, I'd much appreciate it.