Richard Tuohy

the risk with taking film directly from the fridge, opening the sealed package and shooting right away is condensation on the film. Ideally you whould wait until the sealed film is brought to ambient temperature before opening the seal to avoid condensation forming on the film. But if you have to shoot, just shoot and see if you get away with it. With super 8 a major issue with condensation is film getting jammed in the cartridge. Also, film with condensation on it can have problems with static flashes: the wet film gets sticky as it dries and sticks to the neighbouring film, then when the film is peeled apart for processing a flash can be generated which is visible on the processed film. That is the risk. So the problem with fridge temperature film is not an exposure thing, its a condensation thing. richard

Thanks for posting Henri, just ordered a copy now. cheers, richard

hello tom, well done. I have done this too, but with cartridges that weren't as glued tight as Kodak ones seem to be. I also purchased a carton of empty cartridges from Kodak for loading ds8 into. I gave up on that as too time consuming for commercial purposes. I still have empty cartridges. Want to buy some? Aus$3.50 each. Much easier to re-use than glued cartridges. email me at richard@nanolab.com.au if you are interested. cheers, richard

Certainly the second part of what you say is true: the companies that cut down ds8 for loading in super 8 cartridges will no longer be ordering ds8 for that purpose since kodak loaded 100d is now available. As soon as you have to consider the labour cost of loading cartridges it is much cheaper to buy kodak loaded 100d in bulk than ds8 stock and empty cartrides. that said, I hope wittner has accesst to a ds8 slitter. I know GK does. Still, even if they have access, they are unlikely to have access to unperforated 35mm stock (which is what the velvia is cut from). I doubt kodak have changed their production principle back to super 8 being cut from 35. AFAIK ALL super 8 goes through a ds8 phase at kodak - ie it starts off as unperforated 16mm. So hopefully Wittner will still be able to buy it in volume for ds8 users...

If you are going to do a bracketed test, you really should use reversal film (maybe you did), and you should make your exposure assesment by looking at the film directly rather than a telecine (or do both - project the film AND do a telecine). You will find that a super 8 camera is between 1 and 2 stops divergent from a normal light meter because of the shutter opening and the viewfinder loss. O.K., if using an XL (low light) camera with a wide shutter opening, it could be between half and one and a half stops. However I must say I don't know about converting a footcandles meter to asa/shutter speed/f-stop camera meter ...

Is there any wonder kodachrome is going? Here is a quote from the article where he is talking about the pressure he felt on shooting that last roll on kodachrome: "So before he took one of those shots, he used a digital camera to hone in on the perfect exposure. "To have that reinforcement, to be able to see that on a two-dimensional screen ... it was a big help," he says". That explains the end of kodachrome!

hello, I am able to process ecpII films by hand in a lomo tank. This isn't the same as a morese re-wind tank of course. Anyway, I use the Kodak Pre-Bath (which I buy from Kodak directly). I give the film a full minute in the pre-bath agitating vigourously (which is not what Kodak intended). Then I wash twice, giving vigourous agitation. By then 99% of the rem-jet (anti-halation layer) is removed. I then continue with the process. After processing, I still have to wipe the base side of the film with a cloth to remove the last of the rem-jet. This system is not ideal, but it does work. Kodak intend the rem-jet to be removed completely after the pre-bath and before developing, not during the pre-bath as I do by my vigourous agitation. You say your pre-bath is too strong. That is hard to understand. Is it the kodak ecnII formula pre-bath? by the way, in Cinematography.com, the rules are that your user name must be your real name, not an avatar name. richard

to find an nd filter that will fit, you simply need to know the filter thread size of the lens. It can be easiest to take the camera in to a photography shop to test filter sizes. Yes, the 100d comes in a cartridge ready to simply pop inside the camera. You would need a one and 1/3rd stop n.d. That might be called a '.4' I don't think that camera has a filter switch (does it?). If not, it probably has a filter key or filter screw. This will need to be inserted (or impovised if you don't have the original item).

Wittner also sell the Pro8 stocks of re-cut Kodak negative. I would suggest using Andec for processing. Yes, for not much more you could shoot on 16mm, but shooting on 16 isn't the same as shooting on super 8. There are reasons one might want to use one gauge over the other for a particular project. Could be the more inconspicuous camera, could be the auto iris, could be due to non-cinematographers using the camera, could be a transport thing, could be a speed of shooting thing. Use whatever is most appropriate.

I have a canon DS8 in beautiful condition that I probably should sell. Cost would be US$550 including postage and a 100' roll of K40, 100' of 100d to anywhere. email if interested: richard@nanolab.com.au cheers, richard

This clip is a sample of the technique used in a new film of mine - 'Tasmainian Splinters'. The original footage was shot on Plus-X 7231 bw neg. It is of dead trees and branches on some farm land in Tasmania. From this original bw neg I made a high contrast postive on 7363 processed in D19. From that high contrast postive I then printed a high contrast neg, again on 7363. After a series of test prints to determine lights and filtration, this HC neg was printed 5 times onto the same piece of 3383 colour print film using 5 different filter combinations (50c, 50y, 50m, 50c+50y, 50m+50y). This roll of 3383 was nonetheless processed in ECNII chemistry. In this sample roll, each of these 5 passes were exactly 5 frames shifted from one another. Thus there was a 5 frame gap between the printing of the hc neg with the 50c filter and the printing of the hc neg with the 50y filter, etc. etc.. I subsequently also made rolls 1 frame shifted, 2, 10, 20 and 40 frames shifted, and playing with the printer's fade-device at the same time. These 3383 rolls became the master negatives (which I have been calling 'internegs') and were then printed onto 3383 print stock (process ECP) using some blank colour negative film (effectively orange) as well as a little tweak +20c in the printer filter pack. The results are rather stunning. Naturally, using 3383 as an interneg in the ordinary course of events would itelf unavoidably be a high contrast stage, but for this project where I wanted a lithographic effect, it was ideal. The finished film is about 17 minutes from the one original 100' roll of 7231 plus-x neg. Currently the I am still refining the work print edit. I am also still working on the sound. The telecine you are watching is from the work print. There is a little colour cast in the video due to not fussing too much about adjusting the light source of my telecine. I will of course also make the prints myself (as well as record the optical sound on my Auricon gear which works very well). This will mean a non-silver audio track on colour print. I have done a little of this in the past and it seems to give acceptable results. see what you think. richard Here is the link:

If you have a 35mm projector you want to off load, send me a pm or email richard@nanolab.com.au cheers, richard

A synic would say Kodak's choice of 64t for super 8 was intended to use up large quantites of the film they had sitting around in cyrogenic coffers that they had little other use for at the time. This was my impression when they introduced 64t in s8. On the other hand, a replacement for k40 had to come from an existing emulsion line - they couldn't design an entirely new emulsion for super 8 at this stage in s8 history. If it wanted to be tungsten, their choice was 64t, 160t and 320t all from the same generation of film technology. Of these, the 64t was the finest. But nowhere near as fine as the 100d which is from a much later generation of film technology. Now, there are no more tungsten balanced colour reversal emulsions available at Kodak. But they would feel that they have covered tungsten balance with their vision negative stocks. Kodak will always have to think about dividing their market too much with too many options. Still, we are lucky to have the e100d in super 8 now. It is a much better super 8 stock. Just have to use blue gells on your tungsten work lights, or get yourself some daylight fluro lights. rt

Make up a rack out of plywood and dowling. A plywood disc at both ends, a central shaft of dowling (1/2" in thickness). The central shaft should protrude beyond the discs at each end to act as an axle for supporting the rack. Have say 6 pieces of thinner dowling joining the discs around the edges. These pieces are the rails that the film will touch against. Good idea to cover these in plastic tape. The head of the wet film is pulled from the spiral and pegged to the rack. Then by rotating the rack, the wet film is gently pulled out of the processing spiral in the same way it went in. If the film is acetate based, then it will need to be slackened as it dries to avoid kinks. The film is put on the rack with the emulsion out, such that only the base side touches the rack. No spots or drying marks at all. Do this in as dust free an environment as you can manage (I have a heated room with a HEPA air filter for drying, but you really don't need this). Air drying for 24 hours is ideal. If its just a test film or whatever you can dry with a blow dryer in a few minutes. richard

Hi oliver, I am facinated by this B & J tank. As you say the 100' lomos are hard to find. This tank looks like it would be replicatable. Did you ever load it? I can't quite tell how it works. There looks to be a winding arm. What confuses me is that the arm angles down to the centre of the spiral. As such, doesn't it run in to the film? Am I correct in assuming the tank is threaded from the inside of the spiral to the outside? The Lomo has a bottom spiral (not unlike this tank) but also has a top disc. On loading, the film is forced into the spiral track because there is no other room for the height of the film in the space between the spiral and the top disc. So is there a top disc to the spiral? If not, do you know how this tank is loaded? I would love to know more about this tank and consider the possibility of having some made. cheers, richard

Hey Oliver, where did you come accross that B & J tank? I have never seen such a thing. Being stainless, it MIGHT be something that could be copied at only moderate expense. It would cost a fortune to copy the excellent LOMO 100' tanks in plastic/bakelite. Do you own this B& J tank? cheers, richard

When using a reflex bolex, the simplest thing to do is to use the cine speeds on your light meter and make the exposure correction with the asa setting. This way, you can readily switch between shooting speeds without having to re-calculate anything. The correct compensation is 2/3rds of a stop in total, which includes 1/3rd of a stop for the 130 degree shutter angle, and 1/3rd of a stop for the prism light loss. Thus, if you are using 100 asa film stock, set the light meter to 64 asa (which is 2/3rds of a stop slower than 100 asa) then simply set the meter to 24fps if you are shooting at 24, or 12 if shooting at 12 etc.. Here is a chart that puts this correction in terms of real and adapted shutter speed: http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/shutter.html But as I say, I prefer to adapt the asa rather than the shutter speed. richard

The Film Group unit looks excellent, and I think that is a great price if you want crystal speeds. Crystal controlled speeds aren't essential, but they do make life a LOT easier when it comes to editing. You can use any sound recorder that runs at a constant speed. Anything digital will do that. No, you don't need to run any cables to the recorder. YEs, if you shoot to audio from an mp3 player then the footage shot will be able to be edited in sycn with that mp3 track. How to use? As soon as you start filming the camera will be running at the crystal speed. You then need a clap so that you can line up the audio and film during editing. You follow the normal 'slate' proceedure. Turn on the sound recorder (if recording sound), read the slate, turn on the camear (with it pointing at the slate with all the shot info on it) then clap the slate and keep filming. Will remain in sync until the camera is turned off. richard

I tend to agree that a morse tank would be difficult to use to process E6, but not impossible. I suspect the change in temperature as the chemistry on the film cools down after leaving the bath and waiting for its next shot in the bath might be the biggest problem. That processing machine the German kid built is unbelievable. I have never heard of anything comperable to that. Its extraundinarily impressive, but personally I think it was a lot of unnecessary effort if the aim was to actually process film. I have to say that the LOMO is the best way to home process if you want professional looking results. Yes, most lomo tanks are 50' only. They can take 2 x 50' rolls of 16mm at a time. Really this is no problem if you have access to a splicer. You just cut the film in the dark on the splicer (which will cut right on a frame line). Then splice some leader to the end on the roll before threading that leader into the spiral. If you have spliced on the base side, then after processing the two halves can be re-joined and the only defect is a splice - no dropped frames or anything. Myself I use the very rare 100' lomo tanks. But most of my film prints are about 400' long, so I process my prints in 4 sections using this leader and splicer technique. It works well. If you want good results and you are thinking of building something of your own, bear in mind the expense of constructing and testing the thing and the fact that it would be very hard to get better results than a lomo. I'd say buy a lomo if you are interested in processing film. cheers, richard

Yes, its been possible to get some 2R stocks. But yes, the discontinuation of colour neg in 16mm is only for 2R stocks.

Thanks for the clarifications people. cheers, richard

I have come accross some of the above mentions stocks. Many of them specifically say they are 'MP' films, but don't say much else. I can't find info about any of these on Kodak's site. The SO-202 seems to be a separation film. SO-396 is a colour ECP print film. But the question is when are they from? Any help would be appreciated. cheers, richard

I am afraid I agree with the nay-sayers too. It would make no sense to build a camear with such a small market when there are such cameras already in 16mm and 35mm. The difference in cost in using a camera such as this and shooting on super 8 compared to using 16 or 35 is really just the difference in stock cost, with processing and transfer costing about the same in all formats. I honestly feel that this proposal radically misses what point there is in shooting super 8. I'd really like to see a new super 8 camera. I feel that the difficulty of finding working super 8 cameras is the biggest threat to the continuation of the gauge. But to have an effect on the survival of the format it would need to be a camera that can be priced so that it sells in a meaningful quantity. My customres need new cameras and I loose customers becaue they try and fail to find working cameras and it all gets to be too much of a hassel to shoot super 8. Keeping the price of the camera down is the imperative in my opinion. When the super 8 camera was state of the art, then it was possible for huge factories and corporate/industrial might to produce feature laden cameras to a price - just as it is now with digital cameras. But the world turns and even re-producing one of the late model cameras with all its design and r & d aspects taken care of would be way too expensive to sell. Yes, we need a new camera. A camera that had a chance to succeed and help save the format from camera-less oblivion, however, would need to be as stripped as possible. Here are my thoughts on that: Sell it without a lens - just a lens mount. Use C or Cs mount so that cheap lenses made in bulk for the security industry can fit. No automatic light meter - even though this is HIGHLY desirable for super 8 - indeed it is part of the essence of the 'why shoot super 8' answer. Drop auto because it requires either a fixed lens with tiny fly-weight leaves acting as the 'iris' (which is the classic super 8 approach) or motors coupling to the iris of a detachable lens which would require a dedicated lens system. Matching needle exposure system quick to use and easier to manufacture than automatic exposure Manual asa setting control - drop the whole notch reading complication. One motor speed - by far the majority of requirements are for normal shooting and extra speeds means extra expense and less viability of the project. Easily adjustable torque motor for cartridge core rotation. Could also drop reflex viewfinder and go with some kind of paralax finder. aa bateries for power. big transport indicator somewhere. rudimentary footage counter. plastic box Forget about low noise operation, forget about crystal speeds, forget about ground glass, forget about single frame, forget about anything other than the cartridge system, forget about frame counters, forget about sexy design (square box would do) ... just so long as the bloody thing works and is affordable. This camera would save the gauge from camera-death death. rt

anyone have a 35mm JK gate they have acquired from somewhere and aren't using? Please let me know. cheers, richard

Of course, shooting at a beach, for the reasons both myself and Rocket 88 have explained, is a classic 'back light' situation. Thus the natural tendency is for the light meter to indicate an exposure that results in UNDER EXPOSURE of the subject you are interested in, not in over exposure. In your instance you have OVER EXPOSURE not under exposure, so its not the back light situation that has caused you problems. Yes, I think you need to crank up your asa setting by 1 or so stops (and only testing will tell you how much). But this is not the usual situation for shooting at a beach. Usually it is the other way around - you would have to wind down the asa a little to trick the meter into opening up more than it would ordinarily recommend so that the exposure of the subjects is correct. So maybe Rocket 88 is referring to a specific Beaulieu light meter issue when he says that one should deliberately over rate the asa of the film stock for beech shooting. Normally it is the other way around for beech shooting (and for snow etc..). But your case is different, as your meter is simply wrong by a certain amount. rt