Richard Tuohy

I hope it's available in 16mm as well! Great news

Honestly, I don't understand those of you who have been complaining about this footage. I think you guys are seeing the wrong things. To me this footage says - hey, we have now actually got a working camera, not just a box. And this has been done in the complete absence of the giant industry that was used to make the millions of cameras in thousands of models that populated Super 8's past. It would have been so much easier to make a super 8 camera in those days than today, simply because that giant industry had established production lines and evolved solutions to myriad problems and had a supply of dedicated super 8 camera components. This new camera was done without all of that. Yes, the fact is that this camera is going to cost a lot more than a second hand camera. But it will also be fundamentally different to a secondhand camera. It won't be 40 years old. It will have spare parts available. It will easily do things with sound that haven't been readily possible for a long time. Thank you Carl for highlighting that the digital stabilisation was able to be done differently. Yes, it could have been better colour graded too. We did already know both of those things, even those people whose first response to this footage was to release negativity about it. As far as I can tell, this footage wasn't released to the general public, but just to core supporters of the format. People like us, who know how easy it is to correct that kind of digital stuff, but who should also know just how bloody hard it is to get to the point of manufacturing a new camera. Maybe those that released that footage were naive in thinking we could see through that superficial stuff and share in their excitement about having achieved so much. I really found this negativity boring.

Hi all, a few years ago when Hi-con 7363 was discontinued I looked in to organising a bulk order of this stock. The minimum order was quite high, but I managed to get pledges to purchase about 2/3rds of the amount. Trouble was, Kodak's price didn't suit the customers. Fair enough. However at that time a lab or other facility in the USA contacted me to let me know that they had some 3369 panchromatic hi-con (1R on Estar base in 2000' rolls) available. I have since lost all those emails, but I'd like to try to find that lab. Anybody have any ideas? cheers, richard

Hi I think what you want to do is make a positive, rather than an inter positive. A positive is for projection and has normal projection contrast. An inter positive is low contrast and designed for them making an internegative from. For a positive you want to use a bw print stock like Kodak 3302 or Orwo pf2. These come in very long rolls of 2000 feet. There are a number of ways to make a diy contact print involving bi-packing various film mechanisms. You can do it to a flat bed editor (like a steenbeck) or a projector or a camera like a bolex. The bolex version is the easiest and doesn't require modifying anything. With a normal bolex you would wind max 50 feet of meg with the same amount of print stock with the emulsion to emulsion. Note, start with the neg head out. It will end up tail out after preparing it with print stock. Load bipacked roll into camera. Take off lens. Point camera at a bright light bouncing off a white wall. Develop film. If it's too light or too dark change the camera speed and repeat.

Hold on, wet gates surely just do one thing. They fill in base side scratches on the film by using a liquid with the same refractive index as the film base. They don't clean film. A white spot is sparkle - something dark on the negative. Depending on what it is, an ultrasonic cleaner might get it off. But it might not if it is stuck on the emulsion side. Richard

Also regarding your testing the camera without film in it, well the camera's light meter determines the asa of the film by the size of a notch on the film cartridge. When there is no cartridge in the camera then by default the meter is set to the highest asa possible. So this explains why you might get high aperture readings in daylight when there is no film in the camera

Hi Katie Regarding how to understand the light meter indicator in the viewfinder,well when the camera is on auto the indicator will show you which aperture the camera has chosen in order to get what it thinks is the correct exposure. It's not like the type of slr light meter indicator that needs you to turn the aperture until the needle is in the middle or anything like that. So, in auto mode, the way it was intended for you to use it was that as long as the needle isn't in either red zone then you are ok and don't have to do anything. Sometimes people who come to use super 8 cameras from having used slr cameras also get confused as to how the camera is intended to be used when in the manual mode. Know this: in manual the light meter is off and you are on your own. You have to know what aperture to set the indicator to and you have to do it yourself. Typically that would mean getting a reading with the camera on auto and then switching to manual and dialing up manually the aperture that was indicated when you were on auto. Or else using a hand held meter and following the same procedure. I think shooting at 18 is the best idea. Basically you are shooting super 8 so that it looks like super 8. Shooting at 24 doesn't make a big difference in my opinion and it does I xrede the cost a bit. Frankly if you want to increase the cost for the sake of image quality then shoot on film that is bigger than the microscopic super 8 frame.

You can treat it the same as trix. Whatever you do for that also works for un54. With d19 I do 7 min at 21 degrees. Naturally it does depend on your exposures and on your personal developing routine.

Re-exposure is very simple. The simplest thing to do is to take the film out of the lomo tank (still on the spiral) and walk outside with it for a few minutes. That works. Normally, I do the re-exposure in the dark room using a 100 watt lamp. I wave the spiral around under the lamp for a couple of minutes. You can't get it wrong really. Here is how the reversal process works. I assume you are comfortable with the idea that when you put film in developer you create a negative - ie on the film you will have black in areas that were hit by light and clear where there was no light hitting the film. Okey, so with the reversal process, you start with developing a negative. This is the first developer stage. Note that while various instructions will provide you with time and temperature recommendations for all the various steps of the process, it is only this first developer step where time and temperature really matter. With all other steps - including re-exposure - there is a minimum amount of time required to complete the step, but no maximum. You can't really do any of the other steps too long. They are all simply done 'to completion'. Once the step is complete, staying longer in that step doesn't matter. Okey, so first you develop a negative. If there is a negative on the film, then in some sense you can say that 'everything else' on the film 'would' make a positive. So, next step is to bleach away that developed negative. Bleach bleach bleach. You have bleached out the developed metalic silver - the black stuff that makes the negative image. Left on the film is silver halide - basically raw emulsion. This, I like to say, is in the 'shape' of a positive. Pour developer on it at this stage, however, and nothing will happen. This is because silver halide (the stuff of raw photographic emulsion) needs to be exposed to light in order to develop. If you don't expose to light (the re-exposure stage) then no image will develop. It will just remain silver halide. So, you have to re-expose. Turn the lights on! Now, develop for the second time. This will turn the exposed remaining silver halide into metalic silver. Presto - a positive image. There are two other baths in the reversal process, but only these three are really doing photographic work. The clearing bath which comes after the bleach is simply there to remove a stain caused by the chemicals in the bleach. The fixing stage, with occurs after the second developer is there simply to get rid of any silver halide that is 'dead' - that is, silver halide that for whatever reason didn't develop in the first developer or the second developer. There are always some dead grains of silver halide. Fixer dissolves silver halide. But in the case of reversal processing you can't really see it do its work because virtually all of the silver halide on the film was developed in either the first or second developer. so, clear film after the reversal process means: - you didn't re expose - you didn't second develop or you used the fixer before you did the second develop. cheers, richard

How did the film look during reexposure? Assuming the chemistry was all mixed correctly, then clear film could be caused by forgetting to redevelop (or using the wrong chemical) or forgetting to reexpose.

Hi Pablo If you are shooting in daylight then you should leave the red screw where it is. You would only put it in the filter screw hole if you wanted to shoot under tungsten light. Well you probably also put it in the filter screw hole when you want to shot in low light. In low light you don't want to waste any of the available light by using the cameras internal filter. With Tri-x also just leave the screw where it is. The camera will disengage the filter automatically. You need to change your name on the forum to your real first and second name. It is a role of this forum Cheers Richard

HI Beau, thanks for the info! I know that model C in Vancouver of which you speak. At the Cineworks Anex (the printer is of interest to the people at the Iris collective there). I spend a number of hours setting that printer up a year or so ago. They had a 35mm model C as well. I suggested at the time that they take the manual light vanes out of the 35 and put them in the 16 instead of the digital as with the manual vanes and controller you can easily rig up RF or notch cuing where you just turn the trim dials. Please do send me those resources you mentioned. many thanks! richard

Greetings Robert, Beau and Phil, thanks for the tip regarding Tom at Film and Video. I will endeavor to make contact. Beau, the controller you depict is indeed the one I have. So it seems you have found a way to controll as tape writer via its Rs232 port and a pc. Groovy. Sadly I don't have a writer at all. But it would be helpful to learn something from you about coding strips of tape. Perhaps I can punch the tape directly with a small whole punch and manually write the cues that way. One thing I was contemplating was opening up the head of the tape reader and accessing the hole reading switches directly. But the tape reader head in the digital version doesn't seem to involve pins and switches. Is that correct or are they just retracted I wonder. Perhaps it uses leds and sensors. If it were simply pins and microswitches then it would be easy enough to control them via a series of relays from a usb controller. I tested a few of the pins of the 25 pin plug at the back of the controller and there seems to be a mix of voltages there - some as high as 24v and some around 7 (I assume a TTL voltage). The probe ended up shorting a few things out and I blew a fuse so I think I will try to avoid that approach for the time being. So anyway Beau, if you were able to tell me about the tapes, that would be interesting. all the best, richard

Hi all I have a few model c printers with the original mechanical vanes. I don't have a way of making tapes for their readers though so I use notches and the trim dials for changes. However I just acquired a set of digital vanes with controller. I am thinking it might be possible to control these from a pc. The programming side of that is no problem. But I need to work out the protocol for the 25 pin plug that connects the vanes. Does anyone have a diagram for the digital controller or digital vanes that shows the pin wiring? Yes I could most likely work out what pins are being sent what with a multi meter or cro unless the data is too fleeting. Any help would be appreciated! Regards Richard

Hi Antonio No remjet on that stock. Yes effectively you can process band in e6. From a practical point of view and considering its age, processing in e6 is fine. I've done it hundreds of times. Cheers Richard

6 is centre 3 is middle

Looks like X-ray damage to me. Sweeping lines

Yes definitely use the 514 for low light shooting. Carl is right, even on auto the meter will think 'there isn't enough light' and keep the aperture on f1.4. Auto or manual doesn't matter in a low light situation especially when the camera thinks you are using a 160 asa film instead of 500. So, no it doesn't matter at all that the camera can't detect 500 asa because you will need the aperture on f1.4 anyway. If you are worried then yes, as Carl pointed out, the 514 has an ee lock which allows you to lock the iris at a particular aperture. Much like manual on other super 8 cameras. Use some blue tack or tape to hold the ee lock down. It's easy. Make sure you switch the filter switch to bulb or you will loose 2/3rds of a stop of light to the internal 85 filter.

Well, China anyway. Not even peanuts are made for peanuts in Japan these days!

Good luck nowhere lab! I ran a workshop there a few years ago. It's a great space. james is a friend. We too face imminent eviction at our artist run Film lab in Melbourne artistfilmworkshop.org Realestate is the biggest problem for is non profits

Quite right. My apologies.

Rather a lot for expired film stock I would have thought

Dear all, Richard Tuohy here. I am trying to organise a bulk order of 16mm 7363. Kodak still have master rolls of '363 and they still have the 35mm version available. As we know, the 16mm 7363 was discontinued last year. They are prepared to slit, perforate and sell this stock in 16mm, but only for a single purchaser who is prepared to buy the full master roll width. That is 76 slits. And it needs to account for the 35mm unit length. That's 2000'. They want to sell it in the traditional 400' lenghts. So, that's 380 x 400' rolls. 5 rolls go in a box. So, thats 76 boxes. I have so far collected orders for over 30 boxes, but that still leaves a long way to go. Unfortunately the cost is a lot higher than it was previously. Kodak has said their best price is $130 per 400'. If you are interested in this purchase and would like to participate, please email me directly. richard@nanolab.com.au The order won't go ahead unless I get commitments for the 76 boxes. But this stock lasts a long long time. Buy some for your film fridge. It is a one off oportunity. richard

HI Antonio, give them a go. For the kodachrome, as you know, all you can do is black and white. Given the very real chance of fogging on the film due to age, I think just process it as neg. Same with the E160. I recommend using something with a bit of punch like D19. Have processed hundreds and hundreds of old rolls of Kodachrome as bw neg that way. You will need to do a rem-jet removing pre-bath. As you will for the colour neg. Its worth doing if you have time available, but not fresh film cheers, richard

Yes though I believe the soviets shot 70 rather than 65! I know a fellow here who had a Konvas 70 converted to 65. Silly boy!