Jump to content

Damian Tyler

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

698 profile views
  1. I'm coming to this late, but does anyone have any experience of successfully using such adaptors? As I mention in another thread, I've tried one, but though it means I can put Nikon lenses on my K3, because of the flange distance issue they won't focus. Would I need one with a glass element?
  2. I have a set of Nikon-fit Samyang lenses that I was hoping to use on my K3. I've got a Nikon to M42 adaptor, and the lenses go on the K3 body fine. However, they don't focus at all. Presumably this is because the distance from the back element of the lens to the focal plane is different to that of the standard zoom. Yet I've heard of other people successfully using Nikon lenses. Do I have the wrong kind of adaptor? Or is there something else I'm missing?
  3. Thanks Dom. I will have a look at the sprocket roller position. Guides stay closed when the camera is running. The loop formers are still in place, and once the plunger is depressed the pressure plate is stable. I'll take the chance with the gaffer tape - so long as the surface is clean it should stick well and I'll check it between loads.
  4. I've just acquired a Krasnogorsk 3 which I'm looking forward to trying. It came with a length of exposed film for me to practise loading. At first I struggled with this, but after about 10 - 12 attempts I got to the stage where I could consistently load it and have it run smoothly throught he camera. Except that sometimes, not every time but often, the first 12 - 18 inches of the load have either torn perforations, or stratches between the perfs, or both. And, not as often but sometimes, the last foot or so will have similar damage. I'm assuming it's caused by the pull down claw. I'm rewinding by hand and examining the film as I do, and there is no damage to the rest of the film. If this was a real load the sections in question would be unuable anyway because of light exposrue, so in theory it might not matter, but it worries me. Is it down to someting I'm doing or not doing? Or a problem with the camera? Or does it always happen? The other issue I have is that there will definitely be a light leak around the footage counter. When the camera is open I can see light coming in there - whatever foam sealant there once was has long gone. I will tape over the counter on the outside, but will want to look at it from time to time. I've read suggestions that you should tape around the counter inside the camera. This would stop the light leak, but I'm worried about having tape in there - if it came adrift the consequences could be horrendous. Does anyone have any experience of doing this?
  5. Like Martin says, its worth it if you can afford it, if you want the extra bit and pieces, and if you already know that you're interested enought in the medium to spend that kind of money. If you think it's too expensive, or if you're not yet sure if super 8 is for you, you can do things incrementally, like I'm doing. A couple of months ago I was in a similar position - not sure what to buy or how much to spend. In the end I got an s800. Cost me £122 - about $155. It wasn't serviced but it was from a reputable seller, all functions worked properly, nice clean lens and came with a 90 day guarantee. That's not long, but I reckoned it was long enough for any obvious problems to show up. I've now had two films through it and so far so good. I did have to buy a lens cap, and I'm currently looking for a small eye cup - the large one it came with is inconvenient with glasses. Also there was no case, so that's another thing I'll have to buy. The zinc air batteries are a pain - I had to buy them on the internet and I believe they don't last long - so I'll be getting the voltage adapters so I can use the 1.5V batteries. And I will in due course get it serviced. I don't know what that will cost, but it will probably be more than I paid for the camera. So by the time I've had it a year or so I'll have spent about $400 - 500 on it. But not in one initially outlay, and by now I know that I'm interested enough in super 8, and like the camera enough, to not mind spending that much.
  6. Thanks for all the advice. Mark, you are right, the pins are fiddly! Martin, lots of great ideas about titling. I've just shot some basic ones that I printed out - old-movie-style card with lettering. I might try something more ambitious in future.
  7. It would certainly be a lot easier if I wanted to end up with digital footage. However, any scanning I do will be of secondary importance. The main point is actual celluloid running through a projector. For me, film is film. This is just my view point, and not meant as a criticism of anyone else's way of doing things, but if I'm going to edit digitally and view digitally, I might as well save myself a lot of expense and effort and shoot digitally.
  8. At this point, project them for family and friends to view. When they get to the stage where I'm prepared to show them to other people I'll have them scanned and post them on the internet. But that might not be for a while...
  9. Hi, If this had been dealt with previously, my apologies, though I can't find any posts on it. I'm interested in the workflow of manually editing super 8 reveral film, using an editor. I've got several books that deal with this, but not in quite the detail I want. The first part of the process I think I understand. I would put the film on the editor, winding from the feed reel to the takeup reel, markng my cut points as I go. Then I'd wind it back on to the feed reel. I'm assuming that the next step would be to pull it throught the gate by hand, cutting each shot in turn. Is this right? I'd then have my individual shots hanging from pins or in pill boxes or however I wanted to store them. Then, when reassembling the film my impression is that I'd put some leader on the takeup reel, feed the leader through the gate towards the feed side and splice my first shot to it, followed by the second etc. etc., winding on to the takeup reel until the whole film was reassembled. Is this correct? I'm sure this all sounds basic and obvious, but I want to get it right. Secondly, what do people feel about using cotton gloves for editing? Some of the books I've got say they are essential, but then other things I've read say definitely not to use them. Finally, for my titles I'm planning printing them out, sticking them to a wall where the light is as even as possible, and shooting a few seconds of each with the camera on a tripod. I don't have a titler and anyway I've got more choice of fonts if I do it this way. Any suggestions as to a better method?
  10. Thanks guys. I'll try 18 fps on my upcoming venture into Ektachrome. And I'll take out the light meter batteries when I'm not using the camera!
  11. Not a question this, just a general thank you to all the posters on the super 8 forum for the info I've got from the different posts. I've just got back the processed film from the first cartiridge of Tri X I've shot with my new Nizo s800. I chose the camera based on the discussions I've read on the forum, and exposed the film the same way. I shot it all on automatic exposure with the camera set to tungsten, so the daylight filter wasn't engaged. I theory I think this should make it about 1/3 stop overexposed (?). Anyway, it's turned out really well. I've only got one shot that didn't work - an interior with a black dog, bright light and shade - where the contrast was just too much, but that's my fault not the camera or the film. Otherwise as I say it's all really nice. I shot Tri X for the test roll as I'm intending to project my super 8 material, and the price of Ektachrome put me off using it for a first film, but I'll try it next. Also, I shot the Tri X at 24 fps. This was partly because it's the 'professional' speed, and partly because it's what I'm used to on digital, but the extra 50 seconds per cartridge I'd get at 18 fps looks appealing. Any views on the merits of 18 fps would be recieved with interest. As I say, I'm intending to project my super 8 and if I do get it scanned that's really of secondary importance, so I'm not too bothered about NLE problems.
  12. Thanks Mark, even cheaper than I had thought. I'll be doing this myself once I've got enough film to make it cost effective.
  13. Joining this late, sorry. Regarding sound striping, Alberto Vangelisti in Italy does it. A friend of mine had some commercially-produced silent super 8 films striped a while ago. Turned out really well (and my friend also did a good job of adding the sound tracks). Price was reasonable but most cost effective if you do a fair amount at once. I think it was something like 50 euros for up to 300 metres. Producing a projectable sound super 8 film from scratch would be labour-intensive and time-consuming, but it's nice to know you still could if you wanted to.
  14. Thanks guys. If I can get hold of one of the Nizo kits that would probably work best. If not I'll try to lash up something with one of the battery boxes you suggest Mark. Might look a bit makeshift but should work OK.
  15. Hi, I could do with a bit of advice from the experienced super 8 hands. I bought a Nizo s800 a couple of weeks ago. Cosmetically it's in great condition, and all functions work properly. I've shot a cartidge of Tri X which I'm eagerly waiting to get back from processing. In the main I'm very happy with the camera, but it has a couple minor niggles, mainly down to inadequate research by myself, not problems with this specific camera. Firstly, not being able to see the image and the light meter readout in the viewfinder at the same time is a bit irritating, but I can live with it. Should have bought the 801. Secondly, I'd assumed that as Nizos have fold-back grips, and a tripod socket on the body of the camera, that I could use it on a tripod with the grip folded back. But no, of course, this disconnects the batteries. Apparently only the Professional will run like this. I understand that back in the day you could get a power pack, and I'm assuming that with this connected to the camera it would run with the body screwed to a tripod (?). I've not seen one of these for sale though, or at least not on its own, just with camera packages. Is there any other way around this issue? I could of course just connect the tripod to the grip, but I'd rather avoid this if possible. Any advice would be appreciated.
  • Create New...