Jump to content

Damian Tyler

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Damian Tyler

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Manchester

Recent Profile Visitors

145 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. 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?
  6. 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!
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. I'm coming to this topic a bit late, I know. Best price I can see for Ektachrome in the UK is £47, which at current exchange rates equates to just over $62. Not that I think we're being ripped off over here...
×
×
  • Create New...