Jump to content

Marco Leoncino

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Marco Leoncino

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Heidelberg
  1. Hi Simon, macht nicht! ­čśÇ I have under-estimated the problem to load the camera properly. I will do that! And keep all posted! I just need to wait to receive the Eastman 7222 in 16 mm, ordered from Wittner. I hope to make a test this week already!
  2. HI Mark, I apologize, I had only some meters of test film with double sprockets. Nice to hear that this is not a problem: I was also thinking that a camera with single sprockets is just "blind" to the second sprocket. In principle I could have used the 15 meters I have processed yesterday, but I want to keep them "for the record"...
  3. Dear Dom, thank you for your hint. I have taken the test film (unfortunately this is doubly perforated, while the camera takes single perforation film) and I have drawn a curve with a red pen. I waited until the ink was perfectly dry, loaded the camera, set to the minimum speed. I removed the lens and took a small video as you suggested. I think that you should go at the end of the video to see better. Furthermore, this is a test at lowest speed: and at circa 25 frame per second:
  4. I agree to you... but the fact is that the dicromate makes me very worried and during the process I am not so amused to have it on my working place. I am not enjoying the developing moment very much. There is not a valid replacement for this chemical, however. The permanganate bleach causes many problems to the film, expecially the Foma R100.
  5. I have the luck to be in the same small village in Odenwald where one of the German Beaulieu expert is living. We know each other because he has already checked a Beaulieu 4008 and a super 8 projector for me. I have contacted him again! I really hope that I just loaded it wrongly!
  6. Philip, I make a small off-topic: the inversion process is really exhausting... to deal with the chemicals used in this process is very an hard life (expecially with the two ones used in the bleach...). For this reason I am thinking to use Eastman 7222, which is a negative and easiliy processed in just three baths. Fomapan R100 and the reversal films are indeed beautiful, but also suffers a less exposure latitude compared to a negative... Just my two cents... To return on topic, if the bad result I got is related "only" to a loading mistake, well, I feel like a stupid ­čś¬
  7. I think that the only way to understand better would be to make another test with film: am I correct?
  8. Hi Philip, I fear that in the whole process (taking, developing, etc...) I made this mistake in the loading. I have probably underestimated the problem of the loop and the "max. 2 mm distance" indicated inside the camera. Does it mean that the film can also stay in contact to the lower plate? I think that an expert could not have overlooked a transport issue. In the copy of the service note by Filmkonsult i read: "Camera stripped, cleaned and re-oiled. Main drive friction gear changed, main selector switch repaired and re-adjusted. Speed/asa readjusted, claw and Cmount plate adjusted. Montage, functional control".
  9. Dear Philip, I have loaded the camera like in the video you are referring to and of course I closed the film flap. About the loop, I am not sure. Can it makes such a big impact? Is it possible that the viewfinder and the film plane can be shifted (I mean, that what you see is not what you are impressing on the film?) The Angenieaux is a wide angle with very broad dept of field, no focus regulation for this lens... in the viewfinder I can see in focus... I had the terrible fear that the diopter regulation was wrong, but I just checked again and it is regulated well. About the transport: I have tried to use an old film to check the transport, but I didn┬┤t notice any malfuncion.
  10. Dear all, I am getting a big Saturday┬┤s headache which almost makes me crying for desperation... I am using a Beaulieu R16, which I bought from Ebay. The camera is almost in new conditions and was delivered with a certificate, which was proofing that the camera has been lubrificated, tested, etc, by Filmkonsult in Sweden, on June 2018. I have added an Angenieux Retrofocus 10mm and a Som Berthiot 25 mm, both in perfect conditions. I also have a Meopta Openar 80mm, but I find it too much long lens. The original lens was a cheap Canon TV lens. When I mount them on the camera I can clearly focus the subject (the Angenieux is a fixed focus lens, but I can clearly see a focused image). Last sunday I have used the camera to film a steam locomotive, this was my first test. I have used all the lenses, Fomapan R100 film, which I have exposed at 80 Asa, measured light with a Sekonik exposure meter, used 25 frame per second. Light was very low (raining day), then I was working almost at full aperture. Today I have developed the film, and the result is shown in the following photos. Apart some frames in which I can see the locomotive┬┤s steam, I can only find a disaster. I have some film on Super 8 which I self developed and there I can see the image more clearly, even if the frame is 1/2 the size of a 16mm one. Fomapan film has been developed at the state of art in a Lomo Tank. Bleach was the one with Potassium Dicromate (because this film is known to be extremely delicate to Potassium Permanganate). I know that the problem is very strange and difficult to find, but, do you have any hint? I am planning to make a further test with a Kodak 7222 film (being a negative it is faster and easier to develop). Can somebody please try to help me? 1) do you think the camera is not working properly? 2) do you think there is some offset between what I see in the eyepiece and what impresses the film? I have put a small piece of tape on the film gate and I can clearly see a focused image, even if it very small and difficult to check. Being a TTL camera, I should always see what I impress on the film, or not? 3) do you think I messed up something with the processing? 4) small hint: when I have opened the camera to remove the finished film, I have noticed that the film was fully loaded in the take up spool, but it was not very tight, it was a bit loose. Thanks a lot! Marco .
  11. Dear Michael, thank you. With 1 to 2 you mean one part of D76 in two parts of water? D96 would have caused more contrast? Or which other difference?
  12. Dear Robino, I know DevChart, but I stopped to use it several years ago...
  13. Dear all, I was making a search in the forums and in the web, in order to find updated information, but I didn┬┤t find what I was searching. Therefore I have opened this new topic. I have learned how to develop the kodak Tri-X 7266 film and, in particular, the B&W inversion process (with a Lomo tank). Paradoxically, I am thinking to use a negative B&W film, for my future projects, because I need more latitude. I was thinking to process the Kodak 7222 at home, in the Lomo tank. The question is the following: is it possible to develop theEastman Double-X 7222 in Kodak D-76, or it is much better to use the D-96? D-96 is usually used stock, but I guess that D-76 should be used 1+1. Does anyone has some starting points? Can you please help me? Thank you very much!
  14. Dear Philip, thank you. Actually, I was trying to consider the Double-X instead of the Tri-X 7266 or Fomapan R100. I can develop both, but a negative is much more easier to be processed.
  15. Hello everybody, I have a question about film stock, in particular in 16 mm, which I will use soon. The question is probably very stupid. Indeed it is amazing to show a self made movie taken with a positive film with a projector. But I think that, for digitalizing, it is better to give the telecine machine a negative and to invert it digitally. Am I wrong? I know that, in case of still photography, it is much easier to digitize a color negative film than a diapositive. The question now is: the present color film choice has (I am talking about Kodak) 4 negative (the Vision 3) and 1 positive. We have the Tri-x 7266 and the Double-x. If you would imagine to digitize only, would you choose a positive or a negative?
×
×
  • Create New...