Eric Eader

Adam, I just checked Studio Depot (Mole Richardson): Pro-Gaff Tape, also Rosco Gaff Tape and at FilmTools (Burbank), Pro Gaff Tape is what they sell as well. (I believe that some years ago the tape had a 3M number, which I cannot remember and what I had hoped to find); but if those guys sell it that is what is preferred by those working there. Tapes sold elsewhere tend to tear into small strips when one wants the whole width, sticks to itself(melts) when it is hot and refuses to move when cold. Then when it does tear properly, leaves sticky residue behind as it's calling card. That has been my experience with the "faux" tapes. Hope this helps

Boris, Without question, I would buy the Harrison Tent. Size: 36"x27." Yes, the tent is an upgraded changing bag. Camping/outdoor hiking tents utilized that suspension system and a Pro camera assistant realized a shrunken version of that would solve the sort of problems I described earlier. Now, if you have any possibility of working with 65mm movie or 11"x14" stills loading/unloading, or you really like the extra space afforded by the 36"x36" bag... by all means go for it. Provided you take proper steps to care for it, protecting it from damage, pin pricks, cuts, tears, or abrasions, you will not have to buy another one for a very long time. So even though it is expensive initially, in the long run it will be cost effective. Take care of your changing tent and it will take of you. Just don't lose it and hope it doesn't get stolen. Nothing I've written is meant to disparage the bag, it's only that if you spend a lot of time changing in a bag, not a darkroom, then the little comforts add up for a more pleasant experience in a tent. With both there is a learning curve. (It will not hurt to have both). Film Tools, B&H, Camera Essentials are places to purchase it here in the States. Hope this answers your question.

Not to be contrarian, but I will submit that a tent is more convenient because the top of a bag rests on your hands while working. That becomes a real problem with summertime heat and humidity. Sweaty hands and that bag touching you can be frustrating. Really frustrating if the film cones on you and you have to reel it back into place. On the other hand, the bigger size of the tent can be inconvenient for transportation, or in really tight work spaces. If I had to do it over.... I would go for the tent, but that is just me. YMMV. Of course, you could go to Home Depot and buy some skinny pipe (plastic), and corners and rig an inside roof frame, maybe.

Pavan, You probably already know this, but in case you don't, there is a way to turn your camera into, (I believe it's called) an "aerial image" reflex system by using a c-mount "c-cup" adapter fitted to, usually, Angenieux lenses, i.e. 12 to 120, 9.5 to 57, 12 to 240. Others work as well. Again, in case this is unfamiliar, first check out on ebay: seller: padmavat_enterprise item # 184610003906 to see what a "C-cup" looks like. (It's fitted to a very beat up cp-16). Next: check out seller: kinemaman item#: 313796845848 to see a 12 to 240 with the long "dogleg." That 12-240 was used by some network news crews back in the day (tripod mounted), and college football shooters also used it mated to the detachable magazine kodak spring wound camera (I have forgotten model name/type). (Kept an assistant in the dark bag for the entire game changing out 100' loads). By typing in: Angenieux lens on ebay you will find several lenses with short "dog legs" and even a K-100 with a Bell and Howell "dog leg" Zoom lens. I believe the longer "dog leg" will work better for your situation assuming that these lenses will cover Super 16. The 12 to 240 shown was designed to work on Auricon type cameras with the viewfinder rotating up out of the way to allow side door opening for threading the camera. It will require some "finessing" to get the frame leveled and viewfinder running along the side, but others more technically experienced can address that and adjusting flange focal depth etc. They may also suggest mounting a lens support system for the longer lens although I can't recall the network guys using them. The biggest drawback to that system is there is a dark spot in the center where the iris darkens it for f-stop setting. But since that was my introduction to film cameras, I quickly got used to it. If short focal lengths are acceptable, the 9.5 to 57 can be a super little lens to film with. The 12 to 120 was basically standard and the 12 to 240 enlisted for working at a distance; Some Political Events and Sports, etc. Under the Angenieux lens listing you will see an old B&H 70 model with a zoom attached to it. Check out the movie Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice where Robert Culp fields one filming a party. The movie was good and the story line was controversial for that time in American film history. Hope this will be of some help to you.

Roberto, www.visualproducts.com They show an Arri Swing Shift Set, but no price is listed. You can find it in their lens section. Eric

Pavan This may not be on point, but, I can remember as a child in 1956-57, watching TV at a church member's home that had a screen on it that converted B&W to ?color? and, it was lousy. I mean really lousy. They quickly bought a color TV very soon there after. This was at a time when few programs originated in color. There was a reason why Technicolor used three strips of B&W film to create color. While magnificently successful, it was expensive. Others here are much more technically inclined than I am, but I believe that physics dictates that it is a non-performer that died fairly quickly.

Phil, I remember now, the carrier was the Kitty Hawk. When the 3MAW began their CQ's a loud speaker announced "Here come the Kamikazis!" It's funny you should mention "Tumbleweed" because that very thing happened to a deck handler when a rookie Marine pilot failed to throttle back after landing and turned to starboard and blew him over rolling along the deck as he tried and failed to catch a tiedown slot and into the net just below the portside deck. He soon returned showing no real harm. The way I remember a Phantom's noise was super loud and raucous with a raunchy whine. I used a brand new CP-16R and some Hitachi attached to a 3/4 inch deck. (1977-81). Mo-Pic and Stills were in a different shop at El Toro so I don't know what they used. I came away with a real appreciation of just how much hard work the Navy does aboard a carrier. Eric

Simon, About the rewinding, you're right. I had completely forgotten about that. To achieve silent winding one wound very slowly and with the camera close to the body. The grind was still there but quite muted. Ninety nine percent of the time, though, we wound with abandon cranking away quickly in order to be ready for the next opportunity to "record history for posterity." Phillip, You brought back memories of a week I spent on a carrier (brain fade--- otherwise I would name it) filming and videotaping Third Marine Air Wing (MAW) Carrier Qualification prior to transitioning to off the coast of Iran during the Hostage crisis. One of their units had E-6's (Black Sheep, I think); most others had F-4's. You might get a laugh out of the first-timer mistake I made when I entered the portside hatch directly below the launch deck: I took my "ears" off... just before the "cat" fired for launch. Ha, Ha. Live and Learn. The hard way if you have to. Eric

Jon, In the fall of 1969 I bought a pristine B&H model 70 (without coupled viewfinder/taking lenses) for shooting newsfilm. The thing with coupling is that with the door off of the body it is possible to inadvertently move the viewfinder out of alignment and put it back on the body with mismatched viewing and taking lenses. With the non coupled setup I quickly learned to ALWAYS check which was up and correct if necessary. In the end it is a matter of what is available (proper price point/ condition etc.), and personal preference. As for the ratcheting noise while winding, to my knowledge there is no cure. (Don't lose the winder!!) Proper lubrication and wipe down will make for a surprisingly quiet run. When the station acquired Scoopics we all abandoned the B&H's for shooting news. Hope this helps.

Edith, To answer the last lines of your second question... look around you, wherever you are: How is it lit? Treat the space you're in as if it was your stage/set. Take a footcandle meter and measure top light, side light, front light, back light etc. and notate that in a 5x7 or 8x10 sketch book of various places that interest you. Take cell phone pictures since many places are camera phobic. Step off the distances between points discreetly and sketch it out in the notebook so you have data to support the photos. Stay there for as much time as you can and observe time of day light changes. 3rd Question: In a darkened room shine a small flashlight through a handkerchief stretched out, then through it folded and see what happens. A Chinese fortune cookie I got with my meal had this message: Do not let what you don't have prevent you from using what you do have.

Duncan, From my perspective as a newsfilm cameraman in the 70's, the biggest drawback to acceptance was the 200 foot limit to film capacity. Auricon, Frezzolini, and Cinema Products (sound cameras) had 400' (on core) capacity. Arri S's (MOS, without sound) had 100' daylight loading, plus 400' core via add on magazine. 1200' loads were used less frequently, mainly in larger markets, when, say, an entire speech had to be recorded. In smaller markets one depended on the reporter to cue you when to roll. Sometimes the politician would bloviate and fool you, so film was wasted. In the end, there was little demand. (Other factors may have been involved, also.... ergonomics, price, maybe?). In our midsize market, one filmed, at the News Director's order, one roll of 100' for silent B' roll, or one 400' load for sound and B' roll combined, per story to keep costs down. One learned to pick and choose when to roll, to conserve film, and still cover the story. Another thing may be that cameramen of that time prided themselves on how well they could zoom and focus manually, and were leery of surrendering control to electronics. That changed with portable videotape cameras and has now become standard. Beaulieu had a fixation for 200' load limits, and because of that was both ahead of its time and behind the times. As for S16, news organizations would have had to change over all of its associated machinery to accommodate the loss of single system sound recording. Keeping in mind that 4:3 was still TV's main delivery platform then, it would have been very expensive just to gain a slightly larger picture. And then came Videotape! And now, Digital. If, a very big, big, IF, film (whether 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm), makes an exceedingly DRAMATIC comeback I don't think film cameras will be produced again in large numbers. I guess 50 years from now when digital files corrupt, Martin Scorcese will be campaigning for preservation of today's masterpieces (if the files can be read).

Edith The "coop light" more resembled the roof of a small chicken coop on a farm and a "coffin light" had more of the shape of a coffin... long and narrow as opposed to a tall squarish rectangle. Coffins could be baby sized or adult sized, or be big enough to contain several bodies. What wasn't in the picture of the coop was the frame that slid in below the lightbulbs that had "chicken wire" spread across it to allow one to place diffusion and/or color gel on it. For instance: light diffusion and 1/4 or 1/2 color temperature blue to produce a stunningly gray light to simulate a cloudy London Day Exterior on a soundstage. Early in movie history many lights were improvised to solve a particular problem and companies would manufacture their version of that when it proved to be popular among Directors of Photography. That improvisation continues to this day. Softboxes are generally made, today, of fabric, whereas coops and coffins were more solid early on, then some were morphed into fabric and commercialized. They all generally put out "softlight" as opposed to "hardlight" (such as bare naked bulbs or fresnel lights).

Ernest, Finding an Instruction manual for the ZM4 would be my first priority. That would answer your most basic questions. However, finding one is easier said than done. Several Z and ZM II manuals are currently on ebay, but not ZM4... so far. With three years experience with Super8, you've probably heard of Pro8mm in Burbank, Ca. Contact them for input. The Optivaron 6-70 lens is a very fine lens, but with the filter disabled the back focus will be thrown off just enough to be less sharp. (A series 9 85 or 85B filter as well as 85n3, 85n6, n9 etc.-- [or series 8 fitted to the front --maybe-- I can't remember], might prove to be a superior color correction solution, and allows for adding filtration for black and white film). Pro8mm, in Burbank, can probably refurbish/update your camera if you have the money to spend. (Adjust back focus, film transport, battery power, etc). There are adaptors for attaching some 35mm still photo lenses (I had Nikon) to C mount that can drive your experimental impulses in several directions. (If you have still camera lenses). Back in the early 80's I had the 5008, and while I have handled the 4008, I don't know the variations to be more specific in helping you. Hope this was of some help.

Ross, Was the film fresh, unopened newly purchased, or recanned? That may go a long way toward explaining things. To elaborate on what Doug Palmer stated, there is one scenario that could cause that kind of mark from beginning to end in the rarest of circumstances and that is if the film coned out on the magazine loader and fell to the floor --- assuming a darkroom loading situation. Coning can happen in a bag as well but generally it's cleaner in the bag, (usually). Coning can happen in the lab darkroom as well, if the lab worker will fess up. The center will drop out for many reasons. Hanging up on the core adaptor when adjusting for the key... loading camera; or the take-up tension is less than optimal and the core is locked to the adaptor a little more stubbornly than you would wish for while downloading the mag for lab. To be honest, it is not likely the entire roll would be marked, just short spaces intermittently, but that would account for perpendicular marks on the film... stepping on it does that also, but not the whole roll. Posting 10 seconds of film would help so we could see the timing. You may also want to talk to Kodak. I'm sure they have seen just about everything that could go wrong with film and may have a ready answer for you.

David Will you give us a heads-up when parts 2 & 3 have been posted? It was great to see the first part. Thanks

Gabriel, You had a minor "brain fade." Footcandles are Light Incident to subject. Spot meters read Footlamberts then translate to f-stops. (Brightness or reflected light measurement). The relationship of 'lamberts to 'candles was explained in the 1960's ASC manual, (when B&W was king), but because I had a minus 15 for the eight days I took Algebra, I never quite understood it. As I think on it now, it was probably because I didn't have a meter that read footlamberts directly. Spectra and Sekonic do have meters that read fl directly. (758 Cine and above). You have an interesting project going. One that raises more questions. I see walking an arc (like a sniper's range card) measuring and notating Light Incident -- falloff-- at various distances from your reflector.

Roberto, I am not a tech, but your test footage confirms the shutter is out of synch. The picture should not move when the mirror is not covering the frame. Yours is out 180 degrees, moving when not covered.. Arriflex is in Los Angeles (still in Burbank?). So, if you live close to LA it should not be a problem.

If, as you say, you are looking for warmer skin tones, just use an 85B instead of the usually called for 85. All of those who suggest (very strongly) that you use a correction filter do so most correctly. Their advice will save you a lot of headache. Hank Harrison long retired as owner of Harrison and Harrison Filters taught me that in situations where one pulls the 85 off (morning or evening) to at least add 1/8 or 1/4 coral to prevent over exposure in the Blue layer and make it much easier to color correct later. Also those who recommend against using 500 ISO outdoors ---- especially on SUNNY days ---- are totally correct about the difficulties you will encounter. The higher the footcandle level the more filtration required. Artistic decisions may prompt you to move toward pulling the filter --- just be aware of the difficulties. And TEST, TEST, TEST.

Aapo, You may be correct. I am not a technician. All I am suggesting is that the final "test of the pudding" is not just looking thru the viewfinder, but is running film thru the camera and completing whatever post processing of those images he plans on using BEFORE shooting something important with it. I hope the OP is successful, but I can envision --- rightly or wrongly--- a scenario where the film may not be in proper focus and it is out of an "abundance of caution" that I recommend testing. If testing is not necessary, why do 1st AC's and DP's test rental equipment and lab processes PRIOR to shooting their Projects?

Gareth, There is still one more step in the process: A projected image. Or digital. I 've read (on this forum), that film is harder to come by where you live, but you need to shoot a 100ft test roll (or other short end), to be absolutely certain that your hard work has paid off. Reversal footage of focus charts, newspaper pages, fine print etc., as well as the "usual suspects" indoors and outdoors, light and shadow etc. will show whether "lens focus" and "eye focus" agree. Others with more/deeper technical experience can explain that aspect. It may also be necessary to actually shoot negative and take it through the process you normally use (or purchased the camera for), to be assured there are no failings anywhere. Remember, Thomas Edison said, I know ten thousand ways not to make a lightbulb." At least you carried it through this far, so, "good luck." Addendum: An eyepiece is selling on eBay for $295. Ooouch.

Grid cloth is a type of diffusion. Click on Diffusion (at the Lee website) and grid cloth can be found there.

I left the site, looked around at other things and came back to look again (at such a short shot) and realized that it could be done all in one with a set-up like Saturn and its rings. (Or target and bullseye). Set the perfume centered on the rotating turntable. Place the camera on the outer ring which rotates around it. Sky will be visible through bottle and all the reflections etc. will be ready made and in synch. (A "poor man's process shot" -- daytime --variation)?

I'm guessing, but I think background was previously shot for bluescreen/greenscreen/LED. Then perfume centered on variable speed turntable to match BG speed. An older method would be to use front projection combined with turntable.

Both Lee filters and Roscoe cine gels list grid cloth in various densities/weight (Light stopping abilities). Both product ranges are sold in most Motion Picture supply places. Even fabric stores sometimes carry White rip-stop nylon which is similar in appearance to grid cloth and works in a pinch. Other white colored polyester fabrics work as well. You will have to test for color temperature variation. Hope this helps.

To add to the above: From "The Complete Nikon System" by Peter Braczko : The first Nikon production camera Nikon I (Industry) had a 24x32 format yielding 40 exposures per 36 exposure roll. Made from March 1948 to August 1949... 739 bodies with only 400 delivered. Nikon M 24x34 format form 8/49 to 12/50. Nikon L 24x35 format (only two handmades in 1950) Nikon S 24x34 format from 1/51 to 1/55 Nikon S2 24x36 format from 12/54 to 6/58 Nikon S3M 18x24 format (half frame) from 4/60 to 4/61 In 1959 Nikon introduced an 24x36 format SLR Nikon F model... I wonder what happened with that? (Grin).