Tom Doolittle

Thanks Andrew. Saw the short you posted a while back. Looks like you had fun making it. Can't wait to see the Japan footage. TD

...So I purchased an R10 this weekend. Not a Leicina or Beaulieu, but certainly a step up from the little Nizo 206. I've heard good things about this camera's optical quality, but I'll reserve judgement until I do some tests. As far as it's "non-auto" handling goes, it's larger knobs and controls are certainly better than those of the Nizo. Still, I'll never understand why super-8 camera designers insisted upon using such awkward and convoluted metering/aperture control systems. Hate to say it, but my favorite in-camera meter is the one found on the Krasnogorsk K-3. Simple, effective, reliable. Paid $49 for my K-3. The optics suck and it shakes like an old woman, but I can look through the viewfinder and see in half-a-second where the exposure is without having to decode some crazy, wobbling scale. Okay, I was ranting. Sorry. I'll post the results of my R10 tests, perhaps even a side-by-side comparision to the Nizo. In the meantime, my search for the perfect Super-8 camera continues. TD

The Leicina is a camera I have only recently become aware of. I will do a bit more research into this one. I should explain that I am coming into Super 8mm with a fair amount of 16mm experience. What I am looking for is the 8mm equivalent of an Arriflex. This may turn out to be the Leicina. I always use an external meter, but I do like the TTL meter to compare readings. Interchangable lenses would be fantastic. TD

Hello All, Looking for my next camera. The Nizo 206XL I currently own takes good pictures, but between the pin-hole viewfinder and awkward manual mode, I'm anxious to move on. These are the features I'm most interested in: Big, bright viewfinder An emphasis on manual operation. An effective aperture index. Simple needle-and-notch style TTL metering, with manual ASA control (or the ability to read 64T notches). I don't mind having automatic features, as long as they are secondary to the manual ones. Making adjustments should be quick and easy, as with any 16mm or SLR still camera. Tiny knobs and vague aperture scales just won't do. An aperture ring on the lens barrel would be best, but I've never seen this on a Super 8 camera. I've been considering the Nikon R8 and R10, and the Canon XLS series. Any comments on the manual controls on these cameras? How about their viewfinders, any good? Appreciate your comments TD

So, back on topic... The more I think about it, things like LCD monitors and such seems like too much. I would rather see the money spent on a top-notch optical viewfinder and reflex system. I would limit the onboard electronics, applying them only where they can reduce mechanical complexity, such as in the metering system (replacing mechanically-coupled ASA dials), the speed controller (replacing friction-based governors with an optical encoder/digital motor controller), and in the footage counter (replacing gears and needles with a digital readout). Here's a thought: Why not bring back "Double 8", or "Double-Run 8"? This was the old format in which 16mm film was essentially run through a 16mm camera with half the gate blocked off. You exposed only one side of the negative, then flipped the roll over and exposed the other side. Perhaps a subsequent generation of the Ikonoskop A-Cam could be adapted for this. Ideally it would be a simple operation to switch between 8 and 16mm gate sizes. Add a reflex viewfinder and we'd have all the benefits of a brand new camera, plus the ability to shoot in either 8 OR 16mm. You could develop and telecine the roll just like any other 16mm film. It is not too difficult to envision a program that would perform the necessary frame-split in the computer, eliminating any need to physically slit the negative. Perhaps Ikonoskop could increase sales volume with such a camera, and therefore lower their price? Because it would use 16mm filmstocks, such a camera would not directly benefit sales of 8mm cartridges, but that really isn't the point, is it? TD

I couldn't agree more. There are far too many comparisons being made between S8 and other formats. Those who would like to see a new camera are simply trying to make their voices heard. Nobody is claiming a new S8 camera will threaten the "superiority" of a gizmo-laden videocam or any 16mm camera ever made. All we're trying to do here is discuss what features might make a new 8mm camera worth the effort and the money. If you don't have something constructive to add, go play somewhere else. This is art, people. You don't go to museums and bash oil paintings, spouting comparitive resolution data, do you? TD

I agree. Super 8 is not 16mm, 35mm, HD, or anything else. It is what it is- another tool to be used in service of the story. Regarding the emotion some have displayed, it just goes to show that the Super 8 format has a dedicated following. Emotion aside, I think the primary motivation behind wanting to see a new camera on the market is to prevent this particular "tool" from dying out. Once it is gone there will be one less format, with a distinct look and feel, to choose from. If the primary use of Super 8 today is simply nostalgia, then let it die. Big deal. You can evoke the same misty-eyed feelings by other means. It will only survive by being used, and it will only be used if cinematographers see value in it as a unique and irreplaceable tool needed to achieve a particular look. No matter how much some people wish it might, Super 8 products will never again grace the shelves of your local drug store. (Heck, I'm not certain my local drug store sells ANY film cameras these days.) The future of Super 8 rests entirely on the whims of professional users, a lot not known for being terribly nostalgic. What they are is pragmatic, and if they continue to see artistic (and monetary) merit in Super 8, it will survive. Which brings us to the question of a new camera. The continuance of Super 8 is, in my opinion, hampered by the technical shortcomings of cameras designed and built well over 20 years ago. To make matters worse, the vast majority of these cameras were intended for use by people who were simply not interested in the technical aspects of filmmaking. As a result, today's more discerning users must cope with optics, exposure systems, and quality that is often not up to par. The few really good, pro-level cameras that are available seem to be meeting demand for now, but as they age, break down, go up in price, and become collector's items rather than workhorses, Super 8 will begin a rapid decline from which it will not recover. Without a new camera, it might be only a matter of years before we will lose the format to all but the most die-hard, do-it-yourself users. Personally, I like to have as many tools at my disposal as possible. Super 8 is not the phillips-head screwdriver of my filmmaking toolkit, but rather more like one of those funky Torx-type drivers. I don't run across those screws very often, but when I do it sure is handy to have the right tool for the job. TD

I agree that there exists a market, but is it big enough to justify the enormous development costs for a brand new camera? I like to think so, but how do convince a manufacturer of that? The old cameras will wear out, but there is a big difference between the $40 used cameras people are using today and a $3000 new camera. Somebody needs to demonstrate that enough people would buy a new camera to cover all the costs involved, or it will never get off the ground. That Kodak and Fuji and a handful of processors are still doing business with Super 8 customers says more about the legacy of older technology than anything, meaning the gear we are using today was built well enough to last a long time. The costs associated with developing the format and the gear were absorbed long ago when 8mm was widely used by the average consumer. We are riding the tail end of that wave, and in order for there to be future developments, we (those who would like to see a new camera) need to show that we are large enough in number to support such an effort. TD To Aaton: How about an A-Minima with a "Super-Duper 8" gate? To Kodak: How about 200' reels of single-perf 8mm stock to fit said Aaton?

To play the devil's advocate here: We already have great S16 cameras on the market. S8 will never equal it in terms of picture quality, just too darn small. So what, exactly, would be the benefit of a new Super 8 camera? Would it be cost? If so, the sort of features we are thinking about would be no less expensive to to engineer and manufacture for 8mm than they currently are for a new 16mm camera. Last time I checked a new Arriflex was selling for a lot more than $3000. Lets discuss the potential benefits of a new Super 8 camera before we get too worked up about how "cool" it would be to see one on the market. There has to be a real, quantifiable benefit to any new product, not to mention a monetary benefit to the people who would build it. Consider these questions... If a production (big or small) intends to use film, why would they choose 8mm over 16 or 35? Is there (or could there be) a market for S8 images? Where might they be used? TV? Mobile phones? Commercials? Art films? Indie films? How big IS the potential market for a new S8 cam, and of that number what percentage are likely to actually buy one? How many rolls of film would Kodak need to sell to justify any new investments in filmstock, cartridge improvements, etc? There are many more such questions that would need to be seriously looked at before any company would invest one dime into the development of a new camera. If we can help them answer those questions in an honest way, and make our wants and needs known to them, then perhaps someday we really will have that opportunity to spend our hard-earned $2999 on a brand-spanking new professional-level S8 cam. TD

I don't think $2500 is too much. Price something like this at or just below the prosumer camcorders and you'll have all sorts of people on the fence about using modern Super 8 for comercial production. Make it simple, robust, and geared towards the folks making TV ads and music videos and I think you'd find yourself supported by a good size niche market. The average consumer would never opt for the Super 8 camera, but someone shooting TV spots or making indie films would certainly weigh it's pros and cons against currently available video cameras before making a purchase, assuming it was well sorted and performed as well as we hope it would. For the purchaser of such a camera, what's the worst that could happen? Super 8 film discontinued in five years? Big deal. No different than a $2500 video cam that is totally outdated in that same time period. TD ...or are we just reinventing the Super 16 cameras already out there? TD

Okay, that last post was a bit wordy and I apologize for that. To summarize, the Nizo has turned out to be a neat little camera, with solid German engineering on par with my 16mm Arriflex 16S. I like the ease of loading, and the small size is certainly handy in situations where a larger camera would draw too much attention. I shot two rolls in San Francisco, right in front of SFMOMA, and nobody even noticed. I blended in with all the camcorder-carrying tourists. Two more were shot in Half Moon Bay, and only one guy noticed, asking politely if my camera was "one of those reel-to-reel jobs." I've only run four rolls of film through it, and have yet to see any of the processed footage, but the lens seems to be of excellent quality and I expect to see good results. The downside: the tiny viewfinder is a pain. Larger, man-sized optics would have been nice and I will look for this in any other cameras I consider purchasing. Also, the built-in auto-exposure system, rendered virtually useless by its inability to read currently available cartridges, I could do without. I would rather have a simple, manually-set ASA dial and a basic needle-in-the-viewfinder setup, with the aperture adjustment on the lens barrel rather than on the side of the camera. The tiny size and low weight (roughly that of of a modern Canon ZR-series camcorder) is handy for use in public places but makes it a little harder to get steady shots. A little more mass (just a few ounces) would be nice. I might add a small weight to the bottom of the grip to steady things a bit. SO, overall I like the camera. I have yet to view the processed images, but I expect to have those processed in the next week or so, once I run another few rolls through the thing. I am anxious to compare it to 16mm footage I have shot in the same locations. If it looks half as good as a clean, well-exposed 16mm image, I will be happy. The camera and the format are perfect for quick, simple filming. I expect to use the camera in situations where it would be physically difficult or awkward to use larger 16mm gear, like on moving vehicles or in crowded places. The low power requirements (4 AA bateries) means no need for a heavy battery belt or portable power supply. The lens is made by a well-known german optics company and appears to be of very high quality (though I have yet to see the results). I have some reservations about editing digitized 8mm and 16mm footage into the same movie, but will withhold comment until I have actually done so. Will I continue with Super 8? I think so, but I'll have to see the footage to make a final judgement. I am impressed with the technology in general, VERY impressed by the fit, finish, and elegant simplicity of the Nizo, and happy to see that Kodak and several smaller companies are willing to keep this format going with their offerings of filmstock, processing, telecine, and other services. As with 16mm, it is nice to know that my decades-old camera can still (with the right combination of skill and practice) make images on-par with modern digital cameras that will themselves be outdated within just a few years. I am saddened by the knowledge that there are no new cameras being made, especially considering the potentially awesome combination of modern electronics and manufacturing technologies and Kodak's latest filmstocks. 16mm users just got the new Arriflex 416, not to mention Ikonoskop's A-Cam. A modern, pro-level 8mm camera could revive the format, and carry it out of the "home-movie" genre. Just imagine the features it might have: interchangeable lenses (perhaps based on existing 16mm offerings), a digital video-inspired flip-out LCD monitor, a large and bright viewfinder, a proper metering system, digital timecode, etc, etc. With the electronics and production technologies of today, you could probably maximize the 8mm format to a level acceptable for commercial television production --another viable candidate in the film-or-video choice every cinematographer makes when starting a new project. The biggest drawback would be the limited recording time, but anybody who uses film is used to this. A daydream? Maybe. But in my limited experience with the little Nizo and Super 8, I have already developed an understanding of its untapped possibilities. So keep on shooting, keep buying film, keep processing and digitizing those cartridges, and for crying-out-loud would somebody please design a new camera and put it into production? These old cameras are going to wear out sooner or later, and we will lose a fantastic format many of us are only just now discovering. TD

I recently got my hands on my first Super 8 camera, a Nizo 206XL, and thought I might post some of my initial thoughts on this camera in particular and Super 8 in general. Coming from a 16mm world (not a pro, just an addicted hobbyist), I'm not sure where the idea came from to get a Super 8 camera. But, like these things often do, once the seed was planted I couldn't think of much else and spent way too many hours at work researching a format that, for all I knew, had been dead since I was watching Speed Racer in my pajamas. Now and then, when ordering 16mm stock from Kodak I would run across the Super 8 pages on their web site and wonder "who uses that stuff anymore?". Wherever the idea came from, once I realized there were at least several decent stocks to choose from, already packaged in those handy little Super 8 cartridges, I knew I had to have one. I rationalized the decision by telling myself it would be less expensive to shoot than 16mm, easier to load and shoot in public places, and easier to carry around than my Arri 16S with its battery belt and assorted accesories. The sources I researched (including this forum) made two things very clear. First, Super 8 is not (quite) dead. It apparently has a small but dedicated following, and has survived only through the marginal sales of those little black cartridges. I doubt very much that Kodak, despite the claims made on their 8mm website, is willing to make significant financial investments toward the future of Super 8, and I would not be the least bit surprised to see it dropped from their lineup without any of their board members losing a single night's sleep over it. Second, I learned rather quickly that Super 8 was, in its day, a "consumer" format. The cameras were built with "Average Joe" in mind, a guy who wouldn't know an f-stop from his elbow, and was quite content to let the camera do all the exposure adjustments for him. Average Joe just wanted to pop a cartridge in, point the camera at his kids, and pull the trigger. I'm not saying this is wrong (just try telling your kids to stay still while you take a meter reading), but because of Average Joe's photographic ignorance, nearly all Super 8 cameras are of the point-and-shoot variety, with various electro-mechanical means of automatically adjusting exposure. A couple of cameras came to light that promised to be a little more than that, specifically the Nikon R10 and the Canon 1014XL, but naturally these were selling for more than I was willing to part with for a "trial" 8mm camera. Plus, as far as I could tell from the pictures I found and the articles I read, half of the features on these cameras are related to magnetic-stripe sound recording, something that really IS dead in all film formats. So, with little else to go on, I picked a nice-looking little Nizo 206XL that appeared on ebay. It seemed a nice, clean design with no unnecessary frills, looked clean and well-preserved, and was offered by a seller who, judging by his other offerings, seemed to be somewhat of a specialist in the Nizo brand. I searched for specifics on this model, but found almost nothing. The only info I could find on it suggested it was made in or around 1978, was one of the last Nizos prooduced, and was very similar (perhaps identical?) to the 148XL and 156XL. I looked at a few pics of both these cameras, and the only difference I can see is that my camera is painted black while the others are silver. Upon receiving the camera, I was shocked to see how small it is. It looked a lot bigger in the pictures, and I was used to handling much larger and heavier 16mm cameras. It seemed like a toy, and for a few days I was afraid to pick it up for fear of breaking the little bugger. Still, I was interested to see what it could do and I had already ordered 8 rolls of film for it at nearly $15 a pop. It took a little figuring to understand what the automatic cartridge reader system was trying to do when I plugged in the first roll of Ektachrome 64T. This camera like so many others, I'm told, does not read the notches in the cartridge properly, and therefore will not meter correctly. No problem, I planned on using a handheld meter anyway, but I soon learned that turning that tiny little exposure knob on the side of the camera was not nearly as convenient as having a ring on the lens itself, like almost every other manually operated camera on the planet. I'm not sure if this is an artifact of the permanently attached lens or the auto-exposure system or what, but it is a relative pain in the ass. I did get used to it though, and by the time I had run four rolls of film though I was no longer grabbing for the barrel of the lens in search of the aperture ring. It works, but in a perfect world it would have a proper ring on the lens. My biggest complaint by far is the tiny size of the viewfinder. I understand that this is a "compact" camera, but I happen to have a standard-sized eyeball and it simply does not see very well through that pinhole of a viewfinder. Trying to see both the exposure indicator and my scene at the same time proved difficult, and after awhile I found myself avoiding the viewfinder altogether, shooting wide and wild and hoping for the best. It would work better if I didn't have a nose, as this would allow for easier alignment of the eye with the miniature viewing hole. I suspect a reasonable percentage of Nizo's customers had noses and am surprised they didn't account for this in their design. Too late now, but a slightly extended viewing tube would have been worth any extra cost. This post is getting long, and my wife is complaining. I'll continue later, but for now I'd appreciate any specific info on the Nizo that anyone might have to offer. Thanks! Tom

I'll have to check that out. 600 lines would be fantastic! -Tom

Thanks, Tim. Believe it or not, don't have my own website (shock! horror!). I'll find somewhere to post them, though. I did get a couple shots of the monitor in action. It actually looks better in the stills than it does in person, for some reason. I might try to run the thing through a camcorder when I get the chance. Then I'll have some actual frame grabs to show. Look for bigger pics tomorrow. Must sleep now. -Tom PS: Great test footage, by the way.

Okay folks, here it is. Put everything together this evening and played with it a bit before the sun went down. In a nutshell, it works. The resolution leaves much to be desired, but it will suffice for shots that would otherwise leave me guessing, like when the camera is too low to get a good look-through with my own eyeball. I've got more pics but looks like I'll need to spread them out to avoid going over my limit. Stay tuned... Another pic... Really small, sorry about that. How do you guys get those great pics posted here with only 100K to work with?

The spycam I bought is a fairly common model. The brand was "SEE", but I've seen the same item sold under different brand names. It measures just over one inch in diameter (1.05") and is roughly three three inches long. The packaging claims a resolution of "380 TV Lines" and it came with a 120VAC to 12 VDC power supply. I picked it up at my local Fry's Electronics for about $60. The monitor was found on eBay. The brand is "Pyramid". Including shipping it was $98. We finished up the prototype last night. Getting the threads right was the trickiest part (34x 0.75mm, in case anyone wants to know). We put two set screws in the side to lock the spycam in position once the focus and orientation is set. There are two little tabs, just like those found on the Arri eyepiece, that will ensure correct re-alignment each time the videotap is installed. I installed the adapter and spycam on the Arri last night, and mounted the monitor temporarily to my tripod, but by then it was well past my bedtime. I'll finish it up tonight and get some pics posted. -Tom

A machinist friend of mine is making a custom adapter to mount a 1" diameter "spycam" in place of the eyepiece on my 16S. Basically it is just an aluminum tube with the same threads and tabs as the original Arri eyepiece. The little surveillance cam slides into the other end and focuses directly on the groundglass, giving an image acceptable for basic framing. For critical focus, I'll have to remove it and replace the eyepiece. Anyway, he could make a dozen of these almost as quickly as he could make one, so I'm throwing this out to see if anyone else would be interested in having one. I'll post a pic as soon as I have a prototype in hand. -Tom

Thank you, everyone, for the help. I appreciate the input from those who have first hand experience servicing these cameras. On that note, I would like to learn how to service this camera myself. As they become increasingly harder to find parts and service for, I can only assume this would be an invaluable asset to an independant filmmaker like myself. An engineer by trade, I have the mechanical apptitude but no prior experience to go by (other than some work I have done on my Filmo and K-3 cameras. As in other areas of cinematography, I get the feeling there are some proprietary aspects to old camera maintenance that some would prefer not be made public. Are there books, manuals, tools, etc. available to folks with a genuine interest in maintaning their own cameras? Where do the "pros" turn? Or is it all based on experience? TD

I did run some old negative through, but it wound really tight and tore the sprocket holes (at the drive wheel inside the camera), leading me to believe something was very wrong. I've heard that grounding was sometimes a problem, but since the motor runs strong (perhaps too strong) I thought this was not a concern in my situation. Am I wrong? Hate to sound dumb, but how would changing camera speed cause the torque motor speed to change? It seems to me they are electrically isolated from one another. (I have a TCS motor, if that makes any difference.) -Tom

Hello, A few questions about Arri 400' magazines: When I run the camera, should the torque motor speed vary with camera speed? Should there be any clutching action (slippage) at the spindles to allow for varying camera speed? I have two torque motors, but they seem to run at very different speeds. I assume the slower one has been converted to 12V? What does this conversion consist of? An added resistor, perhaps? I'd like to use these soon. Does anyone know where I might find instructions for these mags? Thanks. Any help appreciated. -Tom

Thanks, Tim. It might be time to have the thing serviced afterall. I'll play with it a bit and see if the problem continues now that it seems to have corrected itself. It was in storage for quite a while and maybe it just needed a little excercise. I suspect someone greased those spindles, and that's what caused the sluggish initial rotation after sitting in its case for several months. -Tom

Excellent advice, Tim (and all). I think you're right about just taking the time to develop those connections. I've chatted with a few people about filmmaking here, but haven't run across anyone who was serious enough to spend the time needed to put together a decent project. An ad on Craigslist might generate more local leads. -Tom

The camera was serviced (before I bought it, incidently) by a guy named Bernie O'Doherty. Unfortunately I don't have any proof of this other than my observation that the camera was in exceptional condition when I received it. I did go so far as to have a peek inside through the motor opening with a flashlight and dental mirror, and confirmed the presense of fresh (not dried, caked, or dirty) grease on the drive-train. I've given it a few drops of oil in my time with it, and until this incident with the spindle I've had no reason to believe it was due for a cleaning/lube job. I would have no problem sending it off for the work but my theory on these things is that unecessary maintenance is almost as bad for cameras as unecessary surgery is for people. Tell me that this spindle-sticking problem is a sure indicator of the need for professional cleaning/lubricating, and I'll happily ship it off to the nearest repair house. Still, I thought it would be worth asking to see if anyone out there had seen this before and discovered a less invasive remedy. -Tom Doolittle PS: Could someone please recommend a good repair house? Preferably in the San Francisco area?

I thought this subject might have been touched upon previously, but found little in a search of the forum. My Arri 16S was serviced about two years ago, but has not had more than 1000' of film through it since. I don't think it needs another service just yet, but the last few times I ran it I've noticed that the take-up spindle sticks (won't turn) until I've let the motor run for a good minute or two and spun the spindle a bit with my fingers. I can see the spring-pulley running around in its groove just like it should, but the spindle itself just won't turn till its good and ready. I don't think oiling the camera does anything for this part of the mechanism, as it is not linked to the oiling ports in any way. Has anyone had this problem? Is it related to dried-up grease inside the spindle posts, or is there something wrong with the ratcheting mechanism? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom Doolittle

This thread seems to be drifting a bit off my original intent. What I was trying to do was drum up some contacts with people like me-- people who already have a solid understanding of cinematography fundamentals, including the basics of lighting, exposure, and composition. I'm not a beginner, but rather a guy who shoots primarily as a hobby. I think there are others who, like me, might be amateurs but have skills, ideas, and equipment that could be applied to more ambitious projects if only they were able to link up with others on a real-world basis. I was resisting turning this into a "personals" ad, but I suppose its going to have to go that way sooner or later: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm not a student, but a thirty-something married guy with a "real" job (included only to emphasize that I am NOT a kid looking for people who might pay for film). I have a solid background in photography, and I've been shooting 16mm film for about three years now. What I'm hoping to do is meet people who are currently working on or would like to work on a collaborative, amateur film project, sharing talent, equipment, and costs. And THAT is why I started this thread. :) -Tom