Erdwolf_TVL

Thanks for that! I actually did a bit more research and found http://www.dalelabs.com/ By the looks of it, they perhaps got the cost / effort balance to an acceptable level. Regards Jako

Thanks for the valuable feedback! Prints are nice, but they don't leap out at you like slides do. Long, long ago I made the choice to stick with either one or the other. I chose prints, because they are much easier to view and work with. My father has an incredible slide collection that to this day bears my envy. --- Nowadays, I'm feeling a bit adventurous, having seen what can be done with Cine film. So yeah. Perhaps I should just bit the buck and have a handful done digitally. - Jako

Okay, I confess this is slightly off-topic, but here goes! I've been taking 35mm colour stills for the past 10 years. I guess this would account for a half-decent amount of film, should I join all the negatives end-to-end. I know that it's fairly common practice to produce projectible film from negative. It appears to be a bit more exotic for stills. Most labs I found on-line transfer digitally (I'd prefer contact printing) and most of them charge in excess of 3 Pounds PER SLIDE. This is not worth my while, considering the amount of material I have. So, here's a thought. I'll join my negatives end-to-end and have them printed by a film lab. Which charge per feet, rather than per image. Even if I have to attach a couple of (hundred?) feet of dead-wood at the end of the reel, it may still be worth my while. Any thoughts?

Thanks for that... I'll try to get my hands in some silica gel instead.

Good afternoon Will Calcium Chloride affect film? Kodachrome 40 to be precise. I have bought a chemical dehumidifer (normall used to dehumidify rooms and cars) and would like to place this inside a sealed container, along with my supply of film. I will then be placing this unit in the freezer. It would be a bummer if I am doing more harm than good, so please advise! Kind Regards Jako

Thanks for that!

The big problem with conventional displays, is that the three colours are slightly offset for each pixel. When you enlarge the frame, you are likely to notice artifacts. Also, the pixels often have black spaces between them. IMHO, DIY will make it look more like a big TV screen than a movie! If you use a DLP projector with a colour wheel or a CRT project (do they even make those anymore?) you will reduce or eliminate the above problem. Snap a 35mm slide off your screen and project it onto a huge screen. You will get an idea of the artifacting. The other thing to consider, is that you may need to add some logic to the conversion process. Downsampling 25 to 24 frames per second is no laughing matter. You may end up doing the process one frame at a time, which could take a while.

I would shoot a lot more Colour Neg for 16mm if I can justify the cost of printing it for projection. Now, I have access to a dry optical printer through the No-where LAB in London. They have only used machine for black and white work to date, though. My question is this. Is a special and / or adjusted optical printer required to make a positive print from negative? If the magenta bias eliminated by the print film or the printing light? --- I see the following print / internegative films available on Kodak's website. 2382 / 3389 / 3395 7242 / 3242 / 7272 Are these available in 16mm and which of these are most suitable for printing on a budget?

The footage indicator could also scratch the film, if it has a rough edge. On which side is the film scratched? Emulsion or Back?

Thanks for the feedback! Just one question... So, they don't reallign the viewfinder when going to Super-16? That could be a problem with artistic shorts / other shots where composition is paramount. ???

I received back my first roll of 16mm Kodachrome today. Naturally, I am very impressed with the results! The K3's speed and registration is MUCH better than I have ever imagined! It works out at about the same cost per minute as Super-8 Negative printed to Positive. The turnaround time is much shorter, though. I doubt whether I will use colour negative with 16mm any time soon. It promises to be very expensive. --- Looking for suggestions. I don't know whether it is worth going for Super-16 on my K3. I am an enthusiast. I don't film for money yet. I don't have a Super-16 projector. Most of my work is for 4:3 projection or output to standard video. Plus, I see no need to risk losing a fully working camera... But the unexposed area of film IS a bit of an eye-sore on the raw stock. Is the upgrade recommended?

Does the problem change when using a lower film speed? IE, 12 FPS or even slower?

Thanks for the assistance!

Well, I've posted some Super-8 Kodachrome to Kodak and it came back processed! Now I'm about to mail off a roll of 16mm... - Do I simply remove my own daylight spool and ship it off to Kodak? - In other words, is the expectation that I should rewind it? (presumably not) - Will I get my spool back, or willl Kodak send me another? - Do I need to pay for the return shipping, or is that included, as with Super-8? - I'm presuming I should put the film back in the dark protective housing - do I need to tape it up? - How much leader (if any) can I expect on my returned film? - Should it be sent to the same Kodak facility in Switzerland as Super-8? - Is there anything I missed out on? Please accept my humble appologies is these questions have obvious answers...

Could you elaborate on what was wrong with your cam?

Well, I took the K3 gamble and I am not disappointed. But I'd lie if I said it couldn't be better. The screws holding the lens-thread to the camera body appears to have stripped during transportation. A big problem for one who would like to pick up the camera and shoot. I will taper a new tread and replace the scews with beefier ones. Come to think of it, I could also replace it with a tiny nut-and-bolt. Luckily the camera has enough space to accomodate these changes. One of the filters has a scratch mark. Luckily, filters aren't too expensive. I will be binning the scratched filter. The zoom lens is enormous and has a lot of glass, but feels a bit cheap. The mechanism isn't as sooth as that of my Pentax still camera (that's why the K3 is currently fitted with my 50mm prime :P) Right now, I'm waiting for my Kodachrome to come back from Kodak. If it is free from scratch marks and the registration is acceptable, I will be posting positive feedback with note to the above. Anyone else dealt with him? Any other experiences in this regard?

Thanks for that!

When shooting in an environment with an inherently low contrast (an overcast day for example) is there a way to make things look more interesting / colourful? IE, using CircusChrome, a special filter or by exposing differently? Or should one just have to live with what one can get in such environment? Most of my filming is experimentation and home movies where I cannot always control the "scene" :)

Thanks! I'll give it a few extra notches of light and see if the results improve.

I've had quite a length of spliced Super 8 Vision2 200 / 500 telecined to Mini-DV. Overall, the quality of the conversion was good. It was a one-light conversion, so there are inevitably areas of overexposure and underexposure. Some scenes, however, appear exceptionally flat and lifeless in comparison to others. I would like to know if any of these scenes could be improved with altered exposure settings whilst filming, or whether I should take this up with my telecine provider. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample1.jpg Vision2 500 - The black is very noisy. I gather the grain is from the emulsion, rather than telecine? This was slightly underexposed using reflected light reading from the dog's coat. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample6.jpg Vision2 200 - A good transfer. Colours are accurate and the contrast is good. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample2.jpg Vision2 200 - What is this bright spot in the centre of the image? Is it light leaking in from the viewfinder? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample3.jpg Vision2 200 - Did I overexpose? Or did the telecine machine? It appears too bright, even though colours are accurate. I used average relfected light for the very bright scene. Had to use an ND filter. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample4.jpg Vision2 200 - This image appears lifeless. I exposed using the reflected light from the foreground. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample5.jpg Vision2 200 - Again appears very flat. This time perhaps underexposed in the camera or in TC. I used reflected light from foreground.

How much of the useful frame would be left after cropping? I mean, with Super8, there isn't much to start off with :blink:

How good of an idea is it to shoot letterbox on Super-8?

From all around, I've heard that K3s tend to vary greatly in terms of quality. Touch wood, mine should be arriving in about two weeks' time. When it does, how should I go about testing it? Obviously I will run some film through it at various speed and have it processed. What other things should I be looking at? What's the worst defects you've seen with these models?

I'm waiting for my EBAY K3 to arrive ;)

Not to steer the conversation off topic, but curious none the less... I see their 40T "Chrome" film is for the K14 process. Presuming this is cut down Kodachrome? Where would one get this processed when Kodak close their doors? Dwaynes in the US?