Jump to content

Mark Dunn

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mark Dunn last won the day on July 13

Mark Dunn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

174 Excellent

About Mark Dunn

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

40224 profile views
  1. Have you put in batteries and a cartridge? Many cameras have some sort of underexposure warning like this. Try uploading a picture.
  2. I said "on its own". The daylight spool provides the extra protection. It shouldn't be loose if the takeup works correctly- just put the paper band back on the exposed film. A film on a spool in the box is quite safe. You don't need to bag them and put them in another can as well. Daylight spools just come in the box, they're not bagged. Only film on cores is bagged.
  3. A 100' daylight load run onto a core will not fit in the box because the centre of the daylight spool is smaller than a core. So using daylight spools both sides will save you a lot of bother. It will be rather noisy, though, probably too noisy for sync sound. In any case, the plastic box on its own isn't sufficiently lightproof to protect the film. You would need a lightproof bag and a larger can.
  4. Careful, if you leave wings on them like that I think they try to fly back to Hollywood in the evenings.
  5. That's more or less it, as I understand it. It corrects for any difference in transmission which would otherwise affect exposure if you set only f-stops. I suspect that if you shoot non-critical video, and don't need the headroom for heavy post-production, the difference is pretty minimal, not to say negligible. It goes without saying that the DoF will still be determined by the f-stop.
  6. They should last 100 hours or so. Presumably you're not moving them hot, or putting them in the wrong burning orientation?
  7. How about this? Debrie Parvo Core by n8cam1 Sep 29, 2018 https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3126974 But as Dom says, you will have to hand-spool it.
  8. I'm not sure but I think you have a non-orienting finder. The ground-glass will only appear horizontal when the eyepiece barrel is. At any other angle the view will rotate.
  9. You could buy a junk Nikon camera and cannibalise the mount- there are plenty on ebay for a few euro- but the problem will be getting the flange focal depth correct. You can't really do this without special tools.
  10. I can't answer (1), but printing doesn't introduce any of the anamorphic "faults". Printer lenses can be much better corrected as they have only one job to do at a fixed distance at fixed reproduction ratio. The elliptical flares won't be present either- they're caused by on-set light sources which obviously aren't present in a printer lens, which is looking only at the film.
  11. Depending on the mood of the piece you could leave that in... looks kinda stylish for a second or two. Till folks figure out what it is. Or it might crop.
  12. Yes. Paterson are still in business. https://www.patersonphotographic.com/product/paterson-super-system-4-developing-tanks/
  13. Maybe but at the risk of damage to the film. You will also need a lot of chemical- a spiral tank requires only 600ml.
  14. If you haven't despatched the other roll yet, I would seriously consider ditching it and saving your money. You may be able to replace the camera with the saving.
  15. There's a clear double image in some frames usually followed by the overexposure, so my guess is the film is not advancing properly. It's still moving when it should be stationary when the shutter is open. The shutter could be staying open for too long as well. I'll let someone more knowledgeable chip in, but my guess is you're going to have to say goodbye to that camera. If it was a business seller you should be able to get a refund.
  • Create New...