Mark Dunn

The scanner doesn't care about 'scope. It's unsqueezed afterwards. Even I did this with my Super-8 'Scope from years ago, projected onto white paper and captured on my DLSR, then unsqueezed. in Lightworks, it's just a horizontal scale transform IIRC.

One problem I can see is that grain is much more noticeable in stills- frame enlargements from films appear much grainier than the actual film. When projected there is an averaging effect which reduces the appearance of grain. So if grain is important to the look of the film it may be easier to simulate it in post. I know nothing about that.

Hmm. What made you think that the filter was definitely in? Because if it wasn't, that only leaves the stock being affected by the heat.

I think one of them was Stanley Kubrick!

The filter pin is below the gate- push it in by hand while looking into the lens and you should see the filter swing out. A tungsten-balanced cartridge has a notch in that position so the filter stays in. A 100D cartridge should be un-notched, so removing the filter. I've never seen a 100D cartridge, but all the photographs I can find show no notch. If you still have a cartridge you could check. It's possible that your camera has a broken linkage so the filter stays in; if you've always used negative film before, the cast can be graded out so you may not have noticed. But you now know that it can't be corrected on 100D.

Have you worked out how it happened? As I said the cartridge should have disengaged the filter automatically. What about the apparent undercranking?

I can think of a few lighting cameramen who are famous in my book for diffusing closeups (and only closeups) of women long after it became unfashionable- into the 70s, certainly. The cut from a longer shot jars nowadays. Geoffrey Unsworth comes to mind, but Americans did it too. This chimes in with a theme of David's as I recall- how did people at the time actually see and appreciate what we now see as poor travelling mattes, optical dissolves, and grainy selective enlargements?

The footage also looks undercranked- is that intentional, or is your camera running slow? If I didn't know better I'd suggest it was shot at 18 and scanned at 24.

My understanding is that X-ray exposure is much more localised than that. Does the film actually look like that? Just to eliminate a scanning problem. What does the lab say about the fault?

The 100D cartridge should be unnotched so the 85 filter should have been disengaged when you inserted it. I don't know what could make it stay in place.

I have the user manual in front of me. There is an override, but the buckle trip is intended to cut the power when the film runs out.

We're always interested.

The hands are still creepy, and the woman eating? Yeesh.

Is this Kentish Town's first 35mm. feature??

Digital to film-out to scan- someone's done a really good selling job there- all that work!

Why would anyone want a S16 film-out as it was never a projection format, or am I missing something?

Corporation? https://gowlingwlg.com/en-gb/insights-resources/guides/2023/doing-business-in-canada-business-structures#pt3

You could attach a strap to the tripod screw, but I think I would want a bag as well. There must be any number of shoulder bags that it would fit in. Mostly for stills, but I used a cheap sports bag for nearly 30 years (it actually said "Sports" on it) before I got a conventional camera bag. In between I used a WW2 gasmask bag.

IIRC the tension is set set for a single thickness of film. Two thicknesses would presumably risk sticking. Recall the trouble with some stocks in the Super-8 cartridge due to differing base thickness.

They look like slide copies of film posters or lobby cards- someone just photographed them on colour reversal film. What else do you want to know?

Not everything needs preserving.

I certainly didn't notice dirt. on the 70mm.

A blast from the past... re-assembling rushes for the same archive project. Not my setup (credit for that and the image goes to Jem Sunley) but they rented my pic-sync. Probably not many of those available.

Don't forget the Brexit bonus of VAT, import duty and customs fees when buying from the EU. Those £400 lenses will probably be over £500.

If you can possibly get back to the venue with a light meter you will have an idea of how much you're off. There's no way of knowing otherwise.