Mark Dunn

Clipped highlights on digital Try clearing your cache and cookies and whatever else you can get at without soap, water and disinfectant.

The SR doesn't need the lens blimp to make it quiet and can't accommodate it. But the lens will fit the SR.

deleted

The batteries should certainly last a good number of cartridges. If you are sure it has drained the batteries, rather than developed a fault, try to measure the current drain when the camera is not running with a multimeter. It should be negligible. If it's tens or hundreds of milliamps, as Zac has said you have a fault. To flatten a set of alkalines in an hour requires a current of a couple of amps. If the camera is otherwise OK, Zac's tip about disconnecting the batteries is spot-on.

ID-11 and D-76 are identical formulations. Any difference is probably down to the manufacturers' recommendations for their own stocks. I would consider the timings to be interchangeable.

Suspending a breeze block from the head might help, as might a tiedown- a stage screw in the floor with a windlass between it and the head.

The C has a smaller diameter than most other mounts so an adapter is probably doable. Try Les Bosher. Edit- what they said!

The OP was really about film as an exhibition medium. It's the volume of prints which support the making of camera stocks. With that gone, the economics change.

Glad you kept your nerve.

One assumes that in LA every potential location knows what it is worth. Perhaps you will have to go a little way out of town. Petrol is still cheap for you. (No, really- $10/gallon here).

I'm flattered. We used A250 for a film school doc in 1982. It was the only show in town above 100ISO. I still have a 100' can, alas empty, of the 500ISO 8524 which would make a good ashtray if I smoked. That must have come from my time with the military in the late 80s, though- surely it wasn't available in 1982? Edit: definitely. It's 2R short-perf.

They will if you archive them to B/W separations. But the article isn't about current practice, which will change, it's about the first century of cinema history and simply not being able to get a copy of a film made only 20 years ago. It may be good business to eat your own history but it's a bad idea.

If the lens sleeve has been displaced, then if you remove it you might be able to see the marks made by the grub screws as they dragged across the surface of the lens barrel. Then you could reposition the sleeve.

The screws in Step 3 are the ones you will need to loosen, I think. The lens sleeve will then move freely. Use some sort of reference mark so you know where you are.

I'm not familiar with the camera but the focusing ring usually attaches to the barrel with small grub screws. You'd have to loosen these and move it by trial and error, focus by scale on a test chart at the measured distance and see which setting gives a sharp image. Try to use a large aperture and the long end of the zoom as the focusing will be more critical. Ff course, this won't help if the lens is actually faulty internally,

Shoot me down if necessary, but if you 're on a tripod, would a car battery do- even a cigarette lighter adapter from the car?

He uses the term 'municipality' which sounds like the US to me.

Sounds like the focusing ring has come adrift from the actual lens at some time and has been incorrectly reattached. You could recalibrate it- I did so years ago- but it will cost you a film as there's no way to do it through the lens as you might with an SLR. If it was very cheap, (less than a roll of film?) just try another.

The BBC no longer accepts 16mm. for HD programming at all. It's in the submission guidelines. That's not to say they won't transmit it, but it won't be as HD.

Try washing the lamphousing. It looks as if it would come off completely. If you're brave, try leaving it on for a while. What does the burning smell like- just dust like an old electric heater, or rubber or plastic? The latter needs looking into, the former might just burn off.

Foot-lamberts are used for measuring the brightness of a projected picture. It's measured without film in the gate at the centre of the screen. Too bright is as bad as too dark; it causes visible flicker. You sometimes notice it on a blank screen with Super-8 at 18fps. On my wall I have a copy of a letter from Stanley Kubrick to projectionists asking them, among other things, to ensure that 'Barry Lyndon' is screened at between 15 and 18 fL. He cared about stuff like that.

I shot my last Super-8 in 2001 in Venice. K40/ E160 (which by then had to go to Rocky Mountain). Of course I didn't it was my last at the time, just as I didn't know in 2003 that I'd shot my last frame of film. In Valencia. In 1978 a 50' cartridge cost about as much as a 36-exp slide film. By 1996, it was three times the price. No way am I going from £12/50ft to nearly £35. I'm not interested in video transfer. These things creep up on you.

I think I recognise that surname. Welcome.

This camera will only meter films up to 160ISO correctly and these would be alright outside without an ND. There's no manual adjustment so you can't use faster films. But yes, if you did need to use ND, you would have to put it on the meter window as well. 9fps is not fast enough for the normal rendering of movement.

It may be called Ektachrome, but it's not E-6. The process is obsolete.