Mark Dunn

The film end just has the work 'exposed' printed on it in ink, to remind you not to try to shoot on it, but you never got those few frames back from Kodak, just the few clear frames fogged in the cartridge gate. Kodak lab leaders sometimes had 'Kodak' inked on in red, but that, of course, would be at the head of the roll. Perhaps what you have seen had been added in editing.

A likely candidate is a broken drivebelt. I replaced one on eBay a while back. Take the back off and it should be fairly obvious if one is missing. The remains will probably still be in there. Ah, here you go. http://shop.ebay.co.uk/i.html?_nkw=eumig+belt+&_cqr=true&_nkwusc=eumig+drivebelt&_rdc=1

Medium- and high- speed cameras are really meant to be lined up, then loaded and locked off for running, so reflex viewing isn't necessary. If you're moving the camera, and so need it, you might have to set up some sort of side or sports finder if you can't use the Pan Cinor. We used to focus on a piece of frosted film which wrapped around the sprocket. It was then removed for loading and the lens distance scale taped.

How long are you planning to keep it? A few months, or even years at a pinch, is no problem, just keep it cool and dry. But don't refrigerate or freeze it. Unless the humidity is controlled and the cans sealed you may lock in moisture which will wreak havoc when it is opened.

I think Hunter is politely suggesting that you don't queer the seller's pitch. Don't put people off his lens without good reason, unless you are putting yourself forward as some sort of consumer champion, and I suspect the readers of this forum know exactly what they are doing. The mere existence of cheaper alternatives isn't a good reason

A welding arc is as hot as the Sun. Rocket exhaust is nothing like as bright so don't worry. On an ordinary Super-8 camera the viewfinder prism is in front of the iris, so stopping down doesn't dim the view. That would only affect an interchangeable- lens camera such as a Beaulieu.

I'm no expert, but I would imagine arcs were struck between setups, if not between takes. So the film may just have got the protocol wrong.

That's right. An open arc light is exactly as bad for the eyes as a welding arc, so anyone who might have to look directly at one needed dense goggles.

Removing the loop formers is quite a simple job.

Lewis Gilbert was just on 'Desert Island Discs', a mere stripling at 90.

Stanley Kubrick WROTE the original story. Orion was devised by Stanislav Ulam, not von Braun. Discovery is nuclear powered, but an ion drive rather than nuclear pulse a la Orion. The only accurate part of your post is Kubrick's rejection of nuclear pulse as being too close for comfort to the ending of 'Strangelove' ('We won't meet again'). The rest is tosh as I suspect you well know; if not I suggest you read up a bit. No-one 'butchered' 2001. It was Kubrick's creation from start to finish. Clarke knew it. Everyone knows it. That fact, you can learn.

Never mind the discussion. David, thanks for just posting those frame enlargements.

The Filmosound system won't allow for editing and cassette sound quality isn't too brilliant, not from a 1970s-era recorder anyway. As George said, cutting single-system is problematic because of the 18-frame sound advance. The sound cartridges were discontinued in 1998, so any still left are going to be some years out of date, frozen or not. Stripe sound was never too good either. A few years ago I had to replace a stripe track which was only about 25 years old. I cut on computer and burned to CD because no-one stripes film anymore. As suggested you might be better off with digital recording and not worrying about lip-sync if you want to stay on film. Of course with telecine you can go the slate route and sync shot-by-shot, so I understand.

Many of the films NASA used for Apollo were SOs. SO-121, for example, was Ektachrome MS on 70mm. Estar base, to increase the magazine capacity.

Latitude isn't the same as dynamic range, which is many stops.

Good grief. As to that, here you go. 'Nationalising the film industry, ACTT, 1971 http://www.bectu.org.uk/filegrab/NationalisingtheFilmIndustryACTTpublication1973.pdf?ref=548 'This union calls for the immediate nationalisation without compensation of the means of production, distribution and exhibition of films'. Is that more to your taste? With ideas like that, the ACTT broke itself. Rather typical of the left here in the 1970s.

No. If you had the 85 in, it needed to be exposed at 25. So it is 1 2/3 stops under. Even one stop is a problem for reversal.

The f/0.7 was intended for the candlelit scenes in 'Barry Lyndon'. Kubrick's own BNC was modified to take it; Joe Dunton offered it for rent for a while, but since he went to Panavision it seems to have gone into hiding. Back to Childwickbury perhaps.

Google is your friend, you know. Seems this uses Agfa's old pre-E6 reversal process, which they abandoned in the mid-80s, IIRC. I always preferred Agfa to Kodachrome, the cooler colour rendering suited the European light. It might be worth more as a historical item. It's certainly too old to use for anything important, even if Rocky Mountain can still develop it.

You also have time to learn a bit of European.

Sounds an interesting, if challenging, cocktail. Ice with mine, if you don't mind.

You don't say where you are, but process-paid K40 mailers are still being accepted in Europe. You send then straight to Lausanne now and the forward to Dwayne's. In the US, you can still send them (with payment) direct to Dwayne's. They stop running K40 this autumn. You'd think a tutor wouldn't cheat his students, but why did he sell them unboxed? The expiry date is on the box. A few years isn't too bad if they've been kept well, but I might want to test for an important project. Good luck, It's great stock. I haven't shot super-8 since K40 went and I doubt I will again.

The first UK showing of 2001 was by the BBC in about 1979 and they made a wretched job of it, filling up the letterbox with fake stars and even pushing some shots to the bottom of the screen, with fake stars above. If Kubrick saw that he must have blown a gasket. Perhaps that experience, shall we politely say, informed his later practice of overseeing his own transfers.

35mm stock codes begin with 5, 16mm with 7. So 5290 is 35mm. Don't worry, it got me for a moment. I simply assumed no-one would try to shoot with a ratio under 2.

Expecting you to shoot film without a meter is bit like asking you to write without a pencil. It's a basic tool which you must have.