Mark Dunn

I thought they might be retaining screws for the carrying strap ring just in front, but I've just loosened them and the ring is still tight. So I'd stick to gaffer tape or sticky pads.

I assume the OP's camcorder has a fixed zoom, in which case there's no choice but to use a screw-on converter. Try some out and buy the best you can afford-preferably one with a proper brand name like Vivitar. And a big tripod.

The Byzantium exhibition at the Royal Academy on Piccadilly is on my list. Bring a warm coat as well as an umbrella. It's not much above 10 degrees here. (That's 50F to you.)

I stand (colour) corrected.

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=823082

3 or 4 stops at least. Also, did you transfer at the wrong speed, 18 at 24, for example/ It looks undercranked.

If there simply isn't enought light, then that's that unless you undercrank or use faster film. I don't know if you have a variable shutter; if so, you can open that up to maximum. There's also a trick to get a reading in low light- read off a white card and open up 3 stops from that.

Print developer is much more energetic than film dev, both to keep the processing time down (2 minutes instead of 6 or 8), and because it can be- paper grain is so fine that grain isn't an issue. But it also oxidises much more rapidly. There's no question of reusing it.

Are you sure you'r not just looking at the dichroic coating on the front element? That colour doesn't just transfer itself to the image like a filter. It affects transmitted light in quite a different way to reflected.

You only lose about 3 or 4 frames at the head and a frame or two before the printed 'exposed' message at the tail. You can confirm this next time by firing off about 8 single frames to start with; you'll get some of them back. The camera does sound like a bag of spanners when it's running, but most of it is camera noise and quite normal. If you remove the cartridge you only lose the frames in the gate- the light trap is pretty good- but the footage counter resets, so make a note.

They do say that they only run some really old processes occasionally, when they've collected enough film to justify mixing up a batch of the appropriate soup. If you wanted it right away you'd probably have to put a nought on the price.

The version you post is a rather contrasty, cropped dupe. Going back to the original, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg shows little if any vignetting. (The extra sky was added in retouching very early on, as was the cropping and straightening.) The film was SO-168, aka High Speed Ektachrome (160ISO) in 70mm. AS11-40-5903 was taken with a Zeiss 60mm, a moderate wide-angle for the 120 format, so not prone to vignetting. The lunar horizon is very close, only about a mile and a half for a man standing, as against about 4 miles on Earth. Of course the lunar surface itself, although quite dark, acts as a broad-source fill. But I agree that the LM did most of the work as it was covered in gold foil. It even casts a weak shadow of Aldrin's chest pack on his upper right arm.

Double-8 is just another name for 8mm, renamed standard-8 when Super-8 came out. The 25' film is 16mm wide but is run once in each direction then split after processing. The perfs are the same size as 16mm but at half the pitch. I think the cameras you refer to are this type. A few cameras were made to run double Super-8. The principle is the same but the perfs are Super-8.

I'm not aware of anyone else. When I shot a roll of '96 stock in 2001, knowing the stock was discontinued, I checked beforehand that Kodak were still processing it and they said they were. Had they said no I would not have used it. Turns out I was misinformed and I had to go to Rocky Mountain, although they only charged abut $20-odd then. That advice doesn't help you this time, but now you know- check first. 30 years is a long time for colour stock in any case. I don't think Rocky Mountain will even guarantee to produce an image. It's pretty unlikely you'll have a usable image and $50 is a sizeable gamble anyway. Nowadays people get the sort of effect you're after in post-production, on video. Sorry.

David Mullen will be along with a more practical answer, but here comes the physics. Arc lamps have a discontinuous spectrum with strong output in the green and, as you've found, blue. The eye can compensate but film can't, and filtration doesn't really work. The problem has been solved for HMI lamps but not, as you've found out, for LCD projectors. Unhelpful, and probably not entirely accurate,but there you are.

Now THAT's a boat anchor.

What happened to black slates and chalk? Seriously, it's not a facetious question.

The film is standard-8, 25'. It will run in a 16mm camera- it just has twice as many perforations. But it won't run very long. Forget the process except at great expense. In any case, it expired in 1989. I'd keep it as a curio.

I shot what I expect was my last Super-8 in 2001. If K40 were still around I'd still make the occasional film. 16mm. is just too expensive, Steenbeck or no. I don't shoot video instead. The medium IS the message here; I just like film. It's that simple. Super-8 doesn't compete with 35mm. in any way, so whatever the RED camera does is of as little relevance.

Light travels in straight lines. So the top of the scene ends up at the bottom of the film. Projected, it goes back to the top. It's as simple as that. The number of lens elements has no bearing. The viewfinder inverts the image for convenience- it's difficult to follow action upside-down. If you've ever used a large-format camera, you'll have seen the image inverted on the focusing screen, just as the lens produced it- there's no need to turn it right way up and you get used to seeing it that way. The screen isn't a mirror, it's a reflective surface. If the viewfinder is a window on the scene, so is the screen. The orientation of the image you see is the same. Have a look at the link. Maybe you've thought too hard about this- go back to first principles over a nice cup of tea.

Most of our TV is currently transmitted in 14:9 as a stopgap. However, no-one seems to know the correct settings on their 16:9 sets, so most broadcasts have rather fat people in them. I understand that as long as the correct codes are transmitted, it's quite possible to view 1.37 films correctly. But since no-one will put up with pillarboxing, they'll probably fill the screen and ruin the composition, as the cinemas did in 1990 for the re-release of GWTW. Yuk.

You can always run DP stock in a single perf camera. You just can't do the opposite, because cameras make very poor perforators <_<

This is the adapter screw http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CAMERA-TRIPOD-THREAD...1QQcmdZViewItem and the plates look like this http://www.photoplus-uk.co.uk/access/Manfr.../Manpage/19.htm

You tripod may simply be too light for the job. The ACL will indeed have a larger thread (it's 3/8" actually, instead of the smaller 1/4") and you can buy an 3/8- 1/4 adapter to screw into the camera bush, but you may be putting too much strain on it. Does the tripod have a fixed screw, or is it the kind with a separate plate? If the latter, you will be able to buy a plate with a 3/8 thread. Otherwise, be careful putting a £5000 camera on a £50 tripod.