Mark Dunn

I don't know about the lube, but don't bother finishing the film. Kodachrome II was discontinued about 30 years ago and doesn't use the current K-14 process. Rocky Mountain CAN process KII, but it's pricey, dicey and takes months.

The meter isn't coupled to the aperture or framing rate dial. So you can just ignore it.

Of course if it's discharged a meter won't help much anyway.

Very few Super-8 cameras were made to accept interchangeable lenses, and the 814 wasn't one of them. The zoom lens is much too closely incorporated into the camera, optically, electrically and mechanically, to even think about removing it. The most you could do would be to attach an aspherical wide-angle or telephoto adapter, which would screw on like a filter, but they're not usually optically brilliant.

Metal detectors work by induction. They detect the change in a magnetic field caused by a metal object. So, while the metal can might set them off, they don't put out any radiation that can damage the film. So the answer is no.

Film is actually coated in rolls much wider than the intended gauge, then slit to width and finally perforated.

If you mean the photo I posted, then yes, it's an adapter for an Exakta 35mm. SLR. You ought to be able to find a Leica-C mount adapter. It's easy to check- the Leica thread is 39mm. across. Post script- here's one, a bit pricey though. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Leica-screw-mount-to...VQQcmdZViewItem

Google is my friend and tells me that the Kilfitt has a Leica mount and needs an adapter like this http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1244/kilfadz.jpg (for an Exakta). You need a tapering adapter of the correct length to take the 39mm. Leica thread down to C-mount. I think.

I'd say the long tube is an extension tube which also serves as a C-mount adapter, because the lens mount is bigger than a C-mount. Does the tapering part of the tube separate from it, revealing another C-mount thread? If not, then to use it at infinity you need a shorter adapter.

To be fair Spielberg doesn't take the credit in that piece, he sort of gets awarded it by a sloppy writer. I'm sure he could take credit for the lighting plan. But then Spielberg is one of those technically accomplished directors who, like Kubrick, can actually light. Kubrick, of course, often did.

Because the rollers and sprocket bear on the edge of the film opposite the perfs and could scratch it. This edge is outside the normal frame but is used by Super-16, so the parts must be modified so they no longer touch the film.

It's difficult to answer someone who sticks to his own theory of optics and image formation. The term 'pencil of rays' returns 982,000 Google hits, mostly in optics but incidentally in many scientific fields. It's not a layman's term. Likewise 'partially-silvered mirror' returns 80,700 hits. Lots of info there. Jacob, the squarish part is the partially-silvered mirror which takes part of the image-forming light to the viewfinder and meter. That's why you lose half a stop or whatever. The 'V'-shape is the iris. In an interchangeable lens it consists of a number of leaves which open and close to form a more-or-less circular aperture, but in a built-in zoom it's easier to use the wedge shape. In your photograph it is at full aperture, but in brighter light the 'V' slides up to admit less light, driven by a signal from the meter. A camera with auto-exposure AND interchangeable lenses, such as the Beaulieu, has the aperture driven by a motor. My Sankyo ES-44XL seems to have partially-silvered mirrors both top and bottom, for finder and meter separately. The brand doesn't matter, of course. They're all much the same.

The term 'pencil of rays' is a standard one in optics, as you would find out if you did a little study of the subject. I have thought long and hard about whether or not to say the following in a public forum, and have previously given you the benefit of the doubt, but in the interests of alerting novice posters to your singular notions, here goes. Hopefully the moderators will not remove this post too soon. I'm sorry, but this stuff about different images is preposterous. It defies the laws of physics. It's not helpful of you to confuse novice posters with such balderdash. Your camera is NOT designed according to your unique conception of optical principles different to all others. The eye has an aperture- it's called the iris, as Jacob correctly pointed out. The 'rods- are the receptors in the retina insensitive to colour. They've got nothing to do with 'filtering out non-perpendicular rays'. Any encyclopedia which told me what you have would go straight in the bin. I have every sympathy with your wish to help those less knowledgeable, but you cannot invent your own parallel universe of physical laws and principles to do so. The rest of us are stuck in this one. Having got this off my chest, I will try to stay away from your posts in future. But I will respond if I think you are misleading anyone else.

I'd have one of those just to LOOK at.

The orange colour is a tone correction mask. It's to correct for dye deficiencies when making a duplicate on film. I assume it has no role in transfer to video.

I'm afraid it is the same type. Perhaps someone is prepared to saw a camera lens in half in order to check. Of course the partially-silvered mirror appears to extend a little above or below the centre of the lens- it's got to be attached to the barrel somewhere, it can't hang in space. But that doesn't mean it doesn't intercept the entire pencil of rays. It does and it must, otherwise the finder image would be cropped. It's a while since I studied lens design so I can't point you to a specific reference, but might I recommend Sid Ray's books "The Lens and all its Jobs" , "The Lens in Action" and "Applied Photographic Optics".

There's no parallax with a reflex finder. That's the point. The partially-silvered mirror intercepts the entire pencil of rays- it's not above or below- and diverts some of it to the viewfinder. It's that simple.

Don't worry about some of the things you've read in this thread; if it's in good condition all the half-silvered mirror should do is absorb some light. You don't have a reflex Bolex, so the only way you can have reflex viewing is with a dog-leg finder like the one you have.

Sound quality from stripe was always pretty mediocre. Loose sync from cassette or CD is quite possible- work out your own startup procedure; I use start-marks and countdowns, that sort of thing. But please, just CUT THE FILM. It's not that delicate, just do it with care. Editing on a computer isn't what Super-8 is about. Cut, splice and project.

If the variable shutter were moving you'd get exposure pulsing. I don't think you've got a lot of jitter at all, but it's difficult to tell with so much camera movement. I'd echo the advice to use a tripod. Don't move the camera about so much- they used to call it 'hosepiping'. You definitely need to nail the focus problem- around 1min. 20sec, the fellow in the blue jacket is in focus. You then pull focus and he goes out. So what you're seeing as 'in focus' isn't, especially at the long end where focus is more critical anyway.

The 85 filter only absorbs 2/3 of a stop. The 80A filter to convert daylight film to tungsten loses you 2 stops. So it's much better to shoot tungsten film outdoors with a filter than vice versa. You get to use a slower film. The old Kodachrome 25D would have gone to 6 ISO in tungsten light- very inconvenient.

'The Riddle of the Sands' is a corking thriller, too.

Sounds like your image is badly out of focus, the lens is very dirty, or an element is dislodged

Presumably you're aware that sound cartridges were discontinued about ten years ago, so you can just ignore the sound spec. Google is your friend, as usual.