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.

I thought the emulsion was different but it makes sense that it was easier all along to just coat the entire base with emulsion than to only coat the normally used section of it. Maybe I am thinking of magnetic sound film like in Super8 where you can't expose over the stripe area.

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.

I don't know why you're referring to the aggregate light image as a "pencil", but there is not just one light image passing through the Lens. The total number of images is monumental. The perfect light image goes through the center of the Aperture. All the other images have varying degrees of parallax. The "image" produced by a Lens is comprised of "perpendicular" Light Rays. Non-perpendicular Rays produce the other images. When there is low light, a larger Aperture lets in "parallel" Light Rays which are immediately next to the perpendicular Rays. These parallel Rays are not perfectly perpendicular. A person's Eye works the same way, but without an Aperture. The Eye has "rods" to filter out non-perpendicular Rays. You can look it up further in an Encyclopedia.

 

I explained earlier on in this Thread how the Sankyo Mirror works to intercept a separate light image -- separate from the central image which exposes the Film. The Sankyo setup has no impact whatsoever on the image exposing the Film. If the Reflex Mirror Sean refers to is the same as the Sankyo Mirror, then it has no impact on the exposing image. Having not seen his Camera, I can't say if it's the same -- nor can you say since you haven't seen my Camera either. It is possible to look through the Lens without cutting it in half.

I don't know why you're referring to the aggregate light image as a "pencil", but there is not just one light image passing through the Lens. The total number of images is monumental. The perfect light image goes through the center of the Aperture. All the other images have varying degrees of parallax. The "image" produced by a Lens is comprised of "perpendicular" Light Rays. Non-perpendicular Rays produce the other images. When there is low light, a larger Aperture lets in "parallel" Light Rays which are immediately next to the perpendicular Rays. These parallel Rays are not perfectly perpendicular. A person's Eye works the same way, but without an Aperture. The Eye has "rods" to filter out non-perpendicular Rays. You can look it up further in an Encyclopedia.

 

I explained earlier on in this Thread how the Sankyo Mirror works to intercept a separate light image -- separate from the central image which exposes the Film. The Sankyo setup has no impact whatsoever on the image exposing the Film. If the Reflex Mirror Sean refers to is the same as the Sankyo Mirror, then it has no impact on the exposing image. Having not seen his Camera, I can't say if it's the same -- nor can you say since you haven't seen my Camera either. It is possible to look through the Lens without cutting it in half.

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 don't know why you're referring to the aggregate light image as a "pencil", but there is not just one light image passing through the Lens. The total number of images is monumental. The perfect light image goes through the center of the Aperture. All the other images have varying degrees of parallax. The "image" produced by a Lens is comprised of "perpendicular" Light Rays. Non-perpendicular Rays produce the other images. When there is low light, a larger Aperture lets in "parallel" Light Rays which are immediately next to the perpendicular Rays. These parallel Rays are not perfectly perpendicular. A person's Eye works the same way, but without an Aperture. The Eye has "rods" to filter out non-perpendicular Rays. You can look it up further in an Encyclopedia.

 

I explained earlier on in this Thread how the Sankyo Mirror works to intercept a separate light image -- separate from the central image which exposes the Film. The Sankyo setup has no impact whatsoever on the image exposing the Film. If the Reflex Mirror Sean refers to is the same as the Sankyo Mirror, then it has no impact on the exposing image. Having not seen his Camera, I can't say if it's the same -- nor can you say since you haven't seen my Camera either. It is possible to look through the Lens without cutting it in half.

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".

Are you talking about a Mirror in the Diaphragm Chamber that you can see when looking inside the Lens?

If so, the Mirror should be in front of and below the center of the Aperture Opening. The Light Rays which expose the Film converge at the center of the Aperture Opening. A Mirror below that point of convergence will not affect the Light going through the Aperture. The Mirror provides a separate light image to the Viewfinder which has only minor vertical parallax to the light image going to the Film Gate. If you have a Webcam, post a low-resolution Picture of your Mirror.

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.

OK, question on the mirror idea. I have a Bolex H16 that came with a Pan Cinor 17.5 - 70. It's a reflex lens. There is a tiny mirror in the center of the image area that scoops out some light and aims it at a prism that throws the image at about 30 degrees down the viewfinder tube. At least that's how I understand it from looking at it. Now mind you the prism is only to bend the image to the eye, not in the lens to film path.

 

Still, doesn't adding a mirror, half silvered mirror or anything in the path degrade the image somewhat? I don't want to keep tossing all this down a rabbit hole but unless it is a true reflex camera where the mirror flips out of the path during the opening of the shutter, it's all affecting the image in some small way right?

 

S.

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.