Mark Dunn

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you but to you-know-who. But the OP WAS asking about Super-8. On the day I first posted there was a backwinder listed on ebay, as I pointed out. Cutting open a cartridge is hardly a 'method'. Backwinders are built for the job. I was just trying to be helpful.

The Kodachrome cine lab in Switzerland closed last year. Process-paid envelopes are no longer valid.

You could always rate it standard and have a clip test. Shoot a typical scene on the last 30', right to the end, and have the lab develop 10' standard. You can then push or pull the remaining sections, 10' at a time, till you get a suitable result. VNF pulls and pushes readily by means of changing the macnine speed, but it may cost you a lot to have the machine set up. But otherwise you really are guessing. On top of that, VNF is obsolete, so while some labs still run the process, they may not do so regularly.

Here http://www.mondofoto.com/cameras/Canon_814XL.jpg

I'm through arguing with you. It's a shame, but I guess people who come here for answers will just have to wade through all the nonsense and make up their own minds about which solution is the simpler.

But that's really the 'I wouldn't start from here' argument. One of the joys of Super-8 used to be that you could make a film for the price of the stock. No video transfer, no post-production beyond a viewer and splicer, everything straight out of the box. Making your own superimposed titles, mattes, multiple exposures and so on is part of the fun.

There's no reasoning with you, is there? Someone asks for advice. First you suggest he buys a new camera. Then you tell him to spend- how much?- on infra-red lights and goggles, for heaven's sake- then he has to cut a hole in his cartridges. Or he could buy a second-hand backwinder for a few pounds. Experience? Once and for all, it's not just me. It's been in use for years. You can't stop it working just by thinking about it. Surely your efforts would be better directed at film problems which haven't been solved, rather than trying to invent outlandish schemes for ones which have. Post your footage (the whole roll, please, including the scratches and edge fogging) and I'll do likewise. I don't have to prove that backwinders work- you have to prove they don't. Sorry, but I think you need to put up or shut up this time.

This isn't something I've just thought up- the Craven Backwinder has been around for years. Here are some pictures. http://www.mondofoto.com/encyclopedia/encyclopedia-68.html I'm quite sure it works, beginning, middle or end, as no doubt are its thousands of users over the decades, and your inability to see how doesn't stop it working. Obviously there's more room when some of the film has run, but then, if it hadn't run, there'd be nothing to backwind, would there? It makes its own space. There are limitations, but part of the fun of Super-8, surely, is working within them. The OP asked about backwinding Super-8. Telling him he needs to use Single-8 is about as helpful as the chap who, when asked for directions, said 'Well, i wouldn't start from here'.

If you don't actually need to project, just view, second-hand Steenbecks are very cheap now. Mine cost £75. I don't know where you are, though. They're commoner in the UK and Europe than the US.

One problem with an unadjustable XL shutter can be excessive motion blur. I certainly noticed it going from a 180 to a 220 degree shutter. You do have to be aware of it.

Or you could just tape the spindle and use a backwinder. And not fog, scratch, skinch or knife the film. Or have it jam because: 1) you've got sweat from your fingers on the edge of the supply reel; 2) the takeup spool is loose because you've broken the ratchet. Or mistime the effect because you've guessed the amount of film you pushed back instead of counting the number of frames with the knob on the backwinder. Harry Garlick solved this problem 40 years ago. You don't need to fiddle about.

How recent? Woodstock, Monterey Pop. 'Business as Usual', my student film in 1982; 1.66 soft matted, with a C-roll matte on the print. I haven't seen it since (sob). The director legged it with the answer print . I didn't have £250 for a print, or a Steenbeck. I have both now. Ah, history.

I think the difference is that Kodak isn't allowed to sell process paid film in the USA- but it is-and does-elsewhere, including, presumably, Canada. (This surprised me when I bought Kodachrome in the US- the one-or two- day service was nice, though.) Ektachrome is always sold without processing, so in a 'process-paid-allowed' country the upfront price is always less. I don't know what a peanut gallery is. I was just offering an opinion on very old colour film. Perhaps I should clarify and say it isn't worth MY money. It might be worth processing, it's just not worth shooting.

Here's one. http://www.super8.nl/images/s8_systeem.gif That's what I call coaxial. The ratchet is there to keep the takeup spool tight. You could backwind in the way you describe- if you could cut a hole in the cartridge without damaging the film or introducing bits of plastic- or you could just buy a backwinder. They turn up on ebay-here's one, the same make as mine. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Craven-Super8-Backwi...1QQcmdZViewItem Don't forget to tape the drive spindle first. Or you could just push the film back with a toothpick. >perhaps a really tiny amount of distant light would be safe NO level of light is safe for panchromatic film. If you can see it, so can the film. >There is no physical problem with turning the Clutch backwards in order to rewind the Cart. Not once you've broken the ratchet. You then run the risk of a film jam and skinching of the loose roll. Perhaps the cartridge you're using already has a broken ratchet. If you've actually backwound and shot double exposures this way, fine. Post the footage and we can see how it turned out. Then I'll post mine, shot 30 years ago, with a taped spindle and a backwinder and no messing about.

The Ektachrome is another matter. It's an obsolete process and so would have to go to Rocky Mountain and wait in the queue. I had to do it 5 years ago- the stock was already 5 years old, so I checked with Kodak before shooting. They said it was fine, so I went ahead, but the envelope then came back saying sorry, they'd discontinued the process. Had I known before hand I probably wouldn't have used it. Kodak used to charge £5, Rocky mountain charged about £15. I don't think they'd even promise to get images off a film that old. Twenty- year old film isn't worth money. Not even K40.

You can narrow the angle to shoot at a wider stop.

That H16 is in an instrumentation housing. !t would have been used by the military, on a range, or in an aircraft, something like that.

What amateurs do with 'Scope is switch the anamorphic to the projector to get a picture the same height but twice as wide. You're effectively magnifying the image twice as much, which tends to tax the grain a bit on 8mm. In practice there's quite a difference in perceived sharpness. But it still looks great.

The supply and takeup spools are coaxial and there is a single driving spindle, as you can see. It cannot be made to rotate backwards without breaking a ratchet inside the cartridge. If you tape over the spindle to prevent the camera turning it, there is enough space inside the cart for about 3 feet of film to bunch up. It can then be rewound with a backwinder, which is basically a box with a sprocket wheel, and then re-exposed. This trick only really works near the start of a cartridge when there is enough space for the film. As Alessandro says, you can only get unlimited backwind if you can drive the takeup and supply spools separately, as in Single-8.

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.