Mark Dunn

It doesn't sound like a vehicle, it sounds like a TANK.

That socket is a standard 3/8" fitting, the same as a tripod screw. Movie lights have an appropriate bracket. Screwing it in also removes the 85 filter. However, having the light on the camera is rarely the best place to put it, as you'll know if you've ever taken a portrait with flash-on-camera.

I wouldn't expect any silent projector to run at 24. So, any sound projector, I expect. IIRC the silent speed for 8-mm is 16, not 18.

That's handy, all I got this morning was a catalogue.

I'm not doubting you but can't see what use such a device would be to a lab. You can't clip-test Super-8. They either dev the whole cartridge or they don't. An exposed cartridge is readily identifiable, so you wouldn't need it to prevent processing of an undeveloped film. Surely, the film is so narrow and the component mass distribution within the cart so imprecise that you'd need laboratory (physics, not processing) conditions to work out the CG.

Cats? What, actual cats, or do you mean laid-back gentlemen, as in 'cool for cats'?

You can't use the blimp with the handgrip motor, apparently.

This film is getting a lot of discussion on model rocketry newsgroups ( another interest of mine) and what people comment on, besides the technical accuracy and so on, is how GOOD it looks. I can't wait.

If it's only making a BIT of a noise, it's broken! It should sound like a tractor! As long as it's not tearing sprockets, and the loops don't rub, it's most likey OK. But still test. You can make a collage film out of the test roll.

Joe Dunton rent Kubrick's BNC and a 25, 50 and 85. Sounds like they don't have the Kollmorgen-adapted wide angle but the shorter Zeiss which Kubrick didn't like! Reading John Alcott, apparently '54 was discontinued, but Kodak reintroduced it in time for Barry Lyndon. I wonder if it was FOR Barry Lyndon.

The intensity of a luminaire at a given distance is measured in footcandles, the brightness of an illuminated surface in footlamberts, IIRC. So FC are measured incident, FL reflected. IIRC.

Kodak only ditched the Kodachrome lab in Switzerland. All 35mm. now goes to Dwaynes, as far as I can see. In England you still send it to Box 14 as ever, I believe, but it goes to Dwaynes. Kodak are no longer listing Kodachrome 200. Of course it started out as sheet film, but for a while back in the 80s and 90s they made it in rollfilm. That was eye-popping.

Handsome work. Shame you don't need to borrow my Steenbeck to cut it. Film rules, OK! What really makes you look like a pro is holding the clapstick open with your hand around the hinge so the editor knows it's MOS. If you just shoot a closed slate, he looks for a clap to sync up, and starts scrabbling round on the floor when he can't find it! Aah for mag film and chinagraph pencils...

It works fine, I just have to press the button to get the right AR. We have a digibox elsewhere. Thanks for the tip. I had no idea.

No digibox, no. Do they detect the AR?

I've not looked at C4 News, but I have noticed that most stuff still goes out in 14:9. Except for the older shows you mentioned, I watch on 'zoom'; the only shows which satisfactorily fill the screen are those which air with a visible letterbox on 'zoom' and there aren't many. ER is the only one I can think of off-hand- CSI is still 14:9.

Having just acquired a widescreen TV, I note that most shows here are actually transmitted at a compromise 14:9. Filling the screen with the 'letterbox' button usually crops far too much off the top. 'ER' is acceptable, so are some 'Scope films, but generally I can't fill the screen without losing a big chunk of picture . What's the standard elsewhere- are you already getting true 16:9?

The deterioration is worse when there's a latent image. We all know that. So how do animators cope with a roll of film which must spend weeks or months in the camera. IS the deterioration an issue or not?

Super-8 perfs ARE quite a bit smaller. I understand they were moved to the frameline to reduce edge fogging- fog at the frameline had a better chance of being hidden by the aperture plate in the projector. Now I've typed it it makes less sense. Anyone?

I'm sure you are all aware, and maybe it's just my character set, but euros are not the same as dollars. ?1 is about USD 1.30.

The foil seals the film against changes in humidity. Without it you can't really refrigerate the film for fear if getting condensation on the emulsion surface when you take it out. I suppose if you could heat-seal it, thenmake sure it was up to ambient temperature before opening it, that would be OK. But don't keep it in the fridge as-is.

No special kit, just (very) extended development. Now that everyone seems to be ditching conventional darkroom kit you could probably get an enlarger for not very much off ebay. I'm sure you could set up for not much over £100. Good luck.

1979 is pushing it a bit. Someone might buy it for the cartridges, I suppose. I'd never heard of double-8 cartridges, but what do I know!

Rechargeables are nominally 1.2V but they are equivalent to 1.5V expendables. If you check them with a voltmeter you'll find they are actually about 1.4V off-load when fresh. IIRC rechargeables have less voltage drop on-load, hence the lower quoted voltage. But they're fine.