Mark Dunn

No, the entire drive mechanism and the backplate of the film chamber are in between. There's no way for any light to get through there.

In a big venue you will need a powerful lamp which rules out many of the domestic projectors, but the 1200 was the brightest of those and it's still well though of. There was a xenon-arc version which is even brighter. It's dual-voltage. There are, or were, professional grade projectors for Super-8 (Fumeo comes to mind)- you can still rent one in the UK so they must still be around. If clean and well- maintained they should not scratch film seriously, but any repeated use is bound to cause a bit of damage, and it's much more noticeable with the small frame size. The other consideration in a big venue is having a lens with a long enough focal length so that the projection doesn't have to be in the middle of the audience. There was never a very good choice of long lenses for Super-8- even the standard zoom on the 1200 only puts it about 6 screen widths from the screen I think you can forget dual-8 - these were domestic projectors with quite low-wattage lamps. Unfortunately I think this may also apply to most standard-8 machines that are still around- Super-8 is nearly 60 years old Acetate film can be cement spliced, which means basically all of it since the only polyester stock was the long-gone Fuji, but there is always the risk of breakage when not using tape. Presumably you know that cement splices effectively cut a frame in half and show over 2 frames in 8mm.

Personally I like these oddball posts, but OP must be aware that millions of Europeans are very close to a very hot war. These are uncertain times and one must be particularly sensitive. You can't know what will set off a reaction- perhaps the idea that while millions were being slaughtered for profit in Eastern Europe, American women were worrying about replacing their shoes. Adam Jones,CC3.0 licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en Please carry on, OP, but think about your posts.

Well clearly the former because you can sue on the cheque alone, but it doesn't change much. I take Paypal for stuff like that- not foolproof of course but at least you know a bit quicker- though cheques clear overnight here. You're clearly right about ebay's status. I mean to say that when you list with ebay you certainly have a contract with it which requires that you abide by its rules on refunds, paying for shipping and so on. If you're selling in the course of trade surely there's some consumer protection in the US? In the UK a consumer can return an item ordered online for no reason at all.

deleted after googling OP's name.

Well, there are two sides to a contract, and I think Ebay is a party to the contract so you have to follow its rules as well. One of those is that there are circumstances under which you can't refuse a refund. Surely you don't want to be in court all the time. I don't know about your country, but mine has fairly strong consumer protection. It's part of the deal and by and large everyone accepts it. Ebay's rules here go beyond it.

Why are your fees so high? They would be about 15% in the UK including Paypal fees. Now ebay pay by bank transfer I think it's only about 10%. 60% is absurd.

Alarming that a company won't even make a 10-year-old machine usable unless you pay them another $30k. Or am I missing something.

No call for a Steenbeck then?

Bronicas were never the most durable of 6x6 SLRs so I wouldn't be wanting to spend much on repair. Maybe half the cost of replacement would be sensible...........around £200, and there won't be any spare parts. The linkage from the body to the electronic leaf shutter is a complication- presumably lots of circuitry to get corroded. Hopefully you already have it packed in desiccant.

Haven't checked in for a while. To answer your previous question, films of all sorts are donated here all the time- packages are arriving every day. Ronald Grantwas at Pordenone last month, they know who he is. Work on the Steenbecks is ongoing but at least the Museum can take paying audiences again http://www.cinemamuseum.org.uk/ We replaced the belts on a 1901 the other day and ran a test film. Ronald stuck his head in the door to discuss some matter of admin and I happened to say, "it's Ninotchka by the way, Ron", because it was. I'm ashamed to admit I had to look up Melvyn Douglas. I thought it was Franchot Tone.

You mention it on Facebook. Sorry, bad habit looking people up. I do it for Steenbeck rentals- see if I should have heard of somebody? Only here since '88 myself.

You need to come home and rent my 1600 to look at it!

Holy smoke- I live in Woodford Green! Small world!

The Eumig Nautica has a pretty small filter thread- it would probably take the Brun matte box in my link. But good luck importing anything from the UK just now!

Anything you put in the cartridge would probably lift the film away from the gate and put it out of focus. In-camera mattes were used in the silent days, but I think they slid in across the gate, very close to the film plane. You don't have access to it in Super-8.

Screening 16mm. archive from the 90s at home for a mountaineering documentary (Chris Terrill, Universal/BBC) The BBC archive in Perivale, where the director had planned to shoot, is closed for the duration, so I'm now in the studio business, apparently. A fee for rental plus the same again as a facility fee- what's not to like? It doesn't show here, but this was a cutting copy- the wrong print had been archived, and the transmission print destroyed. Oops. They still had the mag stereo mixes though. "Ipcress File" credit: James Watkins/ITV; DOP Tim Maurice-Jones, my image.

?I want to see this cupboard! Ours only has wine and gas meters in it. The 1600 is in the dining room office studio (see "Today's Office"!)

Getting at the gate is tricky with Super-8. The masking method can work quite well but as Andries says you don't get a sharp edge. It's sharper the further away you put the matte- I used to have a little box like a lens hood with a slot for the matte. Shoot, rewind, reverse the matte and you have a split-screen of sorts. Here it is. It only suits a lens with quite a small filter thread. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Brun-Camera-Photography-Effects-Box-58mm-Screw-Fit-Boxed-Instructions-/183028009576

Yes, hadn't appreciated that- thought the choice was just between exposed and unexposed. Cupboard under the stairs after dark? Quick dive in and snap a bit off?

You might be lucky- it might be single perf, then you can tell if it's tail out (exposed) or head out.

"The Ipcress File" on location in Liverpool

The auto exposure should work without a cartridge, so you should see the pointer or whatever moving when you switch on, assuming there's an on-off switch. If the camera was designed to use 160ISO film, it will read at 100ISO with the 85A filter in, otherwise it will read at 25.

Stray remjet could come off and stick to the film during processing. It needs to be gone.

I think you and Robert may have hold of opposite ends of the stick. Unexposed stock should be frozen long-term. Processed film should merely be kept cool. Since you don't know where the film has been for the last 20-odd years, it may be that freezing it for another year won't make much difference.