Mark Dunn

Sorry, no. I always use ordinary AAs in battery holders, but I've never built up a battery pack as such. But as I suggested you could try 'doubling up' your pack with pairs of cells in parallel. TBH I think a fresh pack with cells in series should be able to supply 6A- perhaps your pack is not fully charged, or the cells are getting old?

Fixing a Steenbeck at a pretty famous director's mill in Sussex. For another pretty famous director.

2500mAh is only the energy capacity and says nothing about how much current it can supply- if it's made up of AA cells it may struggle to supply more than a couple of amps. You will need one with bigger cells, or pairs of cells in parallel may work. I see from the manual that the current draw is 3.6A, but with a starting surge up to 6A.

Ebay used to be good but everyone seems to think it's oh so special now and want about £1 a foot for it. Even Kodak is €350/1000'. I have to charge 25p/foot when prepping film now. You may be better off using junk film and a white permanent marker.

Should anyone else come across this post in future, it's incorrect. If you don't need sepmag you still need one each of DR70 and DR83.

This is extraordinary. A work of art in its own right.

The quick and dirty way IIRC is to just stop and start with the release button until you see the bar out of frame. Of course seeing the bar may be acceptable as part of the 'look'.

There seem to be plenty on Alamy.

Presumably they're keeping the chemicals for far too long. The only alternative would be single-shot developing in a small tank which would take a couple of hours and cost more than they could charge.

The low-rent alternative used to be a duvet, I believe.

IIRC that was a big change over the BL- it didn't (or wasn't supposed to) need a lens blimp.

That's an unworthy slight on a valued member of this community. Tsk, that pesky European consumer protection law getting in the way of making money!

If you can shoot some high-speed video (with the phone on a tripod!) you may get a better look at what's going on. But that board may have to come off. Soldering isn't so scary, just practise a bit first.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/167433913590?chn=ps&_ul=GB&mkevt=1&mkcid=28&google_free_listing_action=view_item Occurs to me you could pack that out with tape to fit the tube, or trim if too big. If you know anyone with a D3 you could ask to measure it. Just read your post carefully lol and as you wear specs, as do I, I appreciate it's pretty essential to have something convenient.

BTW you'll find DoF tables on this very site.

Very much not. Super-8 has plenty of depth of field at the short end of the zoom in good light when the aperture is small, but if you do a search on super-8 depth of field tables you'll see it is much more limited when zoomed in. You don't really have control over the aperture with a given stock and a non- adjustable shutter angle. You only need the eyecup to keep out stray light and for comfort. I'd be thinking of making something out of cardboard and one of the scrap bits of leather I keep for repairs. And some glue.

It has reflex viewing, but there's no focussing aid such as ground glass, split screen or microprism- you have to estimate or measure subject distance, then set the distance according to the lens barrel markings- so the position of your eye isn't important for correct focus. You might be able to make an eyecup out of foam or something similar to make it a bit easier to use. The button cell for the exposure meter may be an obsolete type so you may have to meter manually anyway.

Kodak 2024 list price is 55¢/foot. Any reason to pay $1.40?

This is a scene from "The Greatest Show on Earth (de Mille, 1952). It doesn't look like undercranking to my eye but I'm no expert; I wonder if Spielberg just increased the speed in post. You could check the original if you have the DVD or a download.

https://www.lpgear.com/category/MM.html ?

Another caution is that, while you may be able to buy expired film cheaply, you can't buy expired processing, scanning or editing. You have to pay today's prices for those. So you save a little bit up front for the risk of poor, or no, results. It may be fine for an artist processing in tanks where faults and flaws are part of the deal. But for a consistent result that someone else may be paying for? Not really.

Paywalled.

Presumably you're aware that the ideal for archival storage is horizontal, to reduce sagging, core breakage and warping. Though if the films are tightly wound it is less of a problem. Common sense would suggest that it would not apply as much to 16 and 8mm as they are lighter. I have my own S-8 films stored flat, but 16mm. leader and so on are on edge for convenience because I actually use those. https://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/motion-picture-film-storage.html

It's called a spider, and yes, it folds flat.These days they strap to the sticks with rubber loops for convenience. You just pick up the sticks and the spider folds upwards. 400 × 400

I think you may be conflating pitch tolerance with the difference between camera stock, usually short pitch, and print stock ,long pitch. The difference was to allow better alignment when making contact prints. The print stock was run on the outside of the printer sprocket with the camera stock on the inside, hence it moved in a curve with a slightly larger radius. So it required a longer perf pitch to maintain close contact.