E64 Results

[Jon]

As Far as cameras reading 64t it kind reminds me of dvd not all dvd players can read dvd-R so get a player that can or in this case a camera
heck i just picked up a nitzo s800 for 10 Bucks and work great
that lucky i guess you might have to spend a little more but ther out there

[r.sk8s]

It is curious that Bauer would put such a great lens on a camera that could only read asa 40 & 160. Sure Kodak dominated the market and K40 and E160 seemed to be it for super 8. Why did Braun/Nizo, Canon, Nikon, Beaulieu, & Minolta ignore this fact and produce highend prosumer cameras that could read other asa possibilities?

The Nizo 801, 6080, Canon 1014, Nikon R10, Minolta D12 all are of similar quality to the high end Bauers. These cameras all hit the market at or aroud the same time. The price of these cameras was somewhat in the same ballpark. (We all have our favorites and opinions, no need to go on and on about which is better.) But Bauer and Elmo(1012) for some reason decided to stick with the 40/160. I would suggest that it had less to do with the film that was available at the time and more to do with a decision not to redesign their basic camera platform. The other companies had developed multi notch sensors in the early seventies and just carried that technology over.

I just sold my Beaulieu 6008. I currently own a pair of Nizo 4080 and a Nikon R10. All are great cameras. But let us be honest. They are all prosumer cameras. Auto exposure for motion picture cameras is without question a prosumer concept. Arri, Aaton, C.P. never adopted it. This of course is just my view. I love super 8, the grain, the texture, the plastic carts, all of it. Kodak made their choice. E64 is the closest match, all things considered.

I agree that E100D would have been a better replacement. The 80A filter needed to shoot the E100D under tugsten light would have resulted in asa of 25. People would be howling at the need to buy the 80A filter. There would be endless threads about the slow asa etc.

Seems pretty simple, and what choice do we have. If you want to shoot E64 in your elmo or bauer, use manual exposure or shoot in auto with a ND 3 filter over the lens. The ND 3 will result in a 1/3 stop underexposure, perfect for reversal stock.

Robert Skates

[vapparn]

"I agree that E100D would have been a better replacement. The 80A filter needed to shoot the E100D under tugsten light would have resulted in asa of 25. People would be howling at the need to buy the 80A filter. There would be endless threads about the slow asa etc."

The thing with 64T is that it is way too slow for most situations exept daylight and for daylight it is a wrong choice anyway.

To shoot outdoors, 100D would be the way to go. To shoot indoors with lower light, choose V2. There is not a good quality fast color reversal in the market. Have you tried E200?

Why should one shoot 100D with 80A? I just don't get this. If one goes tungsten lightning then it is time to change film.

[Angus]

It is curious that Bauer would put such a great lens on a camera that could only read asa 40 & 160.

Not really. Those two speeds would have accounted for something like 95% of all super 8 film sold at the time.

You call it a "prosumer" model..there was no such term back then as far as I am aware. Super 8 was not being used by professionals for rock videos as there was no such thing as a rock video. Super 8 wasn't being used much for TV inserts either.

Those high end cameras were aimed at well-off families who were doing with them much the same as the rest of the population were with their instamatics...and the film schools who could make do with 40/160

I would suggest that it had less to do with the film that was available at the time and more to do with a decision not to redesign their basic camera platform.

That does't explain why the earlier Elmo's (110, 106 etc) could read anything from 25-250 ASA. Clearly, when they *did* redesign for the range that included the 1012 s-xl...they went to a simpler system that could only read 40 and 160 - because many of the interesting films such as Ektachrome 40, GAF 800 and suchlike had ceased to exist. Indeed I am not sure that a 64T/40D film had even been produced in super 8 at that point....so why continue to offer the facility to read that speed?

The other companies had developed multi notch sensors in the early seventies and just carried that technology over.

In at least Elmo's case it is the opposite...they ditched their multi-notch system because very few users were taking advantage of it. Obviously, even for a camera such as the 1012s-xl, a leading manufacture decided there was no benefit in reading anything other than 40/160

The later cameras actually could read *fewer* speeds than the earlier ones.

I just sold my Beaulieu 6008. I currently own a pair of Nizo 4080 and a Nikon R10. All are great cameras. But let us be honest. They are all prosumer cameras.

They are amateur cameras. High end amateur cameras...but such they are. Super 8 was not being used professionally at the time...though it was being used widely in film schools for training - another area such cams might have been found, where 40/160 would have allowed Kodachrome, Ektachrome and tri-x to be used successfully.

[super8man]

Up above, the mention of Nizos etc having the ability to read carts while the Bauers did not fails to observe that all of those cameras mentioned (except Canon's 814XLS/1014XLS) were designed in the very late 60's or early 70's. None were designed after 1974: including the Nikon R10, the Leicina, the Beaulieu, the Nizo 801 and perhaps even the 6080...they were all designed in the late 1960's and sold through the 1970's until the bitter end. The Canon appeared much later on the scene and perhaps is only losely related to its silent 1014E cousin. My point being that the filmstock available in the early 70's were more prolific that that available nearer the end of the 70's. Hence the 40/160 choice in later cameras.

And yes, PROSUMER is one of those made up words used by folks who have a superiority complex (and yes, magazines use this word daily). Like I said, show me someone who takes award winning pictures with Brownie and those same people/mags will call the Brownie a PROFESSIONAL piece of equipment.

The whole idea of PROFESSIONAL is lost on most folks. It's about the image/end result...it is not about the equipment...that is simply marketing at its finest: inventing words to alienate/lure/setoff/segment people into distinctions that only exists in their mind.

[super8man]

Also, you can't put filters over TTL cameras and expect to change the internal rating of the film speed.

[T-Scan]

The thing with 64T is that it is way too slow for most situations exept daylight and for daylight it is a wrong choice anyway.

64T's an awsome film for time exposure night cinematography... I just rewatched an experimental piece I shot with it, and man I like the punch of this film.. It performs basically the same as I initially visualized, or hoped 100D would look in S8, but with tungston abilities. When I finally did test 100D in S8, the grain was finer than I expected, but it lacked the punch 64T has. That may have been due to other factors. I'm still anticipating another 100D test by me or someone else. The tradeoff 100D/64T would be a tough one to decide for me right now... I'd keep the grainier 64T, unless 100D can match it's saturation and not more contrasty. But then go the night abilities. It would be cool if 64T was reformulated to a modern ektachrome 160T, keeping everything it has now, but only gaining speed.

If super 8 could support 6 stocks, here's what my dream team stock portfoloi would be:
7285 100D reversal (or updated version)
7280 160T reversal (hypethetical)
PlusX
TriX
7201 50D color neg
7218 500T color neg

I think that if things keep progressing, that list is fairly realistic now with E6 and negs. Then I would be happier than a pig in shit for the rest of my life.

[r.sk8s]

Also, you can't put filters over TTL cameras and expect to change the internal rating of the film speed.

Yes, you are correct. The internal meter would just open up another stop to correct for the ND3. Terribly smart those internal meters. That sollution seemed too simple anyhow. Feel sort of silly...sort of like when I discoverd that my favorite toy from childhood, Gnip Gnop was simply Ping Pong spelled backwards. I guess the only answer for those owners of the high end bauers and elmos that want to shoot anything other than tri x is...GULP...manual exposure.

:idea: On the good side. Since the handheld light meter seems to be anathema to so many super 8 shooters, those bauers with the great lenses should start flooding ebay at mad low prices. And I shall reap all the benefits. :twisted:

Robert Skates

[marc]

Has anyone here experienced tighter grain with a little overexposure when using the 64T?

[sarmoti]

...Auto exposure for motion picture cameras is without question a prosumer concept. Arri, Aaton, C.P. never adopted it. This of course is just my view. ...

While I agree that AE is in S8 cameras to make amateurs' life easy I just have to correct you on a fact, Arri, Aaton and Cinema Products all adopted auto exposure mechanisms in their 16mm cameras at one point or another (sometimes as an option), mainly for documentary and news "run and gun" purposes.

While placing an ND filter on a TTL exposure system won't work, not all cameras have the photosensor in a TTL arrangement.

Finally, how can anyone here trust a photosensor for auto exposure in a S8 camera that hasn't been replaced or calibrated in 20+ years. I'm sure most of them have drifted at least one stop in 20 years. If you're going to use auto exposure, at least grab a light meter once to verify the camera's accuracy and calibrate the camera's AE trim pot if needed (inside the camera).

[sarmoti]

Has anyone here experienced tighter grain with a little overexposure when using the 64T?

Sorry but that only works on negative stocks. You don't have as much room for over/under exposure on reversal as you do with negatives. If you did, or if you want to try, with a reversal you could under (not over) expose by 1/2 - 1 stop and give it a shot. Also keep in mind that these tricks only work if you're going to transfer to video or make a print, not if you're going straight to projection.

[marc]

Has anyone here experienced tighter grain with a little overexposure when using the 64T?

Sorry but that only works on negative stocks. You don't have as much room for over/under exposure on reversal as you do with negatives. If you did, or if you want to try, with a reversal you could under (not over) expose by 1/2 - 1 stop and give it a shot. Also keep in mind that these tricks only work if you're going to transfer to video or make a print, not if you're going straight to projection.

Not so in my experience with the other Ektachrome: 125. K40 seemed to me to be an anomaly in that respect because of the dye transfer process. My theory there is that the process caused the dyes to mask the grain so that when overexposed the image revealed more grain. I believe with other stocks, including Ektachrome reversal, the possibility is there to tighten the grain with a little overexposure. I just want to see if anyone here has experienced this. I have heard a few people say that underexposure with the 64t has given them grainier images.

[sarmoti]

Huh, strange, my only experience with overexposing reversal is blowing out the highlights, loss of lattitude and/or milky blacks.

With negatives you have room to do this without blowing out the highlights (as much) and makes the blacks richer (since overexposing in negative makes the film denser. The opposite is true for reversal).

Let me know how it goes, I've never intentionally tried this on reversal stock since unlike negative, it's common practice to expose it properly.

[super8man]

You'd be surprised at how well super 8 cameras hold up over the years. Seriously, that is one of their most endearing traits: over -engineered for the ages.

[r.sk8s]

...Auto exposure for motion picture cameras is without question a prosumer concept. Arri, Aaton, C.P. never adopted it. This of course is just my view. ...

While I agree that AE is in S8 cameras to make amateurs' life easy I just have to correct you on a fact, Arri, Aaton and Cinema Products all adopted auto exposure mechanisms in their 16mm cameras at one point or another (sometimes as an option), mainly for documentary and news "run and gun" purposes.

While placing an ND filter on a TTL exposure system won't work, not all cameras have the photosensor in a TTL arrangement.

Finally, how can anyone here trust a photosensor for auto exposure in a S8 camera that hasn't been replaced or calibrated in 20+ years. I'm sure most of them have drifted at least one stop in 20 years. If you're going to use auto exposure, at least grab a light meter once to verify the camera's accuracy and calibrate the camera's AE trim pot if needed (inside the camera).

Arri, Aaton, C.P. all had built in light meters on some models. Even the Arri S & BL had the apec system as an option on the later models. An auto exposure or auto iris was never built into any of these systems. The C.P. was the only one to come close with the auto exposure system which used a servo motor attached to the lens. This was because the C.P. was primarly news camera. The C.P was the only one to have a direct link from the meter to the servo motor attached to the iris.

If the photo sensor is not part of the TTL system on some cameras then an ND3 over the lens would indeed work on those cameras. If the photo sensor is not reacting to light coming through the lens then an ND3 would reduce the light reaching the focal plane by 1 stop. The photo sensor would be reacting to light that has not passed through the ND. In effect, light that is one stop brighter than that the light reaching the focal plane. If these cameras (with a photo sensor seperate from the TTL system) also only read 40/160 then a ND3 would be a solution for E64 according to your argument. I think I was wrong in the first place and the auto expose would just compensate for the ND. But if you are correct and the photo sensor is not part of the TTL arrangement, then on those cameras it would work. Would it not? The Canon Scoopic and DS8 are the only two cameras I have owned with a seperate photo sensor system.

I was simply trying to illustrate a point. These super 8 cameras we use and love are amateur cameras with auto exposure systems made for the home movie market of yesteryear. Kodak chose E64 in part because it would most closely work with all the cameras. I use my minolta autometer IVF for super 8 just as I use it for 16 & 35. If more super 8 shooters would get over their apparent fear of manual exposre and the hand held meter they might find that E64 is perhaps not that bad when properly exposed. They might even shoot a roll of two of neg. If you can afford one of the high end bauers, you can afford a light meter. The sekonic 398 has to $50.00 or less these days on ebay.

Robert Skates