Regular 8mm Black & White Print

[Mmechanic]

That bracket was sold by the Stevens Engineering Company of Los Angeles CA.
They also made dovetail slot filter slides and the machining of the turret plate.

[David M. Leugers]

Stevens and a company called Toledo Cine Equipment in Ohio made one very similar. To me they are indispensible for using the round bottom H models on a tripod. The Bolex adapter is fine, but the added beef and sturdiness of the Stevens design is a good thing.

[doug]

It is very easy to switch positions so the crank may be accessed. The side viewfinder fits, but only just fits.

I find this picture interesting. I'm thinking of making something a bit similar as a nodal head, so that when I tilt over a miniature there isn't a craning effect. But I guess it would have to be much further forward by the lens.
Regarding the Bolex flat-base quick-release disc adaptor, I have always thought it a rather silly design. Because it eliminates the very advantage of the flat base Much better surely if they had designed a hollow and lever within the base, and put the disc on the tripod head etc instead.

[Mmechanic]

Funny how we’ve gone off-topic once again. On the other hand it’s an opportunity to reflect a little on 8mm filmmmaking.
In the perspective of the film manufacturers the amateur market, the amateur movement also, has only one purpose. They
shall buy film. And the masses did consume, 9½ and 16mm and Double Eight. Super-8 developed into the real mass market thing, it
was a multi-billion business. Kodachrome was consumed by the thousands of miles.

In the eyes of equipment manufacturers, consumers should also just buy and use. Only very few companies have offered
valuable after-purchase services. The situation was worse with projectors than with cameras.

Professional attitude is disregarded by so-called amateurs, but at the same time imitated in a naive way. There are those
who look for solid and precise gear, for good lenses, for a sturdy tripod and a lightmeter. There are others who demand big-
range power zoom lenses, everything automated in a possibly good looking design. These shoot handheld, against the sun,
and most always with no plan whatsoever.

Since we have a friend here who makes contact prints off Double-Eight imagery, who processes everything himself, and who
is well equipped, camera-wise, I have allowed myself to introduce the subject of supports. Paillard made the move, Kodak never
needed separate brackets or holders for their box-shaped cameras.

Newbies, should you happen to read this, be welcome among us film people! Be welcome to the coolest of all film formats, Double Eight!
Did you know that Bencini released a Double-Eight film camera in 1968? Super-8 is not king, never was. It is technically inferior to all other
systems. Straight Eight didn’t catch on, it was one of the Bell & Howell Co.’s failures. Double-Super 8 is nice as well. Long live the
double-strand idea!

[studiocarter2]

Hear, Hear.
Foma sells commercially all over. Major companies sell it. It is the only double regular 8mm film available. International Film Brokers web site is out of date and out of R8 film. At least we have one film. There is one man in London who perforates film, or at least he used to up until a month ago. He may again. That's it. World wide, two. But one is a major film company. So, for me, right now, it is buy Foma R-100 or upgrade with an access membership to the local Filmmakers place and shoot 16mm Kodak B&W reversal, negative, and print film. I can still print Foma double 8. It is just that I will have to reverse everything, the camera original, and the print. That is a test I have yet to do.

[studiocarter2]

My interest using DR8 was educational, not economic. Students readily engaged with the equipment and teaching was easy. I want to give them prints to project. But that requires lots of film and processing, which becomes economic. There are a lot of students and schools. Bored jaded students, sitting in empty rooms. I gave them R8 to do and they loved it. Fun for all. Bill Gates was not needed to fund it. Some kind of arts advocacy group may better be able to shoulder to costs of perforating regular 8 or to lobby manufacturers to provide dr8. Pittsburgh Filmmakers has a contact printer but they are stuck in the s8/16 loop. Expensive. Mono no aware is the same. I found that kids LIKE loading r8 cameras. Projectors. Editors. If education is the goal, everything changes.

[Mmechanic]

Michael, you’re so right about the educational aspect. I think Double Eight is a self-educating affair, one actually teaches oneself, just as you say, lacing up camera and projector, and the rest. I am a person who needs resistance, the easy going way bores me and has always been even suspect to me. Popping Super-8 cartridges in fully automated cameras is for dummies. Only a little interest in what surrounds one, she and he wants to find out self and put one’s hand on the things.

[studiocarter2]

Film is available again at Int. Film Brokers. So the perforator is running. Oops, NOT. Email from J. S. Current stock came from Kahl, ORWO will no longer supply, the man in London who perfs film is sick.
Does Kahl perf film? Is that an individual of a company?
This is all so secretive and mysterious

[Mmechanic]

Alfred Kahl is an individual. He has a perforator from Wolfen. I used to have a business relation with him 19 years ago and some time on. Bought stuff from him, projectors, cameras, raw stock for printing. Perforation has been off standard now and then. He doesn’t care and obviously does not depend on a good relation with customers. We once met in person, briefly.

[tim smyth]

Michael, you’re so right about the educational aspect. I think Double Eight is a self-educating affair, one actually teaches oneself, just as you say, lacing up camera and projector, and the rest. I am a person who needs resistance, the easy going way bores me and has always been even suspect to me. Popping Super-8 cartridges in fully automated cameras is for dummies. Only a little interest in what surrounds one, she and he wants to find out self and put one’s hand on the things.

Hymmm, well I don't really consider myself a dummy, dreamer maybe , but not a dummy.

I think we should put a positive spin on any film format. The Super 8 image is bigger than standard 8mm, and it was really the thing going in the 70's, not standard 8mm.

As far as digital goes, you can do anything, and make it perfect, and cheap, but I find perfection boring. Film is not perfect, but at least you can tell people were there in the making of it.

So it is okay to lighten up on the Super 8 crowd, maybe a new batch will spring up, and move to other film formats, like Standard 8mm, or 16mm, and stand against the digital God. One can only hope, all we can do is spread the good word. Also, I think my Super 8 films are pretty darn cool, If I do say so myself.

I really love many of the standard 8mm cameras, and will pick one up soon, but I have a 16mm project that needs my attention, and cash.

Cheers,
Tim

[studiocarter2]

ORWO UN54 Cine-X was reversed, evaluated, and reported on in several postings on YouTube and Facebook/Home movie film lab
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1833878160190581/
It is my best report yet. I should be able to do anything I want to with it now.
Reversal has such a narrow range of correct exposures just about anything effects it.

[Mmechanic]

You have very good cameras for Regular Eight film. The Bell & Howell Straight Eight is rare. Bell & Howell double-run Filmo 8s are not. Truly well-made instruments. There were nine Single-Eight cameras on the market*. Then you have an armada of Double-8 cameras with the Paillard-Bolex H-8 as the flagship.

Yes, reversal films actually need to be perfectly exposed because you can’t correct the image any more. As long as there’s no printing service around, we have to do it ourselves, which is feasible. Those who have an aslant Zeiss-Ikon Movikon 8 can nicely print with it. The Eumig C3 had some provisions for contact printing but the corresponding accessories never made it to the market.

Anybody willing to take partnership in my business? Am open for talks up to 50 percent
_____________________
*
1. Bell & Howell Filmo Straight Eight, 1935; proprietary 30-ft. spools
2. Univex, 1936; proprietary 30-ft. spools
3. Agfa Movex 8, 1937; 10 meter cassette
4. Nizo AK 1 × 8, 1949; Agfa cassette, pulls 10 meters
5. Meopta 8, 1950; 10 meter cassette
6. Bolsey 8 Finetta, 1955-56; 25-ft. cassette by Gevaert, later EKC
7. Krasnogorsk Kama, 1958; 10 meter cassette
8. Krasnogorsk Ekran-8, 1960-61; 10 meter cassette

[studiocarter2]

I found that if I project a negative upside down it will bounce! The negative will project solidly if it is done right side up.
That was strange. It may effect prints.
I developed reversal and am trying to perfect doing that. I am real close to getting it right. I post my results and procedures so other filmmakers can duplicate what I have done. That is a basis of scientific research, verification of results. If you can't do what I said I did, then I didn't do it right. If I can't do what you wrote what you did then something is wrong.
One more test should do it. My latest test was too dark and too light. Once more and I may get the exposure and development just right.
I project my film and I want it to look good that way. That is a start. I only use one projector. Different projectors will give different results. I can say how many watts the bulb has, what kind of projector, how far it is from the screen, what kind of screen is used, what the lens is on the projector, the one I have now has a wide angle lens on it.
I have now 400 feet of Kodak 7363 perforated to Double Regular 8mm. I will try to print on it. It is high contrast and very slow. 6-10 asa reversed worked for me in the past. I had it developed in professional labs with great results. I'll try, too. But I never printed on it. It may work.

[Mmechanic]

Concerning image steadiness: A reference edge is defined by the standard, ISO 74, it’s the right-hand film edge seen from behind the camera towards the lens. Not all cameras have the same positioning distance, i. e. the distance between the optical axis and the point where the transport claw leaves a perforation hole. Counted from the optical axis many cameras and projectors locate the film +3, some +4 or +6. When all involved devices, camera, printer, and projector, locate in the same hole, we have cancellation of perforation deviations and thus good steadiness. The film should always be guided on the reference edge.

In order to control image density and contrast you might prepare stepped wedges, rows of uniform frames from clear to deep black. That helps keep exposure on track. Always process in the same manner.

Type 7363 is beautiful, if well exposed and developed to a useful gamma. I think you will enjoy it a lot because it’s got a colourless base. Just see that you don’t overexpose.

[alexmuir]

I found that if I project a negative upside down it will bounce! The negative will project solidly if it is done right side up.
That was strange. It may effect prints.
I developed reversal and am trying to perfect doing that. I am real close to getting it right. I post my results and procedures so other filmmakers can duplicate what I have done. That is a basis of scientific research, verification of results. If you can't do what I said I did, then I didn't do it right. If I can't do what you wrote what you did then something is wrong.
One more test should do it. My latest test was too dark and too light. Once more and I may get the exposure and development just right.
I project my film and I want it to look good that way. That is a start. I only use one projector. Different projectors will give different results. I can say how many watts the bulb has, what kind of projector, how far it is from the screen, what kind of screen is used, what the lens is on the projector, the one I have now has a wide angle lens on it.
I have now 400 feet of Kodak 7363 perforated to Double Regular 8mm. I will try to print on it. It is high contrast and very slow. 6-10 asa reversed worked for me in the past. I had it developed in professional labs with great results. I'll try, too. But I never printed on it. It may work.

Hi. Can you tell me where you bought the Kodak 7363 perforated for Double 8? I had some before from a UK supplier and used it in camera with good results when reversal processed. I rated it at 10 ASA. I would be interested in getting some more, but the UK supplier no longer has any. Thanks, Alex.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro