Видео

That's one way to keep all the elements of the image within the latitude of the film. Personally I find front lit images kind of boring.

That's correct. TFG modify cameras to be crystal synced.

I normally don't share my files because I make products to sell, but you can send me an email, and I'll send you the files if you want. You must have a tank identical to the one I used here for the parts to work tho. Email is in the channel's info.

@ that makes sense. I use a tank that is similar, but not quite the same. I was thinking about trying to 3d model something akin to a lomo tank, but I worry about the finish of a 3d print scratching the film. Additionally, waterproofing a 3D print can be difficult. Not sure if just filling the thing with flex seal, for example, would cause issues with the chemistry

There are some Lomo Tank like designs on Thingiverse that you can download for free, some of them are very cool. 3D printing large parts like those at home is always challenging. The finish can be an issue for sure. Also, the parts may warp making the process of loading the reels more difficult. Using Flex Seal is a good idea. You could also use resin to create a solid layer around the tank. People have been 3D printing tanks for some time. I haven't heard of any issues with the chemistry. It's always a good idea to let plastics and resins fully cure, that takes about 7 days in general.

@ I did see one on thingiverse I was interested in giving a try! I’ve never used E-6 chemistry, so I’ll need to pick up a kit

@monopoly2170 Yeah, there are some cool designs there. If you have experience processing film using E6, it shouldn't be a problem. If you are starting, black and white is more forgiving and affordable.

Yes, the original kit included 2 diopters. Personally I don't like using diopters because they damage the image in many ways. Especially when they are in front of a vintage zoom lens. I don't even put UV filters in front of my lenses. Diopters distort the image and increase chromatic aberration. That's why I don't like to use them, but it is a possibility for sure. You can also unscrew the lens a bit. That changes the distance at which the lens focuses on the back focusing at a closer distance. Not ideal either, imo, but possible, yes.

Thanks! Well, most K3s out there are old now, and the light seals are not in good condition anymore. I replaced the light seals of my camera, so there are no light leaks at all. I have a video where I demonstrate the process. If you don't want to replace the light seals, you can simply put tape around the lid of the camera and cover the footage counter. The counter is the most common source of leaks. I always tape around the lid of the camera even when I don't have to do it. It helps to prevent accidents and leaks. I have a "behind the scenes" of how I filmed this exercise. You can see there that I cropped the edges. That always helps to get a cleaner frame.

The lever controls the zoom of the lens. If you look at the numbers, they go from 17 to 69 mm. The variable focal length of the lens. Pretty much all modern zoom lenses have 3 rings today. One that controls focus, one for the zoom, and one for aperture, if the lens is manual. Back in the day, they came out with different ways of zooming lenses. At some point in the video, I mention I'm using a "push & pull" lens. In the case of that lens, you push and pull the front barrel of the lens to zoom in or out. At the time they were inventing the standards we use today. It may have something to do with not infringing patents too. The K3 has a fixed shutter angle of 150 degrees. It can't be changed.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thankyou! Now I'm sure I want one!

A projector is a great way to start! If you don't mind having a semi-permanent holder, you could make a system similar to the one I made using bolts and nuts. That allows a great level of precision, but it takes time to adjust it. Then you could use a "macro focusing rail slider" to make fine adjustments to the focus. I saw some plates for less than $20. The mistake I made was to use parts of my camera rig. I had to dismantle everything when I needed those parts again.

It takes a lot of trips to pawn shops and thrift stores to find the cool stuff. I've been doing it for many years wherever I go. I've seen some videos of people who have made their own telecine devices here on RUclips. It is perfectly doable. Using a projector is a good way to start.

That's awesome! I did a lot of research about the Workprinter XP. I read they were (as you mention) expensive and valuable devices since there were not other affordable options to transfer films at the time. It's amazing that you were able to make a living out of it. I'm sure that synchronizing sounds was not an easy task without a slate or a visual reference.

@@TheCinematographyLab My version now uses a Lumix FZ-300 and a Raynox DCR-250 Macro Lens in front of the bridge camera's own lens. I can scan the whole full frame with that combination. I haven´t modified the speed yet to use only the camera but scan with Black Magic´s 4K card. Also, I use the original software to scan in HD.

@@Ericus55 That's a great setup. Did you keep the projector of the lens and the lens Moviestuff added with the mirror? I saw really good scans captured with the original software. Capturing pictures with the camera expands possibilities in regards to color space and resolution, in my opinion. That involves several extra steps, so it's not worth it for everyone. It's good to know the device can be upgraded as technology evolves, though.

@@TheCinematographyLab I don´t use the original mirror system. I also removed the original Gaf lens and shot directly from the film frame. With my system, I get 8Mb photos of every film frame, which is enough information to get good-quality video. I am happy with that. I paid 1400 dollars in 2004 for the WorkPrinter XP and I am happy that I can still use it to get great quality videos using that old projector. It is not fast, only 7-8fps but I have all the time and no need to hurry to get the videos for customers anymore. I do scan the films for my friends and their friends and get some pocket money for doing that and that is enough for me. 😎

@Ericus55 It was a great investment! That's the beauty of film. You can scan 100-year-old film, and it looks great. It may even look better later if we upgrade to better cameras and lenses. Thanks for sharing your experience.

You are the one who can make it happen. I know you can machine some beautiful parts to make it work like a well-oiled machine.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks. It just needs to climb up the to-do list :)

Thanks! The Scoopic and the K3 are great cameras. I consider the Scoopic a more advanced camera in some ways. The camera was converted to Ultra 16 by Bernie at Super 16 Inc. He died a few years ago. I don't know of anyone who wants to convert cameras to U16 now. The camera was converted by The Film Group. You can find their website on Google. I just checked it out, and I noticed the Scoopic is no longer listed as one of the cameras they convert. But you could contact the man and ask. I was surprised by how accurate the meter of the Scoopic M was. It behaves just like any other meter in the world, so some situations can fool it. As I mentioned in the video, I used the meter, but I didn't let it control the camera. This specific camera was serviced by Du-All. They always make sure the meter is working properly when they service Scoopics.

Hey, great to hear you were able to get the camera working. The 5008 is a great camera! I explain the concept in the video. It may not be that clear because I used battery clusters that look like a single battery. In reality, each of those two clusters that I used contained 3 small 1.2V batteries connected in series. Do your own research about connecting batteries in series and parallel. You will learn that when you connect batteries in series, the voltage adds. In my case, I used 1.2V batteries not because I wanted to, but because rechargeable batteries only put out, and that worked perfectly for the requirements of the camera. 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 3.6v. You connect a wire at that point, and there you have your third wire that puts out 3.6V. Then you keep going, adding voltage until you reach the 7.2V that the camera needs. That's all. It's amazing how electricity works in that case. It's a very simple concept. I have another video where I explain how to recell batteries for 4008 cameras. I may explain the concept more in detail there.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thank you for the feedback and the explanation. I have definitely understood your description and the battery clusters you used, consisting of three cells each. I don't have the ambition to recell the original battery as I don't have a charging device anyway. I only want to check the camera's functions thoroughly. Maybe I'll sell it provided that I can offer it as fully operational. Otherwise I'll keep it as a collecting piece. The motor drive for the cartridge and the zoom functions could be checked with my improvised power supply. Both functions are working fine so this is done. What I could not check yet is the exposure meter. If it is absolutely necessary to provide to it not more than 3.6V I could reduce the voltage output of my provisory power supply by using partly charged NC cells or batteries with lower output but how do I get a third cable for the lower pin in this case? My modest power supply just has two poles. Is there a possibility to check the exposure meter separately by means of just two cables and, if so, in which way? Thank you for any advice.

@@RudolfHillebrand That's what I tried to explain. When you put batteries together you can extract a wire at any joint and the voltage at that exact joint will be the result of the batteries you have added until that point. If you put 2 (1.5V) batteries in series the result at the end will be 3v, but at the joint it will be 1.5V. If you put 3 (1.2V) together like in my case, you get 3.6V which is the voltage the meter requires. In my case I added 3 more batteries so in the end I had 7.2V at the end to power the camera. The third doesn't exist per se, you connect it at the point where the third battery meets with the fourth one. The light meter and the motor are different circuits, yes. You can apply 3V or 3.2V to the connectors that power the meter and it will work if it is in good working condition.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks again for the comment and explanation. For my purpose it would be practical to use the same provisory power supply with which I checked the motorizing functions. As described this item in a sort of plastic basket combines either 6 rechargable NC batteries of 1.2V each or 6 normal AA cells of 1.5 V each. This item has just two outlets, a positive pole and a negative pole. I have no idea where to add a third cable within this system. My question is whether a third cable is necessary at all in this case. In your sketch of the sockets of the battery and the camera there are 3 sockets shown: GND (black), 7.2V (red) for the camera's motors and 3.6V (yellow) for the exposure meter. I fully understand that inside the original Beaulieu battery and your smart recelling both systems are combined in a clever and complex way. My simple question is whether a testing of the exposure meter alone with the required voltage also needs these 3 connections or whether it can be done with two cables - I simply have no more at my provisory power supply. If so, would the yellow 3.6V socket and the GND socket have to be connected? That's all I need to know. 🙂 Thanks again.

@@RudolfHillebrand Well I tried to explain. English is not my first language, so I may not explaining things well. I told you to do some research about circuits in series, that's a 5 minute read. You can power the camera and the meter using the batteries and the battery holder that you already have. You will need an extra piece of wire. You can use an old wire from a DVD player or from a pair of old headphones, whatever works. I can't tell you exactly were to connect the wire because I'm not seeing the holder that you have, but if you have a generic one you should be able to see the springs or small pieces of metal where the batteries sit. You have to find where the circuit starts on the negative side. Follow the wire and see where it connects to the holder, then follow the circuit that should take you to a positive connector, that's 1.5V, follow it to the next one that's 3V. You can connect the wire there on the positive side. You just find the way to keep it in place. You can put the wire inside the spring and then when you insert the battery the pressure is going to keep it there. That wire, that would represent the yellow one on my diagram will carry 3V. If you want to power the camera using the 6 batteries then the red wire will carry 9V if you are using commercial batteries that put out 1.5V each. No battery has 3 wires. All batteries have only positive and negative ends. At the moment you take energy from one of the joints you create the third wire. The wire doesn't ave to be yellow, any color will work. If you tried using 2 or 3 batteries to power the meter and it didn't work is because electricity has to complete the circuit. Think of a circuit as a formula 1 circuit. It's not an electronics thing. It's just something that has a beginning (black) and an end (red). If you only have 3 batteries in the holder the circuit is open and electricity can't flow. I hope that helps.

The answer is in this video. It sounds like you or someone else opened the camera and didn't put the gear back in the right position. I'm talking about a gear that I mention several times in the video and that locks the mechanism so it is ready to release the power when you pull the trigger. I don't think there is anything wrong with the motor. It's doing exactly what a functional motor should do. Watch the video, pay attention to what I say about that gear, and try to fix it or ask someone else to do it. If you removed the loop formers and the camera is not working after that, I'm almost sure that is the reason.

@ okay thank you so much Ill watch it now while I work on my camera. The part that confuses me about the camera is that it’s still new. I got it from a relative in Russia but before they shipped it they shot the test roll of film that comes w the camera down to 5 on the meter which indicates that it was running smoothly, but when i received the camera it was already jammed before I ever opened it. Thank you for the advice though hopefully i can get this fixed.

Thanks for your interest. I'm working on other projects at the time, but I'll definitely get back to the intervalometer soon. What you mention sounds familiar. I learned that some intervalometers work with some cameras and some don't. Manufacturers used (even today) resistors to tell the camera when to fire. If the remote or the intervalometer don't have that resistor the camera simply doesn't fire. It's annoying because I can use the device with a camera just fine, then try another brand or model and doesn't do anything at all. I'll keep you posted.

You can mount the lens on the camera, and the lens will perform as expected, meaning it will focus at all distances, including infinity. The focal length of the lens is fixed, but the crop factor of 16mm will change what you see. Regular 16 has a crop factor of 3.4X. A Helios 44 that has a focal length of 44mm will have the field of view of a 197mm lens on a full-frame camera. You can shoot movies with a telephoto lens, but it's a limitation in many cases.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thank you so much for the detailed answer! I love the K-3 content you've made, I just subscribed to your channel :)

@@braccc2640 My pleasure. Thanks for subscribing!

Yep, well worth it in my opinion, but not cheap for sure.

I'm thinking about making a longer video since I couldn't find any reviews when I was trying to decide if I should do it. It was worth it, in my opinion. It's not for beginners. You must have a strong foundation in order to understand what's going on and see what the instructors are doing. It's not a class, so you have to pay attention in order to catch things. I learned a lot by seeing the instructors do their thing. I confirmed I've been doing some things correctly and that I've been too careful in some cases. It was interesting seeing the risks they take and how the result was great in all cases.

@@TheCinematographyLab there is hardly any body talking about their experiences with it in depth so that would be valuable

They are called "Vlad's Test Targets" just Google it.

I'll try to answer your question without writing an essay, but there are no short answers for this kind of stuff. Having a light meter that can measure one degree is actually very useful. It allows you to put extremely accurate exposures. If we take a landscape as an example, what you have to do is analyze the scene and imagine how you want the picture to look. Let's say you have a green valley with cows, a defined horizon, a mountain with some snow on the top, and the sky in the background with nice clouds on top. If you are facing the scene and the sun is behind you, the light would be flat, so you could use the incident meter (assuming that the light is similar) and you would have correct exposure. But if you want to use the spot meter, you could take a reading of something that looks middle gray to you (brightness not color). You could take a reading of the grass or a cow that is neither white nor black, or you could just take a reading of the mountain and you would get a picture that is going to have "proper" exposure. That would be like taking a picture using the auto mode of a camera or just doing what the internal meter tells you to do. There is nothing wrong with that if you are a beginner or if you just want to have fun and not complicate things, but if you want better results, you should analyze the scene and imagine how you want the image to look. Exposure allows you not only to get a specific look, but to get technically good results. For example, it's common to hear people say that they expose "for the shadows" when they shoot film because it's almost impossible to get detail once the film is exposed or because they want less grain. Some others say they want to protect the highlights when they shoot digital. That's because once you lose detail, you can't recover it, and blown-out highlights look ugly in digital images. In those cases, a reflected meter would allow you to base your exposure on a very specific area (shadows or highlights). You are not limited to available light. You can use a flash, a light or a reflector to manipulate the image. The meter is very useful when you need to know how much light you can add or remove. Back to the mountain... Time has elapsed, and now the sun is setting behind the mountain. There is much more contrast between the green grass (now darker) and the bright sky behind the mountain. Now you have to decide what you want to do. Let's say you want detail in those beautiful clouds and you want to silhouette the mountain. You take a reading of the clouds, and in my case I would compensate by 2 f-stops (based on the media and experience). That would allow me to have detail in the sunset and the clouds, but the mountain would be just a silhouette. Now let's say you want to have detail in the foreground. There is a lot of contrast in the scene. You may decide to expose "for the shadows" and get detail in the grass and the cows, but you would lose detail in the sky. You decide that you don't care about the sky because the house in the foreground is what is important. You find something that looks gray (tone, not color), meaning not as bright as white and not as dark as black. Take a reading with your reflected meter, and you have detail in the shadows, but you lost the sky... But the reflected meter is a great and precise measuring tool, remember? So you take a reading of the sky, see what's the difference in exposure, put a graded ND filter, in front of the lens and now you have detail in the entire picture. You didn't just use any filter; you used the one that you needed to have "proper" exposure in the sky based on the info that you got from the meter. Another solution could be to "average" the exposure. I see this as a mediocre solution, but that's what cameras do. That means you can take readings of the dark and bright areas, and you put your exposure in the middle. Now let's say that you have the same scene, but you are going to use a telephoto lens, and you want to make sure you have detail in the snow that is on the peak of the mountain. You take a reading with your reflected meter, open up the lens two stops (my preference), and when you zoom in on the picture, you can see the texture. Or you want to take a picture of a neon sign on top of a building surrounded by nothing but the dark night. If you use a camera to measure that scene, the darkness of the sky would fool the meter. Then the camera would say, "This is way too dark; I need a lot of light! Open up the iris, boost the ISO, or reduce the shutter speed! Do something" and the neon sign would be a mess with no detail at all. But you have your meter with a one-degree area, so you take a measurement of the tubes completely ignoring the sky, compensate by two stops, and get perfect exposure. You zoom in on the image, and you can see the filament inside the bulbs. I don't always look for middle gray. Some times I see something completely white or completely black in the scene. I take a measurement of the white object and open up 2 stops. If the object that I measured is black I compensate by 2 stops to make the image darker since reflected meters want to do everything middle gray. I know from experience that 2 stops give me a bright image with a lot of detail (if I measured something white). Some examples are snow, bright clouds with detail, rice, sand. If I take a piece of white paper as reference I compensate by 3 stops. That gives me a very bright piece of paper in the image. If I want to see something written on the paper I compensate only by 2 stops and I end up with a white piece of paper with detail. The opposite applies for black. You don't just point the meter towards the scene and get proper exposure. You have to decide what you want to do. Then you measure that area and take your decision based on how you want the image to look. Some times you don't have enough light, but you can see (using the meter) that your image is going to be underexposed by one or two stops and you say "I'm fine with that" I used the light meter on this video, and in some cases you can see the picture that I took. You can see how I apply some of the principles that I mentioned here and how the pictures look more interesting because I'm not just averaging the exposure. That's my opinion: ruclips.net/video/x_tDocHQmxs/видео.html&ab_channel=TheCinematographyLab I used to think cinematographers or professional photographers didn't want to share their knowledge, but now I see how difficult it is to explain these topics not only because they are complex, but also because decisions are our interpretation based on knowledge and experience. If you want to learn more, I recommend studying the zone system. Also read as many articles as you can about light meters and exposure. There is a young guy who has a great RUclips channel; his name is Robert Machado. I don't know anyone who understands and explains light meters better than him. Watch his videos (2), and my examples will make more sense.

@@TheCinematographyLab Wow, thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this in depth, and this is what I needed. I’ve struggled to grasp the zone system, but your explanation with examples now makes a lot of sense, and gives a good guideline to start, measuring for a middle tone, highlight, or shadow, depending on what’s most important, and then compensating accordingly on how it’s meant to be presented. Reading your explanation several times, the fundamental concept is sinking in. I’m getting underway shooting with a Bolex, and nailing the exposure is a really important priority on my journey. It’s a complex subject, as you said, and I’m really grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and time!

@billpeet1976 Good to hear the information was useful. I could talk about this for hours, but it's better if you read or learn from people who took the time to do a proper presentation of the info. The zone system is the key. At least you have some information that gives you a place to start. I remember when I was starting it was beyond frustrating. I used to think the meter didn't work or that it needed to be calibrated. I was telling myself stuff (a lot of people do these days) like "I don't need a light meter, we have monitors, histograms, and scopes." The reality is you can put all that information in your brain, then analyze and previsualize a scene just by taking a few readings, and you can tell other people, "The room in the back is going to be properly exposed, the frame of the door in the foreground is going to look dark, but there is going to be enough detail there. The window in the back is going to be bright, 3 stops over the key, but we are going to be able to see the city, and we can bring detail back in post if needed." You can also reverse the process to illuminate a scene: "I want an f4 in the room. The camera is going to be in the hallway, and I want the light 2 stops under so the foreground is darker, but we retain detail. I just took a reading of the window, and it is 4 stops over the key. Let's put a 0.6 ND gel on the glass so we only have a difference of two stops between the key (f4 in this example) and the highlights so we can see the city, or the mountains in the back," or you may say, "We have an ugly alley outside the window and we don't have resources; I'm going to blowout the exposure by 4 stops so we don't see anything through the window." Just some examples of how you can use a meter in a creative way. You can take decisions that change the look of an image from mediocre to interesting. It takes a lot of research and practice. The same principles apply to decent digital cameras, by the way. I use my handheld meter with my Nikon D850 all the time, and I get perfect results. Professional digital cameras are properly adjusted to the ISO standard. I mention that because it's easier and cheaper if you use a digital camera to practice. You can see the results right in the spot, change something, and see what happens. You can apply that info to your Bolex or any other digital or film camera. Also, you can use a digital camera to see how the image is going to look before you take the shot with the Bolex. It's a good idea if you don't feel confident about your exposure. Wasting film is not fun. Just remember that there is a beam splitter in the Bolex. You have to take that into consideration when you are figuring your numbers out.

Thank you!

I have never seen a K2 in person, but judging by the images I have seen online, they look basically like the K3. I have a video where I explain how to remove the loop formers of the K3. I explain how to properly open the camera (K3). There are also some older videos that explain the process. I think those instructions can help you to open the camera and put it back together. You will have to decide if you should send the camera to a technician or if you want to take the risk and probably fix it for free.

Haha, I didn't finish watching the video. Originally, it said in the video that releasing the shaft would allow you to draw

I guess you found the answer to your question. I think all the answers are in the video, watch carefully and you will find all the info there. If you still have questions let me know and I'll try to help.

Sounds like a fun project! It's a complicated topic, but sounds like you know what you are doing. Probably you already know this, but doing some research on "flange focal distance" is a good place to start. I'm not saying you don't know about it, it's just a recommendation. Cameras from that period were basic cameras, so it shouldn't be complicated getting an image on the film. Projecting an image is a good technique when you want to see how the lens performs or if you want to see if the witness marks of the lens are accurate. In your case, I would recommend the opposite. If you can see the gate of the camera, put a piece of translucent "magic" tape in the place where the film sits and see the image that forms there. Pointing the camera towards a window or a bright area would make it easier. You can cover your head with a blanket so you can see the image better. If you can get an image in focus there, that's what the camera is going to capture. If the lens is not adjusted to the flange focal distance of the camera, you can still get an image, and that image may be in focus. The problem is the witness marks of the lens are not going to be accurate, and you may not be able to focus at infinity. Adapting lenses to other cameras, especially simple cameras like the one you describe, is possible. People use old lenses on film and digital camera bodies every day. If you haven't taken FFD into consideration, try to apply that information to your project. It's easier when you know at what distance the lens is supposed to work. If you manage to place the lens at the distance it is supposed to be, then the witness marks are going to be accurate (assuming the lens is correct), and you are going to be able to focus at infinity. It is possible, especially if you are a machinist. You could use a Nikon adapter, for example, adjust the distance to a tight tolerance, and you could use any Nikon lens, or Canon or M42. I'm almost sure the camera you are referring to is not a reflex camera. In that case, it's even more important to have some focusing marks you can trust. If you want to give me more details about the camera and the lens, I can give you a better point of view.

@@TheCinematographyLab I took your advice. I used a piece of clear 16mm film in the gate and removed the pressure plate. This gave me a clear view. I think the results are promising! I uploaded the video to my second channel 20th Century Antiques. It is uploaded as a short.

@@RMphy89 The results are promising for sure. That's basically it. That's what lenses and cameras do. Depending on the focal length of the lens you may be able to focus it at infinity and leave it there, like a GoPro.

@@TheCinematographyLab Great to hear! I will post videos when I have my test footage developed. Hopefully by the end of the year.

@@TheCinematographyLabHere is my other Channel. I have uploaded a few film tests. Thank you for your help!

That's awesome! The scoopics are built like tanks. I'm sure your footage is going to look great.

You are correct, my friend Carlos filmed using a C-16 and a Super 8 camera. The Scoopic is a great camera, especially for this kind of stuff. Thanks for watching!

That's a great idea!! Thanks for sharing your technique. I thought about setting the audio recorder somewhere and recording sound, but it was going to be impossible to find the matching video. Digital video helps to find the matching images. Simple yet effective idea. It would've been cool to have some clips with audio, even if they were short shots like the ones I filmed. Thanks!!

Thanks! The Scoopics in general are known because of their good quality lenses. I have seen some footage filmed with the original Scoopic gray, and it looks amazing. The lens of the Scoopic M is supposed to be even a little better. Unfortunately, I was not able to fully demonstrate that here, but looking at the images that are properly focused, I think the quality is great. They are sharp, and the lens has great control over lens flare. You can see how I pointed the camera towards the light several times, and that didn't wash the image out. The Scoopics were created as cameras for news or documentaries. They can be used to film whatever you want, but the ergonomics of the camera are "superior" in that regard. The K3 and the Bolex are not exactly comfortable when it comes to filming "gun and run" and the NPR is a great camera that can be used for documentary or fiction, but it's heavy. They all are good cameras, but for run-and-gun stuff, I would choose a Scoopic, an ACL, a CP-16R, or an NPR over other cameras any day. Basically, all the cameras are a box with a lens. If the lens and the film are good, you get good, sharp, and stable images in focus. After that, some cameras are more suited for a specific job than others; that's it. The film was processed and scanned by The Negative Space, yes. They did a great job as usual.

¡Muchas gracias! Han sido muchos años tratando de mantener la cámara fija, creo que eso ha ayudado. Saludos.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to film normally at 18 or 24 fps for 3 seconds? Do you want to capture one image every 3 seconds? Or do you want to keep the shutter open for 3 seconds? I assume you mention 1/32 and 1/64 because when you fire the flash at that intensity, the flash recycles faster. I don't think a flash can be fired 18 or 24 times (fps) every second for 3 seconds, but that depends on the flash and the power source. Sounds like a good way to burn the bulb of the flash. If you want to capture one image every 3 seconds, I think that's doable. That gives the flash enough time to recycle and be ready. Again, it depends on the flash and the power source, but almost any flash can recycle in 3 seconds, especially at those intensities. The last option. I don't think that's what you are talking about; it would be to keep the shutter open for 3 seconds. That would require the use of a release cable or a remote, and it would only be possible with cameras that have a B (bulb) mode. In that case, the camera would capture ambient light for 3 seconds. At some point the flash would fire, freezing that exact moment in a certain area. That would render incredible results since you can play with ambient or available light and flash. In such a case, the flash could be used to illuminate only a certain area. It would be cool. I hope that helps.

@@TheCinematographyLab the first part. Using a flash at night would let me simulate faster shutter speeds with a camera that normally has a set 1/70, 1/50 or 1/30 depending on angle and frame rate. It’d be a neat way to film skate tricks hehe

@@TheCinematographyLab also one of my favorite night photography tricks is to get some medium speed film say 200 or 400, hold my flash in my hand charged, then open up bulb while my friend rides by and I snap flash. It gives a slight motion blur but leaves a solid image at the flash :3

@@fenixlolnope361 Got you! That would be cool and doable in my opinion. Most speed-lights and strobes fire at speeds around ±1/500th of a second. That would freeze the action giving you sharper, crispy images for sure. It would create an interesting shot since you would be capturing some ambient light too. Yeah, that trick that you describe is pretty much the same. I think you should give it a try. You could end up with super cool images.

@@TheCinematographyLab I just have to find a flash that has either a fast enough recharge speed to fire at 16/18fps or a flash with 1/32. I'm assuming there's double 8 cameras that can do this too, double 8 is more up my alley because B&W film is much cheaper since nobody has to make a cartridge. The best manual flash i have only has 1/16 which is still cutting it close :/

Good to hear you didn't have any trouble removing the loop formers! I just updated the link in the description. Here it is directly: www.ebay.com/itm/235362529840 Thanks for the heads-up.

@@TheCinematographyLab thank you! It works now and I just ordered one.

@@mattlperez Awesome! I'll put it in the mail for you today.

@@TheCinematographyLab thanks just received it, I appreciate the help

Gracias Wildo. De acuerdo contigo!

Thanks. I talked about the gears that have to coincide so they can work together. Many times, when you put the lid back, the gears are going to touch at a point where they cannot connect or interact. When I winded the camera, the motor and the gear attached to it rotated, and at some point (28:00), it fell in place and connected with the gear on the lid. One gear was on top of the other because they were not in the right place. When I put pressure on the lid and rotated the lever, they found a point where they connected, and the lid fell into place, hence the bumping sound.

@@TheCinematographyLab amazing, got it, thank you so much <3

It's called "Cinema Tools"

Glad to hear you liked the video! Hey, those are cool cameras. The Bolex P series are nice little cameras. I guess not a lot of people know about them because they can be found at good prices. Have fun shooting your tests.

Thanks Cecil!

Special and unique images in their own way, for sure. Thanks for watching, my friend!

Thank you! I did set the exposure manually, yes. Measuring flash is basically impossible, even for the most modern digital camera. The flash fires at the exact moment when the mirror moves up (photo), so still photo cameras don't have the ability to actually measure flash. They calculate exposure using distance and the brightness of the object, but they can't measure the actual flash. So, as you can imagine, a Super 8 camera cannot measure flash either. You need a light meter to calculate exposure. You could also use a digital camera, if can put the flash somewhere and don't touch it. In my experience, the indicators are accurate. I'm not good at math, so I can't explain why the iris doesn't close in fixed steps, as you mentioned. In some cases, the change in the aperture of the iris is negligible. It doesn't seem to change at all, but that is the way it is in all lenses. The indicators are correct in most cases. The iris is a mechanical device that opens and closes. If it works, it's going to be accurate in most cases. I like using thirds (1/3) of a stop when I do my work. That's how they teach in school too. Most digital cameras are marked in thirds of a stop, that's because a few years ago, the dynamic range of digital cameras was not as good as it is today. Also, some people like to use the.jpg format, which compresses the information even more. That was not necessary in the film world because the latitude, which is equivalent to the dynamic range of the film, captures a lot of information. Cameras from the 1980s and older ones have shutter speeds marked in full stops only. At some point, they added half stops to lenses, but a lot of lenses can be used with full stops only. In the 1990s, they added half stops to cameras and then thirds. I use thirds when I calculate my exposure for Super 8 and 16mm. That allows me to be more precise, but as you can imagine, it's not a big deal if you don't position the needle exactly at the third that you want. You can over or underexpose film by one stop, and it's not really a problem. It's not ideal. It's not a good idea if you are shooting Ektachrome. But film is very forgiven, especially if you give it more light than what the meter says. I used tape to cover the viewfinder because I wanted to be able to see once in awhile. Closing the mechanical switch or cover requires a certain pressure. That was going to introduce movement to the camera, something you want to avoid when you shoot time lapses. If you pay attention to the lens, you'll notice that I used some tape to "lock" the position of the lens. I locked the focus and the zoom rings to eliminate the risk of changing a setting accidentally. Super 8 cameras are not super precise. The garlic was in focus in the viewfinder, but it was blurry when I got the film scanned. You can shoot interesting stuff, but there are always going to be surprises. I think you should give your camera a try, learn, and have fun.

Thanks for asking. That project is pretty much dead. Getting a piece as large as that one machined is expensive, so aluminum is out of the equation. Industrial 3D printing technology has evolved tremendously in the last few years. We have experienced improvements in the quality and durability of the materials, as well as a drop in cost, which is great. Yet, considering the prices that most people expect to pay for a product like that one, it doesn't make sense financially. Volume is what drives production costs down, but we are talking about a niche, a very small market. A guy in Europe is selling a base for non-flat-bottom cameras made of aluminum. Judging by the pictures that I have seen, I find it bulky and seems to be heavy. I guess it gets the job done. I design my products using my experience as a camera operator, so balance, usability, and weight distribution are things that I take into consideration. It is not always possible with old cameras, though.

Thanks!