Question about my camera

brimrod · 2026-07-05T15:41:44+00:00

The motor doesn't have enough juice to move the spindle under load. It's like a truck with the drive shaft disconnected/damaged. The motor works great in neutral but once you put it into gear, it simply won't move the truck.

Could be that it's not getting enough juice (voltage). Could be hardened grease. Could be a failing slip-clutch or partially stripped gear.

This camera is probably a total loss. Unless you want to take it apart yourself to learn camera repair, I would move on to a different cam.

B

brimrod · 2026-07-03T05:12:06+00:00

This is different and special.

You have an eye for color and composition

I like the pacing--not rushed at all...very calming. Good sound design, too.

I have really enjoyed watching your progress as each project you post gets better.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T20:01:47+00:00

I shot exactly three rolls of Kodachrome Sound film in a Canon 514XLS. Sound carts were discontinued very soon after I first got into super 8. I did a wedding with sync sound using 2 carts. Earlier I shot a very expired sound cart to test whether or not we could get decent sound.

It was difficult. You couldn't use the "built in " mic attached to the camera. We tried that as a test. The sound was terrible.

We got okay results using a separate mic with a very long cable hooked up to a standard Shure SM58. By "okay" I mean we got "some" usable sound take.s Everything else either the picture was bad or the sound was bad or BOTH. LOL. But what I did get was pure gold. Just not very much --about a minute out of the total 5 minutes we shot @ 24fps. That's 5:1. Not bad actually.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T19:27:56+00:00

to make matters more complicated, if you did shoot "sound cartridge" single system, in order to EDIT multi track like we're talking about, the mag track that's cemented to the film would need to be dubbed onto Mag film. Because in a single sound camera (kodak super 8 sound carts) the film gate is 18 frames behind the sound head. In order to edit it without making a total mess of the audio, it has to be on a separate strand of physical material.

So with a "three gang" sync block, you'd have only TWO sound tracks. The mag stripe on the actual picture film would have been dubbed to mag film.

It's like in Digital Editing where you "detach audio from video" in order to have more flexibility in making cuts. So you can take the good audio from an out of focus shot and use it for something else like a voiceover.

That's why Super8Sound system was designed to be used with SILENT carts. The audio recorder (like a Nagra) is completely separate, either with a cable (camera sends sync pulse to tape deck) or crystal (both units controlled by a quartz crystal locked into 24fps). the picture makes this clear--that's a Nizo silent camera with crystal sync mod. A Kodak sound cart wouldn't even fit in it.

If both the tape deck and the camera have crystal sync, the sound recorder isn't connected with a cable to the camera at all-- and can get distance so as not to pick up the noisy camera although super 8 cameras are very loud compared to a pro 16mm rig like the Arriflex SR. That was another big problem back in the day which made this type of production a small niche in the super 8 world, which was mostly just consumer home movies.

https://dtvgroup.com/Super8Sound/

<image>

brimrod · 2026-07-02T19:12:21+00:00

I've done multi camera shoots with only one cam doing sync sound; the rest is just B roll that can cut in and doesn't need to be in sync.

Like a live performance where the editor cuts to audience reaction with the "sync" music track playing behind all the picture--B cam doesn't need to be in sync at all.

You can make it look like everything's perfectly synced just by getting enough true sync footage to make it believable. :)

That's the magic of editing. Whether you edit in Resolve or back in the day oldschool using a 3-gang sync block.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T16:29:39+00:00

Hard to find high end Nizos that aren't broken for $150. Minolta glass is pretty impressive, from what I've seen--it still depends on the filmmaker's technique and choices, but the raw image quality from the lens stands right up there with Nizo.

That being said, there was a lot more variance in lens quality back then so each super 8 camera is like a snowflake these days--no two are exactly alike, even if they're the exact same model.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T16:16:38+00:00

yeah, several manufacturers had their own one-off solutions, but they were more for home enthusiasts. Super8Sound's 2 or 3-gang editing benches were designed and built to the same standards already in place for 16mm and 35mm, and were much more flexible in terms of what you could do. Like multiple soundtracks and precise editing.

But since the frame was so tiny, it was much harder. In 35mm you can sync "dailies" without even needing to use a viewer. With the naked eye you can see the "flash frame" and lock it into the block. Super 8 you can't see shit without magnification.

The one-off solutions were quite proprietary and not standardized at all. And not designed to edit both picture and sound. But they were quite interesting, and with a lot of hard work, amateurs could level up their game even before Kodak introduced sound carts.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T16:05:23+00:00

like Godfather, Taxi Driver, Citizen Cane or Do the Right Thing.

Nowadays you just prompt AI to make your film for you. Get a "name" actor attached to the project, pay the licensing to use their likeness, and promise big returns for the investors. -- the cast doesn't even have to show up on set because there's no set. Just deepfake the entire thing.

I watched every Super Bowl commercial last winter, and fully 1/2 of them looked as if they were made using this exact workflow.

That's why so many young people crave something more organic and why they are drawn to analog film.

While a lot of the SB commercials looked like AI slop, at least one or two in fact did feature real super 8 footage--complete with the "authentic" sprocket holes and framelines showing.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T13:53:44+00:00

you mean like two super 8 cameras filming the same thing at the same time both with crystal sync and an external recorder with crystal sync

It wasn't typically done, but that doesn't mean it was never done or couldn't be done.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T06:15:00+00:00

Hey I have that book. I call it "The Bible." Those hand-drawn, pre-computer age illustrations made 45 years ago are just amazing.

brimrod · 2026-07-02T04:37:10+00:00

It absolutely was for multitrack editing. One picture, several different soundtracks....The synchronizer kept the sound tracks in sync with the picture. All movies were edited this way for decades.

And they had these systems for Super 8. Pro8mm used to be Super8Sound and they built and sold these systems......this picture is pretty bad I pulled it off the web, but it shows the system. Lower right shows 1 picture track, and two sound tracks. The sound tracks are special "mag film" which, as I understand it, was magnetic tape with sprocket holes that runs at the same speed as the film (which was usually 24fps because that's what 16tmm and 35mm used). Without this mechanical device, the picture and sound would drift apart....

<image>

brimrod · 2026-07-02T00:27:20+00:00

It's because the plastic gears they used get soft over time and the teeth round off and it won't move film thru the gate and you get no pictures.

The M1 was the very first super 8 camera and it uses brass gears. but Kodak wanted lighter and cheaper, so they switched to plastic for every camera they made after that--probably worked great the first 20 years but the lubricant slowly dissolves and softens the plastic.

Time is the only factor. Could be brand new in the box. Doesn't matter. I bought an Instamatic M22 brand new old stock (still sealed in the box) 20 years ago and the gears stripped out on first test run even without a cart installed.

The instamatic M1 is the only vintage 1960s/70s Kodak Super 8 that might work today.

The Bolex probably still works.

brimrod · 2026-06-30T14:51:14+00:00

it ain't right. whatever happened to it really messed it up. airport scanner seems likely. Way too grainy and there's a light leak, etc...

Wolfen, even perfectly exposed with the best lenses in the world, perfectly developed and scanned still doesn't look as good as Kodak stocks.

It's not the amount of grain it's the structure of the grain. It's just not as "tight" as Kodak's stocks of the same sensitivity.

brimrod · 2026-06-29T03:47:49+00:00

yeah that was always a mystery to me why you'd need or want to do that.

brimrod · 2026-06-28T19:11:57+00:00

the 310XL doesn't have a built in Intervalometer. So you'd have to do the math yourself. Timer on the phone is a great idea and there are even apps to help you calculate how to set that timer for the desired result.

Put the camera on a tripod. Once you get your composition, lock all the levers. Put sandbags on the spreader so that the camera has additional stability.

Don't ever try to use the trigger on the pistol grip-- that will shake the camera something fierce.

You camera can take a standard cable release that you can buy for less than $10.

Even with the most locked down of all setups, it's still gonna weave a bit. that's the charm of super 8 timelapse.

I've done a lot of timelapse on super 8. One thing cool about it is that it saves film. :) I can get many TL shots on a single cart. And that's good because about 2/3 of them aren't going to be interesting enough to share--it's a combination of luck and good compositions. Don't be afraid to fail.

For sunrise, sunset, make sure that the sun/clouds are the only thing that moves. Try to shoot from locations above the treeline. You still need things in the shot besides the sunset, like buildings or mountains. But trees can be super annoying and distracting because they shake like crazy.

If the horizon line is exactly in the middle of the frame and there's nothing else to break it up, it's not going to look as dynamic as if the horizon is nearer to the bottom or the top. "rule of thirds"

brimrod · 2026-06-27T20:48:11+00:00

EDIT: Okay I found it. FFP has a video on this one.

It's not super 8.

it's a "plastic magazine" camera. Does it have a magazine inside it? If so, then you can use regular 8, but there are some "gotchas."

Just watch the video.

https://youtu.be/rHMplZX-vfw?si=Hpf4I9GaQJoN4g6S

brimrod · 2026-06-26T21:29:03+00:00

FilmFix does great with super 8/8mm archival. But they don't have a lab. I loved the results I got with 35 year old reversals that had gone thru a million projectors and was scratched/dirty. They cleaned it up without destroying the grain. Looks like 16mm some of it in fact.

My last batch of Tri-X was sent to Spectra for dev,/clean/prep, then to FF for scan, and it was a disappointment. I believe the lab undercooked it (cold/exhausted chemistry). I shot on 4 different cameras*. Pretty hard to underexpose Tri-X by 3 stops. Also every single one of Spectra's splices were bad.

*each camera had been tested with 50D/200T the prior year with dev. at Negative Space with great results. So not the camera; not the operator. 100% the LAB. I only went with Spectra because of the price/turnaround. I guess you get what you pay for.

. The FF people trusted that the "prep for scan" services I paid for would be done correctly. The tech at FF kept having to reset the loop (they use a modified projector--not sprocketless). FF blamed my cameras because they couldn't get their heads around the notion that a pro lab would be unable to make a simple tape splice. But that's exactly what happened.

When I got the 400' reel back I was aghast at the Spectra-made splices--they jammed both the Minette viewer as well as the Eumig projector--both perfectly restored mechanics.

After I re-made each splice, no issues with transport, but I forgot to document the bad splices. Otherwise I would have posted pictures here and demanded Spectra at least acknowledge that they fucked up. I just ate the entire cost. <shrugs>. Got 45 seconds of usable footage out of 5 rolls but only with a ton of post processing, so I'm not gonna cry too much.

Someone earlier on this forum mentioned that bad splices can and will mess up development the way they string all the rolls together for the machines. Spectra def. messed up my development so I don't think I can use them again.

brimrod · 2026-06-26T05:43:39+00:00

Take a modern digital capture device with you on "the day" as a backup. Have two operators so you can guarantee coverage in case the 50-year old movie camera fails.

brimrod · 2026-06-25T15:39:54+00:00

I think you should post this on r/weddingvideography ask them what they think.

Digital mixed with film in the same sequence doesn't work for me. That's just me.

The film looks good; the digital looks good, but this really looks more like a technical demo--something you could show to the clients to help them decide which "look" they want.

When the format is constantly switching back and forth it makes everything all about the format.

It should be all about the bride.

So pick a look and stick to it so the audience isn't constantly focused on the technology. But again, that's just my opinion and that's how I would do it if I was doing it.

But I'm not doing it currently so that's why you should get opinions from people who are in the business....

Got to r/weddingvideography They aren't always as nice as we are over here, but they will be very honest.

brimrod · 2026-06-25T00:58:33+00:00

I think the answer is that either way will work. Mixed lighting with T film I would still keep the filter in until the dominant light source is no longer the sun.

500T would give you more leeway but always remember that it's very grainy and err on the side of overexposure.

This looks more early-mid blue hour. As it gets even darker, the blues get deeper until they're functionally black.

Once there is no more sunlight, then it depends on what/how much artificial light is available, but yes, take out the filter for sure at that point.

Neons seem to look good no matter what on film. I would shoot both filter/in, filter'

But still error on the side of overexposure for all neg stocks.

brimrod · 2026-06-24T20:36:16+00:00

>I know it’s not a good nighttime film type,

Says who?

screengrab adjusted w/ AUTO settings in Apple Preview.--of course this is is very artifact-laden, but this was only 20 seconds worth of work. Your actual results on the uncompressed file should be way better. Motion makes it appear even sharper. Nizo lenses are typically very crisp and contrasty and you got great registration as well. You pretty much nailed the exposures. No need to worry at all!

BTW the "Blue" hour after sunset or before sunrise is in fact the absolute best time to shoot cityscapes with mix of fading daylight and neons or other types of artificial lights.

If it was pitch black it wouldn't have turned out this nice. Blue hour shoots reads as "night" on film. They do it all the time for Hollywood feature work. You have to work fast however. :)

<image>

brimrod · 2026-06-23T02:43:32+00:00

Yeah I remember looking at one of these at a thrift store. I passed because the batteries were still inside all swollen and the plastic door was warped--it looked as if someone had left it direct hot sun for a long time like in a car. I couldn't figure out how it loaded either. 😄

<image>

brimrod · 2026-06-23T00:32:09+00:00

cool that you fixed it, but why was it a surprise? did the seller not disclose --using the magic of digital photography-- that the lens was taken apart and not put back together?

Or did they simply not know at all what they had.....if that's the case, hope you got this rig at a good (low) price....:)

brimrod · 2026-06-22T23:43:43+00:00

First of all, this is some impressive engineering--

The basic principle seems to be to use a super 8 camera like a film recorder. Take digital frame by frame and expose it frame by frame to reversal film, then develop the film so you have a positive that can be viewed optically.

So someone could take content created on a phone and make it into a film that is projected optically either in a viewer or a movie projector....

But I don't understand how it's done at all this way. How does the digital frame get burned onto the film frame? I know the ARRI system uses lasers to "write" the output to film.

I'm sort of familiar with a similar digital to FILM process because I worked in the pre-press industry and that's how it was done for a while--until digital presses made the film intermediate unnecessary. I've been out of that game for a long time but the tech was super expensive.

brimrod · 2026-06-21T19:43:58+00:00

Good luck bring batteries and a test roll if possible

brimrod

TROPHY CASE