Since my last article, a review of Ivan Watson’s republished book Manual of Successful Movie Making, I have become fascinated with reading some of Mr. Watson’s regular columns that appeared in Movie Maker magazine. In the March 1981 issue, the topic was "Make Your Own Film Copies – with No Special Equipment."¹ Intrigued by the title of this article and furthermore by the content, I decided to embark on a project of duplicating original Super-8 kodachrome movies and to report on my own experiences. When this idea was written over twenty years ago, it was intended for the filmmaker who might be a bit nervous about sending the one and only film original to a duplicating lab. Today, there may be no duplicating labs left in business to send an original to, and this quite simply could be the only affordable option the amateur filmmaker has to make a duplicate on film of a cherished original.

    The article by Ivan Watson describes a method used by Frank Morgan as follows: Project an image (about ten inches wide) onto a plain white sheet of paper taped to a wall; position the camera behind and slightly lower than the projector to focus on the image (approximately five feet away) and have the camera mounted on a tripod tilted slightly upwards; load the camera with kodachrome film and start filming. And that’s about it.

    There are a few things to keep in mind. First, the camera must be an XL (low light) model because the shutter on these cameras ranges from 220-230 degrees, which lets in far more light than the typical 150 degree shutter. The wider shutter may also help to reduce the flicker that occurs since the projector is not synchronized with the camera. It is also important to not use the built-in daylight filter and not to use any automatic exposure system. The automatic exposure system cannot keep up with the constantly changing light, and the result will be a noticeable increase in flicker. By using the manual exposure, the flicker will not be noticeable to anyone who is not specifically watching for it. It is also important to use a projector with a fairly fresh 100 or 150 watt quartz halogen bulb, as newer bulbs are brighter and whiter than ones with many hours of use on them. Despite the fact that my original was filmed at 24 frames per second, the duplicate was made at 18 frames per second (as long as the projector and camera are running at the same speed, any speed could be used) as this let more light reach the film, and again probably attributed to an almost complete elimination of the flicker one would normally expect to see.

    I usually could film at an exposure of f/2.8 and often f/4.0 and get properly exposed results when projecting onto a sheet of "brilliant white" copy paper (24# bond). If projecting onto a sheet of copy paper seems crude, I placed this same sheet alongside a white matte projection screen (one that has been painted with Screen Paint for a brighter image) and there was no difference in the brightness or the sharpness of the image. Since my projection screen is tripod mounted, I chose to project the image on the copy paper taped to a wall, as this guaranteed a perfectly flat surface for focusing. While choosing an exposure to film a constantly changing light on a wall can be difficult at best, I ran the film several times to get some in-camera readings, and set the aperture to the middle of these readings, for one best average exposure.

    The results of the first test, while not outstanding, were surprising. I showed this test roll to a small audience of Super-8 buffs that Steve Osborne (publisher of The Reel Image) had assembled at his home one evening. The film was run on an Elmo GS-1200 and projected eight feet wide, and everyone was impressed. To someone not familiar with the high quality of a Super-8 original, he or she might think this was an original. To someone who shoots with small gauge film, that person might still be fooled. But as I watched the film, I realized there were some problems yet to be solved. First, the focus was soft, second the colors were a bit off, emphasizing the yellows, and third and perhaps worst of all, there was a noticeable build-up of contrast and blackening of the shadow areas, giving the film that "dupe look". A pleasant surprise was the lack of a significant amount of increased grain. The image did have more grain than the kodachrome original, but less than ektachrome originals.

    The first problem was only slightly solved by filming the image projected much smaller than ten inches suggested in the 1981 article. Instead of using the Super-8 camera’s macro focusing, a #2 close-up lens, which are available in a variety of filter sizes, proved to be a much better solution to obtain as sharp an image as possible. I am still frustrated in not achieving my goal of edge to edge sharpness, however, but will continue to experiment and feel confident a solution can be found.

    The problem with the color shift was lessened by adding a Kodak CC10 cyan gelatin over the projector lens. These are available for only $15 in various degrees and colors (the CC in the name stands for "color correction"). A CC20 was also tried, which is a bit stronger, but it tended to overcompensate and effect all the colors, instead of just toning down the yellows.

    Finally, the third problem was nearly completely solved by the addition of a Low Contrast #3 filter made by Tiffen. The Tiffen company advertises that their low contrast filter "spreads light from highlights to darker areas, leaves bright areas bright, lowers contrast, mutes colors," and it did just that. Without really subtracting from the colors much, it lightened the darker areas so as not to lose detail, without an increase in the brighter areas. This filter, about a $30 investment, is available in varying strengths from #1 to #5. Choosing the middle range was sheer guesswork but appeared to be a good choice, as I am now completely satisfied with the reduced contrast build-up. In fact, I am still amazed at how good a home-made "dupe" can look – and all thanks to a twenty year old article by Ivan Watson.

Speaking of this man, here are some excerpts from his writings in the July 1977 issue of Movie Maker:

            "If, in this year of rejoicing, we may briefly forget the mountains of mugs,

            medallions, and similar merchandise piling up in the shops, I’d like to

            mention a jubilee nobody will celebrate – the Golden Jubilee of Standard 8.

            This event should take place in 1982, fifty years after Eastman introduced the

            first ‘double-eight’ movie film that put amateur movies on the map. This

            important non-event will slide quietly and tactfully into the pages of movie

            history.

            I’m sure there would be a Jubilee – and a lot of hoo-ha from the publicity

            boys – if it weren’t for a younger upstart called Super 8."

            "I think standard 8 will deserve its little Golden Jubilee. Maybe, in the year

            2002, someone will organise the Standard 8 Diamond Jubilee. But I doubt it.

            More likely, they’ll be trying to make you forget there was ever a format

            called super 8 …by extolling the virtues of the exciting new Kodavid Instant

            Tape System.

            By then, it won’t be of much interest to me."²

    Fortunately, some people continue to be an inspiration to others, years beyond their lifetimes, and unfortunately, some prophecies become reality all too soon.

           __________________________________________________________________

    1  Ivan Watson , “Make Your Own Film Copies – with no Special Equipment,” Movie Maker,  March           1981, pp. 178-179

    2  Ivan Watson, “The Jubilee they won’t want to Celebrate,” Movie Maker, July 1977, pp. 550-551

---  Chris Cottrill
        E-mail:  ^{chris_cottrill@yahoo.com}
 

^{BACK TO SUPER 8 MAIN PAGE}