What's your PET PEEVE regarding super 8?

[Brian Harrington]

While I generally don't like dual-8 projectors, I must say my Eumig 709 is a gem! Steady Super 8, and Standard 8 prints with no issues! The changeable gates, and sprockets certainly keep this line of projectors in a better category. Plus, with the 709 you get twist-to-focus lenses, and semi auto-loading reliability that works every time!

Yes, I have my fair share of dual-8s, and all are silent save for the Eumig. All have interchangeable sprockets save one.

Dual-8s are a necessary evil depending upon your requirements. If you collect Standard 8 sound films, the most easily available solution is a Eumig Dual-8.

I like to try to use silent-only projectors for silent films, to reduce wear-and-tear on sound heads, as well as the rest of the projector. Also, I like continously-variable speed via rheostat, which is more easily found on silent machines. I also like at least a 100 watt halogen lamp. It is very hard to find a projector with those requirements that is not Dual-8, especially for Standard 8mm. Yes, some exist, but try finding them for sale, and in fairly-working condition.

So if Dual-8 never became a "thing," there might now be more higher quality projectors to fulfill my requirements. See what I mean?

[Shane C. Collins]

Yes, I have my fair share of dual-8s, and all are silent save for the Eumig. All have interchangeable sprockets save one.

Dual-8s are a necessary evil depending upon your requirements. If you collect Standard 8 sound films, the most easily available solution is a Eumig Dual-8.

I like to try to use silent-only projectors for silent films, to reduce wear-and-tear on sound heads, as well as the rest of the projector. Also, I like continously-variable speed via rheostat, which is more easily found on silent machines. I also like at least a 100 watt halogen lamp. It is very hard to find a projector with those requirements that is not Dual-8, especially for Standard 8mm. Yes, some exist, but try finding them for sale, and in fairly-working condition.

So if Dual-8 never became a "thing," there might now be more higher quality projectors to fulfill my requirements. See what I mean?

Well the fact the 709 retracts the heads out of the way, while watching silent films, is a big plus for my needs! I can do all things possible with the 709 I couldn't do with other machines. Silent, sound, Super 8, Standard 8, bright 100 watt FCR, twist-to-focus lenses, semi auto-loading, OK you get my point, LOL. I'm beating a dead horse by now I think, LOL. I just love this machine, I can't help it...

[Brian Harrington]

My fujicascope also keeps the heads retracted in silent mode, but still engages the pinch roller. Does the 709 still engage the pinch roller? I don’t keep my Sankyo in silent mode since the film passes over the roller and it could scratch.

I like the semi manual threading of the 709, although I have never had one. Too bad Eumig didnt stick with that; I bet marketing had to do with that.

I dont believe the lenses available for the 810 are as good since the better Eumig lenses are twist to focus.

So yea I wouldnt mind having one, but theyre fairly rare. I see 800s for sale much more. I wouldnt mind a Mark S either. The 701 is just Super 8 and similar but in pics looks like it has no rear sprocket. Same as Mark S Super. Dont know what the deal was with that.

[Shane C. Collins]

My fujicascope also keeps the heads retracted in silent mode, but still engages the pinch roller. Does the 709 still engage the pinch roller? I don’t keep my Sankyo in silent mode since the film passes over the roller and it could scratch.

I like the semi manual threading of the 709, although I have never had one. Too bad Eumig didnt stick with that; I bet marketing had to do with that.

I dont believe the lenses available for the 810 are as good since the better Eumig lenses are twist to focus.

So yea I wouldnt mind having one, but theyre fairly rare. I see 800s for sale much more. I wouldnt mind a Mark S either. The 701 is just Super 8 and similar but in pics looks like it has no rear sprocket. Same as Mark S Super. Dont know what the deal was with that.

The pinch roller on the 709 does not operate while watching a silent film. In fact, all the early Eumig machines operate this way! Yes the twist-to-focus is the best way to get accurate focusing. The Eumig Suprovar 1.0 is very sharp because of this system. I can really dial that lens in for some super sharp images on screen. The later sloppy system would be a challenge with such a fast lens! The Mark S Standard 8 machine, Mark S 701, and the Mark S Super all have rear sprockets. These machines just have metal covering the sprocket, which is why you can't see it. When the lamp housing is removed, you can see the rear sprocket. Below are photos I grabbed from Van Eck's website showing a Mark S Super with, and without the lamp cover.

[Brian Harrington]

Thnx. I had looked at Van Eck for the 701 and they didnt show with cover off. I should have looked at the Mark S super, too. Id prefer the single gauge versions for the 2 pin claw.

I want the pinch roller to engage for film safety and stability, though, unless in the Eumig it doesnt touch the rubber roller in silent mode. I guess I wasnt clear about that. Thats why I prefer my Fujicascope Sh-7 to the Sankyo 702 for silents.

Id love the 1.0 lens if it is a zoom, or prime with a focal length around 20mm. Some are just 25mm which is way too small a picture for me.

So this enforces my complaint that Eumig like others focused on improving sound and went backwards on optics. But as you said, they actually went backward from tubes to solid state. But SS was all the rage in the 70s if I remember correctly.

How easy is it to replace the tubes and are they readily available in 2024? i remember that tubes needed replacement a lot on our TV when I was a kid.

[Shane C. Collins]

Thnx. I had looked at Van Eck for the 701 and they didnt show with cover off. I should have looked at the Mark S super, too. Id prefer the single gauge versions for the 2 pin claw.

I want the pinch roller to engage for film safety and stability, though, unless in the Eumig it doesnt touch the rubber roller in silent mode. I guess I wasnt clear about that. Thats why I prefer my Fujicascope Sh-7 to the Sankyo 702 for silents.

Id love the 1.0 lens if it is a zoom, or prime with a focal length around 20mm. Some are just 25mm which is way too small a picture for me.

So this enforces my complaint that Eumig like others focused on improving sound and went backwards on optics. But as you said, they actually went backward from tubes to solid state. But SS was all the rage in the 70s if I remember correctly.

How easy is it to replace the tubes and are they readily available in 2024? i remember that tubes needed replacement a lot on our TV when I was a kid.

It does not touch the rubber in silent mode as it is not needed. The sprockets, guides, etc all do a great job of keeping a steady image on the 709! I've owned several early tube Eumigs and have never needed to replace a tube. I think it takes many many years to burn one out. The tubes sit in a spring loaded tube that just twist off, and the tube comes out, very easy to replace.

Below is a photo of my Eumig 1.0 zoom lens 18-28 mm. Works well for me since I only project an image about 3 feet by 3 feet in the living room. I also use a vintage Silver screen that produces very sharp images.

[Brian Harrington]

It does not touch the rubber in silent mode as it is not needed.

Cool. If it touches, in needs to be rolling. Else it should not touch at all. On the Sankyo 702, it seems to touch the rubber roller when it is not rolling. Or at least it might be too close for comfort. May not be enough to scratch the film, though.

Below is a photo of my Eumig 1.0 zoom lens 18-28 mm. Works well for me since I only project an image about 3 feet by 3 feet in the living room. I also use a vintage Silver screen that produces very sharp images.

Nice! As long as it goes down to 18mm, that would be great for me. But, it is a screw-in lens, and I would have to convert the lens holder by filing down the focus pin on the knob.

BTW, I've read that using a zoom at it's lowest focal length perhaps gives the brightest picture. Is that true? I would have thought the smaller the image on the screen, the brighter the picture, since the light is focused on a smaller area. Isn't the brightness proportional to the area? Lipton says the bigger the image, the less brightness, which make more sense to me.
thnx

[Shane C. Collins]

Cool. If it touches, in needs to be rolling. Else it should not touch at all. On the Sankyo 702, it seems to touch the rubber roller when it is not rolling. Or at least it might be too close for comfort. May not be enough to scratch the film, though.



Nice! As long as it goes down to 18mm, that would be great for me. But, it is a screw-in lens, and I would have to convert the lens holder by filing down the focus pin on the knob.

BTW, I've read that using a zoom at it's lowest focal length perhaps gives the brightest picture. Is that true? I would have thought the smaller the image on the screen, the brighter the picture, since the light is focused on a smaller area. Isn't the brightness proportional to the area? Lipton says the bigger the image, the less brightness, which make more sense to me.
thnx

Yes, the smaller the image the brighter it appears on screen. Also I've found a 3 foot by 3 foot image is super sharp. Super 8 is a small format to begin with, but if you keep it within its limitations it looks very good! And for shooting home movies, as I do, and showing them in a living room setting also works well!

There are guides on the early Eumig machines that keep the film away from the capstan, and pinch roller while watching silent films. When the volume switch is turned on, the mechanism is activated, and allowed to engage the pinch roller, and capstan. The system works quite well!

[Brian Harrington]

Cool! BTW, I use an f1.2 Suprogon in my Eumig. I bought it at Olden Cameras in NYC about 30 years ago for $60 -- I still have the receipt!

I use a matte screen -- same one for the last 50 years. I should upgrade to a large lenticular screen, since my audience is mainly me, so no fear of people too far off to the right or left. I do have an even older lenticular screen, probably 60+ years old, with a tri-pod stand. It's only 3 feet wide, though. That's the screen I first used as a kid. Over the years, I've had to fix the plastic part that engages the top hook of the screen -- I used it a few weeks ago, and it broke again. It produces a nice bright image, but part of the reason is that the image is smaller.

Lipton talks about the importance of the screen in his book.

Some projectors emit more ambient light than others, which effects the brightness of the image as well. My ceiling in my basement is dark, though, and that helps. Watching at night helps too, even though my basement is still fairly dark in the day, but light still creeps in.

So there are many little things you can do to get a brighter image in Super 8. A little here, a little there, and it all adds up. You don't always need to upgrade the projector and/or it's light source. And I think I already mentioned it -- installing a new lamp socket can help if you are not getting the proper voltage. Also, it will help to keep the lamps from burning out too soon if the socket has had a lot of use.

And also, I try to get Osram lamps when I can -- supposed to be about 10% brighter.

All that being said, the brightess of my 16mm projectors with their 250 watt lamps produce blinding light with the modest stock lenses (like f1.5) and my same matte screen!

[Shane C. Collins]

Cool! BTW, I use an f1.2 Suprogon in my Eumig. I bought it at Olden Cameras in NYC about 30 years ago for $60 -- I still have the receipt!

I use a matte screen -- same one for the last 50 years. I should upgrade to a large lenticular screen, since my audience is mainly me, so no fear of people too far off to the right or left. I do have an even older lenticular screen, probably 60+ years old, with a tri-pod stand. It's only 3 feet wide, though. That's the screen I first used as a kid. Over the years, I've had to fix the plastic part that engages the top hook of the screen -- I used it a few weeks ago, and it broke again. It produces a nice bright image, but part of the reason is that the image is smaller.

Lipton talks about the importance of the screen in his book.

Some projectors emit more ambient light than others, which effects the brightness of the image as well. My ceiling in my basement is dark, though, and that helps. Watching at night helps too, even though my basement is still fairly dark in the day, but light still creeps in.

So there are many little things you can do to get a brighter image in Super 8. A little here, a little there, and it all adds up. You don't always need to upgrade the projector and/or it's light source. And I think I already mentioned it -- installing a new lamp socket can help if you are not getting the proper voltage. Also, it will help to keep the lamps from burning out too soon if the socket has had a lot of use.

And also, I try to get Osram lamps when I can -- supposed to be about 10% brighter.

All that being said, the brightess of my 16mm projectors with their 250 watt lamps produce blinding light with the modest stock lenses (like f1.5) and my same matte screen!

Yes, the smaller tripod silver screen I use definitely helps with brightness. I'd also say the 1.0 zoom lens was a major upgrade when I installed that. As it stands my projection is bright enough, and the 100 watt FCR bulb, with the condenser system works well! I've had both white and silver screens over the years. I am now fond of the silver screens over white. I also think the silver really adds some extra dynamics, and sharpness so my Ektachrome color reversal films. The modern Super 8 version is the sharpest yet, and it shows on screen! I also have that Lipton book somewhere in my collection, and it's always a great read! I've heard good things about the Suprogon 1.2, which is the successor to the Suprovar I currently use. I've read somewhere these two lenses are regarded as the best Eumig made!

[Paul Adsett]

My pet peeve on super 8 is that the film is not quite wide enough. Kodak should have made the film just a little bit wider, say by about 1,5mm. And the sprocket holes are too small, they should be a little larger, and positioned centrally on the film. That would have resulted in a picture area about 80% the size of 16mm! What an opportunity missed!

[Steve Klare]

Paul! 😁😁😁

In a different kind of pet peeve, I wish that Kodak had made their camera cartridge more like Fuji's:

• Have an in-camera, metal pressure plate
• Have the ability to rewind the film to do dissolves between scenes.
• Simpler, more robust, more common sense!

-but Kodak got there first, so...

Personal Pet Peeve: I've shot hours and hours of S8 film since I was a teenager, but not a second of sound film. If I could rewind time (-you know: like a Fuji cartridge!), I would have filmed my son with sound before he became so...adult!

[Ken Finch]

My pet peeve is the same as yours Paul, but in addition self threading projectors. Any engineer will agree that the more complex you make a machine, the more there is to go wrong and the more difficult and expensive it is to repair.

[Ken Finch]

Steve, the Fuji cartridge is virtually identical to the 9.5mm cassette in design, in use since 1923. I rest my case!

[Steve Klare]

Sure, that's part of the common-sensed-ness of it: two hubs mounted in a common case with the linear medium flowing from one to the other, like an audio cassette tape or a VHS tape.

-It's a logical solution to the problem that should keep popping up, and basically so simple it has to work!

I still have a certain affection for the Kodapak cartridge. I've had a lot of good times with them and besides: I have about 8 or 10 in my fridge!