First camera Tests-Ektachrome and Vision2

[danielpuch]

Hello,

Finally I made my first test on my Super 8 camera. A Canon AZ814 and I think I made a lot of mistakes.

Here I have some still images from the footage:

http://www.geocities.com/danielpuch/

The numbers 1-2-3-9 were made with Ektachrome 64T

and the numbers 4-5-6-7-8 were made with Kodak Vision2 200T (negative)

The Ektachrome 64T result was terrible, worst than I expected,but I think that I made some mistake exposing the film, because I saw other super 8 movies made with that stock and it was pretty good. Maybe I used the wrong setting in my light meter. I used both, a manual light meter and the one in the camera. I put the ASA at 64. Maybe that was my mistake. Not sure, I'm still learning about the IE. :-)

The Vision2 was much better, the test were made under very low light conditions because the film I'm going to shot will be under similar lights. The only difference will be that I will be trying to get an spotlight, similar to the ones used in theaters for some scenes. So, maybe the lights will be a bit stronger than this ones.
The exterior scenes were perfect.

The thing that worries me most is that line at the left of the movie, is like a scratch and I'm not sure if it is something in the lens of the camera or if they scratched the film when they developed it.

Any suggestion will be appreciated,
Daniel P.

[Alex]

Daniel, thanks for sharing!

It looks like the Ektachrome is underexposed, perhaps the camera is reading the film as if it was the "older" Ektachrome, which was rated at 160/125.

That would definitely underexpose the footage.

The 200 looks terrific. I am surprised that your external light meter was fooled as well.

Keep in mind that 64T is actually 40D when you add in the 85 filter, which the camera probably did if you set your filter select switch to the sun position.

[danielpuch]

Thank you Alex for the info.
I think that my problem was that I set the wrong ASA in my lightmeter, next time I'll be more careful with that.

Thanks again!
DANIEL PUCH