Printable View
I read this from a description of the AMinima Aaton camera:
"DistantEye viewfinder ; the only reflex camera which doesn't fog the running film if the eye is not held against the eyecup."
What gives? Is all my film getting fogged cause I frame the shot and then take my eye away from the eyecup and use the remote chord to start filming?
-M
------------------
Technically, yeah.
You're supposed to close the eyepiece down (most cameras have a switch to do this, I think), and I always try to, but to be honest, I often forget, and I haven't seen any problems.
So I don't have an answer to this.
I'm not sure if S8 cameras are designed differently, to minimize this, but it does mention it in the manual of some S8 cameras, so it's a good idea.
Anybody out there know?
Maybe it actually IS fogging the film, but so slightly that it's not a big problem.
I don't know.
Matt Pacini
------------------
One time I was shooting some time lapse with the camera on a tripod. I was eating a sandwich as the camera clicked away when I noticed that the setting sun was beaming right into the viewfinder. Footage came out fine so I guess not all cameras have the problem.
------------------
You will have less to worry about since most S8 cameras aren't using a mirrored shutter. The Prism will eat up some light that is coming back in. Good Luck.
BTW--The way the Minima does it is through an odd baffle. I don't know why a DP would ever want to pull his/her eye away from the camera anyway. Good Luck
------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel:
"I don't know why a DP would ever want to pull his/her eye away from the camera anyway."
I can think of a couple reasons.
1. If you accidentally move your eye away for just a second.
2. There are lots of shots where your eye is not on the viewfinder, like a shot from floor level, for instance.
Also, I do a lot of hand held work, but I hate that "everything at head level" look, so I'll drop the camera around about waist level, for better composition.
Obiously, you can't do this with close-ups, and you really have to have a good idea of what it's going to look like, and know your camera, to guess like this.
3. You fall down a flight of stairs while hand-holding a shot. My God, wouldn't YOU want to have that footage?
har har har!
Matt Pacini
------------------
There have been many times when I was on my stomach shooting, or on my knees. I have even been on a crane coming down into a shot. I have always tried to keep my eye on the viewfinder at all times.
And for those times when your eye needs to move away--There is a "trapdoor" on the viewfinder to shut off light--That is either activated aby pressure or a flick of a switch. The only reason for my eye to leave my viewfinder is when someone is shooting bullets over my head or I just can't keep it up there.
------------------
Well,
Sounds like it could comprimise the image quality on a mirror shutter camera like a Beaulieu. The first Super 8 movie I made, I would frame most of the shots on a tri-pod with another person there to push the record "remote" switch I made- cause I was acting in a lot of the shots. I don't think he looked through the viewfinder at all times.
-M
------------------
I have filmed with my eye away from the viewfinder many times with my mirror-shuttered Beaulieu and I've never had a problem.
Marc S.
------------------
Look, There is nothing worse than a DP pulling his/her eye away from the viewfinder. That is what they do for a living. If you are not looking through the lens then what are you looking at??? You either keep with the shot or you half ass your way through it as far as I am concerned.
------------------
Nigel, I agree with you 100% in theory, except there is a big problem with S8 cameras:
No orientable viewfinder.
So, if you're like me, and you want moving shots, and can't use a dolly for that particular shot, you have to hand hold the shot.
And if you do NOT like compositions from a standing perspective, then you have to find some way to get the camera around stomach or chest level, and you just can't walk around with your knees half bent for too long!
So, I either use my trusty wheelchair dolly, or I just drop the camera down to chest level or so, and guess.
Obviously, I don't do this if I'm doing closeups, and their is a huge margin of error here, but I just hate that "Head height, looking directly at the actors, eye to eye" look.
Horrible composition.
So given the choice, in a tight shooting situation, I'll take my chances and guess.
Matt Pacini
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Look, There is nothing worse than a DP pulling his/her eye away from the viewfinder. That is what they do for a living. If you are not looking through the lens then what are you looking at??? You either keep with the shot or you half ass your way through it as far as I am concerned.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi, Nigel!
I don't think anyone here is saying that they take their eye away from the view finder and aim randomly. Lighten up, man. As you pointed out, you also have on occasion taken your eye away from the viewfinder. The issue isn't WHY someone would have to do it but what happens when they are forced to on their particular camera, that's all. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Roger
I also close the viewfinder when I do have to take my eye away.
------------------
Alex: "In general, slightly fogging the film, and we're talking ever so slightly, might be a good thing, especially for reversal. "
(Matt Pacini resonds):
I tend to agree with you, although, obviously, the unpredictability factor makes this not something to actually try with the viewfinder.
I've actually thought about this quite a bit, since contrast in reversal is next to grain, being the touchy thing about S8.
They make pretty elaborate rigs for 35mm cameras, to do exactly that, and of course, they do it in the lab also. (Pre-flashing & post flashing they call it...)
Maybe we should be installing a little light inside the camera with a control for the amount of fogging!
I bought a Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter to do basically the same thing.
I can't use it though, because with my Nizo Ultrawide adapter, it puts the lens too far our there.
So Roger, here's another modification you can do to cameras!
Are you up for it?
Give mes your opinion of why this is a good/bad idea,OK?
Matt Pacini
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Look, There is nothing worse than a DP pulling his/her eye away from the viewfinder. That is what they do for a living. If you are not looking through the lens then what are you looking at??? You either keep with the shot or you half ass your way through it as far as I am concerned.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Totally disagree. Especially in Super-8. Any facial contact with the camera can produce vibration.
If you know your framing is solid, and won't be changing, then not touching the camera makes more sense.
And without an orientable viewfinder, Super-8 shooting can be more difficult, so it is completely understandable if one ends up taking their eye away from the viewfinder momentarily.
Although light through the viewfinder won't affect a video camera (although it is a good idea to keep sunlight away from a video viewfinder), when I shoot Video, I only use Sachtler Tripods.
When balanced correctly, I can have my Video Camera pointing down, let go of the tripod head, and the video camera won't move!
I once saw a slight flair on some Super-8 footage, it looked like a very subtle lens flair, I noticed it happened whenever the camera person took their eye away from the viewfinder, but, I rarely ever see that result.
In general, slightly fogging the film, and we're talking ever so slightly, might be a good thing, especially for reversal.
It may in fact reduce contrast slightly!
I would just hazard a guess that for reversal film, that ever so slight fogging may actually be a good thing, but for negative stock, it may be a bad thing.
Bottom line, next time you shoot outdoors, design a test shot where you take your eye away from the view finder, and see if you notice a change.
Perhaps the best test would be to go outdoors during the daytime and simply run some film and turn the eye-piece to the closed position, then to the open position, alternate back and forth a few times and see if it produces a change in the look of the film.
Also, it may be that the effect is more noticeable when the camera is in wide angle versus close-up, so check the camera out at a telephoto settings, a medium setting, and a wide setting.
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 26, 2001).]
Way ahead of you, Matt!
Years ago, I created (for slide photography) a matte box that had a piece of milky opal glass in the top and a piece of regular glass at a 45 degree angle so that the opal glass was reflected across the entire image.
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/flash.jpg
By using the correct ND filter over the opal glass, I could "flash" the slide film using ambient light and lower the contrast while shooting. It looked terrible and flat when projected but made perfect slide dupes on regular slide film without having to use the slower and more tempermental dupe film.
I did this during the late 80s when I was producing huge, automated 24 projector slide presentations for amusment venues and the such. I tried it on one roll of Kodachrome super 8 and it worked like a dream. Unfortunately, Kodak had stopped making Kodachrome prints so I never got to try it out for movie duplication. It would probably work well for telecine, though.
Roger
I saw a student film once shot with a damaged film camera. The camera had a very minor light leak by the sound head.
The film was Echtachrome...the projected film clearly showed a slightly flashed or contrast reduced image...
I like the look!
So, here is a new consideration...is flashing the film by the sound head "DIFFERENT" than flashing it in the film gate...
By the time the film has traveled to the sound head, the speed is much smoother than when in the film is being exposed in film gate, so the flashing could produce a different "effect" depending on whether you flash a smoothly moving piece of film or do it when the film is perfectly still in the film gate.
If they still made sound film, it would be interesting to convert or add an adjustable flashing unit by the sound head...even down to
slightly adding sepia or some other colored light.
Instead of the coloring or flashing of the film being done at the moment of exposure, the "flashing" or "coloring" being done 2/3 of a second later could induce a second chemical reaction that may produce a different result than having everything happen at the same moment in time.
------------------
Alex
It makes no difference when the flashing takes place; before, during or after the primary exposure. The film doesn't see any difference. Also, whether the film is stationary or moving won't make any difference either since the exposure is spread across the entire frame. If each frame is exposed the same, then all is well. The one advantage of doing it while shooting is that there are no surprises later after processing. Also, you have the choice of mounting a small light above the glass for constant exposure or letting the ambient light change the flash ratio naturally.
Roger
What about the idea that flashing through the lens means the aperture opening and depth of field play a role, but if you do it by the sound head location, depth of field and f-stop become irrelevant?
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 24, 2001).]
Depth of field and aperature aren't an issue. Either the method I've described or the one you describe will produce correct results if the mechanisms involved are working correctly. The only difference is that doing it by the sound head means that you don't always know if something is going wrong or not. Doing it in the matte box means you can see the effect while you shoot and can tweak the system for best results.
More problematic, as far as inserting a tiny light by the sound head goes, would be finding a small enough light that had the correct color temperature and be able to adjust the level of that light without also changing the color temperature. Theoretically, I guess anything is possible, but it doesn't seem practical to me, off hand.
Roger
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Depth of field and aperature aren't an issue. Either the method I've described or the one you describe will produce correct results if the mechanisms involved are working correctly. The only difference is that doing it by the sound head means that you don't always know if something is going wrong or not. Doing it in the matte box means you can see the effect while you shoot and can tweak the system for best results.
More problematic, as far as inserting a tiny light by the sound head goes, would be finding a small enough light that had the correct color temperature and be able to adjust the level of that light without also changing the color temperature. Theoretically, I guess anything is possible, but it doesn't seem practical to me, off hand.
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the lens approach is more practical. for the Sound head area of the tape, I would say a variable led might produce the best result.
But without sound cartridges, I suppose it's a moot point anyway.
In the event that the front lens is already in use as Matt has described, can a "mod" be made that would "create/split" the viewfinder beam of light thus creating an additional "access" point to the film gate via the newly made "secondary viewfinder".
Imagine you could take the viewfinder "signal" and split it before it reached it's final destination.
That viewfinder split-point could divert part of the beam to a second viewfinder, which could be used as a "flashing" point.
I picture this "secondary" viewfinder port being located on top of the camera directly above the film chamber.
------------------
Alex
So, let me get this straight:
If you flash using an external rig, in the mattebox, you can actually see exactly what the effect is? Is it precise and predictable?
If there was an internal light of some sort, then the correct thing to do would probably be some type of mechanical dimmer, similar to the Panavision Obie light I saw, where they had rotating cylinders that were reflective on one side, and black on the other, and the knob rotated them controlling how much light was reflecting outward, without changing the voltage to the light.
Any way to have some mini-rig inside the camera, that was actually doing what you're talking about, in front of the gate?
So you could see the effect, just like if it were in a mattebox?
(Kind of the same concept, as the mini-internal 85 filter, which only has to be tiny inside, but big outside, to accomplish the same effect.)
I would love to do something like this, but it would be great to not have more shit to attach to my camera, plus, I don't want to stop using my Nizo Aspheric III Ultrawide lens adapter, which won't work if it's not right up against the lens. If it's extended with filters, etc., you can see vinyeting. (Did I spell that correctly?)
Man, Roger, you are a madman!
The amount of mods you've done, is amazing. You have balls the size of bowling balls, I'm telling you.
Matt Pacini
------------------
I was hoping that it wouldn't have to be that complicated, and perhaps there would be a way to do it without putting anything in the optical path.
Like, if you could have a little light, or LED in there, bouncing diffused light inside the chamber.
I would imagine that would end up on the film.
You could then have just a little Pot on the outside of the camera, to dial in your amount of flashing.
What do you think, Roger?
Is this another one of those "simple explanation, difficult implementation" scenarios?
Matt Pacini
------------------
Matt--
Have you ever seen/used a Varicon??? That is basically what you described. It allows you to change the amount of flashing while shooting. They are cool but I do think that flashing is highly over rated when you can get the same results without the hassle in other ways.
Also, who says that when you put your eye put to a S8 camera on a tripod is moves???? That is way you use a good solid tripod(I like Sachtler) with sandbags on the legs-- and when you mount the camera you make sure that you screw the hell out of it(Without stripping it of course) on the mounting plate. I have never had a problem with S8 cameras moving on a tripod unless the tripod was a piece of shit. Good Luck
------------------
The Super-8 Cameras that have the "stiff" non-retractable handle can "vibrate" if your forehead touches the camera or the rubber eye-cup.
Retractable handles on super-8 Cameras like the Canon 1014 Or Beauliueu 4008's won't have this problem.
------------------
Alex
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Have you ever seen/used a Varicon??? That is basically what you described. It allows you to change the amount of flashing while shooting. They are cool but I do think that flashing is highly over rated when you can get the same results without the hassle in other ways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When shooting negative, this is true. But please elaborate on methods for reducing contrast when shooting reversal that will give the same results with less hassle. I've been shooting reversal for most of my life and, frankly, I have yet to see anything work as easily or as effectively for reversal as flashing, but I am open to new ideas! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
Enlighten me!
Roger
I haven't flashed reversal to be honest. A way to get the same effect as flashing without going through the risk of double exposure is to do the following--
While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One. Good Luck
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I haven't flashed reversal to be honest. A way to get the same effect as flashing without going through the risk of double exposure is to do the following--
While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One. Good Luck
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I confused...you mean push your film two stops, or overexpose two f-stops, then underexpose one stop during processing.
I don't like that idea because it messes with dept of field issues..and it puts way too much faith in the lab.
But it is an interesting concept.
------------------
Alex
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I haven't flashed reversal to be honest. A way to get the same effect as flashing without going through the risk of double exposure is to do the following--
While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One. Good Luck
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, three things:
1) As illustrated (literally) above, double exposing isn't required to flash film while shooting. It can be done using a device like the one I described which takes all the risk out of shooting since you can see the amount of flashing when shooting.
2) Pushing doesn't decrease contrast on reversal, it increases contrast as well as increasing grain. Also, push processing doesn't really work on dye transfer processes like Kodachrome. The effect isn't the same.
3) The idea behind flashing for reversal was to lower the contrast for reproduction purposes. Negative really doesn't need to be flashed to get acceptable reproduction contrast. Therefore, your comments about flashing being "over rated" and "easier ways to lower contrast" than flashing seem needlessly argumentative, considering your lack of experience lowering the contrast on any reversal of any kind. Why automatically take such a counter position on something that you admit you have no experience in?
Roger
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
I confused...you mean push your film two stops, or overexpose two f-stops, then underexpose one stop during processing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You've got it backwards. When you 'push process' film, you UNDEREXPOSE and over develope, not overexpose and underdevelope. If you rate 50 asa film at 100 asa, you are underexposing it, then overdeveloping to pull out the detail. That is 'pushing'.
When you 'pull process', you overexpose and underdevelop, which is what you described. That is different as it actually derates the film ASA.
Roger
Roger--
I said that I have never flashed reversal film--I have never had the need. However, while using Neg film you can Push two stops and then have the lab pull one and get the same effect. I do know what I am talking about and have shot plenty of flashed film. The use of even the Varicon will expose the film to some sort of light either prior or after the film has passed the gate. Otherwise the only way to "Flash" the film is to use the formula I described.
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I said that I have never flashed reversal film--I have never had the need. However, while using Neg film you can Push two stops and then have the lab pull one and get the same effect. I do know what I am talking about and have shot plenty of flashed film.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, using the method you've described is hardly the same thing as flashing. Also, pushing any film is going to increase contrast and grain. Negative will tighten the grain if overexposed and get super grainy if underexposed; especially two stops.
But let's look at the formula you are talking about: You are going to underexpose the film by two stops and then ALSO underdevelope it. What's the point? Why would you feel the need to manipulate negative in this manner?
Roger
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Way ahead of you, Matt!
Years ago, I created (for slide photography) a matte box that had a piece of milky opal glass in the top and a piece of regular glass at a 45 degree angle so that the opal glass was reflected across the entire image.
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/flash.jpg
By using the correct ND filter over the opal glass, I could "flash" the slide film using ambient light and lower the contrast while shooting. It looked terrible and flat when projected but made perfect slide dupes on regular slide film without having to use the slower and more tempermental dupe film.
I did this during the late 80s when I was producing huge, automated 24 projector slide presentations for amusment venues and the such. I tried it on one roll of Kodachrome super 8 and it worked like a dream. Unfortunately, Kodak had stopped making Kodachrome prints so I never got to try it out for movie duplication. It would probably work well for telecine, though.
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting, I do the same thing when I shoot video, then make the final overall adjusting when I edit, and the picture unadjusted looks just awful...(I don't use optics, I use built in menu items that are provided on the video camera)
Does your set-up cause any loss of light to the camera?
------------------
Alex
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Look, There is nothing worse than a DP pulling his/her eye away from the viewfinder. That is what they do for a living. If you are not looking through the lens then what are you looking at??? You either keep with the shot or you half ass your way through it as far as I am concerned.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've discovered it can be helpful to view what is coming into a frame, not just what is already in the frame.
On temporary lock-off shots especially, I will look and see what I can't see through the viewfinder.
------------------
Alex
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Does your set-up cause any loss of light to the camera?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nah. It's just a piece of regular window pane. The opal glass is hard to find since all glass now has to be safety glass and opal glass doesn't fit that bill when it brakes. I like opal glass because it doesn't scratch as easy as plexiglass, though plexiglass will work just as good.
Roger
Roger, I viewed your little diagram above.
Do you get any problems with reflections on the clear glass? (The side not facing the opal glass?)
So, do you need to use a polarizer for this setup to work?
Or, is it that you set the glas far enough back into the unit, that it doesn't see any side image?
(Then you couldn't use a wide angle at all though...)
Also, can you tell me your opinion of what I was talking about above, with some kind of conrolled ambient light inside the camera, instead of the external rig?
Also, Nigel. I've never heard the term "pushing" used when referring to the initial exposure, only over or underexposing.
It's a little confusing, and either way, I don't think that's what flashing the film is anyway, right?
Plus, you're right, if you're talking about negative, reducing contrast isn't needed, but it is in reversal, or at least it could be helpful. And also, as you know I'm sure, lots of DP's flash negative, so SOMEBODY must find it useful and not overrated!
Matt Pacini
------------------
I had no problems using a wide angle lens. Besides, the lenses on Super 8 are far from "wide", you know?
No reflections, although you do need to seal up the area around the lens. I used black felt and overlapped it from each side fastened with velcro. Worked fine.
The thing about using a light for flashing is problematic since you have to account for the color temperature of the bulb. Low wattage (read "portable") bulbs are inherently warm. That is why flashing with light bulbs is generally done in the lab under controlled conditions.
I experimented with doing that and finally came up with the unit I described in my drawing. I would be scared to death to have a light bulb flashing my film in the chamber as I shot. I would be afraid that something would go wrong and I'd get a bunch of clear, yellowed film!
As far as flashing negative, it was very popular in the 70's as a way to heighten sensitivity and shoot by available light. "Sugarland Express" was shot by Vilmos Zigmond using flashed film. I think he also used in on "The Rose" with Bette Midler.
The whole concept about "pushing film" works like this:
In the old days of still photography before Kodak actually put any ratings on film and people were just happy to get a damned image of any kind, film was just "film" with no particular speed assigned. Through experimentation, you could shoot and process it as any ASA you wanted. If you needed slower speed, then you would overexpose then under-develope to try and keep any detail that might otherwise burn out. If you needed more speed, the you would underexpose and overprocess to pull the image out of the shadow areas of the film.
That is why I'm having a hard time with the idea that "pushing two stops in the camera and pulling one stop in the lab" will lower the contrast of any film. If you push two stops, then you are underexposing it by two stops and losing detail in the shadow areas. The ONLY way to get that detail back and have any resemblance of a proper grey scale is to overprocess. However, if you "pull one stop" in the lab, then you aren't over processing at all and if the processing time is cut short, then detail in the black areas will be forever lost, which is counter to the reason for flashing in the first place.
In fact, even if one DID overprocess to retrieve the detail in the black areas, the film would have heightend grain and contrast. In short, I don't see how "pushing two stops in the camera and pulling one stop in the lab" would produce the same effect as flashing film, which is designed to retain shadow detail and reduce contrast. However, perhaps there is something that I am not understanding about the process that Nigel is talking about.
Roger
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:
[B]I had no problems using a wide angle lens. Besides, the lenses on Super 8 are far from "wide", you know?
(Matt Pacini resonds):
Exactly my problem, S8 cameras not being very wide, that's why I use the Nizo Aspheric III wide angle converter A LOT! It brings it down to something slightly over 4mm.
Problem is, like I said, you can't stack up other filters or whatnots (like the flashing rig) then put the wide angle converter out on the end.
Just doesn't work. So if I were crazy enough to do something like this, it would have to be internal.
How about something that's not even electronic at all?
Like cut a little hole in the front of the camera, put a little piece of opaque glass over it, & have something to open & close it at will?
Is this too wacky?
Roger:
"As far as flashing negative, it was very popular in the 70's as a way to heighten sensitivity and shoot by available light. "Sugarland Express" was shot by Vilmos Zigmond using flashed film. I think he also used in on "The Rose" with Bette Midler."
(Matt Pacini responds):
Roger, I read all the time in American Cinematographer, of DP's pre & post flashing these days, not just 20+ years ago.
It's not a thing of the past at all, although obviously, they're doing it for a particular look. Probably every other month, I see it mentioned on a current film though.
By the way, I push processed a few rolls of film from Lost Tribes (Ekatchrome 160).
It's hard to imagine Ektachrome looking worse than it does already, but this accomplished that!
Really grainy, with a bizarre color shift.
For those of you who have bought the film, it's part of the scene where the guys are running around in the tunnels.
I had to shoot in available light, since we blew a breaker in the Dam, and couldn't plug in any lights!
We got the shots, but man, it looks bad!
Matt Pacini
------------------
Matt wrote:
"I use the Nizo Aspheric III wide angle converter A LOT! It brings it down to something slightly over 4mm.
Problem is, like I said, you can't stack up other filters or whatnots (like the flashing rig) then put the wide angle converter out on the end. Just doesn't work."
Sure it could. The drawing I did isn't to scale; it just shows the principle. The unit I made was actually about one foot left to right and had an opening on the front that was about 8-10 inches high. Think big, son! All you have to do is get the walls of the unit out far enough that the lens doesn't see them. I made mine for use with a still camera on a tripod, but you could make a really light one using foamcore and thin plexiglass for super 8. Should work fine!
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 25, 2001).]
Roger, I put just one Tiffen filter on my lens, then screwed in the Wide angle adapter, and even that was too much.
I was getting vinietting just from that little 1/4 inch thick or whatever filter!
So my Nizo wide angle lens just HAS to be the only thing mounted to the front of the camera, unfortunately...
So unless I'm really misunderstanding your setup, I'm pretty sure it is going to step out my wide angle adapter more than 1/8 of an inch or whatever would be the maximum.
Matt Pacini
------------------
Hi, Matt!
The matte box doesn't mount on the front of the lens where the threads are. Like most matte boxes, it is held on the end of a bracket and the camera lens protrudes into the back of the matte box. Therefore, if you don't want the walls of the matte box to be seen, simply make them far enough away so that they can't be seen with a wide angle lens. Also, you can angle the walls so that they flare out like most matte boxes do. Again, think big! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Roger