Jump to content

A new Super 8 camera - possibly


Scot McPhie

Recommended Posts

I, and a friend of mine who is an electronics engineer, have decided we're going to give it a go and try and make one - if we can come up with a reliable system we will sell them on a build-to-order basis.

 

We're going to go for something fairly basic and then if that works we might try and do something which incorporates more modern technology/electronics. My friend, Rob Greenfield, is quite a talented electronics engineer and I have alot of faith when he says he can or can't do things. So anyway he's going to look after that side of it and I'm going to look after the optics/film side of it.

 

The features we're interested in putting into it at the moment are:

 

* Crystal synch motor at a few set speeds - 18, 24, 25 and 29.97 fps (any other useful/necessary ones?)

 

* A proper gate mechanism so the film runs out of the cartridge through a loop and through a gate to improve stability

 

* Fully manual - no auto focus or zoom or apperture - or ASA detection

 

* Internal light metering

 

* Internal rechargeable battery and DC power input

 

* Sound dampening if the camera isn't quiet enough

 

* Possibly a camcorder style grip - not a pistol grip

 

* A proper through the lense view finder system (possibly an orientable one)

 

* Nobs and controls not a menu system

 

 

We don't have a time frame on this but have started on the R&D already I'll start a web page soon so you can follow the development of the project.

 

Any comments/advice feel free to let us know. We have no idea of the end price it would probably be around $1000 Australian - and we will only be doing them if we can obtain/make all the parts on a build to order basis.

 

Aesthetically it's probably just going to look like a black box with a lense sticking out of the front - it won't have a die cast body, but will certainly have a solid internal structure to it. We're still tossing around names for it.

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think its a great idea, but probably a very intricate and time consuming process. I have an aquaintance who is a machinist who can produce some bodies if you gave him designs and dimensions (out of aluminum, probably, for strength and less weight). I could get in touch with him for you, or give you his contact information if he would allow, and see if he's interested in helping.

 

Before you start adding several crystal speeds I would suggest making a camera that is just crystal at 24 or at 25 fps and then begin adding speeds as necessary (fewer things to go wrong at such an early stage).

 

Also, if you plan on looping the film inside the camera remember to make is extremely simple. Perhaps just extend the inside of the camera an inch, or maybe less, past the total width of the cartridge so that it would only have to move over one roller, down into the pressure plate/gate area, and around another roller and back into the cartridge (you've probably already thought about this, but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway).

 

I'm sure the sound problems may not be that bad. Small motors are cheap and quiet now (but I don't know how they would work for crystal syncing).

 

Anyway, I just thought I'd post.

 

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have used a Super-8 camera in which you create an external loop that goes over a sprocket through the film gate than around the same sprocket on the bottom side.

 

I shot seven cartridges with this pin registered Super-8 camera and I was pretty frustrated loading it the first time. By the 4th cartridge I had gotten the hang of it and it was pretty straightforward.

 

A very clever design implementation was the way one figures out how big of a film loop to make. The film cartridge opening butts up against the back of the camera and you pull out a loop big enough to just wrap around the center hub of the sprocket gear. A very clever design solution to know how big to make the super-8 film loop.

 

Unlike 16mm or 35mm where you pull out as much as you want, you have to be very accurate with the Super-8mm cartridge because the take up spool has film already attached., so it is critical that one gets the loop size exactly the right length each and everytime.

 

If you can provide access to the spindle, then perhaps the loop issue becomes a moot point, but then does that create potential light leak issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think something like this will make you very rich so if you do it, do it because it's fun and you love to tinker. It's really a LOT of work, just as diffi as writing and directing your own feature film, only with different challenges. If your primary aim in life is to make films doing something like this would take too much of your energy away I think. I may be wrong, who knows :)

 

I'd forget the internal lightmeter. That's really useless unless you're shooting news/docs. If you wanted to get fancy and go further with the camcorder thing you could have a mini disc recorder built into it, or a mini CD-R recorder, maybe even work a video tap into it that could record onto a mini CD-R in MPEG-4 or DivX format. This way I could look at something while waiting for the film to get developed :) It would also set it aside from the other cameras out there, though it would prolly cost above 1K. Actually, a Super 16 version of a camera like that would probably get a lot of people very excited and make you even more bucks. Maybe even a techniscope camera would also. Just look at that cute Arri 235 :D You could also get away charging an arm and a leg for it too <_< In reality, a T-scope camera like that would make me go crazy: quietish camera, built in vid tap and audio recording (even if its just for reference), option to attach a cheap, fast motor for slow mo, Nikon lens mount, 200' mag like the Arri 235 - great for short/waste ends that have decent capacity in 2 perf. I myself was even tempted to design one, until I realized what I would be getting myself into. Just look at how much work those guys did that made that A-cam.

 

Personally I think the best place to do innovative work in Super 8 is getting a good digital telecine/scanning device going for under $1K US. That would probably sell more units than a camera would, and your electronics friend would probably have more fun with it I think. You'd also make more bucks on it. I think people are sick of the whole trouble you have to go through to book a Super 8 rank/bosch transfer and nobody wants the Uncle Joe's Photo filmchain job either.

 

Either way good luck!

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Scanning technology is improving, I say stick to the SUPER-8 camera design. Belt Drives make it easier to keep the camera quiet. Can it be made so that is easy to get to the internals for lubing purposes?

 

The internal meter is useful as a guide for setting the aperture during run and gun situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a Super 16 version of a camera like that would probably get a lot of people very excited and make you even more bucks.

Yeah I agree - and thinking it over we've decided this is the best route to take.

 

It's a tricky thing Super 8 - there are people out there like me and others who are interested in shooting features on Super 8 and obviously would like good cameras to shoot them on. I spent about $1500 on my ZMII and it's modifications and if a camera like I was proposing was available I probably would have gone for that - but with so many cameras available and modificiations available as well how many people would go for a new camera?

 

So I agree a Super 16 one is a far better prospect to make so we're going to put our efforts in that direction. The market again would be the low end indie film makers for which Super 16 is a lot more appealing than Super 8 or regular 16 - the chief competition in this bracket is the Ikonoskop which is about $7000 Australian - so if we can beat that with better features it'll be a goer. The price would probably end up being around $5000 Australian at least. A good thing electronically though is Rob says a multispeed crystal control unit is relatively easy - as would all the electronics for that matter -- it's the mechanical side which will take some work. Anyway I'll keep you all informed.

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm building one for my own amusement, personally. Designing it with a modular back, so you can switch from Super8 to Double-Super8 or even 16mm/Super16 with few modifications. Pretty much just an enjoyment exercise, so I learn more about how a camera works. I have plans to eventually incorporate a light meter, for example, but for now I'll be using an external metering system. For Crystal, I'm incorporating only a 24fps crystal, but then having a modular bay underneath which will allow for an external crystal sync, giving you the option of cheaply going to 25fps, 29.9-whateverfps, etc.

 

The things we do when we have a few broken 16mm and Super8 cameras laying around... 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Designing it with a modular back, so you can switch from Super8 to Double-Super8 or even 16mm/Super16 with few modifications.

The old Elmo Trifilmatic was built like that.It could shoot super 8,DS-6 and regular 8mm.

I read something about a "super-duper 8"which modifies the gate so the picture extends into the sound area like super 16.That may be were the format's headed.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be a good idea to start a camera engineers forum or at least a yahoo group. I am sure there are other entrepreneurs out there who are trying to do something and if you pool together your knowlege it would benefit all parties. For example, I had a big interest in movie processing, and even though this is no longer a fulltime occupation I constructed a modest webpage at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky and I have a yahoo group that has over fifty members now at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/movieprocessing . You never know when you'll get someone who's actually designed equipment, maybe even one of the Ikonoscop guys or a fellow from Arri or Aaton might join - you never know. Many engineers like cinematographers and any other craftsmen like to chitchat and share information. It's a great way of learning.

 

The entire Linux project is afloat thanks to the sharing of knowlege that goes on online. Granted it's easier with software where you can easily upload code, you can't exactly upload a workbench :) But it still has potential for sure.

 

And I'd like to make another pitch for that Techniscope camera ;)

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi there - this is very exciting to me--my two cents:

the great thing about super 8 is ease of loading and built in features, but if you're going for the 16 market, I'd say that quietness, crystal sync, and super 16 are the key things to focus on if you're building an alternative to what's already out there. You can get a K3 modified to super 16 for fairly cheap these days, but it's not quiet enough to use in sound production even if you get a sync motor attachment.

You mentioned that the design is a black box, so why not build a blimp into the camera while you're there? Seems to me like this camera's benefits are function, not form.

What low budget filmmakers want is to shoot sync films with a good, sturdy, cheap camera that won't jam and give them headaches on the set. The camera equivelient of the Dodge Dart.

Another thing the K3 does well for low budget types is the lens mount is a pentax screw type, so you can go to the local photo shop and stock up with cheap still camera lenses and screw-on filters.

Also, this thread ought to be over in the 16mm dept, no?

EH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be a good idea to start a camera engineers forum or at least a yahoo group.

There is this

 

http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/forum/

 

although I don't think they have motion picture camera forum there - perhaps they could start one -- I might be good to try and get them to start one too (rather than a new one ourselves) because people already at that site might be interested in Super 8 and 16 and contribute as well

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a Super 16 version of a camera like that would probably get a lot of people very excited and make you even more bucks.

Yeah I agree - and thinking it over we've decided this is the best route to take.

 

It's a tricky thing Super 8

And so is super 16 because of the competition, and the bench mark that the existing cameras have formed that a new camera will be judged against.

 

Think about the very best feature of super8: this has to be the small light equipment and ease of loading. These are the key features to play on. A super8 camera need only be very simple indeed these days - less so than in years gone by because now it is professionals and enthusiasts who are using this format chiefly for capture only, not home users who demand a high level of features, many of which are for making projected home movies more interesting.

 

For a new super8 camera the design has to be as simple as is humanly possible - C-mount, multiple film speeds, no auto exposure, mirrored shutter, possibly internal meter, but not essential.

 

It could be awesome in its simplicity.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A New, Professional Super-8 camera would be to 16mm and 35mm what mini-dv camcorders are to Digital BetaCam and BetaCam SP. A new Super-8 camera would be a great learning incentive to those who only shoot digital and are proclaiming that film is horse and buggy technology. Digital producers think this way because they have never even handled a film camera and would certainly never spend tens of thousands of dollars to get into 16mm just to learn.

 

The New, Professional Super-8 camera would PAY FOR ITSELF the first time it was used. Producers trying to avoid going overbudget would find ways to incorporate Super-8 not as a replacement to other film formats but as a tool to be used in the same manner that mini-dv is incorporated to supplement the higher end video formats used on video productions. Many television shows that use video grab shots at a moments notice with DV camcorders and the result is a successful way to prevent cost overruns.

 

People keep gettig bogged down in why not just shoot 16 when that arguement misses the bigger point. Why not make available professional film cameras that prep beginners on shooting 16mm and 35mm but make it real easy to use. Super-8 film can be purchased for TEN DOLLARS a cartridge, and developed for another TEN DOLLARS.

 

Existing Super-8 cameras DO NOT teach filmmakers about the importance of crystal sync, orientable viewfinders, back focus adjustments, pin registration and proper film loading, these are key learning issues that are being forsaken by newbies that would rather just shoot digital and forget that film even exists.

 

The critical thing that is being overlooked by the film industry is how incredibly cheap it has become to learn vast amounts by shooting on low cost digital imagery. Must beginning film students continue to pay huge amounts just to learn! Now that is a horse and buggy concept.

 

Well known film directors may or may not promote a digital camera, but most would probably support a new Super-8 camera if it had the identical and essential learning tools that one needs to master before shooting in 16mm and 35mm.

 

The Film Industry continues to "eat it's young" so they can stay fat and profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think the biggest place to innovate in Super 8 is in the transfer technology. Film processing is something few people would want to get involved with but I can also see a place for that as well - there is no such thing as "dailies" in Super 8 and the low volume of Super 8 in labs makes it very expensive per foot to develop.

 

But if you want to sell units the best thing is Super 16, greater profit for unit and more uses. The Krasnogorsk is not exactly a benchmark of quality. Aaton maybe, but I'm assuming you want to undercut Aaton.

 

You could also develop a transfer device for Super 16 for filmmakers to do cheap dailies, instead of paying for telecine time. You have to get your original negative retransferred and color corrected in the end anyway, so why not get a decent quality CCD based telecine device for dailies off of a negative? I'd love it if I could just get a negative back from the lab then mount it on a machine and do the transfer right here at home. I'd get exactly what I'd want versus having to depend on someone else to interpret my images, and while I'm not going to get rank quality I don't need it now anyway, not for an offline cut. Make a unit like that for a few thousand bucks that goes straight out to firewire and you have a good selling item. Cameras are more of a pain to make, I think.

 

You could use the mechanism of a reel to reel tape recorder, 7 1/2 IPS is very close to 24 fps 16mm in terms of speed (and 3 3/4 is probably close to 8mm). Refit the capstan with a wider roller with an undercut region not to scratch the image, and you have a good transport mechanism (as a matter of fact for 8mm you wouldn't need to replace most of the rollers, just cut the rollers a tad wider). Develop an inexpensive RGB light source and find a suitable CCD array to use, find a way to sync it all up and get a decent optical system together, and you have a nice telecine device. Okay, this may sound like that funny far side cartoon where a bunch of mathmaticians look at a formula and it says at one point "and then something happens... and you get X", but I still think it's a better place to spend your time. A dual mode 8mm/16mm machine would probably sell even better, and probably wouldn't be that much harder to make.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think the biggest place to innovate in Super 8 is in the transfer technology.

or, you can be the ONLY cheap, quiet-running, sync sound super 16 camera on the block, with the coolness cache that comes with camera building. ;)

Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Film Industry has done nothing to promote affordable film camera technology in either 16mm or Super-8mm, meanwhile mini-dv cameras, good ones, can be bought for $400.00 dollars! If the film industry would supply two million dollars to create both a Super-8 and 16mm beginners camera, they could then use those cameras to make a "28 Days" style of film for 15 million, then recoup their investment when the film grossess 50 million.

 

But the industry big whigs just look at their 35mm empire and don't really care about helping the beginning film students learn on good, but inexpensive film equipment, it's beneath them to even care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the industry big whigs just look at their 35mm empire and don't really care about helping the beginning film students learn on good, but inexpensive film equipment, it's beneath them to even care.

People who want to make movies are doing it because they want to make money doing it as a career. Yes it is an art form, and we can talk about sponsorship of the arts, but that also gets into a very subjective area - which project gets the grants, which one gets passed on, who deserves it more, talent versus message, etc.

 

Frankly who is it that you're talking about when you say the "film industry"? Harvey Wienstein? Kodak? Aaton? Yes, I think that manufacturers of film and film products benefit when they make their technology more accessible to beginning filmmakers, because if they don't the competition certainly will.

 

But honestly, the reason DV cameras are cheap is simple - it's a mass produced item. Back in the day Super 8 cameras were also mass produced, it was the only way you could get a home movie on the screen.

 

It's a bit difficult to look at what seems to be a simple mechanical device and wonder why it costs more than something more sophisticated technically. For example, a follow focus unit is nothing more than a few gears that are assembled and calibrated to work smoothly together. It's a simpler mechanism than a tape drive in a DV camera. It's even simpler than many of the parts inside your automobile. But some guy goes on a metal mill and makes one, he's sitting there and measuring it carefully, etc. The equipment he uses costs many thousands of dollars, and it breaks down occasionally. He doesn't get paid $6 an hour either, it's very skilled labor (you try cutting and shaping metal gears!). He may make only 100 of these. He wouldn't be doing good business if he was charging $99 a pop.

 

It's different when a mass production line is stamping out 100 of these units per day, but most American households will not only never buy a follow focus unit but won't even know what it was if it bit them in the nose. Same concerns a new Super 16 or even a Super 8 camera. Consider it a stroke of good fortune if you make and sell over 1000 units.

 

Consider then that the cost of doing business is spread out over a smaller quantity of sales, which means that you are including more overhead in the price of each unit sold. Face it, you're going to have quality control issues, liability issues to deal with. Try dealing with some filmmaker who's movie was screwed over by your malfunctioning camera, and who now wants to sue your company now to recover damages. You may be 110% in the right, but you still might have to pay a lawyer to go to court and deal with the problem! What if Aaton (sorry, I don't mean to be picking on Aaton all the time, I'm just using them because of the A-minima!) decides you violated one of their patents? Especially if they're a bigger company than you, they will gladly have their lawyers take you to court if they feel you are violating their patents. We're talking thousands of dollars here in legal fees just to settle the matter.

 

It's not exactly smooth sailing being in the business, and if you want to be in the business you also have to travel to all these NAB shows and push all your stuff before filmmakers, letting some of them borrow your gear and so on. You have to take out ads in Millimeter and all the other film crew magazines, too. This all costs a lot of bucks, and that's included in the price of the gear too (it's not like the federal government subsidizes them).

 

Of course there's also the mentality of camera and film manufacturers called "whatever the market will bear". I.E. a Bell and Howell Eyemo and a B&H Filmo are basically the SAME CAMERA, the only difference is that the Eyemo shoots 35mm film. So on the used market it fetches up to 4-6 times the price of a Filmo.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or, you can be the ONLY cheap, quiet-running, sync sound super 16 camera on the block, with the coolness cache that comes with camera building.  ;)

You could, that is true. But it is a lot of R&D. I've never actually developed a camera but it sounds like a hell of an engineering task. So does what I proposed about a transfer device. I simply think a transfer device would get you greater returns for your time and money. You could even run it on a rental basis if you wanted, too. This way you can take the Panavision approach, make the gear as good as you can and keep updating it as time goes on.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Film Industry has done nothing to promote affordable film camera technology in either 16mm or Super-8mm, meanwhile mini-dv cameras, good ones, can be bought for $400.00 dollars!

"The Film Industry" doesn't make cameras.

Manufacturers do, and DV cameras are not made for professional filmmakers, it's a product made for the consumer market.

Simple fact is, they're cheap, because there are hundreds of millions of customers out there buying them, so they are mass-produced, thereby bringing the cost down.

 

If every 3rd person in the industrialized world bought a new 16mm camera every 4 years, (like DV cams), they'd be cheap too, or for that matter, CAT Scanning machines, Boing 747's, etc.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Film Industry could easily subsidize their new equipment investment by making a theatrical release with the new lower cost equipment. The internet has created a more competitive market for finding the necessary materials for making a 16mm camera or a Super-8 cameras. New film cameras could be made much more affordably then 10 years ago.

 

I admit not as cheap as when Super-8 cameras were made on assembly lines, but much cheaper right now than 10 years ago. The Film Industry, aka the Studios, Kodak, the Distributors, could for over a couple of million dollars and develop both 16mm and Super-8mm equipment and then use the new equipment to make a feature. The new Feature could then be hyped to the media as lower cost technology just like what Hollywood uses. The finished film and the actors in the film would also be in the spotlight in the same manner that "28 days" was hyped as being a mini-dv movie with a theatrical release. The buzz would easily return a profit on all the R & D and create a new stream of filmmakers.

 

New Camera start up costs would be a no risk venture that would reinvigorate the film industry and in the process welcome all the young filmmakers who think film is both beyond their reach and no longer "in". Although film is perceived as more expensive than digital media. Film is actually easier to incorporate in today's every changing digital video format wars. I'm much rather make a movie on film and then CHOOSE what digital format it will reside on than dive into the digital format and camera of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or, you can be the ONLY cheap, quiet-running, sync sound super 16 camera on the block, with the coolness cache that comes with camera building.  ;)

You could, that is true. But it is a lot of R&D. I've never actually developed a camera but it sounds like a hell of an engineering task. So does what I proposed about a transfer device. I simply think a transfer device would get you greater returns for your time and money. You could even run it on a rental basis if you wanted, too. This way you can take the Panavision approach, make the gear as good as you can and keep updating it as time goes on.

 

- G.

all true, and I agree that the world needs good cheap transfer more. But if the gentleman's heart is set on camera building, and he's looking for input, mine's "cheap, quiet-running, and sync".

I'm getting off this string til something's built. :)

regards

Erik H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independent Cinema Hotwire

 

1917-a.jpg

 

Thousands of independent filmmakers riot against high prices and discontinued products

 

This morning, several hundred thousand filmmakers from around the world made their opinion known - making movies costs too much! In an unprecedented act, filmmakers of all walks of life called a general strike, leaving their filmsets, dayjobs, word processors, and classrooms for an internationally coordinated uprising against the inflated costs of practicing their art. In several cities, particularly Los Angeles and Rochester, armed clashes were reported.

 

The Rochester crowd was particularly hot, where Eastman Kodak closed streets from an onslaught of Super 8 fanatics. "We have been too silent, too silent about the discontinuation of our favorite filmstocks. They may have taken off the sound stripe but we will no longer be silent!", one filmmaker screamed. "First it was double 8mm, then prestriped Super 8, double Super 8mm, and Ektachrome, and before you know it Super 8 will be completely axed!" shouted another. Most of them were members of the Weather 8, a group of Super 8 activists who have been prone to violence and consider that Kodak is slowly and secretly trying to get rid of their favorite format. "The new Vision stocks are simply a red flag" said one anonymous Weather 8-er. "Just wait, before you know it they will all be shooting DV!"

 

Arriflex's offices in Munich were graffitied, one slogan read "The 235 costs 2 much!", others painted the letters "K3", standing for the inexpensive Russian 16mm camera that has become the only surviving tool for many of these disenfranchised filmmakers.

 

Several arrests were made. A man who gave his name as "Ultra Definition" was caught trying to mount a massive X-ray machine inside of a truck to fog all filmstock located in Kodak and Fuji stockhouses. Police found that he was planning to install 2/3rd inch CCD chips into his eyes. "I was simply waiting for the price to come down, I was going to put together the most awesome digital filmmaking system ever - which would make film completely obsolete!"

 

"A real sorry case." said one anonymous protester. "But even though most protesters here sharply disagree with Mr. Ultra Definition, and we still want to shoot film, it's an example of what the expense of filmstock and processing, as well as cameras, has done to some filmmakers."

 

Some, such as former secretary of state Madeline Albright, have suggested that these demonstrations may have been sparked by former cold war enemies, one such suspect being the Krasnogorsk factory in Moscow and several eastern european film manufacturers that recieve funding from former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, currently being tried in the Hague for his disobedience to Albright.

 

But a spokesman for the Whitehouse believes that the filmmaker protests are likely to have been seeded by some of Sadaam Hussein's agents from Iraq, "We believe that Sadaam has factories of film manufacture, which are linked to Al Quaida. They are waiting to introduce their filmstocks as soon as unpatriotic filmmakers drive American and friendly allied European companies out of business." Presidential candidate John Kerry offered his own point of view "I remember in Vietnam the cameramen used Ektachrome, it was still ME-4 I think. I really miss that stock, and I can empathise with the protesters here today who'd care for that look and can't have it anymore." Kerry stopped short to say if he'd use federal funds to help ease the financial burden faced by filmmakers. He has also refused to comment if he is considering low budget filmmaker Roger Corman as a possible running mate, which may win him the low budget filmmaker vote - a margin large enough to gain him victory in several states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...