Jump to content

A new Super 8 camera - possibly


Scot McPhie

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> Super-8 film can be purchased for TEN DOLLARS a cartridge, and developed for > another TEN DOLLARS.

 

Two objections. First, it's actually anything up to twice as expensive as you state. Second, even if you've purchased and processed it for $20, you've still got to spend $2000 transferring the damn stuff before you can actually do anything with it. Pointless.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phil

 

More like $1000, and then you can transfer as much as you want by purchasing a Workprinter. It might be slow, but the quality of output it excellent.

 

$1000 if it were 1 roll would be insane. $1000 for 1000 rolls on the other hand, good investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This certainly gives me pause to think! What I'm going to do is get it to the prototype stage and then take it from there - I'll aim to shoot one of my own features on it and then see how it looks from the business point of view.

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This certainly gives me pause to think! What I'm going to do is get it to the prototype stage and then take it from there - I'll aim to shoot one of my own features on it and then see how it looks from the business point of view.

 

Scot

Now you're following my model for handling this. 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Actually Aaton was sued by Arri over their use of an orientable finder; in fact Beauviala had to sell the company to Panavision due to this (later he was able to buy t it back).

 

I would tend to side with Aaton in this case, but Arri was/is a *much* bigger company & Aaton lacked the resources. And anyway, no orientable finders on Aatons until Arri's patent ran out. (I personally think Arri shot themselves in the foot here, by inhibiting Aaton they inhibited the growth of aspects of 16mm, really Super 16, in theatrical origination and so forth *at a time when Betacam in particular ran off with huge ammounts of what had been 16mm's domain*).

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my wife wonders why I'm building a camera that purposefully violates patents? Expired patents, follow them to-the-letter, and avoid new patents. (you cannot re-patent expired technology) However, it means I will have to eliminate true reflex viewing in the end, as there are so many patents on that. I'll stick to my semi-reflex, where you see through the lens for focusing, but not while shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it means I will have to eliminate true reflex viewing in the end, as there are so many patents on that. I'll stick to my semi-reflex, where you see through the lens for focusing, but not while shooting.

You may not have to.I would be checking the status of designs like the Angenieux finder that was found on CP 16 R's.CP's wasn't 100% orientable but Angenieux's was.There are more ways to skin a cat then one.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This certainly gives me pause to think! What I'm going to do is get it to the prototype stage and then take it from there - I'll aim to shoot one of my own features on it and then see how it looks from the business point of view.

 

Scot

Now you're following my model for handling this. 8)

Yes the wisest way to go - and if you end up with something useable but unsellable for any reason then it was still worth it for our own use :-)

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Why do you need a repositionable viewer, just for curiosity.  I tend to use the viewer only for framing and focus, then step away from the camera to give no chance of ruining a shot with body movement.

 

Without an orientable viewfinder, the Camera Operator would look quite silly from time to time as they try to look into the viewfinder from an uncomfortable viewing angle. If you want to discover this for yourself, pick up an ENG style of camera off of ebay and notice that no matter how you position the camera, the viewfinder makes it easier to create the proper center of gravity between yourself and the camera.

 

While I agree with you that we humans can "bump" the camera when viewing through the eyepiece, an orientable viewfinder allows the operator to cradle the camera which tends to negate the bumping issue. Super-8 viewfinders are definitely more likely to lead to bumping than an orientable viewfinder. The Orientable viewfinder allows the Camera Operator to get in the most comfortable position for purposes of framing, panning, and anticipating motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you need a repositionable viewer, just for curiosity. I tend to use the viewer only for framing and focus, then step away from the camera to give no chance of ruining a shot with body movement.

That's fine as long as all your shots are static,but if you're following action or working from a dolly or handheld,you need that orientable vf.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

The viewfinder on the super-8 camera I've used is on the back - it's rather like looking through binoculars, and is ergonomically horrible. I'm tempted to see if I can bodge a small mono CCD camera I have on the back of it, and add an LCD. Very hard to get certain shots.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Scott, if you need any help on issues that arise, feel free to ask.  You never know, I might have overcome the same problems, or might have them ahead and could then get help from you when I do hit it.

Good idea - I asked the moderator of the forum on camera repairs if he'd include a section on movie cameras and he said he wouldn't - so I've created my own at

 

http://mangoagogo.proboards25.com/index.cgi

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This certainly gives me pause to think! What I'm going to do is get it to the prototype stage and then take it from there - I'll aim to shoot one of my own features on it and then see how it looks from the business point of view.

Well, just keep in mind that you're doing TWO separate and fairly major enterprises: making a feature film and designing a motion picture camera.

 

If your heart is set on camera design that's fine, and maybe you'll make something you like and can use. But if what you really want to do is make a film I wouldn't bother with making my own camera. I'd rather use all that energy in the creative department and raise some cash to get something that's already out there. It may be less convenient than what I want but at least I don't have to make it from scratch, which is considerably tougher.

 

You may simply want to modify an existing camera, too. That would certainly be easier and you'd probably find it more practical, to be honest. It would also be a good learning experience.

 

If you want to go into business later that's fine, but you'll probably find yourself busier trying to promote your film than pushing a camera in what is a specialized market.

 

- G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right George and it may well be that we just settle on making one for ourselves - we'll have to see and it will take a while before we even get to that point - but making movies is definitely more important to me than making cameras - but with the assistance I'm getting just trying to do something for myself now is a worthwhile proposition or exercise - we'll just have to see about the bigger picture!

 

Scot

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...