PRO8MM CLASSIC W/EXTRAS

[Guest Glenn Brady]

Wouldn't it be a simple matter to compare, side-by-side, an unmodified Beaulieu 4008 ZM series camera and one modified by Pro8mm? A few minutes and some precision measuring instruments should put the matter to rest.

[Tony Hudson]

The only decent thing I see Pro8mm offering is the 25fps crystal sync option.

[Michael Lehnert]

Wouldn't it be a simple matter to compare, side-by-side, an unmodified Beaulieu 4008 ZM series camera and one modified by Pro8mm? A few minutes and some precision measuring instruments should put the matter to rest.

 

Therein lies the unfortunate problem: Wittner just took delivery of one or two sets, apparently, and sofar, only the boys from the magazine(s) above got one for testing. Wittner has no showroom and they stayed away from the Super 8 fair in Waghäusel for some years now (no longer need to showcase there, as an oligopolist).

 

And I havn't come across anyone from Burbank yet who has posted or published or just had any experiences with it that would cover investigating the issues. Trust me, if I would life in LA, I would love to drive up to Phil (with a ZM II) and have a close invesigation.... although... looking outside the window over London's lights... with pleny of rain... naaaa, would probably rather go to the beach after all were I to life there... :) )

 

The only decent thing I see Pro8mm offering is the 25fps crystal sync option.

 

Agreed!

[Tony Hudson]

Agreed!

 

 

...and it's still way over priced at over a $1000 to have your camera crystal modified.

[Mike Rizos]

One thing I find hard to believe with Max 8 is the claim that the camera aperture has now a ratio of 1:1.58. In order to get this ratio from a super 8 frame measuring 5.63x4.22mm, you have to increase the horizontal dimension by 1.04mm to 6.67mm. Yet when I measure my exposed super 8 film, the distance from the frame line to the edge of the film is no more than 2/3 of mm. I believe Max 8 is certainly not greater than 1:1.5, and it's usable area might actually be closer to 1:1.45.

 

Concerning the below frame referenced above.

 

The full frame shows a 1.33 ratio, the added framlines give a ratio of 1.61. This is a far cry from Pro 8mm stated 16:9 viewfinder. In order to get 16:9 another 11% must be added to the horizontal dimension.

[Michael Lehnert]

One thing I find hard to believe with Max 8 is the claim that the camera aperture has now a ratio of 1:1.58. In order to get this ratio from a super 8 frame measuring 5.63x4.22mm, you have to increase the horizontal dimension by 1.04mm to 6.67mm. Yet when I measure my exposed super 8 film, the distance from the frame line to the edge of the film is no more than 2/3 of mm. I believe Max 8 is certainly not greater than 1:1.5, and it's usable area might actually be closer to 1:1.45.

 

Concerning the below frame referenced above.

 

The full frame shows a 1.33 ratio, the added framlines give a ratio of 1.61. This is a far cry from Pro 8mm stated 16:9 viewfinder. In order to get 16:9 another 11% must be added to the horizontal dimension.

 

Thank you, Sir, for doing all these calculations for us. It is most highly appreciated.

 

This proves what we all wondered about the Pro8mm camera-formerly-known-as-Beaulieu-4008, namely

• that the viewfinder is not depicting the full Ultra 8 (Max 8 / Super Duper 8) picture but just the usual Super 8 picture, as any other Beaulieu 4008-series or indeed Super 8 cameras does,
  
• that hence the mirror design of the guillotine shutter was most probably not changed either,
  
• and most importantly that the so-called "16:9" markings in the viewfinder are not only not what the SMPTE or EBU would understand as '16:9' (1:1.78), well, not even Super 16 (1:1.66) which could pass in a casual conversion as "16:9" for some filmshooters, but most crucially,...
  
• that the "16:9" markings are factually non-sensical (!!) in any imaginable way and useless to anyone shooting with that Pro8mm camera UNLESS s/he is intending to crop the frame in post when doing telecine or going to DI to something close to "16:9" (as understood by Pro8mm, i.e. non-compliant to anything else in the industry!). But why someone would want to shoot on an enlarged Ultra 8 frame to increase quality coming from normal Super 8 yet then crop the scanned frame to even fewer "real estate" than it had as a Super 8 frame is totally beyond me.
  

 

I do claim (again) that these 16:9-marked ground glasses are basically left-over ground glasses that Ritter, the former German Beaulieu distributor had etched by Beaulieu for Beaulieu 4008 filmshooters filming for their own-developed and (obviously) ill-fated cropping-S8-to-16:9 projection format (where a mask on the upper side and lower side of the projector film gate in the Beaulieu 708-series projector cropped the full 1:1.33 academy Super 8 frame on top & bottom ? reducing the frame's "real estate" quite sizeably, actually to below Normal 8 IIRC!). Beaulieu probably held on to those unsold ground glasses when Ritter went bankrupt, and so they came into ownership of the new Beaulieu distributor, Wittner, which supplies the Beaulieu componentry to its partner, the US-distributor of Beaulieu, Pro8mm. The byzantine Beaulieu network always prevails :huh: , apparently.

 

So don't be fooled by that device, one could say.

 

Mike, you bring up another thing, namely that Ultra 8 is promoted by Pro8mm as Max 8 with supposedly 1:1.58, but that is apparently physically impossible. Anyone doing Super Duper 8 might chime in to give some info on the exact achievable ratio, anything between 1:1.45 to 1:1.5?

(by the way, the Super 16 conversion of the Beaulieu R 16 promoted as Max 16 is also supposedly not 1:1.66, but 1:1.58... so weird... what is this all about??)

[Will Montgomery]

I don't mean to gang up you about that camera really. I'm sure if you were making a 35mm feature and you needed to insert some super 8 for an effect and you needed crystal sync it might actually make sense.

 

I just have to wonder if I by a Beaulieu 4008 for $500, and have someone like Bernie O'Doherty at Super16inc go to town on it, I would expect he could do everything Pro8mm does with the possible exception of Crystal Sync for less than $1200 (just a guess). At that price, he would probably also be able to do that Laserbrighten process to make the viewfinder extremely bright (He did this on my K3, I highly recommend it).

 

So for $1700 you could have a completely rebuilt camera with this "Max 8" mod made, the lens collimated by one of the best techs around and still have the automatic aperture adjustment (unless that's a problem for the widened gate somehow). That's $1300 less than Pro8mm.

 

To get Max 8 and crystal sync is $3500 so I'd have to really wonder if crystal sync on a Super 8 camera is worth $1800 more.

[Michael Lehnert]

Will,

 

after reflecting on this post of yours for some time, I actually agree in full and blanco.

 

I am even sure that it would be potentially possible to integrate a crystal-sync module in the modification for Bernie or other if your tech partner as well!

 

What I would like to say ? taking up Tony's two points above ? is that Pro8mm's quartzing is actually not even the only remaining reason to go there, in the end. There really isn't any at all (unless you don't know anything else about Super 8 other than ringing up Pro8mm ? which many people do).

 

Owning a fully-fledged Beaulieu 4008 ZM II is certainly a better ownership due to all sorts of features that have been built-out from this Pro8mm-remade camera? Why pay more for less?

 

You can quite easily crystal-sync most Super 8 cameras, and especially the Beaulieu cameras! Ritter offered that in the 1970s already. And I think that the lack of crystal-syncing in Super 8 is the only thing that holds it back from wider appeal for new usages readily found in 16mm and 35mm. If I could (money-wise), I would crystal-sync all my Super 8 equipment, esp. if the quartz module could be miniaturised to the extend of being hidden in the camera body and without causing any form of cosmetic changes to the camera body (like the Eclair ACL motor, for example, which quartz can put all filming speeds available from 12 to 75 fps into crystal mode ? now that would be cool to have: not just 24/25 fps!)

[Alessandro Machi]

....What I would like to say – taking up Tony's two points above – is that Pro8mm's quartzing is actually not even the only remaining reason to go there, in the end. There really isn't any at all (unless you don't know anything else about Super 8 other than ringing up Pro8mm – which many people do).......

 

There are compelling reasons to disagree with the above sentiment. The main one is if no one else is offering a certain service, why slam the one company who is? If everything about what they are doing is wrong. as in price, quality, product, doesn't that mean that there is room for someone else to successfully compete?

 

Just because alternatives exist is not enough to suggest Pro-8mm is unnecessary if the alternatives are not as full service as Pro-8mm is. Having said that, I do have a fear that there is probably a small state's worth of filmmakers who may have sworn off Super-8 after dealing with Pro-8mm.

 

.....If I could (money-wise), I would crystal-sync all my Super 8 equipment, esp. if the quartz module could be miniaturised to the extend of being hidden in the camera body and without causing any form of cosmetic changes to the camera body (like the Eclair ACL motor, for example, which quartz can put all filming speeds available from 12 to 75 fps into crystal mode – now that would be cool to have: not just 24/25 fps!)

 

If it is fair to assume that no soundstriped super-8 film will ever be made again then removing the sound head from a sound super-8 camera might give one enough room to add either a crystal sync mode OR a small sound recording device that could be started and stopped as the camera is started and stopped.

 

I'm not recommending anyone just cannibalize their sound cameras however. This type of modification could be a super-8 aftermarket cottage industry, if we all weren't so cheap as to try and "ruin it ourselves" rather than just pay the dough and have someone who knows how to do it, do it.

 

Spectra Film and Video has dabbled in sound head removals on the Canon 1014XLS and 814XLS but I don't know if they will expand that to include modding the camera. They take out the sound head to make the camera lighter and more power efficient as well.

[Michael Lehnert]

If it is fair to assume that no soundstriped super-8 film will ever be made again then removing the sound head from a sound super-8 camera might give one enough room to add either a crystal sync mode OR a small sound recording device that could be started and stopped as the camera is started and stopped.

 

I'm not recommending anyone just cannibalize their sound cameras however. This type of modification could be a super-8 aftermarket cottage industry, if we all weren't so cheap as to try and "ruin it ourselves" rather than just pay the dough and have someone who knows how to do it, do it.

 

Spectra Film and Video has dabbled in sound head removals on the Canon 1014XLS and 814XLS but I don't know if they will expand that to include modding the camera. They take out the sound head to make the camera lighter and more power efficient as well.

 

I think the probability of commag returning to camera film stock is pretty low. And your suggestion to make place for crystal-sync modules au lieu of the sound heads is very good.

I also second the idea to actually invest into S8 gear in order to have a specialised and highly skilled supporting industry for it around. That helps more to give credibility to the format and sustain Kodak's "S8 goes professional" strategy than the many DIY jobs that ? with a few notable exceptions from members on this forum ? amount to M*A*S*H*-like butchery ;) .

 

There are compelling reasons to disagree with the above sentiment. The main one is if no one else is offering a certain service, why slam the one company who is? If everything about what they are doing is wrong. as in price, quality, product, doesn't that mean that there is room for someone else to successfully compete?

 

Just because alternatives exist is not enough to suggest Pro-8mm is unnecessary if the alternatives are not as full service as Pro-8mm is. Having said that, I do have a fear that there is probably a small state's worth of filmmakers who may have sworn off Super-8 after dealing with Pro-8mm.

 

I never suggested (or, if my formulation could be misread: wanted to suggest) that Pr8mm is irrelevant or obsolete and that the Pro8mm Classic is crap.

 

However...

 

? based on all the posts and discussion made above (please, dear 3rd-party reader, go through them to follow what I am going to summarise forthfollowingly ? I argue about this product from a user perspective that tries to find out what this specific camera is trying to attempt, how it achieves that and whether that is worthy of recommendation to colleagues to buy or use, or not. I think this is a legitimate perspective for a forum like ciny.com!

 

In that light, Pro8mm's own stance and promotion of the device, how it is marketed and how exact the technical data and specs that are handed out describe the camera, should be scrutinised. I do this if I were to buy an Aaton, Arriflex, or a Cadillac Escalade, or, hell, a Magimix. This is just a normal pre-purchase reflection (unless you are quite well-off and can impulse-buy a $3.5k film camera...).

 

Given the conflicting information from Pro8mm, the lack of concise data about its cinematographic abilities, and red flags from everywhere re. consumer satisfaction when dealing with Pro8mm (esp. from a credible source as you are yourself ? you are quite critical of Phil Vigeant, if I remember correctly, Alex), I think even greater efforts should be made to assess this camera as closely as possible.

 

In that light...

 

I am still trying to figure out what this camera is all about:

• It is a remanufactured, repainted Beaulieu 4008-series with the level of features, functions and options of a Beaulieu 4008 S (when the Reglomatic servos are missing on the lens) or a Beaulieu 4008 ZM (when the Reglomatic servos are present).
  
• It hence omits the increased functionality of the more-accomplished Beaulieu 4008 ZM II and Beaulieu 4008 ZM IV, and that for a sizeably higher price than those cameras would command on the 2nd hand market inclusive of a full "remanufactured"-like CLA job from Bernie O'Doherty or Bjørn Andersson!
  

So the first issue to ponder about: 'bucks for features' ratio!

Does it offers something new that would make it worthwhile?

Yeah, it does:

• It offers a crystal-sync option built into the body of the camera! Now, Beaulieu cameras have been crystal-sync'd for decades, and getting a Beaulieu with that option isn't groundbreakingly new. But Pro8mm is offering this built-into the body, which is neat. It does cost you alot and does not come as standard feature, but this is something new and noteworthy nevertheless.
  

So although the overall bucks for features problem remains, you have a miniaturised crystal-sync module option on the market which hopefully is emulated by other camera shops as well for the same of different-marque Super 8 cameras (like Canon, Bauer, Nizo, Nikon). Possibly, as you said above, Alex, by replacing the commag compoments in the body...

 

But hold on...

 

This is not what this camera is marketed with: it's all about Max 8! So what is that? Is it worthwhile to use? How is it configured?

 

Given the information we have, the Max 8 label is in essence an Ultra 8 modification (or Super 8 B or Super Duper 8, if you want): the camera gate is enlarged so that the exposed area of the Super 8 camera frame includes the part previously reserved for Commag 1. This is nothing new, but is always good to have as a supply from a professional company. After all, Super 16 was only accepted because companies like Aaton, and 20 years later ( :rolleyes: ), ARRI, bought into the concept.

As an industry first, Pro8mm also did it with an optomechanically professional approach: they re-aligned the lens mount so that the optical axis is correctly set for Ultra 8. That is a very good thing and for this alone, they should get a hug and a kiss :P !

 

But then things start to get confusing...

 

The in-consequence stated new aspect ratio of 16:9, i.e. 1:1.78 (or 1:1.66, if you want to go for S16 likeness) cannot be achieved with Ultra 8! On request, Pro8mm claims 1:1.58 in their communiqués, which is something totally new to us all. It's also not what one could even most negligently regard as 16:9.

And all this apart from the fact ? as Mike calculated above ? that Ultra 8 is essentially 1:1.45 to 1:1.5 . So on what foundation are Pro8mm's claims of 1:1.58, let alone 16:9 based?

 

Furthermore, it took quite some detective work to figure out that the guillotine shutter as well as the viewfinder optics have not been re-aligned for Ultra 8, so that the operator still has to guess the composition filmed (although I acknowledge that this is quite common practice in Ultra 8 mods generally!)

 

Any why are there so-called 16:9 markings etched into the ground glass of the viewfinder (see picture above here), depicting lines that are not at all related to the Ultra 8 modificaton (see visualisd problem via a sketch at the end of this post here)?

 

The ground glasses are very likely originating from Ritter, the former Beaulieu distributor in Germany and its ill-fated cropping-S8-to-16:9 projection format where a mask on the upper side and lower side of the projector film gate in the Beaulieu 708-series projector cropped the full 1:1.33 academy Super 8 frame on top & bottom. The Beaulieu cameras received the 16:9 etching into their ground glasses so that the camera operator could compose for this cropped projection format straight-away.

 

But what has all this to do with the Ultra 8 modification? It appears to be non-sensical when looked at in conjunction, as Ultra 8 is about increasing the real estate of the Super 8 film, while the Beaulieu 16:9 projection system ? for which the ground glass markings found in the Pro8mm Classic camera where made ? in effect reduces the frame's "real estate" quite sizeably, actually close to, if not below Normal 8!

 

These inconsistencies are odd at least, and not trust-evoking...

 

In fact, all this information chaos leads one to think that the Pro8mm Classic comes across as a bit "souped-up". And this feeling is hindering me for now to figure out what this camera with its strange Ultra 8 modification is all about... Surely Pro8mm would not bring such an inconsistent product to market!?

 

To put my "angle" on this camera at this stage of figuring-out into pictures:

 

Why should one go for an expensive, uneasy-to-handle, "pimp-my-ride"-style solution as depicted in the second (official) picture attached below, if you can have an actually more consistent and elegant package for less money that satisfies the same cinematographic options intended for the format, as depicted in the first picture?

(if not more when you buy a crystal-sync'd ZM II and ZM IV; apart from the additional yet still confusing Ultra 8 modification in its Max 8 version)?

[Will Montgomery]

It just seems to me that if you need to do that much to a Super 8 camera, why not just go 16mm?

 

Part of the beauty of the Super 8 system is it's simplicity and ease of use. Autoexposure, while anoying sometimes, has it's advantages. At the very least you can use it to set the exposure then lock it without having to carry a meter.

 

Yes, it is good that a company offers it but at $3500 it just seems expensive.

 

However, I am considering their Canon 814 AutoZoom mod for $500 to make it meter their stocks properly and allow the motor to handle the heavier film.

[Rick Palidwor]

However, I am considering their Canon 814 AutoZoom mod for $500 to make it meter their stocks properly and allow the motor to handle the heavier film.

 

The 814 AZ is one of the best cameras for reading film speeds. I don't have the list in front of me but do you think the mod is necessary? I seem to recall it reads up to 9 different speeds, and then it has manual over-ride to place the exposure where you want.

 

Rick

[Rick Palidwor]

In order to get this ratio from a super 8 frame measuring 5.63x4.22mm, you have to increase the horizontal dimension by 1.04mm to 6.67mm.

 

There is more than meets the eye on this issue. I don't have any numbers in front of me and I don't have the instruments to measure the width of a frame in front of me. However, I have seen published specs that said "projectable area is 5.31 mm X 4.01mm" and another that said 5.46 X 4.01.

 

Mike's number of 5.63mm for the width is probably closer to the truly usable area, though it may even be a bit more (did you go from edge of sprocket to edge of film?)

 

Regardless, the maximum width is fixed, whatever the actual number, and the aspect ratio if one uses the entire height of the frame is probably around 1.4?? (I don't care). The point is, you don't have to use the entire height of the frame. You can use an effective aspect ratio of 1.66:1, 1.78:1 (16:9), 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc. The choice is yours. Of course, the greater the ratio, the more "wasted film", but is it really wasted if it was never intended to be used in the composition?

 

The whole point of super-duper 8/ultra-8/max8 is getting the entire width of emulsion on the screen by exposing the (formerly) sound-stripe area. To use this you have to "shrink" (in fact, enlarge less) the image in the transfer, resulting in slightly tighter grain. Voila. That's the advantage.

 

As to the actual aspect ratio of the entire frame or the choice of aspect ratio one makes... that's another matter all together. Not unrelated, but not the point of considering this simple modification.

 

Rick

Edited January 3, 2008 by Rick Palidwor

[Michael Lehnert]

EUREKA!

 

After my above pondering about the re-born Beaulieu 4008-series in Pro8mm guise, I finally figured that thing out and what the heck those fragmented features want to achieve.

 

As usual, don't try to find the solution ? weird as this sounds ? in Pro8mm marketing blurbs. It's not even in the spotlight when it comes to articles discussing this device, as Jürgen Lossau's utterly intrigueing text in the current issue of Schmalfilm is. It's hidden in the badlands of the obvious.

 

I shall post about that tomorrow as it's already very late this side of the planet...

[Rick Palidwor]

EUREKA!

 

I shall post about that tomorrow as it's already very late this side of the planet...

 

Stop teasing. What is it already?

Rick

[Michael Lehnert]

Terribly sorry about the delay in getting back to this, Rick,

but first came the galactic brouhaha that is Macworld, then a crash landing at Heathrow, and all that kinda dragged onto my Outlook... (by the way, would anyone agree with me that the similarity between Jonathan Ive's great work is increasingly moving beyond being merely inspired or homaging Dieter Ram's design work for Braun, i.e. Nizo (Braun)?! ? I mean: the calculator icon on the iPhone's home screen is 1:1 with the Braun Taschenrechner; and in this shot here, the MacBook Air's panel curvature seems to come straight off a Nizo 2056 sound side panel... anyway... back to the real topic).

 

As I proclaimed, I finally figured the Pro8mm 4008 camera out. The result isn't as mindblowing as I hoped. In fact, I feel utterly stupid for not having realised the obvious before. To be honest, Pro8mm and its marketing blurb machinery could have been a bit more forthcoming in explaining the true nature of that camera and its Ultra 8 (Super 8 B / Super Duper 8 / Max 8) modification, especially as it holds so few features, but then is quite selective about them, causing lots of confusion to average Joes like me. For an attempt at summarising the odd nature of the camera and where things didn't seem to fit together, re-read this post of mine here.

 

 

 

 

The reason why I wasn't able to put the disonant pieces of the Pro8mm 4008 together was that I was operating under the assumption, that the Super 8 to Ultra 8 modification works with the same rationale as a Normal 16 to Super 16 or indeed Super 35 modification: namely to increase the real estate of the film frame to gain exposed and hence usable picture quality by including the area previously dedicated for the magnetic soundtrack commag sound stripes along the edges of the film (a main Commag 1 and a balancing Commag 2 in Super 8's case, with Commag 1 being sacrifised for Ultra 8 ? see diagram of mine at the end of this post to visualise this).

 

In fact, the efforts that went into the Ultra 8 (Max 8 / Super Duper 8) modification by Pro8mm, especially with the re-aligned lens (a first for a Super Duper 8 mod), are quite noteworthy and hence enforced me into the belief that this mod was a true attempt at making a S16-like Super Duper modification.

 

In that respect, the cropping 16:9 markings etched onto the ground glass in the non-Ultra 8 but unchanged Super 8 depicting viewfinder did not make sense at all...

 

 

 

 

Now, the first puzzle piece to get me off this presumption came actually from an earlier post by Rick, reminding me that some people forfeit the chance of increased film frame real estate from Super 8 to Ultra 8. They are willing to "waste film" or parts of the total increased frame area in order to achieve wider aspect ratios closer to "16:9" 1:1.78 and beyond (Widescreen 1:1.85 or Scope 1:2.35). How? By letterbox-cropping the telecine'd film frame area, i.e. using a cache at the top-end and lower-end of the Ultra 8 (~1:1.45) frame. This allows to more easily achieve these wider aspect ratios than would otherwise be possible with the Super 8 (1:1.33) academy frame.

 

And this is exactly what Max 8 is all about, as I learned in a secondary sentence in the recommendable test article of this very camera in the current issue of the Schmalfilm: that actually was the second and final puzzle piece that fell into place!

Now: this long-awaited and finally printed article is quite interesting and I am sure will be published in an English translation in a forthcoming issue of Smallformat. It was written by editor Jürgen Lossau himself, and is quite revealing in many ways and on many levels (to paraphrase the immortal art critic sketch out of the BBC's A Bit of Fry and Laurie: "I counted at least 6 levels" ? "Really, I counted at least 9!"). For example, we learn that the author is a passionate Beaulieu hater ? always a good premise for a testing article (and I say this as someone who is no stranger to hating things, as I showed in my landmark post #400 here).

The text is also written in a German "Kneipen"-Slang (like: "pub lingo") which makes it a very accessible piece of reading for those who think that War and Peace has too many pages and that Hemingway really was just showing off literarily to get laid more than once a week. Looking forward to reading that translation :lol: . Most crucially, however, Jürgen clearly remarks that the Max 8 result is only achieved through letterbox-cropping in telecine!

 

 

 

Based on this realisation, several aspects of the camera that where previously questionable do finally make sense indeed:

 

The Pro8mm is indeed a proper non-DIY Ultra 8 modification, with a made-from-scratch film gate and path, plus a re-aligned lens to re-adjust the optical axis into the "middle" of the Ultra 8 frame. The aspect ratio that is achieved by shooting in this set-up is, as Mike and Rick stated, between 1:1.45 to 1:1.5, i.e. a gain over Super 8's 1:1.33 of some 10 to 15%. Now, that is not alot compared to the approx. 40% gained from Normal 16 to Super 16 or indeed Normal 8 to Super 8, but hey: every little helps when you shoot on 7% of a 35mm frame!

 

Atoning for earlier scepticism, I must also say that the so-called 16:9 markings etched into the Ritter-recycled ground glasses of the viewfinder do also make sense, but only if you become part of the Max 8 ecosystem as propagated by Pro8mm. They do a letterbox-cropping along the 16:9 markings in the viewfinder in their telecine lab, thus indeed achieving their proclaimed aspect ratio of 1:1.58! As Alan Lasky pointed out here, Pro8mm will do this on a Rank Cintel Millennium II in HD from March 2008 onwards, so you will get highly recommendable HD quality out of 8mm. IMHO, HD is actually worth it ? if, however, you can pay Pro8mm cam, prod and post prices!

 

 

 

So the only remaining troublesome issue with the Pro8mm camera is the unchangeable fact that the extended Ultra 8 part of the film frame is not depicted in the viewfinder, no matter what. But this is kinda normal for Super Duper 8 cameras and should not be über-singled-out here.

More botheringly, some lenses show vignetting issues at many focal lengths ? according to Jürgen Lossau ? because of the re-aligned optical axis shifted for Ultra 8. This is clearly shown in a frame grab published in the Schmalfilm article quoted and must be quoted to make the problem educationally understandable: it is attached below at the end of the post. There, you can see that while the Max 8 aspect ratio is not touched by the vignetting, the full frame Ultra 8 aspect ratio might be compromised. It is hence open to test-filming with this camera whether it can actually be used to capture full frame Ultra 8 at all... this is something for folks living in California to check-out, or indeed for a more investigative article in Schmalfilm/Smallformat.

 

 

 

So is it worth getting a Pro8mm 4008 over a CLA'd Beaulieu 4008-series?

 

If you want to buy into the Max 8 ecosystem as suggested by Pro8mm, i.e. a letterbox-cropped 1:1.58 telecine-ready camera with proper Ultra 8 modification, telecine-relating 16:9 markings etched into the ground glass of the viewfinder, and everything else to becoming a recurring customer at Burbank, then this product is your philosopher's stone.

 

If you just want a 4008 with an opto-mechanically proper Ultra 8 modification and/or an integrated crystal-sync module, then the Pro8mm is still worth a consideration. The 16:9 markings will annoy you, then, and you should bear in mind that the viewfinder is NOT depicting Ultra 8 but Super 8, but still: the non-DIY nature of the mod job is worthy a look.

Just make sure to check that your lens is not the cause of vignetting into the full frame Ultra 8 (especially to the side not visible in the viewfinder ? so test-shooting a cartridge is a must)!

 

If, however, you trust into Super 8's essential and time-proven concept of many integrated sopisticated features and options that the Pro8mm 4008 is missing (like: Rewind, Reglomatic, Sepmag, Handgrip, Single Frame, Remote starting, Retracked ground glass, 80 fps), plus the ability to add various (Pro8mm) features at your own will if required (such as quartzing, laser-brightened ground-glass or whatever), then going for a Beaulieu 4008 ZM II or Beaulieu 4008 ZM IV is the other option. It will certainly set you back much less money-wise, even with a full CLA job.

 

 

 

I attach two pics, the pictoral quote from Schmalfilm as mentioned above to help everyone here educationally to visualise the considerable problem; plus a little drawing of my own to depict the different formats and what they are all about ? just a sketch, really!