Jump to content

"New" super-8 camera to market


Lasse Roedtnes

Recommended Posts

you can get good deals with labs on dev+telecine on super16, so good for that matter, that last time I calculated it (yesterday) shooting super 16 was actually cheeper by a small margin than shooting super8, which for me leaves super8 as a format I would use just for the look of it, not to try and match lager formats picture quality.

 

So if Super8 was cheaper than Super16, how would you actually go about making Super8 match the quality of larger formats?

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a "Super8 look". Super8 is made from the same film stock that larger formats are made. Tri-X 200 cut to Super8 is no different from Tri-X 200 cut to 16mm. And so on

 

If by "Super8 look" one means using a particular Super8 camera what is so "Super8" about that? There is nothing "Super8" about a particular Super8 camera other than it is designed to expose Super8 film. But every Super8 camera has a slightly different look and feel according to the optics it uses, the pressure plate, the claw, etc.

 

And of course, when you project Super8 film to the same size as larger formats you see more of the grain. But it's the same grain. It's not as if they make Super8 film with more grain than the equivalent stock in a larger format. It is only when you blow up Super8 to fill the same viewing area as a larger format that it acquires that ":grainier" look.

 

So what does it mean to speak of a "Super8 look" if some of those variables can be changed without altering either the Super8 film stock or indeed it's specification. The so called "Super8" look emerges as nothing more than uncreative habituation with particular existing workflows.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, for me, the true "super 8 look" is reversal film, not negative. It's grainy, contrasty and colorful (saturated). It's also jittery and hand-held.

 

Unfortunately, reversal color film died with E100D and Velvia 50. Hopefully it will be reborn in Velvia 100 (available in 100ft lengths) or from Ferrania, if and when that happens. It was not kept alive or reborn in AGFA 200D. The color is not the same and the image far too grainy.

 

So, I get as close as I can with negative film.

 

The "super 8 look" is not really about the film as much as the camera and operator. It's probably better described as the "home movie look".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what does it mean to speak of a "Super8 look" if some of those variables can be changed without altering either the Super8 film stock or indeed it's specification. The so called "Super8" look emerges as nothing more than uncreative habituation with particular existing workflows.

 

C

You're talking about tech spec etc, I'm talking from a dop point of view that usually need to cut super8 with 4K or 35mm/super16.

 

It's not rocket science to tell what is super8 "look"; this is the look that is perceived by the audience as those old home movies from the 60s-70s. it's a bit choppy(no crystal sync etc), a bit scratchy, it's jittery, it's grainy, soft and a bit(or not a bit) dreamy looking because of that...most super8 cameras could replicate it. I do agree though that this look is more reversal than negative, but even with negative you can get cool results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So if Super8 was cheaper than Super16, how would you actually go about making Super8 match the quality of larger formats?

 

C

why would you want to do that? you have super16 or 35, if you didn't you needed to invent them. In film the bigger the better :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you make for Super 8, say thousands of Dollars cameras, its still the limited small format, so the quality will be limited compared to that of other larger formats.

 

What do a good lens and steadiness make are better results in its category. Nothing more actually.

 

So, if you want to get a small format scent, why do you need for a better Super 8 equipment? Just do it with available in any format... There is enough technology today for whatever you want. You need grainy look? Add it in the post to an excellent shot. You want shaky images, so its the same, etc.

 

Why are the small formats chosen in the movie history?, because of simplicity and economy. (Don't forget,16mm and 9.5mm were the amateur home movie formats in the past prior to 8mm.)

 

But today its a utopia among filmmakers, because this format is became highly endangered so quickly, and most people behind it grew up with these home movies mostly with family memories, dark home or party rooms with a magical lantern, shortages and limitations of the system, tasting the pictures manually and optically, etc., etc., that's why this format gains so popularity. Nothing more. This is a missing that the fascinated old generation tell to the new generation somehow. I experienced this with my 19-year old students at the university I teach. Also, today's technology is limitless and causes dissatisfaction...

 

If you want to simulate a Super 8 look with any other media, don't forget to add more shaky images (due to small camera movements in smaller formats cause bigger movements than any other bigger format on screen) and bigger grains (the same enlargement phenomenon).

 

So, we should not expect more than it can...

Edited by Erkan Umut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain the Max8 issues I've seen before were no vignetting or any other lens issues. They looked more like damaged or malprocessed film and were not static but animated, and constricted precisely within maybe 1/5th to maybe 1/3th of the image width, a straight stripe of area, not curved in any way as a lens issue would be, located on the side of the widescreen image where the film was never meant to be exposed.

 



I am missing the ORWO UTs and Svemas. Unfortunately, the improved Svema Och-90L (90 GOST near to ISO 90) Tungsten reversal stock for TV stations is gone when the Soviet Union collapsed. I was being lucky to shoot some rolls of it when they were given in Azerbaijan TV as a present. It was similar of AGfa-Gevaert stocks of that time, little brownish. At that time, Svema in Shostka, Ukraine was already finishing the Kodak processing friendly stocks...

 

Just to make sure, you do know about the b/w SVEMA and ORWO stocks currently sold by Wittner, right?

 

 

 

There is no such thing as a "Super8 look". Super8 is made from the same film stock that larger formats are made. Tri-X 200 cut to Super8 is no different from Tri-X 200 cut to 16mm. And so on

 

If by "Super8 look" one means using a particular Super8 camera what is so "Super8" about that? There is nothing "Super8" about a particular Super8 camera other than it is designed to expose Super8 film. But every Super8 camera has a slightly different look and feel according to the optics it uses, the pressure plate, the claw, etc.

 

And of course, when you project Super8 film to the same size as larger formats you see more of the grain. But it's the same grain. It's not as if they make Super8 film with more grain than the equivalent stock in a larger format. It is only when you blow up Super8 to fill the same viewing area as a larger format that it acquires that ":grainier" look.

 

So what does it mean to speak of a "Super8 look" if some of those variables can be changed without altering either the Super8 film stock or indeed it's specification. The so called "Super8" look emerges as nothing more than uncreative habituation with particular existing workflows.

 

C

 

What the general public and most "hipsters" associate with "the Super8 look" is this: The look of a cheap 1CCD video camera pointed at a projection screen. The result has heavy flicker, lots of dirt, a parallaxis, vignetting to pitch black on the edges, a hotspot in the middle where everything is indiscernibly burned out to white, is very blurry both spatially and temporarily (blurred single frames as well as blurred motions), the colors are way off because of both the video camera's auto-white balance and the poor 1CCD colors, and then the videotape made in the 80s was left to rot on top of a speaker for several decades, before being captured via very cheap, slightly malfunctioning mono-coaxial CVBS cables additionally introducing dotcrawl and rainbow swirls.
Beyond that, even many professionals not affected by "video over Super8" marketing that has been utilizing all of the above-mentioned shortcomings of video for decades now, associate "the Super8 look" with jittery hand-held shots, not the slightest idea of proper field sizes and composition on the side of the operator, as well as bad in-camera as well as post-production editing that never even comes close to the professional conventions and timing of nouvelle vague jumpcuts and the "found footage" genre.
And what I've been noticing especially with those shorts and features shot by semi-professional teams were the limitations with fixed lenses focal-length wise: Every single shot usually looks much too tight and crammed because the field of vision is pretty tiny with most Super8 cameras compared to the equipment of larger or modern digital formats.
Speaking of which, anybody have any common retail figures for used rectilinear 16mm and S16mm C-mount lenses, and how their field of vision translates to the smaller Super8 frame? The larger the field of vision, the better!
As for "matching the quality of larger formats", I go by the guy above who said that 1980s news camera operators woulda gladly thrown their betas away if they'd seen modern telecines from Super8. All I want with "the Super8 look" is a film look at an economic price. I don't need HD telecines because a.) beyond SD, I believe in contrast sharpness and proper bitrates rather than pixel values, b.) most of my screenings happen on living-room sized monitors, and c.) in case I do ever need HD rez's, I have a number of top-of-the-line rescaling technologies at my fingertips, not those cheap ones built into HD TVs, BD players, or Adobe software.
Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Can't edit anymore.)

 

 

And what I've been noticing especially with those shorts and features shot by semi-professional teams were the limitations with fixed lenses focal-length wise: Every single shot usually looks much too tight and crammed because the field of vision is pretty tiny with most Super8 cameras compared to the equipment of larger or modern digital formats.

 

 

To be more precise: Most Super8 cameras seem telescopic monoculars with a recording feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

Can you be a more specific regarding "rubbing"? Are you hinting at a UP8 3.1 Double Super 8 gate for this camera? The current transport is specifically 8mm width not the required 16mm.

 

Nick Kovats

 

there is that Ultra Pan 8 format. Perhaps some of the enthusiasm from this camera could rub off on those folks. God knows there is no such thing as too many formats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations, Lasse! And also your team!

 

You have unleashed a long discussed desire for a new Super 8 camera. I am looking forward to the potential mods undertaken by enthusiastic new owners.

 

Lots of questions that you may or may not have time to answer.

 

1. Will users be able to access and remove the CMOS camera sitting behind the beamsplitter? I was wondering if the resultant cavity would allow modular 3rd party viewfinder optics? I am a firm believer in the precision of WYISWYG optical finders. Using external low resolution bulky LCD(s) as focusing aids is not conducive to portability nor run and gun operation in the field.

 

2. Fascinating adaptation of the Mekel SP-1R Super 8 transport! Were you in contact with Moris Ambsbery, the creator of the Mekel, or Gil Pendley at Visual Instrumentation Corp (VIC)?

 

3. Have you started PV/QA testing relative to film stock thickness, i.e. acetate or polyester bases?

 

All in all...outstanding! The secondary effects have started and have revitalized the few who are burning the film mod/manufacturing candles globally. We have re-manufactured approximately 13x UltraPan8 2.8 and 3.1 film cameras to date and I see your team's project as a wonderful compliment to promote the use of film stock. I happen to believe that we have yet to exhaust the incredible informational capabilities of film especially in conjunction with the Nyquist Theorem (oversampling) as applied to digital scans.

 

An example of the UP8 3.1 format utilizing the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 film, i.e. http://vimeo.com/45620380

 

Nicholas Kovats

 

Shoot Film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lasse et al. are lucky cause there are many cameras and people around them to examine what are the pros and cons...

 

Chris, maybe you know, Nic Kovats from Canada is a very knowledgeable guy about the UP8 format and a serious follower.

 

 

Edited by Nicholas Kovats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make sure, you do know about the b/w SVEMA and ORWO stocks currently sold by Wittner, right?

 

No Benjamin. I went back to the end of 70s for ORWO, and the beginning of 90s for SVEMA :)

 

We had a variety of films from Eastern Germany thru a distributor in Turkey (Importers from VE AHB ORWO-EXPORT-IMPORT, Berlin) when Eastern Bloc was in their heydays; and then first Polish black market sellers (probably in 1989), later Russians after the collapse.

 

I have proof that Turkey had used the SVEMA and ORWO materials in the past when the USSR was alive..

 

There was an authorized lab located in Vienna, Austria working for ORWO, in charge of processing the reversals coming from the countries not in Eastern Bloc.

 

Most of my SVEMAs are processed in Budapest, Hungary and in Baku, Azerbaijan. What a journey I miss... :)

 

I grew up with Eastern Bloc equipment and films mostly, because my pocket money was limited :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nicholas & All,

 

Congratulations, Lasse! And also your team!

 

Thank you, I would also like to stress that this is no "lasse cam" it's been a team effort to come this far - it's taken two years and heavy investment to get to this stage and it's a commercial design - we did not originally want to release pictures of the camera before it was completed however in spur of the moment I made the mistake of revealing a little too much and then the ball was running. We then decided that we might as well reveal what we had instead of keeping people waiting and facing the inevitable comments like "I knew it was a hoax" etc.

 

As said it's a prototype the appearance will change ;)

Also my role in this camera development is not so significant - I'm the lead architect on the electronics - nothing more.

 

Let's entertain a few questions shall we :)

 

1. Will users be able to access and remove the CMOS camera sitting behind the beamsplitter? I was wondering if the resultant cavity would allow modular 3rd party viewfinder optics? I am a firm believer in the precision of WYISWYG optical finders. Using external low resolution bulky LCD(s) as focusing aids is not conducive to portability nor run and gun operation in the field.

 

Users can access it by voiding the warranty (you have to dismantle the sides) - this is not recommended obviously, that aside, I talked to the mechanical designer and he stated that it would be possible to remove the cmos camera and make provisioning for optical viewfinding through the side of the camera by drilling a hole and using some mirrors (it would not be a walk in the park though) - we decided against optical viewfinder because we didn't want all the hassle of making the optics that's all.

 

2. Fascinating adaptation of the Mekel SP-1R Super 8 transport! Were you in contact with Moris Ambsbery, the creator of the Mekel, or Gil Pendley at Visual Instrumentation Corp (VIC)?

 

Let me start off by saying that none in this team have ever owned or operated a Mekel or Leicina camera, talked to Mr. Ambsbery or Mr. Pendley. Our sole source of inspiration came from professional 35mm cameras - we are investigating patenting our film pulley though (the pin registration etc.) which is why it's a "black box" on the photo - loads of R&D hours and money has been spend on this and it's truely unique.

 

3. Have you started PV/QA testing relative to film stock thickness, i.e. acetate or polyester bases?

 

We are in the early stages of QA testing at the moment.

 

---

 

We will do a more formal release of information next month.

 

Thanks for your support!

 

/Lasse

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One concern is how well it can do time-exposure. And if it can do time-exposure, how can we see the image via the viewfinder as opposed to the mounted digital viewfinder? Time-exposure seems to me to be underexplored and super-8 of all the formats has had the advantage of being able to see view image even when the shutter is exposing the frame. It can be very educational to see what is transpiring in the frame then recall it later when seeing how the actual shot came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lasse, you did not make a mistake. This is not a hammer-like tool. Its gonna be used by the people who cares for esthetics and art forms, as well as used many cameras and films. Its good to get views from the people. Why not?

 

We all should show respect for what you are working on, and you are spending hours as well as making investment...

 

But be careful, please keep attention to what the potential users are trying to tell, and try to do your best, when your project become successful, the strong competitors might be waiting for you. The some of ex-Soviet and Chinese designers and engineers (with reasonable salaries) and works or factories (with precision manufacturing capabilities) in this field are still available...

 

Good luck!

Edited by Erkan Umut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One concern is how well it can do time-exposure. And if it can do time-exposure, how can we see the image via the viewfinder as opposed to the mounted digital viewfinder? Time-exposure seems to me to be underexplored and super-8 of all the formats has had the advantage of being able to see view image even when the shutter is exposing the frame. It can be very educational to see what is transpiring in the frame then recall it later when seeing how the actual shot came out.

 

If I get you right, I guess that could be taken care of by my idea of a "pull-down" aka electronic framebuffer as could be handled by firmware software before the signal reaches the video output socket.

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would you want to do that? you have super16 or 35, if you didn't you needed to invent them. In film the bigger the better :-)

 

I have no issue with why, but with how?

 

You said since Super8 is almost the same price as 16mm that you "would use just for the look of it, not to try and match lager formats picture quality."

 

 

Oron Cohen, on 19 Aug 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:snapback.png

you can get good deals with labs on dev+telecine on super16, so good for that matter, that last time I calculated it (yesterday) shooting super 16 was actually cheeper by a small margin than shooting super8, which for me leaves super8 as a format I would use just for the look of it, not to try and match lager formats picture quality.

 

So I'm interested in how you would have otherwise been able to "match larger formats picture quality" anyway?

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking about tech spec etc, I'm talking from a dop point of view that usually need to cut super8 with 4K or 35mm/super16.

 

It's not rocket science to tell what is super8 "look"; this is the look that is perceived by the audience as those old home movies from the 60s-70s. it's a bit choppy(no crystal sync etc), a bit scratchy, it's jittery, it's grainy, soft and a bit(or not a bit) dreamy looking because of that...most super8 cameras could replicate it. I do agree though that this look is more reversal than negative, but even with negative you can get cool results.

 

What sort of DOP perspective ignores the technical attributes of film?

 

If by "Super8 look" one means a home movie look then certainly one could use a 60s/70s Super8 camera to achieve a home movie look, but it's not something that is intrinsically Super8, nor intrinsically home movie. A home movie look from the 80s would look like video. From the early 20th century it would look more like 16mm (of which I've seen a few).

 

The easiest way of obtaining the look of a 60s/70s home movie is obviously to use a 60s/70s Super8 camera.

 

But this is purely a function of Super8 having been used as a home movie format in the 60s and 70s. It is not a function of anything about Super8 film nor Super8 cameras. If no home movies were shot on Super8 then you wouldn't be able to get a home movie look by using it. So it is purely a function of cultural historical baggage that can be tapped, obviously, by using a 60s/70s Super8 camera.

 

But this "Super8 look" has become a boring cliche. I don't see anything cool about it at all. It is a very lazy use of Super8.

 

That doesn't mean that using it in any other way is some sort of impossible attempt to "match the quality of larger formats". What has occured is that filmstocks have improved, and therefore, so too has Super8 filmstock. What hasn't improved in any way is Super8 cameras, nor the DOPs who insist on using them to invoke some sort of nostalgic home movie "cool" look that they call the "Super8 look".

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By way of elaboration, Wim Wenders used Super8, in the film "Paris,Texas", for the same reason it has otherwise been abused ever since - to obtain a home movie look.

 

Indeed the narrative has Super8 being loaded onto a Super8 projector and thrown on a wall. When this film-on-a-wall is then enlarged to fill the cinema screen it takes on an additional power - a sense of actuality, rather than just a film-on-a-wall, but with a sense of memory. What we see becomes the memory of the protagonist - effectively a flashback rather than a film-on-the-wall. A memory of happier times with his wife. The grain creates a sense of loss - the past as receding to be eventually lost in noise. A sense of nostalgia on one level but also a sense of reality on another - the past as not quite lost, but nearly so

 

The climax of the film has the protagonist interacting with his wife via a two way mirror where his wife (ex wife) is performing a strip tease (not knowing he is there). His relationship to his wife via this rectangular two way mirror echoes his relationship via the home movie. It's as if the reality of his wife is always one step removed. A representation.

 

The final shot of the protagonist driving away looking through the rear vision mirror is a final punctuation on this - seeing the world through a rectangle.

 

But yet it's not really his problem. It's the world that prefers to live in a box rather than him. He is seeing the world as it otherwise presents itself.

 

Boxed.

 

Now take something like Natural Born Killers. Here one might argue that it's using the "Super8 look" for a home movie look, but this is just rubbish. It's being used for the textural qualities of which Super8 is capable - certainly not to look as if it was shot on larger formats, but neither for a home movie look. It is aiming at qualities that are inherent when you blow small gauge film up large - that additional power it acquires - as a reality in it's own right. Plus all the handheld work which gives it a rough and ready feel. Or to put it another way, what home movie ever depicted that which is depicted in Natural Born Killers?

 

There is quite a lot that can be done with Super8 that does not require it remain forever boxed as some sort of tool for obtaining a home movie look.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

One concern is how well it can do time-exposure. And if it can do time-exposure, how can we see the image via the viewfinder as opposed to the mounted digital viewfinder? Time-exposure seems to me to be underexplored and super-8 of all the formats has had the advantage of being able to see view image even when the shutter is exposing the frame. It can be very educational to see what is transpiring in the frame then recall it later when seeing how the actual shot came out.

 

Time-Exposure is technically possible - it *could* be made possible to adjust

the time between each image and the time of each image exposure. (time which the shutter is open)

We havent done this as we've had plenty of other stuff to worry about, but that being said it could come as a firmware upgrade later on.

 

You wouldn't be able to see the image while it was being exposed though (shutter opened) only in the "idle" period (shutter closed) could you see it... so for example if you choose 1 frame every 5 seconds with 1 second exposure time it would mean that you can see the image before it shoots the first frame - then the screen goes black for 1 second (the programmed exposure time) after which you would be able to see the image in the view finder again for another 5 seconds. Bear in mind that there's only 1 viewfinder on this camera and even if you "hacked" the camera you still wouldn't be able to see the image during exposure as a result of our oscillating mirror shutter principle.

 

If I get you right, I guess that could be taken care of by my idea of a "pull-down" aka electronic framebuffer as could be handled by firmware software before the signal reaches the video output socket.

 

This was considered originally (frame grabbing during shutter open operation) but it means that it just "freezes" the last known image when the shutter was opened and then showing that (while shutter is closing and closed) until the shutter again was opened so you still wouldnt be able to see what's being exposed that's why we didn't design the electronics to do this (as it would just cause confusion) it would eliminate the flickering though but there's also a big cost and complexity adder for implementing the frame grabber compared to what we are doing today.

 

Best regards

Lasse

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For viewing time exposures, while the shutter is closed, I recommend pulling one's eyes away from the viewfinder/screen and looking at what is happening in front of the camera. The view is much brighter and in 3D. The only downside is the absence of a rectangular frame, however you can always use your imagination for that.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For viewing time exposures, while the shutter is closed, I recommend pulling one's eyes away from the viewfinder/screen and looking at what is happening in front of the camera. The view is much brighter and in 3D. The only downside is the absence of a rectangular frame, however you can always use your imagination for that.

 

Carl

Or assemble a wireframe viewfinder as accessoiry :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The view is much brighter and in 3D.

 

I don't need 3D. My education has taught me to focus exclusively on how it's gonna look like on a 2D screen! :P It's like I've unlearned to even see things in 3D anymore... The recent fad with those fancy-shmanzy new glasses just makes me dizzy and gives me headaches.

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, just thought of another thing! If you're doing a professional piece where perfection is of the essence and hence many outtakes may result to be "left on the cutting room floor", does the firmware record the audio into a single file per cart? Because if it's gonna make every single shot into its own audio file, it's gonna get harder and harder to match the right sound to the right visual the more footage you've shot. And if the whole session will be one huge file, it's also gonna get pretty arduous to find the splitting points where one cart ends and the next begins, and *THEN* marry them together.

 

If it'd be one audio file per cart, then you'd just have to hold up a number in front of the lens for the cart's first shot and simultaneously say it, like, you know, "Cartridge #4". Pretty much the good ol' clapper deal. It could be done by the firmware save-closing a file once a cart is ejected (which of course it'd have to sense).

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lasse, you see...

 

Many people are cautious about the digital part of your new-born camera, esp. the sound and the post syncing.

 

It will be better, if you can redesign the sound part as a separate module for the future. Also, doing so, this module could be act as a portable recorder when separated from the camera (needs an extra small Lithium gum battery supply though)...

 

Maybe this is too much for a S8 camera...

Edited by Erkan Umut
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...