Jump to content

"New" super-8 camera to market


Lasse Roedtnes

Recommended Posts

Hi Benjamin,

 

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.

 

We are contemplating the following options:

 

A. One audio file per shot (every time you press record a new file is started) - this is what we have today already

B. One audio file per session 1 (a new file is started everytime you power cycle the camera - it records sound even though the camera is not recording film also)

C. One audio file per session 2 (a new file is started everytime you power cycle the camera - it does not record sound when it's not recording film)

D. One audio file per casette

 

The trouble (for option C,D) is that the internal firmware has to merge the files on the fly which is a bit tricky to do as it requires keeping track of elapsed audio so far but that's our firmware teams headache - we can not promise that option C,D will make it into the first firmware at present time.

 

Option B has been is implemented this morning.

 

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

 

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

 

In our opinion, sound on super-8 has always been a problem. We wanted to overcome it in an easy matter without people having to carry yet another "box" with them for the audio recording alone, if we think of our option B or the contemplated option C this would be exactly what people where already doing today (I believe).

 

We could strip away the audio entirely from our camera (it would still be a crystal synchronized camera though) that would properly reduce the price point by 200$ but would anyone really appriciate that?

 

Regards

Lasse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our opinion, sound on super-8 has always been a problem. We wanted to overcome it in an easy matter without people having to carry yet another "box" with them for the audio recording alone, if we think of our option B or the contemplated option C this would be exactly what people where already doing today (I believe).

 

We could strip away the audio entirely from our camera (it would still be a crystal synchronized camera though) that would properly reduce the price point by 200$ but would anyone really appriciate that?

 

No, Lasse. I am talking about designing the plug-in/out sound module here, not stripping it away!!! Of course, nobody appreciate it as the excellent built cameras are around with reasonable prices already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Erkan,

 

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but I dont understand why you would like to have a seperate audio recorder?

 

It doesnt make sense to make it modular - it only adds cost and complexity of connectors, extra plastics, batteries etc. and it hurts the estics of the camera.

 

The only modular thing we are planning for our camera is that you can order it with XLR + Phantom power or completely without it meaning that you can still use the 3.5mm jack microphone connector or stereo line input but the XLR connector will not be monted then (you could send it in later and have it retrofitted though)

 

The reasoning behind this is that it's a seperate printed circuit board with it's own 48V power supply and gain amps that goes together with the XLR so this obviously has a cost adder but *I think* most people will be just as happy by using a regular 3.5mm jack microphone.

 

This is up for debate though.

 

/Lasse

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, Lasse. I am talking about designing the plug-in/out sound module here, not stripping it away!!! Of course, nobody appreciate it as the excellent built cameras are around with reasonable prices already.

 

What other crystal-sync Super8 cameras with easy sound recording are around? Especially brand-new? And I definitely agree with Lasse: A flash card inside the camera is much better than having to carry yet another box around with you. In my case, there already *WOULD* be such an external box, i. e. a Sound Device in order to level and monitor the audio before it's going into the camera. A second one for recording would be both pointless and superfluous.

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What other crystal-sync Super8 cameras with easy sound recording are around? Especially brand-new? And I definitely agree with Lasse: A flash card inside the camera is much better than having to carry yet another box around with you. In my case, there already *WOULD* be such an external box, i. e. a Sound Device in order to level and monitor the audio before it's going into the camera. A second one for recording would be both pointless and superfluous.

 

For example, you work with two men crew, and the sound-man should be far away from the camera, and you cannot use any wireless due to radio signals. Then your sound-man plugged the module away from the camera by inserting a simple gum battery, and began to record sound.

 

I work nearly 20 years for documentary work in more than 50 countries, and once I faced with that situation at the Russian Space Center near Moscow...

 

What I mean is that, for this type camera, these types of add-on really fit.

 

Also you don't need any other camera supplying "1/F pulses"" via Flash sync socket most of cameras have. As well as, few companies offer the X-tal sync mods...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For example, you work with two men crew, and the sound-man should be far away from the camera, and you cannot use any wireless due to radio signals. Then your sound-man plugged the module away from the camera by inserting a simple gum battery, and began to record sound.

 

I work nearly 20 years for documentary work in more than 50 countries, and once I faced with that situation at the Russian Space Center near Moscow...

 

What I mean is that, for this type camera, these types of add-on really fit.

 

Also you don't need any other camera supplying "1/F pulses"" via Flash sync socket most of cameras have. As well as, few companies offer the X-tal sync mods...

 

Well, why would the boom operator be that much away from the camera? So far it sounds like this is gonna be the most silent Super8 camera ever, and XLR cables can go a long way, like 20, 30 meters or more. And for any other cases you use radio. You yourself confirm how rare any case is where you can't use XLR *OR* radio if it's only once in 20 years and more than 50 countries. Even then, there's still the wi-fi antenna that I guess could even be used to receive a sound signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow the issue here.

 

If you want to record sound separately you can, since the camera is crystal synced. Traditional methods of start sync are hand clapping, clapper board etc.

 

If you want to record sound while connected to a boom guy at a distance then that is also available (from go or retrofitted)

 

If you want to record sound using a mounted mic. That is also available.

 

Whether you record sound on a separate box, or on the one provided by the camera, it makes no difference to workflow. You will still have to manually manage how the film and sound are eventually married together. That's quite normal or familiar practice in film making.

 

The only other solution, not provided, is recording directly on film - but short of that I don't know how this camera, in terms of sound, would differ from any other film/sound workflow. The only difference is that the sound recorder is built into the camera. Other than that you do sound in more or less the same way it's been done since sound film was first invented.

 

Your best friend is a notebook. Or in a tricky situation where that is not possible - making some notes afterwards. And label your carts, in the order they are shot.

 

C

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has made me giggle so much. :P

 

 

Just how linking 2 1/2 minutes of audio to the equally linear video footage is seen in any way as a 'problem' is hilarious.

I often have documentary audio recordings made along with the HD footage and then sync each clip/shot with ease in Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro or Avid Media Composer (which I've been using for over 20 years).

2 1/2 minutes would take all of twenty to thirty minutes to sync at most.

 

Thus having learnt to edit on a six plate Steenbeck, with my film clips all dangling into a big bin, a mass of mag stock full of my audio recordings, whilst clutching a chinagraph pencil and a CIR splicer at the ready; I find it utterly incredulous that anyone would find syncing 2 1/2 minutes of sound in this day & age daunting in any way. = This is what a clapperboard is for. :rolleyes:



Having an internal sync sound recorder in this camera would be really useful and the option to use an external recorder is always there too. It's as simple as that.

I hope Lasse and the team push forward with this new Super 8 camera. It's really exciting work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Erkan,

 

For example, you work with two men crew, and the sound-man should be far away from the camera, and you cannot use any wireless due to radio signals. Then your sound-man plugged the module away from the camera by inserting a simple gum battery, and began to record sound.

 

I think I misunderstood what you meant before.

 

If your main concern (which is very valid) is that your sound guy is "far away" and he wants to adjust the sound parameters such as recording gain, bass, treble etc... he would have to go back to the camera and fiddle with it there then there's (a few) good solution for it.

 

A ) Your sound guy uses a small audio mixer box which he carries locally on him - these are available from multiple sources online - he then connects this via a 3.5mm Jack cable to the industry standard Line input of the camera - in the camera menu you then set the recording gain to 1 and turn off the AGC this allows the external box to take control completely.

 

B ) You wait until we have the apps up and running from which you should be able to control audio settings as well. :)

 

 

Regards

Lasse

Edited by Lasse Roedtnes
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you record sound on a separate box, or on the one provided by the camera, it makes no difference to workflow. You will still have to manually manage how the film and sound are eventually married together. That's quite normal or familiar practice in film making.

 

The only other solution, not provided, is recording directly on film - but short of that I don't know how this camera, in terms of sound, would differ from any other film/sound workflow. The only difference is that the sound recorder is built into the camera. Other than that you do sound in more or less the same way it's been done since sound film was first invented.

 

C

 

Yes Carl,

 

Thanks for the possibility info...

 

Film technology didn't change much, but the digital workflow and equipment for audio. Do you remember the MiniDiscs? What will do if the SD cards are obsolete in the future?, but you can change the sound module in a very easy way. The pro manufacturers just began to think this possibility like in ARRI Alexa cameras, now they are totally hardware upgradeable...

 

We will gonna pay an amount for that camera I am pretty sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how linking 2 1/2 minutes of audio to the equally linear video footage is seen in any way as a 'problem' is hilarious.

I often have documentary audio recordings made along with the HD footage and then sync each clip/shot with ease in Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro or Avid Media Composer (which I've been using for over 20 years).

 

2 1/2 minutes would take all of twenty to thirty minutes to sync at most.

 

Thus having learnt to edit on a six plate Steenbeck, with my film clips all dangling into a big bin, a mass of mag stock full of my audio recordings, whilst clutching a chinagraph pencil and a CIR splicer at the ready; I find it utterly incredulous that anyone would find syncing 2 1/2 minutes of sound in this day & age daunting in any way. = This is what a clapperboard is for. :rolleyes:

 

You are absolutely right Bill!...

 

But may I am dreaming of snapping on magazine to my camera accepting the rolls of Super 8 in Bulk (on core), too. Think that: you have two separate mags for S8 cartridge - 50ft., and S8 roll - 238ft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, why would the boom operator be that much away from the camera? So far it sounds like this is gonna be the most silent Super8 camera ever, and XLR cables can go a long way, like 20, 30 meters or more. And for any other cases you use radio. You yourself confirm how rare any case is where you can't use XLR *OR* radio if it's only once in 20 years and more than 50 countries. Even then, there's still the wi-fi antenna that I guess could even be used to receive a sound signal.

 

Yes, Benjamin you are right, too...

 

But my sound-man is not a firefighter anymore carrying 20, 30 meters or more cable... Those days must stay in the past of Pilotone recordings!

 

I told before, we are talking about the more possibilities for this new camera...

Edited by Erkan Umut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 1/2 minutes would take all of twenty to thirty minutes to sync at most.

 

But what if you, say, have shot 20 carts on a professional production with many outtakes? Wanna spend 10 hours just on synching?

 

But my sound-man is not a firefighter anymore carrying 20, 30 meters or more cable... Those days must stay in the past of Pilotone recordings!

 

I told before, we are talking about the more possibilities for this new camera...

 

Firefighter? Boom operator carrying 30 meters on their back? The way I know shootings where very long cables are required, they usually cover the floor, and the cables themselves are covered in rubber matts. Any shorter distance, just use shorter cables! I don't know any shoots where the boom operator really has to carry tons of cables on their back.

 

 

Lasse: I've spend the last two days trying to find deals on C-mount lenses. It seems that the only C-mount lenses that were actually designed for a size and image area corresponding to Super8 (which would pretty much equal the size of a 1/3" CCD sensor) and thus would have reasonable focal lengths are very cheaply made CCTV surveilance camera lenses. Not only are they not the best quality lenses, they cost from 700 Euros and WAAAAY up into the 2,000-3,000 Euros range.

 

On the other hand, with ordinary 16mm and Super16 lenses, you'd have to stand maybe 10 times the usual distance away for reasonable field sizes. Maybe that's why semi-professional and professional shorts and features in Super8 and Max8 usually look like shot with telescopes, with people using a C-mount Beaulieu and they just went with lenses designed for 16mm and Super16?

 

So I wonder if it may be worth a shot to reconsider your choice of going with C-mount for Super8? I suppose that the best choice would be to go with a common 1/3" video camera mount, such as the 1" bayonet mount? After all, lenses designed for 1/3" sensors would translate into entirely reasonable fields of vision for Super8 and Max8.

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Again, can't edit anymore after just 2 minutes.)

 

So I wonder if it may be worth a shot to reconsider your choice of going with C-mount for Super8? I suppose that the best choice would be to go with a common 1/3" video camera mount, such as the 1" bayonet mount? After all, lenses designed for 1/3" sensors would translate into entirely reasonable fields of vision for Super8 and Max8.

 

I have no problem going with video lenses, after all the only difference I know is certain coating (that's fully invisible to film) required for video or digital lenses that further reduce chromatic aberration that shows much more severely on CCDs than on film (and the *OTHER* major caveat you *USUALLY* run in with digital lenses is negligeable with Super8, and that's a sufficiently big enough image circle to cover your entire film area).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But what if you, say, have shot 20 carts on a professional production with many outtakes? Wanna spend 10 hours just on synching?

 

 

Firefighter? Boom operator carrying 30 meters on their back? The way I know shootings where very long cables are required, they usually cover the floor, and the cables themselves are covered in rubber matts. Any shorter distance, just use shorter cables! I don't know any shoots where the boom operator really has to carry tons of cables on their back.

 

Oh thank you!

I don't know how and what a boom operator carries...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lasse: I've spend the last two days trying to find deals on C-mount lenses. It seems that the only C-mount lenses that were actually designed for a size and image area corresponding to Super8 (which would pretty much equal the size of a 1/3" CCD sensor) and thus would have reasonable focal lengths are very cheaply made CCTV surveilance camera lenses. Not only are they not the best quality lenses, they cost from 700 Euros and WAAAAY up into the 2,000-3,000 Euros range.

 

On the other hand, with ordinary 16mm and Super16 lenses, you'd have to stand maybe 10 times the usual distance away for reasonable field sizes. Maybe that's why semi-professional and professional shorts and features in Super8 and Max8 usually look like shot with telescopes, with people using a C-mount Beaulieu and they just went with lenses designed for 16mm and Super16?

 

So I wonder if it may be worth a shot to reconsider your choice of going with C-mount for Super8? I suppose that the best choice would be to go with a common 1/3" video camera mount, such as the 1" bayonet mount? After all, lenses designed for 1/3" sensors would translate into entirely reasonable fields of vision for Super8 and Max8.

 

And yet another problem I've come across now: Almost all C-mount-fitting CCTV lenses (as they have been designed for a format size almost idential to Super8) are in fact CS-mount (and all lenses that are C-mount rather than CS are even more expensive). The mount itself is identical, but the focal point is way different. With a C-mount camera and a CS lens, what you get is a macro lens: Everything beyond, say, 5 or 10 cm away from the lens is all a blur.

 

Then again, I guess this could work with any wide-angle converters that require macro ability. Mount the CS-mount CCTV lens on your new C-mount camera, then use a wide-angle converter requiring a macro lens, and there you have your working lens.

 

Still, C-mount seems a rather awkward choice nowadays for a format that's pretty much identical in size to 1/3" CCD video cameras.

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fujinon HFxHA-1 series megapixel lenses (C-mount) seem quite good. The only issue might be with the wider lenses which have protruding back elements that might pose a problem with the shutter/mirror of the camera. Here's a list of them, not too pricey, only about $110 - $170 a lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Price_%240+-+%24249.99&ci=3659&N=4045021054+4288580118+4291437653+4073573425+4293918168

 

Here's one super-8 film shot with such a lens (Fujinon HF16HA-1B) and an anamorphic lens:https://vimeo.com/16590706

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is c-mount a dead format (any new c-mount lenses being produced these days)? Could the m43 mount be a more suitable mount? SLR Magic makes some great glass for that system and its evolving. Don't know how much the licensing cost are though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is c-mount a dead format (any new c-mount lenses being produced these days)? Could the m43 mount be a more suitable mount? SLR Magic makes some great glass for that system and its evolving. Don't know how much the licensing cost are though.

 

For machine vision it certainly isn't dead format: http://1stvision.com/lens/fujinon-lens.html

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fujinon HFxHA-1 series megapixel lenses (C-mount) seem quite good. The only issue might be with the wider lenses which have protruding back elements that might pose a problem with the shutter/mirror of the camera. Here's a list of them, not too pricey, only about $110 - $170 a lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Price_%240+-+%24249.99&ci=3659&N=4045021054+4288580118+4291437653+4073573425+4293918168

 

Here's one super-8 film shot with such a lens (Fujinon HF16HA-1B) and an anamorphic lens:https://vimeo.com/16590706

 

Well, the widest Fujinon goes up to 6mm with a field of vision of 55° in Super8, which translates to a focal length of 42mm in Academy 35mm. That's still a normal lens. But after googling some to find these "HFxHA-1" Fujinons (when googling exactly that, you get nothing), I've found some interesting C-mount Pentax lenses, for example, that go down to 2.5-4mm (c. 100°-75°, equal to c. 17-28mm), for around 150 Euros (= $200).

Edited by Benjamin Dietze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, the widest Fujinon goes up to 6mm with a field of vision of 55° in Super8, which translates to a focal length of 42mm in Academy 35mm. That's still a normal lens. But after googling some to find these "HFxHA-1" Fujinons (when googling exactly that, you get nothing), I've found some interesting C-mount Pentax lenses, for example, that go down to 2.5-4mm (c. 100°-75°, equal to c. 17-28mm), for around 150 Euros (= $200).

Sorry, just used the x in place of the focal length. Google for HF and HA-1.

 

But nice to know about Pentax lenses :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And yet another problem I've come across now: Almost all C-mount-fitting CCTV lenses (as they have been designed for a format size almost idential to Super8) are in fact CS-mount (and all lenses that are C-mount rather than CS are even more expensive). The mount itself is identical, but the focal point is way different. With a C-mount camera and a CS lens, what you get is a macro lens: Everything beyond, say, 5 or 10 cm away from the lens is all a blur.

 

Then again, I guess this could work with any wide-angle converters that require macro ability. Mount the CS-mount CCTV lens on your new C-mount camera, then use a wide-angle converter requiring a macro lens, and there you have your working lens.

 

Still, C-mount seems a rather awkward choice nowadays for a format that's pretty much identical in size to 1/3" CCD video cameras.

 

Yes, the CCTV lenses are offered in both of C and CS! and you cannot use CS-mount lens in a C-mount camera, pictures will be out of focus as you said. Their flange focals are different!!! C-mount is 17.526mm while CS is 12.5mm.

 

I have used the COMPUTAR C-mount CCTV zoom and fix lenses with manual focus/aperture and zooming (I have several) in my eclair ACLII 16mm camera with success, despite I have several pristine Angénieux zooms in CA-1 (eclair) mount.

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...