Jump to content

Not my best Super 8 footage yet.


Moises Perez

Recommended Posts

 

Small point from the audience.

For now the "resolution" of manufactured mechanical systems fades to undifferentiated grey well before the "resolution of the atoms". Beyond that thought, the film in the gate is a dynamic mechanical system, and perhaps some dimension or amplitude within that will define the "resolution".

 

Very true - my rhetorical flourish went a bit too far.

 

The resolution will be limited by the machining technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This argument best applies to newly shot film.

 

One of the reasons we chose the ScanStation was because it does all of this optically and can easily scan the most screwed up, shrunken film you can imagine. We ran some film through the scanner last week that the client had been told was unscannable. I wasn't even sure we could do it, because the film was so badly shrunken and cupped. But you know what? the only reels we couldn't deal with were the ones that had fused into a solid block of acetate. All of the rest of the film went through the scanner, and despite the extreme shrinkage, we were able to get really nice 4k scans of what was left on it.

 

Mechanical edge guides would have been useless in this case, because the film was so warped, a spring loaded guide would have pushed the high edge up higher. If one existed, I wouldn't use a pressure plate with that film, because it likely would have caused further damage to the film.

 

 

In terms of the pin registration, you can't put shrunken film into a mechanical pin-registration system without risk of damage (or without using specially modified pins, which are by design narrower and less precise). So in terms of pin reg, optical is always more accurate when you're talking about scanners of this resolution.

 

-perry

 

Thanks Perry -

 

you are quite correct. The scanner shines in terms of archival concerns. Definitely. And in terms of the resolution, the optical registration does not really need to be any higher than the image scan itself.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please explain, then, why 35mm, 16mm film and regular 8 (basically 16mm film) don't have this problem. At all.

 

It's a flaw in the Super 8 film. It's within spec because Kodak's spec was sloppy. It was sloppy because it was meant to be cheap and fast, not precise. It's good scanners and good cameras that expose this flaw.

 

-perry

 

I'm addressing this again because I don't think it's being appreciated what is being said.

 

The Super8 spec (which was the result of a consortium of manufacturer's rather than just Kodak) is not sloppy. It is cheap, but it's also precise. A win win situation one might say.

 

The solution is robust meaning that it takes into account variations in manufacturing tolerances: that the requisite mechanical design for cameras and projectors should simply not hitch their wagons to the horizontal position of the perf. The so called problem (or "flaw") only occurs if you hitch your wagon to the perf (as scanners were doing). But cameras and projectors (indeed from the very beginning) simply didn't hitch their wagon to this particular horse in the first place. They already understood the perf couldn't be microscopically perfect. Their solution to this, however, was microscopically perfect:

 

Just don't hitch your wagon to that horse in the first place.

 

This is the lesson that LaserGraphics has now learnt.

 

We need to learn from history, and respect it, rather than assuming it is somehow sloppier or less intelligent in it's solutions.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm confused, you can see the perf's weaving left to right compared to the image. This isn't a trait you'll see with any other medium that I'm aware of. I scan 16/35mm all the time and have never seen so much fluctuation with the sprockets on new stock.

People have been reporting perf issues with Super 8 film forever. I've shot tens of thousands of feet of super-8 film in my life and every single frame has gate weave. I've also shot tens of thousands of feet of 16 and have projected/scanned much of it without any gate weave. Now it's a bigger image, so it's not as noticeable I get that. However, you'd absolutely see it in a test like this.

 

I personally don't think a registration pin would solve the problem, as the edges of the film seem to be OK since the image isn't moving too much, but the perf is all over the place. If you had a pin that locked into that perf for every exposure, the frame would be all over the place as well. The only thing saving the camera is the gate and backplate, keeping the frame itself from shifting.

 

This is an inherent issue with Super 8 because everything is so small, the machining issues are more present then ever. You won't see this with standard 8 because it's a 16mm wide frame originally. I had hoped the Logmar camera would have reduced these issues, but it appears they still exist even though it does eliminate the focus issues that plastic backplate cartridges have, which is nice. This is yet another reason why super 8 really isn't ready for primetime without A LOT of fixing in post.

 

I'm happy people are shooting super 8, but for the format to really be professional quality, some of these issues need to be solved. The stock quality today is good enough, it's just a matter of the mechanics of the beast.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused, you can see the perf's weaving left to right compared to the image. This isn't a trait you'll see with any other medium that I'm aware of. I scan 16/35mm all the time and have never seen so much fluctuation with the sprockets on new stock.

People have been reporting perf issues with Super 8 film forever. I've shot tens of thousands of feet of super-8 film in my life and every single frame has gate weave. I've also shot tens of thousands of feet of 16 and have projected/scanned much of it without any gate weave. Now it's a bigger image, so it's not as noticeable I get that. However, you'd absolutely see it in a test like this.

 

I personally don't think a registration pin would solve the problem, as the edges of the film seem to be OK since the image isn't moving too much, but the perf is all over the place. If you had a pin that locked into that perf for every exposure, the frame would be all over the place as well. The only thing saving the camera is the gate and backplate, keeping the frame itself from shifting.

 

This is an inherent issue with Super 8 because everything is so small, the machining issues are more present then ever. You won't see this with standard 8 because it's a 16mm wide frame originally. I had hoped the Logmar camera would have reduced these issues, but it appears they still exist even though it does eliminate the focus issues that plastic backplate cartridges have, which is nice. This is yet another reason why super 8 really isn't ready for primetime without A LOT of fixing in post.

 

I'm happy people are shooting super 8, but for the format to really be professional quality, some of these issues need to be solved. The stock quality today is good enough, it's just a matter of the mechanics of the beast.

 

It's the perf in the film that is weaving left and right - not the camera gate or the film.

 

A camera can't solve for this weave in the perf. Or rather, were it do so it would be inefficient, expensive and prone to error. A registration pin only solves for (or should only solve for) vertical (up/down) registration - not for horizontal (left/right) registration. It is the edge of the film that solves for horizontal (left/right) registration.

 

And cameras and projectors - regardless of format - have been solving it this way since the year dot. Including the Logmar.

 

Perf weave is not a problem in the first place. It's only a problem if you design your camera/projector/scanner to lock onto this weave (be it macroscopic as in some Super8 film or nanoscopic as it might be in the manufacture of other formats / stock).

 

In the clip we see this demonstrated: the image stays put (doesn't weave left/right). The image stays put precisely because the scan is done using the edge of the film for registration - as it should have been doing in the first place, be it for Super8, 16mm, 35mm or any other format - because that is how cameras and projectors register the image in the first place - using the edge of the film - not the perf.

 

In the scan this is being demonstrated - we can plainly see that while the perf is weaving left and right (as weird as that is) it is having no affect whatsover on the image's left/right registration. It doesn't matter if the weave is magnified - as it is in this particular batch of Super8, or if it's microscopic/nanoscopic, as it might be in other film stock.

 

This is because the perf weave (however large or small) doesn't affect the registration of the image. There is no issue here. Its a complete red herring.

 

it has nothing to do with Super8 being unprofessional. It has everything to do with misconceptions on what is actually happening here.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I'm clear. Is the horizontal frame stability in Moises' clip entirely by mechanical means? The side guides in the camera and scanner?

 

The LaserGraphics system was adjusted to use the edge of the film for registration - as it should have done in the first place. It's still optical registration but one that now uses the edge of the film (rather than the perf) for registration.

 

To speak of this as if it were a "lot of work in post" is just a complete mis-comprehension of the issue here. If we're to call it "work in post" it is work that should be understood as a necessary standard in the first place. It's otherwise the same "work" that cameras and projectors have been doing since year dot.

 

Super8 is ready for prime time. It was scanners that needed more work - as they have now done.

 

Optical registration has a lot of potential and can improve on traditional systems (especially in the area of archiving) but in order to do that it still needs to appreciate that it's building on top of older historical standards, and that it should understand those standards - be they 'official' ones or de-facto ones. And that such standards are not as "sloppy" as one might otherwise assume.

 

The fact that LaserGraphics could implement a timely software solution is proof that optical registration has a lot of built in potential - even if in this case it was just used to play catch up.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What sucks here is that the clip is actually demonstrating how perf weave is completely irrelevant in registration (if scanners use the same ancient registration system that cameras and projectors have been using).

 

Yet, because the perf weave is being made visible in this clip, it is being interpreted as if it were an issue.

 

When quite obviously, as the clip is actually demonstrating, it is not an issue. And never has been.

 

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easiest thing is to gather some quotes.

Gregg: ..."Just so I'm clear. Is the horizontal frame stability in Moises' clip entirely by mechanical means? The side guides in the camera and scanner?"

Carl: ..."Optical registration" ....

Carl: ...."The fact that LaserGraphics could implement a timely software solution"...

 

It may not be fair to ask, but it would be good for the rest of us to catch up.
- Just confirm that the answer to the first question is yes.
- Does the claw width and regestration pin width on the Logmar cam and the scanner allow the film to freely position itself between the side guides?
- Are some scanner soft codes using the frame edge or film edge as a reference to digitally stabilize the sideways axis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easiest thing is to gather some quotes.

Gregg: ..."Just so I'm clear. Is the horizontal frame stability in Moises' clip entirely by mechanical means? The side guides in the camera and scanner?"

Carl: ..."Optical registration" ....

Carl: ...."The fact that LaserGraphics could implement a timely software solution"...

 

It may not be fair to ask, but it would be good for the rest of us to catch up.

- Just confirm that the answer to the first question is yes.

- Does the claw width and regestration pin width on the Logmar cam and the scanner allow the film to freely position itself between the side guides?

- Are some scanner soft codes using the frame edge or film edge as a reference to digitally stabilize the sideways axis?

 

1. The camera uses a mechanical side guide for the film. The scanner (in this clip) is using optical means but one that follows the same edge as that which the camera uses (and that projectors use). What matters here is not whether it's mechanical or optical (so much), but that it tracks the film edge (by either means) rather than the perf edge.

 

2. Yes, the claw and pin are shorter width than the perf, allowing the perf to float sideways (as we're seeing it in the clip).

 

3. Scanners were using the perf edge for sideways registration - but LaserGraphics (to their credit) are now using the film edge (as demonstrated in this clip). Some filmmakers are using frame edges for stabilisation - bypassing the mechanical system (and scanner systems) altogether - but this can fail, eg. if shooting at night where the frame edge may not be visible. One can otherwise use image content as a reference and redesign the framing eg. to smooth out wobbly camera work. This last method is really good but requires a lot of post work.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for that. By optical means...you mean that some code responds to some physical part of the film and translates the frame accordingly. It may be a distraction, but, why call this an optical means, when the key part is code.

 

Well I'd normally say "digital means" or "machine vision means" but I'm using LaserGraphics terminology where they refer to "optical pin registration". Light is picked up by a sensor and interpreted in software as to what information that light is conveying.

 

Perhaps in similar fashion we might call "mechanical means" tactile instead.

 

Tactile vs optical.

 

I wouldn't use "coding" as both means are a form of coding.

 

But as mentioned this distinction is not that important. Cameras use tactile means because they are working in the dark. Scanners (or indeed some new kind of projector) can use tactile or optical means. What is important is knowing how the registration is encoded in the first place (film edge or perf edge). For only then can you properly decode it (by either means).

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's the perf in the film that is weaving left and right - not the camera gate or the film.

Yep, that's what I said. It's the actual perf itself moving.

 

A camera can't solve for this weave in the perf. Or rather, were it do so it would be inefficient, expensive and prone to error. A registration pin only solves for (or should only solve for) vertical (up/down) registration - not for horizontal (left/right) registration. It is the edge of the film that solves for horizontal (left/right) registration.

Using the super 8 example, a registration pin in the gate would absolutely effect the location of the image being exposed based on the location of the perf. Usually it will twist the image very slightly, rather then give it a left/right issue. This is because the registration pins are usually below the gate. However in the case of super 8, we see the rocking chair syndrome. There are many threads on this forum all about this issue. So either the perfs (which are clearly out of alignment) are the problem, or the stock itself isn't cut evenly.

 

Perf weave is not a problem in the first place. It's only a problem if you design your camera/projector/scanner to lock onto this weave (be it macroscopic as in some Super8 film or nanoscopic as it might be in the manufacture of other formats / stock).

Yes, if you don't use the perf as a guide, then it's not a problem. However, cameras and projectors use the perf as an alignment tool with the claw.

 

In the clip we see this demonstrated: the image stays put

Actually, the image is moving all over the place. It doesn't coincide with the perf, that's for sure. However, it has the infamous rocking chair effect. Just take your cursor and put it the corner of the sign in the right side of the image and watch the effect. This problem is related to the perf directly. As the claw drags the film down, it's dragging an off-set perf, so it twists the film every so slightly. This "twist" is macroscopic as you said, but it's absolutely a problem with the perf or stock cutting. I doubt the gate is that poorly manufactured.

 

it has nothing to do with Super8 being unprofessional. It has everything to do with misconceptions on what is actually happening here.

My point is, the gate weave is horrible and it's not from the transfer, it's originated improperly in the camera. So forget the "digital imaging" aspect for a moment, focus on why the camera could produce such a horribly registered image and that's when issues related to the stock come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, that's what I said. It's the actual perf itself moving.

 

 

Using the super 8 example, a registration pin in the gate would absolutely effect the location of the image being exposed based on the location of the perf. Usually it will twist the image very slightly, rather then give it a left/right issue. This is because the registration pins are usually below the gate. However in the case of super 8, we see the rocking chair syndrome. There are many threads on this forum all about this issue. So either the perfs (which are clearly out of alignment) are the problem, or the stock itself isn't cut evenly.

 

 

Yes, if you don't use the perf as a guide, then it's not a problem. However, cameras and projectors use the perf as an alignment tool with the claw.

 

 

Actually, the image is moving all over the place. It doesn't coincide with the perf, that's for sure. However, it has the infamous rocking chair effect. Just take your cursor and put it the corner of the sign in the right side of the image and watch the effect. This problem is related to the perf directly. As the claw drags the film down, it's dragging an off-set perf, so it twists the film every so slightly. This "twist" is macroscopic as you said, but it's absolutely a problem with the perf or stock cutting. I doubt the gate is that poorly manufactured.

 

 

My point is, the gate weave is horrible and it's not from the transfer, it's originated improperly in the camera. So forget the "digital imaging" aspect for a moment, focus on why the camera could produce such a horribly registered image and that's when issues related to the stock come into play.

 

I take your point on the rocking chair effect. So yes, perhaps perfing could be done a bit better.

 

But it is originating in the perfing - not in the camera. It's a bit of misdirection to call it "gate weaving". Its the perf which is weaving - not the gate!

 

From what I can tell of the clip, that white line going down the right side of the scan is the right edge of the film. The perf appears to be weaving left/right in sync with this line, suggesting that the film width (film slitting system) is varying considerably, and that the perforator is using the right edge of the film as a guide for perforation - when perhaps (given the rocking chair effect) it should be using the left edge of the film (the same side as the perfs) ie. that which cameras are using for left/right registration.

 

To say the "camera is producing a horribly registered image" is just completely false. The rocking chair effect is entirely to do with the weaving perf.

 

You previously argued the perf was fine. But if we're to find the rocking chair effect "horrible" then it's not fine.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to say "the image is moving all over place" is just completely wrong.

 

The image is staying put with respect to the left edge of the film. We know this because the scanner is registering the film with respect to the left edge of the film. So it's not the image moving all over the place - it's the perf. That is what the clip is literally showing us: that the perf is weaving wildly with respect to the left edge of the film - it is not the image/gate doing so.

 

But yes, a problem with such a wildly weaving perf is that rocking chair effect. But only that effect.

 

Since the perf seems to be quite consistent with the right edge of the film, I imagine doing the perf with respect to the left edge will solve the rocking chair problem. The magnitude of the weaving perf is large compared to the rocking chair effect, so by fixing that weave it should reduce the rocking chair effect considerably.

 

It should be noted that the issue being discussed prior to this was left/right registration - not the rocking chair effect. Everything I've otherwise been elaborating is with respect to left/right registration.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I could care less about digital correction of film. Fixing something that's inherently wrong in post, defeats the entire purpose of shooting on film. Might as well shoot digitally if your intention is to "fix it in post", saves a hell of a lot of money and applying a "film look" is a lot easier.

 

You've proven my point though, there is a problem with Super 8 stock and this is a great example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could care less about digital correction of film. Fixing something that's inherently wrong in post, defeats the entire purpose of shooting on film. Might as well shoot digitally if your intention is to "fix it in post", saves a hell of a lot of money and applying a "film look" is a lot easier.

 

You've proven my point though, there is a problem with Super 8 stock and this is a great example.

 

 

The scanner is not "fixing it in post" - it is doing what it should have been doing in the first place - which is registering the film with respect to the LEFT EDGE OF THE FILM - that is how Super8 cameras/projectors work. As do most 16mm cameras and projectors.

 

All we're asking of scanners is that they do the same. Is that too much to ask of the brave new world of digital scanners? No. If a projector can do it why can't a scanner? Well a scanner can do it, as LaserGraphics have demonstrated.

 

And that is what this clip demonstrates - it demonstrates what happens when a scanner is doing what it should have been doing in the first place: the image will stay put in terms of left/right registration. In other words the film edge registration system works. And it is a system. That's how it was designed.

 

As for the rocking chair problem - a lot smaller problem - that can be fixed (from what I can tell) by perfing the stock using the left edge (rather than the other side). So that's something to be pursued.

 

As for the quip about shooting digital - well a film transferred to digital looks very different and a whole lot better than a digital image (with or without a fake film look). Film also provides far more scope in terms of grading, than that provided by a digital camera.

 

Carl

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And further on that quip about digital.

 

Myself - I've been building a Super8 to 16mm optical printer - where it's got nothing to do with digital but I still have to do the same thing - use the left edge of the Super8 film for registration. As I should. because that is how Super8 is designed.

 

So this registration issue (or non-issue) has got nothing to do with "fixing it in digital post" whatsoever. Its to do entirely with how film works.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This material was shot with the most up to date super 8 camera on the market. There is no reason why the camera makers can't put hard gate block on the opposite side of the gate and spring loaded ones on the claw side. I don't think this will solve anything, it will just change the dynamic of the issue.

 

In the case of this negative, if you were to align the scanner to the left side, you'd have even more gate weave. Just look at the side of the frame wobble left and right following the perf. The only way to stabilize the image is to throw it into After Effects, choose an object in the background that doesn't move and use that as the stabilizing location. Since the shot doesn't move, it would work well. I don't think EITHER side of the film, left or right, would fix any of the stabilization issues this frame has and absolutely not fix the rocking motion.

 

Damn thing looks like it's being shot on a boat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This material was shot with the most up to date super 8 camera on the market. There is no reason why the camera makers can't put hard gate block on the opposite side of the gate and spring loaded ones on the claw side. I don't think this will solve anything, it will just change the dynamic of the issue.

 

In the case of this negative, if you were to align the scanner to the left side, you'd have even more gate weave. Just look at the side of the frame wobble left and right following the perf. The only way to stabilize the image is to throw it into After Effects, choose an object in the background that doesn't move and use that as the stabilizing location. Since the shot doesn't move, it would work well. I don't think EITHER side of the film, left or right, would fix any of the stabilization issues this frame has and absolutely not fix the rocking motion.

 

Damn thing looks like it's being shot on a boat!

 

The scanner is already aligned to the left side of the film. That is what we are looking at in this scan.

 

That is why, in this scan, the image is not weaving left or right. It is the perf which is weaving. That is why there is no issue here - at least as far as left/right registration goes.

 

What we're looking at has nothing to do with any exotic image stabilisation. The scanner, like a projector is aligned to the left side of the film.

 

If you don't like looking at the perf weaving left and right - just put your hand over the top of it. It's completely irrelevant.

 

The camera has a hard gate on the left side and a spring gate on the right side.

 

The only issue remaining to be solved is the rocking chair problem, which would appear to be solved by ensuring the perf machine perfed the film using the left side of the film as a reference (rather then the right). And perhaps testing whether the scanner might also be introducing some inadvertent rocking in it's optical tracking of the film edge.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Lasse

Thank you for your time. The main point I suggested is that hardly anybody shoots new footage for projection. Certainly not with a Logmar as it is a professional tool.

 

I do but I use old stock and one of my present cameras :) Choosing based on specs a portability.

 

Let's hope for Ferrania to deliver soon. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This material was shot with "the most up to date Super8 camera on the market".

 

Yes - but other than pin registration (and a solid pressure plate) the registration design is the same as every other well designed Super8 camera. As it should be.

 

For the camera design is not the problem here. Never has been. Because there is no problem here.

 

The weaving perf is not a problem.

 

As we can plainly see - for it is having absolutely no affect on the left/right registration of the image. This is down to the camera, and the scanner conforming to how Super8 (and other formats) work.

 

The camera and scanner registration system is working despite the perf weave. That is what the scan demonstrates: that perf weave is not a problem in the first place (as far as left/right registration goes).

 

Pretending it is a problem, requiring some exotic image stabilisation process in After Effects is just complete bollcocks. And Purcell should know better but he's obviously not giving this his full attention (to be kind).

 

But he has identified the rocking chair problem and this needs some attention. There's no need to swap the hard edge / spring edge on the camera. Just need to swap the perforator's guide edge, which is obviously using the right edge of the film rather than the left edge. It should use the left edge because thats what cameras use. And ensuring the slit width is within a tighter tolerance isn't necesssary, but it wouldn't hurt.

 

So that's the task ahead. It's a pretty simple fix.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

To be fair if the intent was always that the horizontal edges of the sprocket hole were to be the reference for vertical registration and the edges of the film were to be the reference for horizontal, it's legitimate to make that the case now. It still strikes me as horrifyingly sloppy manufacturing, though - especially for something that's so expensive.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On some cameras (and not the cheapest) the claw moves along the path of an arc. Thus it advances and positions using the perforation. The claw has plenty sideway play for that. The sideways position is thus controlled by the bumps on the gate-assembly.

Edited by Andries Molenaar
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...