Not my best Super 8 footage yet.

[Carl Looper]

Right, so scanning has evloved to do the stabalization at scan time and has been improved upon with the update. Yes I was thinking grain was needing some clean up on the OP first post. How much of that is noise versus actual grain? I like grain, but scanning seems to add a bunch of white specs? Like out of place pixels. I recall my film projecting and looking not so noisy. Is there a way for software to show you what is grain and what is sensor noise? Or a way to test scan one way and see actual grain and then compare? I guess I'm asking how does software deal with "cleaning up grain" and why can't the scanner scan it better?

 

Ok, so this not a conspiracy theory discussion - thank God.

 

Yes, projected film is not nearly as grainy as scanned film. The increase in grain of a scan is caused by a thing called "grain aliasing" - it's not a fake grain as such - nor scanner noise - but it's not the original grain of the film either. It's a side effect of digital sampling an analog signal (and as I've recently discovered also the lens used in a scanner plays a role).

 

So there's an argument to be had that one should do some degraining of a scan afterwards so it looks more like the original film in a projector.

 

The evolution of scanners is such that we're now recognising that by simply increasing the scanner's sensor resolution, it decreases the additional grain (grain aliasing) that otherwise occurs if scanning with smaller definition sensors.

 

So this is an important insight. It's dealing with the grain issue at it's root.

 

And/or one can run the scan through a grain cleaning process after the fact.

 

Or find a virtue in the grain that scanners produce. I don't mind it myself.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

Just an example of stabalization or "Steady" and what grain should look like with Super8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnxRUUEUOTA

Even the steady shot has quite a wobble. :(

 

But then again, it wasn't shot on a Logmar.

[Craig Janeway]

 

Ok, so this not a conspiracy theory discussion - thank God.

 

Yes, projected film is not nearly as grainy as scanned film. The increase in grain of a scan is caused by a thing called "grain aliasing" - it's not a fake grain as such - nor scanner noise - but it's not the original grain of the film either. It's a side effect of digital sampling an analog signal (and as I've recently discovered also the lens used in a scanner plays a role).

 

So there's an argument to be had that one should do some degraining of a scan afterwards so it looks more like the original film in a projector.

 

The evolution of scanners is such that we're now recognising that by simply increasing the scanner's sensor resolution, it decreases the additional grain (grain aliasing) that otherwise occurs if scanning with smaller definition sensors.

 

So this is an important insight. It's dealing with the grain issue at it's root.

 

And/or one can run the scan through a grain cleaning process after the fact.

 

Or find a virtue in the grain that scanners produce. I don't mind it myself.

 

C

So higher definition sensors have more tiny sensing points over the surface of the chip and likely tinier sensing sites as well. Wouldn't the size of the sites need to be somewhere around half that of the tiniest grain on the film to render it accuractly? Also, the sampeling of the analog signal is done at set points along the analog's continous signal. If one could sync say two sensors to sample inbetween one another, this would add more sample points along the analog signal, and perhaps give even better results than simply thinking of just resolution? After thought, what if 3 sensors that read R, G, and B and sampling incrimentally different spots of the analog signal? :)

Edited August 26, 2015 by Craig Janeway

[Craig Janeway]

Even the steady shot has quite a wobble. :(

 

But then again, it wasn't shot on a Logmar.

Very good point! ;) A good camera and lens is a good place to start.

[Craig Janeway]

Film stock kodak 7203 50D. Processed and scanned to a 4K Log by Pro8mm. This film has been downres to 1080p for Vimeo purposes. It has not been edited or processed in any form other than the color change to B&W, the sound is the wild production track with no processing. This sound test was performed in a single take using double system, the Logmar Super 8 film camera and the Sennheiser MKH 416 directional shotgun microphone. The audio was recorded with the Tascam DR-70 Linear PCM recorder.

 

https://vimeo.com/136780122

 

Enjoy,

 

MOY

There's been a lot of different things brought up in this thread, and I pretty much got lost with it all. I returned to your OP and just wanted to comment that from my student studies, lighting is the main reason things don't look as good as we expect later, regardless of how well and high end the post processing is. Pay attention to your lighting, and add more properly placed lighting for your subjects, and film with the best light possible that set your subject out from distracting backgrounds. Your subject is in shade, direct overhead light, and reflecting light from window and sinage forces the view to be drawn away from your speaker/actor and onto the window and sign. The top down light that's slight behind model/actor shifts viewer focus to middle (behind) subject. I'm not a professional, just saying as someone in the audience viewing and how the light and seting make me view the scene. Hope this helps to think more about lighting your subject and picking an aperture and focus that keep viewer on the subject. Good luck in the future and I hope next time out, you get what you are hoping to get. :)

[Perry Paolantonio]

I get it now. So the thread is about how a bad batch of Super8 helped scanner software developers improve the scanning process. I'm still not getting how the debris is present around the frame of the video? This is from the scanner, not the camera, correct?

 

Not really. It's not a "bad batch" -- we have seen this problem in Super 8 going back to the 1960s. In some cases the pattern is different (I posted an example earlier in this thread of that, from film manufactured in 1969). But the "sawtooth" weave pattern has been there for a while. It's in some of my own Super 8 shot in the 1990s -- so while it may vary from batch to batch, and some may be worse, this is not a one-off problem, it's an issue that's been present in Super 8 since its release.

 

 

Also, the grain looks simulated to me. Is the software creating additional grain in a repeating pattern unrelated to gradient density of the film as well? Just eyeballing the playback, one gets the sense of a rythmic repeating pattern of both the perf and the grain, and honestly the footage/scan looks unnatural to my eyes.

 

 

I think what you're seeing there is from the compression on Vimeo. Never use anything you see on Vimeo or YouTube or other sites to analyze the grain of the film, because part of the compression they apply to the films that are uploaded (which is usually already compressed, so it's getting a double dose of compression), is to smooth out the grain. The repeating pattern probably has more to do with the GOP structure of the file that's being streamed than with the grain of the film.

 

The only way to test is to have the original scan files made available. unfortunately, this is usually impractical because they're so large.

 

-perry

[Carl Looper]

Calling perf weave a problem remains a misunderstanding of perf weave.

 

The reason there is perf weave in filmstock, is because camera's and projectors don't use the perf. So the perf is free to do whatever it likes. And so it does.

 

You could ask of film manufacturers that they reduce the perf weave, but to what end? What would be the point?

 

Cameras and projectors don't use the perf in the first place. They never have. They use the edge of the film.

 

Why? Because the edge of the film is infinitely better for registration than even the tiniest perf weave.

 

Whoever first discovered or proposed edge registration for film (an eternity ago) should be given a big huge technical achievement award, and celebrated in all corners of the universe.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Now if we can get past this godamned perf weave as a complete non-issue, perhaps we might be able to resolve the next issue (or non-issue).

 

Rocking.

 

First of all what we're seeing in the clip is direct from the scanner. There's no post-scan stabilisation being done.

 

Second of all the rocking is occuring in the scanner. I know this is contentious and we don't want to believe that a high tech scanner is doing such a thing. We believe, for some reason, that the digital age is some sort of perfect god-like system incapable of such.

 

In some ways it is like that. But a scanner has a mechanical side and this side is very simple - not very high tech at all. In a scanner, the film is not mechanically aligned at all. There will be a certain amount of rocking, probably due to rollers either side of the gate having some built in flexibility. The reason for scanners doing it this way is that it is a lot gentler on the film. It means scanners can handle damaged film. It's not forcing the film into some sort of straight jacket. The film just gently flows through the scanners gentle fingers.

 

But this also means a scan begins in an unregistered or semi-registered state.

 

The scanner resolves this issue (it's own issue) by using machine vision techniques to register the scan.

 

For whatever reason the technique it is using to determine the orientation if the scan is misjudging the angle of the film by up to about 0.3 degrees. Or perhaps not correcting for the angle at all.

 

How can we can know this? How can we know that it's not the film running through the camera that is not aligned to it's gate.

 

Well, it's easy, we can take two frames from the scan representing the largest change in orientation and see if we can't manually obtain the correct orientation using only the edge visible in the scan. Importantly we must not use the camera gate edge for this. That would be cheating.

 

Having done this test, a large number of times on many different frames, I was able to completely eliminate rocking in each case - and I mean completely - not just sort of, or within "charm of Super8" mindsets - but perfectly - using only the edge of the film (in this case using the right edge - the one visible in the scan). If the film had been rocking in the camera gate it would be impossible for me to do this. Impossible.

 

This proves the film is not rocking in the camera

 

So all we have to do is just fine tune the scanner software and we will have perfectly registered Super8 - as radical as this might very well be.

 

There is one more issue after this, but I'll leave that until another day, as this one is far more pressing.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Perry Paolantonio]

 

First of all what we're seeing in the clip is direct from the scanner. There's no post-scan stabilisation being done.

Second of all the rocking is occuring in the scanner. I know this is contentious and we don't want to believe that a high tech scanner is doing such a thing. We believe, for some reason, that the digital age is some sort of perfect god-like system incapable of such.

 

It's not a matter of "belief" -- you're simply wrong about it being in the scanner. I am right now looking at the flat scan we made for Friedemann Wachsmuth (the more recent clip he posted on Vimeo). I have it playing in Quicktime Player. On top of the quicktime window I have another window, using the horizontal top edge of that window as a straight edge to judge the supposed rocking motion. It's not there. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that it's in the scanner, when you can't see the original footage. I know the footage Friedemann posted was post-scan stabilized by him, and that's where the rocking was introduced.

 

Again, there is NO rocking in the initial scan, it is not something caused by the scanner. There is a bit of vertical jumpiness from frame to frame and the gaps between frames (the frame line) change, and this is in the camera. This is not in the scanner (it can't be) because the scanner is scanning the target frame and about 1/10 of the bottom of the previous frame and about 1/10 of the top of the next frame, all in the same image. It has no concept of the frame line, and is only doing stabilization based on the perf and film edges. Therefore, variable frameline height is a camera issue.

 

It seems likely to me that rocking was introduced in a post-scan stabilization pass, and might be tied to this frameline thing. Just a theory. But it's worth noting that the whole frame line is moving an equal amount - that is, the whole frameline height changes in a uniform way, it's not showing a rocking pattern where it alternates from left to right.

 

I will see if I can get permission to post an excerpt of this footage as a 2k flat scan so we can put this to rest.

 

-perry

[Carl Looper]

 

It's not a matter of "belief" -- you're simply wrong about it being in the scanner. I am right now looking at the flat scan we made for Friedemann Wachsmuth (the more recent clip he posted on Vimeo). I have it playing in Quicktime Player. On top of the quicktime window I have another window, using the horizontal top edge of that window as a straight edge to judge the supposed rocking motion. It's not there. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that it's in the scanner, when you can't see the original footage. I know the footage Friedemann posted was post-scan stabilized by him, and that's where the rocking was introduced.

 

Again, there is NO rocking in the initial scan, it is not something caused by the scanner. There is a bit of vertical jumpiness from frame to frame and the gaps between frames (the frame line) change, and this is in the camera. This is not in the scanner (it can't be) because the scanner is scanning the target frame and about 1/10 of the bottom of the previous frame and about 1/10 of the top of the next frame, all in the same image. It has no concept of the frame line, and is only doing stabilization based on the perf and film edges. Therefore, variable frameline height is a camera issue.

 

It seems likely to me that rocking was introduced in a post-scan stabilization pass, and might be tied to this frameline thing. Just a theory. But it's worth noting that the whole frame line is moving an equal amount - that is, the whole frameline height changes in a uniform way, it's not showing a rocking pattern where it alternates from left to right.

 

I will see if I can get permission to post an excerpt of this footage as a 2k flat scan so we can put this to rest.

 

-perry

 

Hi Perry,

 

perhaps there's a difference in fix between that done for the Pro8mm scanner, and that done for your scanner.

 

Have you understood the following:

 

How can we know that it's not the film running through the camera that is not aligned to it's gate.

 

Well, it's easy, we can take two frames from the scan representing the largest change in orientation and see if we can't manually obtain the correct orientation using only the edge visible in the scan. Importantly we must not use the camera gate edge for this. That would be cheating.

 

Having done this test, a large number of times on many different frames, I was able to completely eliminate rocking in each case - and I mean completely - not just sort of, or within "charm of Super8" mindsets - but perfectly - using only the edge of the film (in this case using the right edge - the one visible in the scan). If the film had been rocking in the camera gate it would be impossible for me to do this. Impossible.

 

This proves the film is not rocking in the camera

 

 

Now I take your point about the vertical jitter - indeed that was the point I was going to raise another day - once we've resolved the rocking. Vertical jitter is not the fault of the scanner nor the camera, but due to the consistency or otherwise of the perf pitch. Indeed it is this vertical jitter that the Logmar pin registration is designed to resolve. But it needs a matching scanner. And here we will have to be a little more creative if want to exploit the Logmar pin registration solution. However it's not as big an issue as the scanner rocking.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Andries Molenaar]

Logmar should have put a dot-exposer in the camera near the gate. Like the MEKEL VIC had. This scientific lab camera even had one while it had pin-registration too. With modern LED and fibre technique it would have been as simple as apple-pie,

 

Good luck while scanning :)

Edited August 27, 2015 by Andries Molenaar

[Carl Looper]

Logmar should have put a dot-exposer in the camera near the gate. Like the MEKEL VIC had. This scientific lab camera even had one while it had pin-registration too. With modern LED and fibre technique it would have been as simple as apple-pie,

 

Good luck while scanning :)

 

Yes, I mentioned this to Logmar a year or so ago but they had already decided to use pin-registration instead. And it's a very wise decision they made, because a mechanical reference provides a reference for both mechanical and optical (digital) registration in a corresponding projector or scanner. I'll be writing up the software to do the scanner software registration in due course. I'm not expecting the scanner developers to know how to do that. But then again they might surprise me.

 

Basically in scans from material shot on the Logmar you have a big huge fat perf image you can use for vertical registration. You don't need any dot next to the frame. However the perf is situated two frames away from the frame it registers, so the software task to use it isn't trivial. But it will be effen cool when it's written up.

 

The quasi-vertical jitter in Moises clip (noticeable in the top right corner) is caused by scanner rocking. The actual vertical jitter (that pin rego solves) can be seen in the space between the frames - the very slight jitter there. That's what pin-rego gets rid of - not on the film of course - but in a "pin-registered" scan (software version of such, since all registration in a scanner is software registration).

 

A pin-registered projector would just use the same pin in the same perf that the Logmar camera uses.

 

C

Edited August 27, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Basically a camera encodes information.

 

And a projector (or scanner) decodes that information. Be it mechanically or optically (digitally).

 

The camera/projector combo (or camera/scanner combo) constitutes a codec. [Now we know the origin of the term "Kodak"]

 

For a codec to work, the encoder and the decoder need to be on the same page.

 

C

[Craig Janeway]

I've been looking at the OP video for like 40 minutes now trying to see what I can see, until I felt like I knew it pretty well. Right at the end of this 40 minutes of doing all kinds of things to look for different things in a purely courious fashion, I noticed something strange to me. Note, I'm just a courious observer with no professional skill at this...

 

I noticed the debris building up along the right side. Interesting this is, looks like debris is seen accumulating just after there is a good tug on the right and top right corner goes down and back up. Looks like maybe the right edge is being chewed/scraped (or whatever the term is) and little pieces of film are piling up along the right side, to me anyway.

 

Right side starts out pretty clean and builds up debris, and left side remains pretty much the same from start to finish. If movement of rocking and debris are related, then that's something, right?

 

So, could it be rocking from drag on the right, and less on left due to perf/claw holding left side in place?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Craig Janeway

[Perry Paolantonio]

So, could it be rocking from drag on the right, and less on left due to perf/claw holding left side in place?

 

We have seen logmar footage with much more extreme buildup in the gate. According to Logmar, in that case it was because the edge guide and pressure plate were not engaged, causing the film to be slightly out of the correct film path. As a result, it was rubbing on things it shouldn't have, and the emulsion was getting scraped off and building up in the gate. In that case, operator error when loading the film.

I haven't used the camera myself, but I wonder if it's possible that the pressure plate could be engaged, but the edge guide not? That might allow for some slop in the film path that could cause this. or that a poorly formed loop is somehow allowing the film to scrape against a surface that's causing this buildup of emulsion (assuming that's what it is).

-perry

Edited August 27, 2015 by Perry Paolantonio

[Lasse Roedtnes]

 

We have seen logmar footage with much more extreme buildup in the gate. According to Logmar, in that case it was because the edge guide and pressure plate were not engaged, causing the film to be slightly out of the correct film path. As a result, it was rubbing on things it shouldn't have, and the emulsion was getting scraped off and building up in the gate. In that case, operator error when loading the film.

I haven't used the camera myself, but I wonder if it's possible that the pressure plate could be engaged, but the edge guide not? That might allow for some slop in the film path that could cause this. or that a poorly formed loop is somehow allowing the film to scrape against a surface that's causing this buildup of emulsion (assuming that's what it is).

-perry

 

 

Hi Perry,

 

In our camera the pressure plate is always "engaged" and it's not possible to run the camera without the pressure plate pressing on the film as otherwise the claw would bend and damage the pressure plate (as it would force itself into it)

 

The film can be loaded wrong however so that it's not lying "where it's supposed to be" and then the pressure plate will still apply pressure to it which causes emulsion tearing, sharpness issues and other artifacts as you have seen.

 

The side steer CAN be disengaged on our camera and in fact the user must disengaged it in order to be able to load the film.

 

If the user forgets to engage it again after loading film he/she can still shoot film with the side steer disabled as there's no user feedback.

 

The side steer is controlled by a manual lever with no software feedback telling or warning the user if he hasn't engaged it, therefore it's the responsibility of the user to make sure it's engaged.

 

It is therefore plausible that a film can be shot with the side steer disengaged.

 

All the best

Lasse

[Perry Paolantonio]

Hi Lasse,

 

Thanks for clearing that up. Do you suppose the rocking effect we're seeing in the footage Moises posted could be caused in-camera, if the side-steer is not engaged?

 

Thanks!

 

-perry

[Carl Looper]

If the film in the camera were weaving sideways, then the scanner would not be able to stop any sideways weave in the scan. The fact that the scanner is stopping sideways weave in the scan (using only the edge of the film) means the film in the camera is not weaving sideways.

 

If the film in the camera were rotating then I would not have been able to stop such rotation in the scan. The fact that I was able to stop rotational motion in the scan (using only the edge of the film) means the film in the camera is not rotating.

 

Understanding these points requires some thinking. Without such thought this discussion is going no where towards a solution but remaining an exercise in problem shifting.

 

C

Edited August 27, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

If, however, the scanner is not using the edge of the film for sideways registration eg. it is actually cheating by using a camera mask edge, then the film could very well be weaving sideways in the camera.

 

And if this is the case then the biggest problem of all will not be the camera (or it's user) but miscommunication (to put it nicely) on how the scanner is sideways registering the film.

 

However the rocking (very different from sideways weave) is in the scanner, as previously explained, because I used the edge of the film to eliminate it (not the camera mask).

 

So why don't we just use the camera mask edge anyway? Because for some conceivable shots the camera mask edge will not be visible. The film edge and perf are always visible.

 

C

Edited August 27, 2015 by Carl Looper

[David Cunningham]

 

A "high fault tolerent format" is the complete opposite of an "inherently faulty format".

 

The jitter occuring in the scans is software induced. If you like this jitter (and it's not a bad jitter at all) it is nevertheless nothing to do with the charm of Super8. It is the charm of the software.

I'm not talking about this specific video. I'm talking about super 8 as a whole which has a ton of "jitter". The frame is not even remotely registered in this format even when using a projector. The jitter has always been there because the intentional design of the system to have high tolerances allows for the frame to bounce around. This is inherently faulty because the image is jittery, but this jitter allows for the very high fault tolerance of super 8 and thus its ease of use.

 

16mm was also meant for home movies. Doesn't mean we have to conform to such a meaning. Nothing wrong with home movies - I love them. Be they shot on 8mm, Super8, 16mm, or indeed 35mm - one of my favourite filmmakers makes home movies on 35mm. Literally. In his back yard with the kids. Down at the pool. All lovingly photographed.

 

 

C

True. I too shoot home movies in 16mm and other formats. I am hoping to break into 35mm and your favorite cinematographer who shoots 35mm home movies is one of my favorites too.

 

Yes. It's true that 16mm was original an amateur format... As was 8mm. But it was never widely available to the average citizen for two reasons. The most important being cost but the second being ease of use. Both 16mm and 8mm were difficult to use and load, especially in daylight. Super 8 made that easy for all. But, it came with quality trade offs that the market deemed worth it.

[David Cunningham]

One quick not on "this looks more grainy than what I project" is to note that you project super 8 reversal. This is negative. Apples and oranges. I wish someone would create a contact printer for super 8 in the USA. Outlet only option these days is Andec in Germany. Otherwise, we will never see a super 8 negative projected.

 

In 16mm printing a negative provides a very slight mask of the grain while scanning it provides a bit of an exaggeration. I assume this can be applied to super 8 and thus more extreme since the super 8 grain is larger to begin with.

[Carl Looper]

I'm not talking about this specific video. I'm talking about super 8 as a whole which has a ton of "jitter". The frame is not even remotely registered in this format even when using a projector. The jitter has always been there because the intentional design of the system to have high tolerances allows for the frame to bounce around. This is inherently faulty because the image is jittery, but this jitter allows for the very high fault tolerance of super 8 and thus its ease of use.

 

 

The main issue in Super8 has always been the plastic pressure plate - not any built in design dependancy on high tolerance manufacturing of film stock. Indeed, quite the reverse. You can make the manufacturing of the film stock as highly tolerant as you want, and it won't make one iota of difference. It is the plastic pressure plate which is the cause of the jitter

 

If we're talking about this video (as I am) we can't blame a plastic pressure plate, because the camera used for this video doesn't use a plastic pressure plate.

 

Once you remove the plastic pressure plate as the problem, and transport the film in the same way as Standard8, 16mm, 35mm (as this camera basically does) there is no longer any of this mythologically inherent problem. Or if there is, where is it otherwise happening? Unless one has a theory to explain any ongoing jitteriness of Super8 (compared to 8mm for example) then it's just all pure make believe this supposed "inherent flaw".

 

We haven't even yet arrived at what the pin-rego of the camera is solving. It's currently playing no role at all - it's not being exploited by the scanner and it's not introducing any additional problem. It's sitting in the background feeling unwanted.

 

The issue raised here (rocking) pertains to all Super8 cameras (with or without plastic pressure plate) and it has nothing to do with the plastic pressure plate. This rocking is occuring in the scanner - quite apart from any rocking that a plastic pressure plate might otherwise induce.

 

We know this from analysis of this scan. The edge of the film remains parallel (or parallel enough) to the camera mask. The rocking in the scan is far greater than any tiny rotational deviation we might be able to discern between the camera mask and the film edge.

 

If this scanner rocking reminds us of any rocking in Super8 projectors that's no reason for the scanner to do the same. For it is doing it of it's own accord. If it's reproducing any native rocking in the film (as it would) it is ** ALSO ** adding additional rocking to whatever native rocking ordinary Super8 might otherwise exhibit.

 

C

Edited August 27, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

One quick not on "this looks more grainy than what I project" is to note that you project super 8 reversal. This is negative. Apples and oranges. I wish someone would create a contact printer for super 8 in the USA. Outlet only option these days is Andec in Germany. Otherwise, we will never see a super 8 negative projected.

 

In 16mm printing a negative provides a very slight mask of the grain while scanning it provides a bit of an exaggeration. I assume this can be applied to super 8 and thus more extreme since the super 8 grain is larger to begin with.

 

I'm building a Super8 to 16mm optical printer. If print film were available in Super8 could also do a S8 to S8 printer, but 16mm projection gives a much brighter throw. Would look better projected on a 16mm projector - especially on a Xenon 16mm projector.

 

After I get that working I'll look into doing a Super8 to 35mm printer - that would be awesome. But 16mm for the moment. If I get that right then the 35mm printer will be that much easier.

 

That's my main game - the digital stuff is just a secondary pursuit.

 

C

Edited August 27, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Craig Janeway]

After reading about the Logmar here: http://www.filmkorn.org/sensational-a-new-super-8-camera-from-denmark/ I realize the camera can be ruled out as the source of any rocking if film is loaded properly (the manual side guide is re-engaged after loading film). The registraton pin is being utilized according to the my read, as it holds the frame absolutely in place while film is being exposed per frame, so jitter is not possible. Just looking at the film transport system, I can't see anything that would allow weave or rocking, so I'm convinced that any weaving or rocking is manifest during the stabalization process for which the scan device is inducing the weave (side to side movement), and I do think jitter as well, which the software combines the weave and jitter in such a way as to create the rocking.

 

It may be the chosen method to reference each frame that is the source of this "rotation" of frame in software, as calculations are not absolute and probably looking to "average" out movement. Perhaps with the Logmar, no use of stabalization should be employed?

[Carl Looper]

The Logmar pin-rego is not currently being used by any scanner. There is not yet any Super8 scanner that makes use of the Logmar pin-rego.

 

At the moment the pin-rego is simply providing for a cleaner exposure (no movement of the film during exposure). That in itself is a good thing but it's not the principle purpose of pin-registration.

 

Furthermore the pin-rego doesn't stop rocking in the camera. Nor does it cause any rocking (although if differently designed it could have easily done so).

 

It's the guide rails and pressure plate in the camera gate that stop the film rocking - the same guide rails you'll find in the usual pick for a good Super8 camera (Leicina etc). The pressure plate is better.

 

And in this clip, if anyone cares, or bothers to do the same test I did, they won't have to keep making up fairy tales about where the rocking might be. They will instead know.

 

It's in the scanner.

 

Futhermore - if it turns out that the film is indeed weaving left/right in the camera gate then the claim by Lasergraphics that they solved the weaving by using the left edge of the film would become complete bollocks: a far far greater error (or sin) than any gate weave caused by user error.

 

Especially when we're trying to troubleshoot this rocking and actually solve the f**ker.

 

 

C

Edited August 28, 2015 by Carl Looper