Jump to content

2-perf Super8 Anamorphic


Lasse Roedtnes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's an idea for cross hairs. One has the cross hairs optically projected onto the film - using superbright leds as the light source - via a mirror on the shutter (like a viewfinder design but with mirror oriented towards the film rather than the lens). Anyone looking into the gate wouldn't see this light. They'd just see the backend of the mirror. Exposure time would occupy some portion of the time otherwise allotted to the viewfinder image but if the light source is bright enough the interval doesn't have to occupy a great amount of time, ie. just a small fraction of the shutter need contain the mirror for projecting the cross hair image. Would have to occur outside of the pulldown time of course.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it a bit more the shutter design would need to separate in space (time) the film/cross hair oriented mirror from the lens/viewfinder oriented mirror, to avoid cross hairs going to the viewfinder/lens

 

So you'd really want to have the mirror occupy a proportion of the normal film exposure time (rather then the viewfinder time). So for example the shutter could be 170 degrees of mirror for viewfinder (and pulldown), 2 x 90 degree windows for film exposure, and 10 degrees of mirror, in between the two film exposure windows, for projecting the cross hairs. And a mask on the cross hair image to stop such from exposing the image area.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohh and I think it's too costly to build an all new camera. You can get 35mm cameras for peanuts, less then 5k. It's the conversion that you should be focused on.

 

We would not be interested in doing conversions, only designing new cameras as conversions are not sustainable from a business point of view.

 

BR

Lasse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Well, making a good camera is expensive and honestly, I don't see a market for a new camera since so many cameras already exist. It's not like digital, where you're constantly innovating since digital technology holds no bounds. With film technology, there is already an extremely limited market and within that market, there are very few people willing to experiment. Most of those people are the super 8 clan. However, Super 8 in of itself, wasn't designed for quality work. It's very much a consumer format and will always be that way, no matter what fancy camera or format change you make. So developing a new special super 8 format, isn't really helping the industry really. What does help is the ability for people who already own cameras, to do something special/unique with them. So cheap lenses, alternative lens mounts, lens mount conversions, better video taps, better battery systems, better viewfinders and as I said earlier, movements. P+S already does the lens stuff, but nobody has really made the other accessories. I mean in my eyes some sort of a standard HD video tap would be great. I also think movement updates would be a cost-effective sell because there is a much bigger market for them, then super 8 cameras.

 

Just my .02 cents from a Hollywood cinematographer/director's point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Didn't someone already make a "new" Super8 quadruple pin registered camera with holographic projection and defense turrets or whatever? I might have made that last part up, however a $5000 price tag on a super 8 camera, no matter how new, is not something I'm ever going to buy. I can buy 35mm cameras for that price. In fact, for that price I can buy a 35mm camera AND get processing and workprints done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Yeah. Again. 2perf 35mm way more interesting than horizontal 2perf super8. Truly ideal would be an all in one easy to convert 35mm capable of 2, 3 and 4 perf (both regular and super35).

A 2-perf Eyemo would give you two minutes on 100ft. and quality equivalent to almost any motion picture ever made. If they could make one that wasn't made of lead and a teaspoon of neutron star like the 1940's models, it could be lighter and easier to use. And actually probably easier to build than a Super 8 camera.

 

Don't forget the Lomokino! Hand-crank 2-perf 35mm from a still roll! Super tiny and light (and cheap.) Make one that can handle 100' loads and a motor (electric would keep weight down) and you've got a winner!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

The problem with the Eyemo is that for some reason, people of the internet have deemed it ultra-rare museum status so it's price has risen to $1000/oz.

Huh? That would make it $1,000,000! It's heavier than my Arri 2C!

 

I picked up two motorized Eyemo's for $300 a few years ago. Sold one for $400 shortly after. Still have a wind up one that works great and a Steve's Cine conversion that is amazing. Only problem is neither are TTL so focusing is a guessing game which is dangerous when film, processing and transfer are expensive.

 

So that's the other part of the equation, you have to be able to see through the lens and focus properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Eyemo's are fun and all, but they aren't practical for production.

 

Didn't someone already make a "new" Super8 quadruple pin registered camera with holographic projection and defense turrets or whatever? I might have made that last part up, however a $5000 price tag on a super 8 camera, no matter how new, is not something I'm ever going to buy. I can buy 35mm cameras for that price. In fact, for that price I can buy a 35mm camera AND get processing and workprints done!

I got a beautiful Aaton LTR-54 Super 16mm camera, zeiss zoom lens and Optar primes for $4500. So why someone would buy a $5000 super 8 camera, is beyond me. I mean, glass and stock are your biggest expenses and horizontal super 8 would cost close to S16 and be a very specialized format with zero industry support.

 

35mm is everyone's dream of course, 2 perf makes it practical but glass is still the expense. So even if you buy a 2 perf 35mm camera for sub 5k, it will cost around $15k to buy decent glass. Plus compared to super 16, it's a lot more money to shoot due to stock cost and ancillary things like support, weight, portability (no on-board batteries) etc.

 

If a 2 perf conversion kit was cheap and installable by the user or local camera technician, it would probably raise the values of certain camera bodies substantially. I still think it would be a good thing in the long run, especially if focused on standard cameras like the BL4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Eyemo's are fun and all, but they aren't practical for production.

I don't think Super 8 cameras are exactly production friendly either.

 

But a reflex, 2-perf Eyemo could have a Nikon lens mount and offer a ton of inexpensive glass.

 

Run times would make it impractical for most productions but it would make a great home movie camera! or as the conversions were often used, a crash camera or for placing in really hard to get to places with a remote wired run switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I don't think Super 8 cameras are exactly production friendly either.

Ohh no doubt. Super 8 has nothing to do with production. Heck, even my blackmagic pocket camera is pretty much impossible to use on a production. It's great for having fun and making little projects, but for bigger things it's worthless.

 

But a reflex, 2-perf Eyemo could have a Nikon lens mount and offer a ton of inexpensive glass.

That's true, but it makes A LOT of noise, so there goes any audio recording. Also, you won't want to keep switching loads ever 2 minutes, that's really annoying for cast and crew. It's great for that one C camera insert shot, but most productions require a follow focus, mattebox, video tap and sound recording. I've seen eyemo's with some of those things including reflex, but honestly, it's like trying to force a camera that wasn't designed to do something, into doing it because you don't want a real camera. I mean, you can get super 35mm sound cameras for peanuts today, sometimes less then an Eyemo! Crazy!

 

If you're thinking about home movies, the Bolex EBM with super 16 mod is absolutely the best. 3 minute loads, it's pretty quiet (not sync sound quiet, but quiet enough) and has all the bells and whistles built in. Honestly I've shot A LOT of stuff with Bolexes and love'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My super 16 ACL is whisper quiet especially since Bernie at super 16 inc survived it. My wife asked if it was even running from across the room. She couldn't hear it at all. It's now my favorite camera to shoot with. My bolex rex 5 I sold to pay for the ACL was crazy loud... That famous tick tick frame counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

My super 16 ACL is whisper quiet especially since Bernie at super 16 inc survived it. My wife asked if it was even running from across the room. She couldn't hear it at all. It's now my favorite camera to shoot with. My bolex rex 5 I sold to pay for the ACL was crazy loud... That famous tick tick frame counter.

Well yea, I mean my LTR is super quiet, but it's a big/heavy camera. My EBM by contrast is a lot lighter, much smaller and uses those great c mount lenses, which are a lot of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACL has a C-mount, actually, and then uses adapter rings for other mounts, on a larger screw-ring outside the C-mount. With a small prime lens and battery on a belt pack, it's actually quite comfortable to hold for long periods, even with a 400' mag. Much more comfortable, I think, than a Bolex, which you're holding in front of your face, not on your shoulder.

 

-perry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I just want to say I love my CP-16R, it's super quiet too.

Would I like to have an Arri, sure! But, I would also be fine with another CP - of course my only problem is lenses and adapters that don't interfere with the mirror.

Speaking of Nikon, that elusive CP to Nikon adapter would be awesome for me, because then I could actually afford to not pay tin-foil-hat prices for lenses.

 

It's not light weight, but it makes a great tripod/dolly studio camera.

 

I'd love to have a 2C instead of an Eyemo, but for that matter - since we're talkin Super 8, I think an Arri 16s with 100' loads would be a better choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Man, I just researched that oscillating mirror design, what a mess that is! I can't imagine that assembly holding up like the spinning mirror shutter. It doesn't save much space either, so I'm at a loss why they choose that mechanic.

 

Thanks for the info Perry! I didn't know they came with C mount. Even the EBM doesn't come with c mount, it's an adaptor. For longer shots it's nice to have a shoulder mount, that's for sure. I got good at shooting with the bolex over the years though, don't mind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a 5 perf 16mm camera would be good

 

You're real estate then becomes significantly better than 2 perf 35mm:

 

37.05mm x 12.52mm (aspect close to 3:1)

 

And no need for anamorphic lenses, albeit at the expense of using twice the amount of stock, but personally I'd rather spend more on stock then eff around with anamorphics.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or for the Super8 devotees a 3/4 perf Super8 camera might be the better idea. Anamorphic lenses are just a pain I reckon.

 

4 perf: 16.8 mm x 6.36mm (2.6:1)

3 perf: 12.6mm x 6.36mm (2:1)

 

As long as one employs registration marks (cross hairs etc) rather than sprocket holes, the results will be completely rock solid and highly competitive.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I mean 3 perf 16mm would be cool, but the moment you put the camera gate horizontal, you make the camera a lot bigger. Plus, the benefits of 35mm (double pull down/double registration pins) help it become a better format. 2 perf 35mm is still a better format in my eyes. The cost difference is also minimal between 3 perf 16 and 2 perf 35. I did all the math and even standard super 16 vs 2 perf 35 isn't that much, few grand in stock and processing/transfer. Camera rental is the biggest difference since 2 perf cameras are so rare and Super 16 so available. If you owned your own 2 perf 35mm and super 16mm camera, the cost differences between 16 and 35 would be minimal, even if you rented lenses. Since any NEW 16mm camera would be expensive, that kinda negates the whole "lower cost" element in of itself. The nice thing about 16 is that low camera, lens and stock cost. You can own all the equipment necessary to make a feature for less then a decent digital cinema camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...