Jump to content

2-perf Super8 Anamorphic


Lasse Roedtnes
 Share

Recommended Posts


That is not a typo. He implemented a completely self contained vacuum system that pulled the film flat against the gate during exposure.

 

Ha. That's what I was contemplating for a scanner I was designing a few years back - a vacuum system for pulling the film flat. I didn't follow it through. Unlike a camera, the scanner needs to back light the film. The design had a glass plate with many small holes in it but simulations showed there would be a bit too much of a difference between the light going through the glass and the light going through the holes. That and the potential for damaging the film put me off. For a camera though it would be fine.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently stumbled across some articles I xeroxed about a prototype 12-perf 35mm horizontal movement camera...

 

Yes, I'm still quite intrigued by a variable aspect sideways camera. A 16mm one in particular. It doesn't matter that there's no gain in cost savings or quality when targeting the same stock spend and aspect of 2 perf 35mm (albeit with the additional expense of an anamorphic lens). For there would be the option to use it with a spherical lens and get twice the image quality of 2 perf 35mm (albeit at twice the stock cost) if and when budgets were forthcoming. Whereas that option wouldn't be there with the 2 perf 35mm camera.

 

Here's another idea. What about a 1 perf 35mm camera, with an anamorphic lens rotated opposite to the usual.

 

There's no actual optimal answer to the balance one might hope to find between cost saving and quality. They are always in opposition to each other.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For writing registration marks (and meta data) onto the film I'm imagining something like this:

 

 

The shutter is a mirror shutter but with mirrors on both sides. The top one reflects the lens image upwards towards the viewfinder. The bottom one reflects an image (marks/metadata) from a small internal projector below, onto the film frame.

 

In the animation the red flare represents when the marks are being projected onto the film from below. In the animation the flare covers the whole frame but ignore that - just imagine the data is being written to the top and bottom edge of the frame.

 

C

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant. Would this idea be locked into a 180 degree shutter? Would a variable shutter be out of the question? Do ultra tiny digital projectors exist? And if they did how would they safely emit an ultra narrow focused beamed light much like a precision laser? Spill might be an issue regarding the exposed frame.

 

Introducing controlled light into the film transport area is a fascinating subject. I believe Panavision actually had a device that pre-flashed frames. I found it. No less invented by Panavision founder, Robert E. Gottschalk, i.e. Patent = http://www.google.ca/patents/US4298255

 

It was called the Panaflasher and flashed film internally with a low intensity light to reduce contrast and increase exposure detail in shadows, i.e. http://panavision.cz/pdf/downloads/operation-manuals/panavision/panaflasher-manual.pdf

 

 

For writing registration marks (and meta data) onto the film I'm imagining something like this:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful as these ideas are.... the 2-perf super-8 and the 2-or more-perf 16mm and so on.... I feel they are not really feasible. OK they probably would work, but why would people want to spend more on film-stock when if the budget allows it is easier to make it on a standardised format like 35 in one of its forms. 4-perf yes is expensive for any big quantity, but 3-perf offers a saving and 2-perf even more so. TechniScope may be a challenge to keep the image good on such a wide screen, but if they somehow managed it in the 1960s with their grainy stocks, it must be easier now. The drawback is simply the lack of cameras etc. Lasse please note ;)

 

Another problem with increasing the linear speed of a super-8 or 16mm camera: the mechanical noise. Also a non pin-regd camera is more prone to unsteadiness at higher speeds ? In theory these problems don't occur if you are content to simply widen the image as much as possible like S.16 U.16 Varispect UP8 etc. OK some of these formats are not standardised but at least they can be scanned without trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony,

 

You just described the UltraPan8 format transport system . Full 2 perf 16mm width with vertical 8mm pulldown utilizing Standard 8mm film which is sold in 16mm widths with 80 perfs per foot as opposed to standard 16mm film stock with 40 perfs per foots. The perfs are identical in shape and the 8mm pitch is exactly half of standard 16mm pitch. Both are key concepts in the implementation including the interchangeability of classic Bolex 8mm and 16mm optics, transport, etc.

 

Many scanned examples available on Vimeo, i.e.

(Standard 8mm V3 200T color negative reperfed from 16mm acetate)

 

No time to read all the posts here, but why not just for for 16mm film running vertically, expose a frame the entire width but only 8mm high giving you twice the about of frames from 16mm? Or would you need specially perfed film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anthony,

You just described the UltraPan8 format transport system . Full 2 perf 16mm width with vertical 8mm pulldown utilizing Standard 8mm film which is sold in 16mm widths with 80 perfs per foot as opposed to standard 16mm film stock with 40 perfs per foots. The perfs are identical in shape and the 8mm pitch is exactly half of standard 16mm pitch. Both are key concepts in the implementation including the interchangeability of classic Bolex 8mm and 16mm optics, transport, et

Yes Ultrapan 8.. I knew i'd seen it here before but couldn't recall the details. You are currently using a modified Bolex? I would assume the frame width would be almost as drastic as 2 perf S8? It would solve the real-estate issue because doubling the run time of a 16mm spool is cheaper than cutting the run time in half on an S8 spool. Since your scan looks very nice, I assume scanning Ultrapan is not an issue where 2 perf S8 is not yet very feasible. And on the camera end, probably a lot less R&D involved... just a 16mm camera with a modified shutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a variable shutter be out of the question? Do ultra tiny digital projectors exist? And if they did how would they safely emit an ultra narrow focused beamed light much like a precision laser? Spill might be an issue regarding the exposed frame.

 

A variable shutter like a Bolex. There would (of course) need to be a minimum size to allow for pulldown, but one could obtain larger than 180 degree exposures, as much as smaller.

 

A tiny projector is just like a tiny camera but in reverse. At minimum all you would need is a metal mask with punched out registration marks, illuminated from behind with an LED and diffuser (brightness user adjusted to the filmstock), and in front of the mask a small fixed focus lens to bring the mask into focus at the film plane. Would work perfectly fine. For writing digital data it's a little more fiddly of course but the same general idea obtains: one just replaces the mask with a small LCD screen - but you'd want to also overlay such a screen with a hard mask to protect the image area because LCDs leak a little. For the digital data area the leakage doesn't matter as it would be binary information anyway - wouldn't matter if the blacks were not a black as they might otherwise be.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Introducing controlled light into the film transport area is a fascinating subject. I believe Panavision actually had a device that pre-flashed frames. I found it. No less invented by Panavision founder, Robert E. Gottschalk, i.e. Patent = http://www.google.ca/patents/US4298255

 

It was called the Panaflasher and flashed film internally with a low intensity light to reduce contrast and increase exposure detail in shadows, i.e. http://panavision.cz/pdf/downloads/operation-manuals/panavision/panaflasher-manual.pdf

 

 

THere were a bunch of them- Panaglow, Arriglow, and I think Lightflex was the first, devised for Freddie Francis. He used it to tint scenes in Dune.

Varicon is still on the go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-48441-0-47794100-1448308426_thumb.jpg

 

Simulation of projected image using a rough lens (approximated with polygonal mesh of a lens). Projecting digital data would be nice but one could dispense with that. But projecting a cross hair would be invaluable. Would completely eliminate scanner registration issues.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the great graphic, Carl.

 

 

attachicon.gifLensCrossHair.jpg

 

Simulation of projected image using a rough lens (approximated with polygonal mesh of a lens). Projecting digital data would be nice but one could dispense with that. But projecting a cross hair would be invaluable. Would completely eliminate scanner registration issues.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony,

 

Yes, modified Bolex.

 

Actually a second variant exists called UltraPan8 3.1 which utilizes the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 film with the classic vertical Super 8 pulldown. Here is an scanned example using E100D color reversal stock, i.e.

 

To recap, i.e.

 

1. UltraPan8 2.8 with aspect ratio 2.8 uses the full 16mm width of Regular 8mm film with vertical 8mm pulldown. Frame = 10.54mm x 3.75mm.

2. UltraPan8 3.1 with aspect ratio 3.1 uses the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 film with vertical Super 8 pulldown. Frame = 13.00mm x 4.22mm

 

The UP8 3.1 format is actually wider than Super 16 and technically requires a re-centering of the lens mount. But I am quite happy with the above scanned example of UP8 3.1 regarding the coverage provided by the 10mm Zeiss Tevidon C-Mount lens relative to the unmodified lens mount.

 

All of the approximately 14+ re-manufactured Bolex conversions were undertaken by Jean-Louis Seguin (bolextech@gmail.com).

 

 

 

Yes Ultrapan 8.. I knew i'd seen it here before but couldn't recall the details. You are currently using a modified Bolex? I would assume the frame width would be almost as drastic as 2 perf S8? It would solve the real-estate issue because doubling the run time of a 16mm spool is cheaper than cutting the run time in half on an S8 spool. Since your scan looks very nice, I assume scanning Ultrapan is not an issue where 2 perf S8 is not yet very feasible. And on the camera end, probably a lot less R&D involved... just a 16mm camera with a modified shutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful as these ideas are.... the 2-perf super-8 and the 2-or more-perf 16mm and so on.... I feel they are not really feasible. OK they probably would work, but why would people want to spend more on film-stock when if the budget allows it is easier to make it on a standardised format like 35 in one of its forms. 4-perf yes is expensive for any big quantity, but 3-perf offers a saving and 2-perf even more so. TechniScope may be a challenge to keep the image good on such a wide screen, but if they somehow managed it in the 1960s with their grainy stocks, it must be easier now. The drawback is simply the lack of cameras etc. Lasse please note ;)

 

Another problem with increasing the linear speed of a super-8 or 16mm camera: the mechanical noise. Also a non pin-regd camera is more prone to unsteadiness at higher speeds ? In theory these problems don't occur if you are content to simply widen the image as much as possible like S.16 U.16 Varispect UP8 etc. OK some of these formats are not standardised but at least they can be scanned without trouble.

 

Yes, a 4 perf 35mm with anamorphic would give the same image quality as the proposed sideways 16mm with spherical lens - but then the 4 perf (traditionally) couldn't do 2 perf. One could of course invent such a 35mm camera. But if one is going to invent a camera (that's the idea) why not invent the proposed 16mm equivalent? Another advantage to the sideways 16mm is that the proposed scanning method, which would stitch the image together from "slices", would allow a much higher res scan, eg. scanning 2.4:1 spherical exposed sideways 16mm, using a 4K aperture scanner, would yield a composite that is 10K (x 4K). Getting the same digital quality master from 4 perf anamophically exposed 35mm would be a lot more trouble (ie. cost more).

 

I'm imagining transport being done using stepper motors rather than gears and claws etc. Less moving parts, more compact design, and less noise to manage. And the film could be positioned at arbitrary positions - ie. decoupling film transport from perf pitch allowing for arbitrary aspects: 4:3, 16:9, 2.4:1, etc. achieved with or without anamorphics. The burning in of registration marks means you don't need pin registration - at least not for registration purposes.

 

A Super8 version can pave the way.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the camera is also a projector (as would be a cool idea) I'm not too sure how you'd register the film during projection. If we assume there is some micro-movement in where the frame falls (necessitating registration marks) then the projector mode would have to have some internal lenses and computations on the registration marks, and a corresponding correction mechanism to re-position the film by the requisite amount - and to do all this during the shutter closed time ...

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the 20s there was a 35mm cine camera that could also be turned into a projector, called the Debrie Sept. I've got a 16mm camera from the 40s in my collection that did the same. Never a terribly good idea, a camera and projector have quite different requirements, so the combination was always a compromise.

 

Regarding imprinting the film, both Arricode and Aatoncode used LEDs to expose timecode information onto the film as it passed through the camera. This was around the 535, SR3, XTR era, 90s. Aatoncode imprinted in the gate, Arri's version was in the mag.

 

I'm curious how successful the Logmar camera has been. I didn't really think there would be much of a market. A lot of people here are asking for a new 2 perf 35mm camera. If it wasn't sync sound quiet and didn't take mags maybe someone could make a cheapish one, but it would be far from a professional tool. Like a slightly better Lomokino. Could be fun though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So I've been thinking a lot about this and have realized the 2 perf and 3 perf 35mm camera and projection system is probably the way to go. Horizontal 4 perf 16 is cool, but it doesn't solve the projection issues, it's just another format for scanning and digital projection.

 

The key is to design a 2 perf and 3 perf 35mm camera and projector system that's modernized with all the things we've discussed at a price point of around 10k for each item. It would be great to use standard mags which are easy to find for the camera and the projector would be an all new design. The camera should have a built in HD camera and record proxies to SD cards. The timecode of those proxy files will be burned onto the film itself as well so it's easy to cut the negative. I'd actually have the camera expose next to each frame the time code number so a negative cutter can see it. This way you can literally take your edl and cut the film. The camera would have two super 35 modes and be sold as one or the other 2 or 3 perf. The movement price will be expensive but if you wish to shoot a different format, totally buy able.

 

The projector will have a digital projector unit built in so theaters can run trailers through it and once over it will autostart the film. Because 2 perf uses half the film, completed rolls can be sent aleady spliced together on reels. The projectionist just needs to thread the projector and start the movie. Audio will be some form of on board digital like Dolby digital, though I'd figure out a way to circumvent the parents. Of course the projector can be 2 perf or 3 perf, with a change of the gate and an electronic switch, the system can run either format. Though 3 perf films would be broken up onto 2 reels... Necessitating two projection systems but for those people who want a larger negative, why not?

 

I envision a different system for film movement then what's been used in past projectors, more like a circle with plastic teeth on it that rotates the film through the entire projection path from the supply through the gate and out the bottom to the Take up. That circle will constantly move and the film will be pulled away from or pushed into it depending on where it needs to go. Since it's an all new format, you can put the audio reader anywhere you want. The gate would use a pull down system more smilar to a camera, though made to deal with projection. It would use plastic pull down claws and metal registration pins. I would make it 4 pin registered so those wobble problems of the past are gone. The projector would be small and portable with the led lamp in the middle of the rolling film mover. The whole assembly will have a cover to prevent dust from hitting the film. The take up and supply reels will sit behind the unit on a tripod. Motors will be integrated and easy to setup. It will be raised and lowered and like a film magazine butt up to the projector and lock in place so it can be covered as well to prevent dust from coming in. There will also be fim cleaning rollers before the film enters and when it exits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've had producers ask in the past why they couldn't just record the video tap of a film camera for offline cutting... Even if you solve the keycode issue by burning in timecode onto the negative like Aatoncode and Arricode, the main problem is that dailies are a way of watching what you've actually got on film to know if it is usable. With this idea of cutting a video feed, you'd only have the lab's negative report to know the state of the footage. Plus even with an HD tap, you are limited in resolution by the fact that the tap is a picture of a ground glass image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tyler, for the details regarding your vision of a new 2/3 Super 35mm cam/projector system.


And just to bring everyone up to speed regarding Logmar's long-term intentions. They previously posted and hired a new embedded Linux developer for their forthcoming 35mm AND 65mm camera projects. That's right, 65mm, i.e. http://www.logmar.dk/career/


Enthusiastic founder reports on the new hire, i.e. http://www.logmar.dk/new-team-member/


A new smaller scale 65mm film transport with small magazines would be a natural evolution of Super 8/ small scale 2-perf 35mm camera design. It is feasible. I happen to own a Photo-Sonics 14-perf 70mm horizontal transport handheld camera (magnesium bod) that does not weigh more than10 lbs with a standard Bronica medium format lens mount. Top speed of 20 fps and maximum film loads of 100 ft (acetate) or 150 ft (polyester).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, sounds like 2/3 perf 35mm has a market. I'll just make my 16mm alternative out of 3D printed nylon. :)

 

For sound, this can be done digitally. I've built digital sound systems for 16mm projectors (retrofitted) - where instead of writing sound to the film (be it digital or analog) I just play the sound from a laptop, synced by a USB cable between the modded 16mm projector and the laptop. If building a camera/projector from scratch can build it all together.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound sync for projection is actually the easy bit. Creating a sync sound track for a film is the hard bit.

 

I wrote some software to manage the cut on a 16mm film. Here's a screenshot of the software:

 

post-48441-0-15172700-1448393790_thumb.jpg

 

The process involved simply projecting the camera original on a wall and capturing such to video. It didn't need to be high quality as it was just for editing purposes, the result of which would be an EDL which I'd use for editing the original film. During the copy to video I used a two way mirror to burn in timecode on the video copy, from a digital sync signal I hooked up to the projector.

 

After editing the film on video (and creating the sound track) I then had the EDL from such, and of course the final sound track. All that remained was to cut the film to the EDL. The software basically organised the edit from the EDL.

 

In a first pass the software told where to find each shot in the camera original reel. I used a gang sync to locate shots and extract them, one of by one (in the order they were on the camera original reel). In a second pass I then extracted shots from the first pass reel, but in the order they would be in the final film. Shot by shot.

 

I then laced this up on the projector, plugged in the sync cable and and projected the result. And viola - a finished work with booming stereo sound.

 

The work is currently screening in Malaysia at a film festival there. Had to ship the projector to the festival :)

 

C

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is to design a 2 perf and 3 perf 35mm camera and projector system that's modernized with all the things we've discussed at a price point of around 10k for each item. It would be great to use standard mags which are easy to find for the camera and the projector would be an all new design. The camera should have a built in HD an electronic switch, the system can...

A 3 perf Arricam LT from Visual Products sold just last month for 10K, there's a 2 perf Kinor on eBay now for far less, there are rental houses that have 2 and 3 perf Penelopes or Arricams or older converted cameras and would very likely do a good deal on the rental.

I can understand a new S8 camera, since they're all over 40 years old and were never designed for a long life. But when you can pick up a 10 year old state of the art 35mm sync sound camera that was over 100K new for only 10K or still rent them for not that much I don't really see the need for a new 35mm camera. There's no way anyone could design and manufacture anything remotely as good as what is already available for that kind of money. And they're only getting cheaper. Is this new camera supposed to be sync sound quiet too? I don't see what's deficient about Arricams and Penelopes anyway. A better video tap? Really?

 

As far as combining a projector and a camera goes, it's kind of like when kids fantasise about combining a car and a plane. Sounds cool, but the reality is that it would be a very poor and compromised version of both. They have different shutter requirements, different pressure plate systems, need different lenses and lens mounts, have a different gate to lens direction, need different mechanisms requiring the same spaces, use different types of film, etc, etc. You could do it, but honestly why would you want to? Why not combine a wallet and a hat, or a shoe and a minibar?

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...