Jump to content

2-perf Super8 Anamorphic


Lasse Roedtnes
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

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.

Ohh it's nearly impossible to find cameras to rent here in Hollywood. Panavision and Able Cine are the only two companies and they want a lot of money to rent them. 3 perf is easier to find, but still expensive. Everyone and their mom has 4 perf cameras, they're a dime a dozen.

 

Actually, the biggest part of the problem is lens selection. My camera would have an interchangeable lens mounts, which means you can use Nikon, Canon, Sony, PL, Bayonet, Zeiss, Aaton, BNC mount glass. The front of the body will have spacers for each mount, so you can simply install the spacer ring and set the flange distance.

 

I can understand a new S8 camera, since they're all over 40 years old and were never designed for a long life.

Super 8 isn't a commercial format and the new camera isn't silent, so what's the point? Might as well buy a Bolex for a few hundred bux off ebay for your "art" film project because the best you can do with any super 8 camera is mess around with home movies and art stuff.

 

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 is only one state of the art 35mm camera, that's the Penelope and nobody is getting rid of those for cheap because they're pretty much perfect. My camera would be similar, but for a lot less money.

 

Here are the big problems.

 

1) Arri no longer supports 35mm cameras. So once the electronics go bad, you're camera is dead.

2) The current cameras use ONE type of lens and they're very expensive.

3) The current cameras are designed for people who shoot film, not for modern digital users.

4) There are too many variables with older cameras, too many formats.

 

In my view, there is no reason to spend money on "art" cameras like the new bolex digital and the logmar super 8 camera. They're a waste of money in my opinion because people who buy those cameras, aren't really spending enough money on film to keep it a viable product. My goal is to keep filmmaking on film and the only way to do that is with professional equipment that's affordable. Old rental gear that's unsupported by the manufacturer is worthless.

 

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?

We would be fundraising to make these products through my new non-profit. I'm an engineer as well, I know the challenges with breaking ground, but we're not in this to make money or be profitable. We're all in this because we want to see film stay alive and we need to donate our time to make it happen. Nobody will save film by trying to make money from it and that's our philosophy.

 

Yes, the camera will be quiet. In fact, its going to be far less complex mechanically then most cameras.

 

Our camera will be:

 

- Ultra light weight, body will be made of cast magnesium and insulated.

- Have mount's for Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, PL, B4 and BNC. Allowing still camera glass on 35mm for the first time.

- Record timecode numbers right onto the film (no barcode, actual numbers)

- Capture 2k digital images from a CMOS sensor with matching timecode

- Capture audio from the external mixer and match it to the digital image.

- Have HDSDI outputs for monitoring with a histogram and most importantly built-in exposure system that matches the film perfectly (lots of development needed, but it's doable)

- Switchable movements (added cost) from 3 perf to 2 perf. (not 4 perf compatible)

- Full optical viewfinder system (no onboard digital display)

- Every change to the shutter angle, speed and exposure of the camera is matched on the digital side.

- Kelvin and ISO are programmed into the digital camera based on the stock by the user

- The magazines will use Arri's space saving technology.

- Camera will use standard V mount 12v batteries with 4 pin power for accessories

- Standard LOMO connectors for cinema power and accessories will also be included.

- Camera body without optical viewfinder, mag and battery will be under 10lb

- The pulldown system will be more like Aaton's, which is virtually silent.

 

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?

The camera and projector are two different units, they have no similarities in design.

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.

Well, what are the benefits of digital?

 

- You can edit right away

- You can see what you have as you're shooting it

- You can gauge/judge exposure and look on a monitor

- You don't really need a lab (on smaller shows)

 

So,

Imagine being able to edit right away with synched audio

See the exact shot on a monitor without the ground glass nonsense

Imagine being able to use that 2k reference digital video file incase your shot doesn't come out on film.

Look at actual exposure on the digital side to make sure it's right on the film side (lots of math but doable)

Don't really need the lab until you've cut together something

 

We'd have a digital density record for each camera roll. That report will be sent to the lab along with the film, so when they process, they can compare the two and if there are any issues, there will be a red flag. Obviously scratches and other problems will be reported by the lab. Once the editor cuts the digital file, the lab will be told to scan only those particular shots from the negative with handles. Those files will be imported and linked in the editing program and go online immediately, without any labor. So the day after you shoot on film, you can see exactly what you shot on film in your editing system.

 

Then the idea is to send the lab your EDL report after the show is cut and conform the original camera negative and strike a print. We'd have a simple digital audio system that allows for the timecode information to be read and sync directly to the editor. So when you're playing back the film on a projector, your editing system with all the audio will playback in sync. This can also be done with dailies if you want film dailies. Our 2/3 perf projector would be so small and portable, projecting dailies with good audio coming right from your editor, is totally possible.

 

This is all doable, it just requires people who give a poop like myself, to make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go Tyler.

 

Yes, the trick is to work out the most cost-effective way of making a useful camera - and projector - not necessarily as the same object - but with certain systems, or components, in common. For example, if one is going to make a pin registration system for a camera it makes sense to ensure the same design can work for a corresponding projector, ie. it would be cheaper that way, not to mention resolving compatibility issues. So it's about not locking down decisions to just that which a camera requires, or that which a projector requires, but entertaining a more generic system with components working equally efficiently in a projector as they would in a camera. To design the components against the needs of a both a camera and a projector at the same time. To kill two birds with one stone.

 

So one can imagine a set of components sitting on a table, none of which is either part of a projector, or part of a camera, but out of which you can snap together a camera or a projector. That it's made that way. The components just interlock in some satisfactory way. And unlock in the same way.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my world we work in the lab as well. There's no sending the film off to the lab to get dailies back. Once upon a time that was the case. But these days we just go into the lab ourselves and process the films ourselves, in darkrooms we've built ourselves (or at least that our group has built since I wasn't part of the team on that).

 

In our world it's all DIY. It's all "smell of an oily rag" stuff. One can call it "art" if one likes but it's really out of necessity, than out of any idealist notion of making art. A lot of it's really about pragmatics. What can one do with what one has. Because in our world there ain't no money to do jack poop. We have to do it ourselves. But it's nevertheless endlessly surprising what can be done on the smell of an oily rag. And that's invaluable.

 

And if by the term "art" is meant a dirty word, then I wouldn't want to call what we do as art. But I do call it art, because for me art is not a dirty word.

 

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

 

Assumption is the mother of all eff ups.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get my inspiration from stories such as World War 2 POWs who made their own movie cameras out of odds and ends they pinched from their German captors. A true story. It doesn't really matter to me if the cameras produced crappy results. The fact they produced any result at all I find endlessly fascinating. It's the bigger story (or bigger picture) which is far more interesting. And the images, no matter how "good" or "bad" they are can embody that bigger story/picture. Or not as the case may be. Technically perfect images are no guarantee an image will work. But technically poor images are no guarantee an image will fail.

 

That said I am a self admitted fetishist for technically good images. I can't shake that. But I also know it doesn't actually matter. You can make an effing brilliant work on a half dead Super8 camera off ebay, and a complete crock of shite on a pristinely maintained 70mm camera.

 

I'd make a work on a camera I made myself out of plastic - no problem. Not because I wanted a shite result (on the contrary) but because I'd want to see the result of creating such a work. It would have that story to it. Of a camera made out of plastic. Not just that story but that story as part of a bigger picture which has no need of stories about how you are supposed to make things like a camera. Or a film. Or anything else. But nor would it be about how you would like to make something (dreaming).

 

Rather it would be how you did, in fact, in reality, make something.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one state of the art 35mm camera, that's the Penelope and nobody is getting rid of those for cheap because they're pretty much perfect. My camera would be similar, but for a lot less money.

 

Arricams are still the camera of choice for non-Panavision film features, not Penelopes. You're not seeing them for sale because there just aren't that many around.

Trying to make a camera like a Penelope "but for a lot less money" is like trying to open a 3 Michelin star restaurant, but just have your mum cooking. It takes a lot of experienced people, and top notch manufacturing. It combines electronics, fine mechanics and optics, and even if you want to do this as a non-profit venture you still have to pay for materials and expertise. You can't expect highly qualified people to give you years of their time (because that's how long designing and bringing about something like this will take) for nothing. I love film too but it's not like a charity where you're feeding the poor, it's a format choice for art and entertainment!

 

Here are the big problems.

 

1) Arri no longer supports 35mm cameras. So once the electronics go bad, you're camera is dead.

2) The current cameras use ONE type of lens and they're very expensive.

3) The current cameras are designed for people who shoot film, not for modern digital users.

4) There are too many variables with older cameras, too many formats.

 

1. Where have you heard that Arri no longer supports film cameras? Many parts are available, service literature exists, there are technicians and rental houses world-wide that can work on Arri film cameras, though it's a dwindling knowledge base. By contrast, a new camera made by a philanthropic company will have zero ability to maintain technical support into the future, and cameras will need to be sent back to you for the smallest issues. There's no guarantee you'll still be supporting your camera next year yet alone in ten. Look at the history of support from other new arrivals like Ikonoscope, Digital Bolex, even RED. And mechanical sync sound cameras need a lot more check-ups and maintenance than digital ones.

 

2. There's a reason film cameras use PL or PV mount lenses. Professionals don't want to use stills lenses, they're not designed for movie making. It's something that has been foisted on the industry since the advent of DSLR filmaking. Cheaper PL lenses are becoming available, or older glass can be used with PL adapters or you can rent. Anyway, Nikon hard fronts have been available for years for certain film cameras. If you're planning on a reflex mirror many lenses just won't clear as well.

 

3. ?? You mean kids today don't know how to use a lightmeter? That's the process! It's film!

The idea of using the video split for exposure or even as back up footage has a number of problems, not least of which is how you record it. Firstly it's normally a prism split, with reduced light and very dependent on the quality of the prism. Secondly you can't record it off a groundglass or you get fixed grain. Vibrating the screen like an old S35 adapter will add considerable expense and take up space and still has lots of issues. Dispense with the optical viewfinder and put a sensor at the groundglass position and you're really out of space, no room for cover glass or OLPF. If you could somehow manage it, maybe with relay optics, the alignment procedure would be complex and absolutely crucial, the equivalent of building an Alexa and an Arricam in the same box. All for 10K? Just because some kids will freak out without a histogram?

 

4. That's pretty funny, film has maintained the same standards for decades, across many different manufacturers. The only variations really were the choice of aspect ratio, but in essence the full aperture can be recorded and cropped as you like. Compared to the modern landscape of codecs, sensor sizes, mount variations, menu systems, recording media etc it's pretty simple.

 

In my view, there is no reason to spend money on "art" cameras like the new bolex digital and the logmar super 8 camera. They're a waste of money in my opinion because people who buy those cameras, aren't really spending enough money on film to keep it a viable product. My goal is to keep filmmaking on film and the only way to do that is with professional equipment that's affordable. Old rental gear that's unsupported by the manufacturer is worthless.

 

Funny how you think spending lots of money on film is essential but spending it on professional equipment needs to be "affordable". For film to have a long term viability it needs professionals world wide who can still maintain the equipment, and that generally means supporting rental houses. You're not the only soul who has a passion for film, but it is a technology that has many highly technical support industries. Film manufacture is one aspect. Processing and post workflow is another. Camera maintenance and support is yet another, but coming up with your own magically cheap yet professional new 35mm camera seems wrong headed to me. Another distraction. A fantasy. Especially if you had any inkling of the true complexity involved in the technology and its maintenance, even for a MOS camera let alone sync sound.

A better Lomokino is doable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I wouldn't agree to a system where the actual film wasn't developed or viewed until after an offline cut of the video tap was made. For all you know, the roll could be blank! Let alone scratches, focus problems, emulsion defects, etc. Lab reports don't catch everything. For example, I heard of an indie film shot in Super-16 where they skipped dailies to save money and it turned out that the film wasn't lying flat in the gate and everything was blurry, something that the lab report didn't catch. The entire movie had to be reshot a year later.

 

That's a big risk and I don't think you'd get insurance on such a production or at least, be able to file an insurance claim after it turns out you didn't have a scene. The insurance company would be asking why you didn't catch the problem in dailies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Arricams are still the camera of choice for non-Panavision film features, not Penelopes.

For Super 35 3 or 4 perf yes. For 2 perf, there really isn't anything outside of Panavision and Penelope.

 

Trying to make a camera like a Penelope "but for a lot less money" is like trying to open a 3 Michelin star restaurant, but just have your mum cooking. It takes a lot of experienced people, and top notch manufacturing. It combines electronics, fine mechanics and optics, and even if you want to do this as a non-profit venture you still have to pay for materials and expertise. You can't expect highly qualified people to give you years of their time (because that's how long designing and bringing about something like this will take) for nothing. I love film too but it's not like a charity where you're feeding the poor, it's a format choice for art and entertainment!

Well, I've got the people and they're excited about the project. Donations will come and we will get paid, but that's not the reason we're doing it. Sometimes you need to suck it up and do a project like this for the good of everyone else, rather then stuff your pockets with money.

 

1. Where have you heard that Arri no longer supports film cameras?

Umm, by pretty much everyone that rents cameras in L.A. This was the impetus to sell of their inventory, which unfortunately has already happened at most rental houses. I'm sure if you talked with Germany, you could get some parts for the 416 and Arricam's because they aren't that old. Outside of those cameras, parts are discontinued. This is why Panavision is so great because they developed their own systems, so they will survive. The problem is, you and me can't own a panavision camera.

 

Ohh and by the way, most rental houses no longer have an in-house film camera service technician.

 

In terms of camera support in the future, I have a feeling once we have a product to sell, we'll do one run a year or something and spend the rest of the time supporting it. Which is fine because that part of things I'm intimately familiar with.

 

2. There's a reason film cameras use PL or PV mount lenses. Professionals don't want to use stills lenses, they're not designed for movie making. It's something that has been foisted on the industry since the advent of DSLR filmaking. Cheaper PL lenses are becoming available, or older glass can be used with PL adapters or you can rent. Anyway, Nikon hard fronts have been available for years for certain film cameras. If you're planning on a reflex mirror many lenses just won't clear as well.

People want to have lens options and there really aren't any decent cheap PL lenses available. However, there is great still glass available.

 

3. ?? You mean kids today don't know how to use a lightmeter? That's the process! It's film!

The idea of using the video split for exposure or even as back up footage has a number of problems, not least of which is how you record it. Firstly it's normally a prism split, with reduced light and very dependent on the quality of the prism. Secondly you can't record it off a groundglass or you get fixed grain. Vibrating the screen like an old S35 adapter will add considerable expense and take up space and still has lots of issues. Dispense with the optical viewfinder and put a sensor at the groundglass position and you're really out of space, no room for cover glass or OLPF. If you could somehow manage it, maybe with relay optics, the alignment procedure would be complex and absolutely crucial, the equivalent of building an Alexa and an Arricam in the same box. All for 10K? Just because some kids will freak out without a histogram?

There is no reason to build anything unless you can do these things. I have some very clever ideas on how to deal with these problems. All of the video side comes from china, we would buy circuits that already exist and change the firmware to operate the way we want it to. This is all very easy stuff outside of the optical relay, which is tricky, but I firmly believe in keeping the optical viewfinder for a film camera.

 

4. That's pretty funny, film has maintained the same standards for decades, across many different manufacturers. The only variations really were the choice of aspect ratio, but in essence the full aperture can be recorded and cropped as you like. Compared to the modern landscape of codecs, sensor sizes, mount variations, menu systems, recording media etc it's pretty simple.

Ok... 2 perf academy, 2 perf super 35, 3 perf academy, 3 perf super 35, 4 perf academy, 4 perf super 35. Matted, un-matted, spherical, anamorphic, Dolby digital, DTS, Dolby A, Dolby SR, etc... there are so many formats, it's just ridiculous. I've done a lot of film projection in my day and the whole process is cumbersome and has never really been updated. For film to stay alive, it needs 2 formats... 1.85:1 3 perf and 2.40:1 2 perf, that's it! No anamorphic, no academy vs super 35, it's all the same.

 

Funny how you think spending lots of money on film is essential but spending it on professional equipment needs to be "affordable".

Nobody is going to buy a $50,000 35mm film camera, it's not going to happen. My goal is to have a camera system which is priced at a low enough level, owner-operators and rental houses can afford it without breaking the bank. I need to be UNDER the cost of current digital cinema cameras, so it's a no brainer. Is $10k to cheap? Yes, it really is... and the camera will most likely cost upwards of $25k when it's done. However, my goal is to keep it in that $10k range, to compete with used 35mm cameras.

 

For film to have a long term viability it needs professionals world wide who can still maintain the equipment, and that generally means supporting rental houses. You're not the only soul who has a passion for film, but it is a technology that has many highly technical support industries. Film manufacture is one aspect. Processing and post workflow is another. Camera maintenance and support is yet another, but coming up with your own magically cheap yet professional new 35mm camera seems wrong headed to me. Another distraction. A fantasy. Especially if you had any inkling of the true complexity involved in the technology and its maintenance, even for a MOS camera let alone sync sound.

A better Lomokino is doable.

I'm pretty certain it's doable. There is no magic to a film camera and the mechanics haven't really changed for decades, heck Panavision still uses a variation of the mitchell design from before WWII.

 

I also could care less about developing a system that pushes people towards DI. My whole point is to develop and camera and projection system that will be easy to use and most importantly, allow people to do photochemical workflows, saving them a considerable amount of money.

 

Our camera will be easy to service because our PCB boards will be made specifically for our use. Alignment of key items will be using pins and keyways to insure proper re-installation. I want to build the digital world's film camera system, so that your average cinematographer can clean and maintain the system without the need of specialists.

 

Finally, I honestly don't consider this a big deal. Remember, when the Arricam was developed, our current computer aided 3D development tools, didn't exist. Today we can build the whole thing in a computer AND run film through it to make sure we're close before actually building a rapid prototype. It would cost around $150k to do the 3D work and prototype, another $100k to build and develop a one-off and then probably $200k to build our first models. So we're looking at roughly a $450 - 500k development cost for both camera and projector. All of our core parts will be made in china, I already know many vendors who can build this stuff for us. We'll do all the assembly here in the states and of course each camera will be tested.

 

To me, it's a no brainer. Raise the money over a few years via donations and get to work. It's just another challenge in life. If you don't take those challenges, you'll never be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I wouldn't agree to a system where the actual film wasn't developed or viewed until after an offline cut of the video tap was made.

Here is the workflow:

 

Monday shoot all day and send to lab for processing

Monday night, editor will cut together the scene and choose what shots they want transferred.

Tuesday morning, the lab will process and transfer those "selects"

Tuesday evening, the editor will insert those selects.

 

So basically, the system saves you from transferring everything. It also allows immediate cutting of scenes in decent quality with attached audio, to insure it's working before you get the film dailies. It also gives the proper timecode marks for the lab, so if you want film dailies, you can have only selects printed based on the EDL from the editor.

 

So yes, you're still heavily relying on the film and it really doesn't change the workflow currently used, it just adds a few more tools to reduce cost and INSURE the scenes work well together prior to spending all that money on a transfer. What if you watch the cut scene prior to transfer and realize it doesn't work and it needs to be re-shot? Again, it's more for the indy filmmaker who may wish to run 2 or 3 takes before running film as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Often the labs find it faster to just run the whole camera roll through the telecine for video dailies with one correction up front (one light) rather than stop & start and look for specific takes to transfer, so I'm not sure you are going to find any cost savings from transferring selects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Often the labs find it faster to just run the whole camera roll through the telecine for video dailies with one correction up front (one light) rather than stop & start and look for specific takes to transfer, so I'm not sure you are going to find any cost savings from transferring selects.

I see huge cost savings. Since the EDL will control the telecine, the transfer will be much more efficient.

 

Plus, there maybe rolls you don't even want to transfer, but you won't know until it's cut together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Again, if you are waiting until the offline edit is done to transfer selects, you aren't going to catch problems in the footage that a negative report won't see, like registration problems, if the film isn't running flat in the gate, etc.  That's a big risk.  There's a reason why you actually look at your footage daily after it gets developed -- it's a huge leap of faith to just wait until the editing is done to know the true state of the negative.

 

Also, a telecine transfer is not as automated as you are making it out to be.  Most of the time spent with the operator / colorist is loading the roll and balancing the first shot -- after that, the time saving of just letting the whole roll pass through versus having the machine start and stop the recording and look for EDL information isn't going to be significant; there might actually be additional costs.

 

Unless you are talking about a scanner pulling shots for the final D.I., but then you are basically skipping video dailies altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Offline edit will be done during the night where the film is sitting on a shelf waiting to be transferred. The editor will piece something together and with the director, be able to immediately look at the good and bad takes with synched audio. Then, the following day, the film footage will be substituted and/or film dailies will arrive for projection purposes. So you're still verifying the film looks fine, you just aren't transferring shots you don't need or want.

 

I've installed telecine machines from many manufacturers and they can work fine off timecode (frame count) and search to a given shot. You would need a keycode/tc reader of course, but it would be easy.

 

The idea of my project is for photochemical finish, so you would for sure be just doing a telecine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see a Logmar Hyper8 projector, with a hyper bright light source. And with the same pin registration mechanism as the camera.

 

I'd buy into that no problem. Projecting Super8 on a small screen looks awesome, and so would look just as awesome on a huge screen, if the brightness could be amped right up. And with the same pin registration mechanism it would just rock - so to speak :)

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding manufacturing, be it Super8, 16mm, 35mm or 70mm. A lot has changed over the decades. One no longer has to do a big production run in order to cover costs. The price of the Logmar in todays dollars is comparable to the price of a Canon 1014 in early 80s dollars. But you could not have made a limited edition Canon 1014 in the early 80s. It's CNC machining that is the revolution. And it's become quite affordable to your average punter and far more sophisticated over time. Indeed we now have domestic CNC machines called 3D printers.

 

We also have the computer power to design very complex systems in virtual reality and test it out in that space without commiting one atom of plastic or metal. We also have the internet which allows us to find our market for a fraction of the price it would have cost us decades ago. We can define in advance what a minimum number of investors/clients/customers are required to realise a particular project. Indeed they can play a role in what is made. The whole thing can be designed according to that community - the very community that has an interest in the project to begin with.

 

And new ideas have a way of being created in this way. They can be tested in virtual reality. And tested again. And when all the tests are done and one has convinced oneself it's fool proof one then just hits the print button (so to speak) and viola ... the proof.

 

People do this as a hobby.

 

Every cent I make in my adult life is from work I began as a hobby. Or otherwise calling it a hobby is incorrect. It's just self invested R&D.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

A 2-perf projector sounds a good idea. But to be truly successful it would have to be at least as easy to use as a 16mm projector. Remember, cinemas and film societies don't have projectionists anymore. So I guess foolproof auto-threading would be necessary and a very low noise level to compete somewhat with the digital projectors.

Also I wonder if having a 4-perf pin registration is overkill, and surely this could be a potential print wear issue. I would think one pin may be sufficient ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andries,

 

No. The UP8 3.1 DS8 Bolex camera has not been widely advertised and it remains a test project. I have one and the other is in the hands of a European client. His camera lens mount was properly re-centered to accommodate the 13mm width of the UP8 3.1 DS8 frame. .

 

There are more UP8 2.8 R8 Bolex cameras out there. It is an attractive format as it shares the same perf dimensions as Standard 16mm 2 or single perf film stock. And there is more Regular 8mm film stock in general.

 

Did you find an indication of demand for such a two perf S-8 camera? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A 2-perf projector sounds a good idea. But to be truly successful it would have to be at least as easy to use as a 16mm projector. Remember, cinemas and film societies don't have projectionists anymore. So I guess foolproof auto-threading would be necessary and a very low noise level to compete somewhat with the digital projectors.

My design concept will be easy to thread AND maintain, kinda fool proof unlike some of the projection systems we use today which were developed 80+ years ago. I'm really focused on a design with low noise, light weight and easy to maintain/operate. The point with 2 perf projection is; there will be no splicing involved, films will be shipped already built. For longer or 3 perf 1.85:1 movies, there will be two projectors required, but the change over will be automated and seamless. Of course, the projector will integrate nicely with pre-existing platter systems, for theaters who already have a real projectionist. This way, our new projector can sit right beside a 4 perf/70mm film projector if necessary and pull from the same feed.

 

Also I wonder if having a 4-perf pin registration is overkill, and surely this could be a potential print wear issue. I would think one pin may be sufficient ?

Well, the system is going to use a modified rolling loop design, so the film itself won't be even close to being aligned when it hits the gate. Registration pin's are critical to alignment unfortunately, but as a consequence, the image will be rock solid. One or two pin's won't be enough as one edge of the film could twist slightly. Plus, you can use the registration pins location as the fine framing adjustment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

And new ideas have a way of being created in this way. They can be tested in virtual reality. And tested again. And when all the tests are done and one has convinced oneself it's fool proof one then just hits the print button (so to speak) and viola ... the proof.

That's exactly right and even though companies like Arri use modern technology to develop their cameras, the technology we have today wasn't around when they developed even the 416 for example. It's so much easier to design things today then it's ever been and there are so many great young designers eager to work on a project like this who know the software inside and out. It's just a matter of finding one local, throwing down a few bux, giving them the concept and letting them run wild. By the time we've got a sample working in a computer, 3D printing will be MUCH better then it is today and hopefully we can make a complete 3D model of the products to check alignment before we cut anything on a mill.

 

It does require a "hobbiest" mentality to begin with, that's really the only way to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow the edit box of this forum doesn't work properly in my browser.

I meant to quote but didn't get anything in. Cut and paste doesn't work either. :(

 

Nicolas,

 

The conclusion might be that Logmar should consider designing a camera for classic 8mm (double-8) rather than a DS-8 thing for which there would be no film. Possibly allowing/using long rolls. I could possibly reverse the roll without taking it out if there is some switching possible. The camera would need to be rotated 180 degrees then :) A wide format version might then also be possible without too much extra work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly right and even though companies like Arri use modern technology to develop their cameras, the technology we have today wasn't around when they developed even the 416 for example. It's so much easier to design things today then it's ever been and there are so many great young designers eager to work on a project like this who know the software inside and out. It's just a matter of finding one local, throwing down a few bux, giving them the concept and letting them run wild. By the time we've got a sample working in a computer, 3D printing will be MUCH better then it is today and hopefully we can make a complete 3D model of the products to check alignment before we cut anything on a mill.

 

It does require a "hobbiest" mentality to begin with, that's really the only way to make it.

There's not much that's cutting-edge about the 416, to be honest it's just a very elegant design that uses the "greatest hits" of 16mm camera design. It's an SR3 movement with a mag design much like that of an Aaton. You might find it a bit better to use a design closer to that of a CP-16, with the coplanar mag running through a movement a-la Mitchell, Arri, Panaflex. This way you can much more simply run the mag and focus your energy on the gate/sprockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting proposal, Andries, regarding the 180 degree flip to accommodate the 8mm transport. Similar to the Sekonic Dualmatic 8mm Movie Camera, e.g. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sekonic-Dualmatic-8mm-Movie-Camera-/350237716674?hash=item518bcb70c2:m:mYeAPKZQ5HdznvpFFvTfqSg.
But I am not a big fan of the lower resolution 8mm frame. A Logmar version of a UP8 (AR = 2.8) or CinemaScope (AR = 2.4) format would be very a attractive proposition if implemented using the full 16mm width of R8 or DS8 film stocks with the associated R8/S8 single perf pulldown and with pin registration. Double the run time compared to 16mm pulldown transports

 

Somehow the edit box of this forum doesn't work properly in my browser.

I meant to quote but didn't get anything in. Cut and paste doesn't work either. :(

 

Nicolas,

 

The conclusion might be that Logmar should consider designing a camera for classic 8mm (double-8) rather than a DS-8 thing for which there would be no film. Possibly allowing/using long rolls. I could possibly reverse the roll without taking it out if there is some switching possible. The camera would need to be rotated 180 degrees then :) A wide format version might then also be possible without too much extra work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea for a film projector in which the film is in continuous motion rather than intermittent (stop/start) motion. One way involves rotating prisms and mirrors etc (as used in high speed photography, or some 8mm/Super8 editors) but the idea I have in mind is one where the movie image is encoded holographically in the film, and illuminated by laser light. No spinning prisms etc.

 

Now a conventional 3D hologram effectively encodes a very large number of different views of an otherwise stationary scene in a single sheet of film. When looking at the hologram from different angles one sees a different view of the scene. But one can also move the position of the laser around to obtain the different angles of view on a such a scene.

 

But it needn't be a stationary 3D scene encoded in a hologram. For each position of the laser one might just as easily have a completely different image encoded in the holgram - or for the pupose I have in mind: sequential images from a motion picture film. In other words the position of the laser with respect to the film effectively selects one of countless images otherwise encoded in the film.

 

Now moving a laser around with respect to an otherwise stationary sheet of film (to acquire a different image) is no different from moving the film around with respect to an otherwise stationary laser (to acquire a different image).

 

So one can imagine motion picture film, encoded holographically, being transported across a laser in a continuous fashion, where the output from such reconstructs a different image at every moment - because the laser is in a different position with respect to the film at every moment. But for the purposes of motion picture projection it simply reconstructs the same image for a certain duration (eg. for 1/24th of a second). And then at the required instant the derived image is a new image which holds for the next 1/24th of second. The result is a traditional motion picture film, but where the film is moving continuously through the projector, rather than in the usual stop/start motion.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
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...