Jump to content

2-perf Super8 Anamorphic


Lasse Roedtnes
 Share

Recommended Posts


I think one of the reason why there wasn't that much takers to begin with was because the price was just a bit too high, if ti was on the more affordable range of a high-end DSLR camera then I'm sure people would be shelling out and I would've gotten the camera sooner!

 

I mean the whole new Kodak Super 8 camera does genuinely make me happy, it still lack a lot of the more modern and professional features that the Logmar has, and the fact that the creators are in communication with the community things can be done to the camera to people's liking, only making it a much better camera, if not it can still be better! If anything I think the Kodak Super 8 camera should be more of a motivation for them to continue as it offers choices to the people:

 

Kodak Super8 camera = Amateur, home-movie shooting

 

Logmar Super8 camera = Professionalism

 

The prices between the two will obviously inform people subconsciously what each camera is capable of, but since now only one remains in the market (and not the one I would shell money for) is a REAAALLL let down and I cannot continue my investigations with the film format, nor does it encourage those who want to take film more seriously. I thought this was the start of something new and great when I discovered this a couple years ago.

 

Apparently they are in the process of designing a 65mm film camera, that takes a lot of balls, and I'm sure it would require more resources financially to continue such a project, selling more Logmar Super 8 cameras would rectify this problem :)

 

Also, what do you think are the chances of them lending me their design so I can produce a one-off camera for myself? :D Haven't they thought of out-sourcing this as well??

Edited by Omar Alboukharey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Kodak Super8 camera = Amateur, home-movie shooting

 

Logmar Super8 camera = Professionalism

Well, neither camera is really professional due to the viewfinder (LCD displays are almost worthless for critical focus or in direct sunlight). Both shoot the only surviving non-professional film format, which has major glitches in it's manufacturing, causing gate weave and other issues on capture due to the perf manufacturing. The max capture time @ 24fps is 2.5 minutes, which is too short for any real professional work. The Logmar (and I assume Kodak) make a little bit too much noise to be considered "silent" for critical sound recording. Dirt in the gate can be catastrophic in the final image because it's such a small area and you can't really check and clean it like you can with a professional camera since there is a prism in the way.

 

The prices between the two will obviously inform people subconsciously what each camera is capable of, but since now only one remains in the market (and not the one I would shell money for) is a REAAALLL let down and I cannot continue my investigations with the film format, nor does it encourage those who want to take film more seriously. I thought this was the start of something new and great when I discovered this a couple years ago.

I don't know about that. 16mm is a FAR superior format and cameras today are only a few hundred dollars. Plus, for the price of a Logmar system, you can buy a REAL S16 camera, prime lenses and have an actual silent sound recording camera that shoots almost 12 minutes per load. S16 is almost the same price to shoot per minute and because it has a far superior projection system, you can print it and project much easier, delivering an excellent photochemical process image.

 

The problem with the Logmar camera is that he was trying to make a consumer home-movie format, more then it was. Most people who shoot super 8, want that home-movie look, thats why they choose to shoot on the format. People who want a more professional look, will shoot on a professional format like S16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the reason why there wasn't that much takers to begin with was because the price was just a bit too high, if ti was on the more affordable range of a high-end DSLR camera then I'm sure people would be shelling out and I would've gotten the camera sooner!

 

I mean the whole new Kodak Super 8 camera does genuinely make me happy, it still lack a lot of the more modern and professional features that the Logmar has, and the fact that the creators are in communication with the community things can be done to the camera to people's liking, only making it a much better camera, if not it can still be better! If anything I think the Kodak Super 8 camera should be more of a motivation for them to continue as it offers choices to the people:

 

Kodak Super8 camera = Amateur, home-movie shooting

 

Logmar Super8 camera = Professionalism

 

The prices between the two will obviously inform people subconsciously what each camera is capable of, but since now only one remains in the market (and not the one I would shell money for) is a REAAALLL let down and I cannot continue my investigations with the film format, nor does it encourage those who want to take film more seriously. I thought this was the start of something new and great when I discovered this a couple years ago.

 

Apparently they are in the process of designing a 65mm film camera, that takes a lot of balls, and I'm sure it would require more resources financially to continue such a project, selling more Logmar Super 8 cameras would rectify this problem :)

 

Also, what do you think are the chances of them lending me their design so I can produce a one-off camera for myself? :D Haven't they thought of out-sourcing this as well??

 

Whether one makes 50 cameras or just one camera it costs the same. In other words (ignoring built in savings, etc.) it would cost you $300,000 to make one camera. How do you alleviate that cost? You make 50 instead and sell 49 of them.

 

It's not Logmar that stopped manufacturing the Logmar. It's the market that stopped it. But you don't really know that until you test the market and see. Many, of course, will say in advance that it was never going to work. And many did.

 

But they were wrong. It did work. 50 got made, of which most were sold. In other words the camera paid for itself. Asking of the maufacturers that it continue to sell is asking the wrong group of people. It's the market that decides.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, neither camera is really professional due to the viewfinder (LCD displays are almost worthless for critical focus or in direct sunlight). Both shoot the only surviving non-professional film format, which has major glitches in it's manufacturing, causing gate weave and other issues on capture due to the perf manufacturing. The max capture time @ 24fps is 2.5 minutes, which is too short for any real professional work. The Logmar (and I assume Kodak) make a little bit too much noise to be considered "silent" for critical sound recording. Dirt in the gate can be catastrophic in the final image because it's such a small area and you can't really check and clean it like you can with a professional camera since there is a prism in the way.

 

 

I don't know about that. 16mm is a FAR superior format and cameras today are only a few hundred dollars. Plus, for the price of a Logmar system, you can buy a REAL S16 camera, prime lenses and have an actual silent sound recording camera that shoots almost 12 minutes per load. S16 is almost the same price to shoot per minute and because it has a far superior projection system, you can print it and project much easier, delivering an excellent photochemical process image.

 

The problem with the Logmar camera is that he was trying to make a consumer home-movie format, more then it was. Most people who shoot super 8, want that home-movie look, thats why they choose to shoot on the format. People who want a more professional look, will shoot on a professional format like S16.

 

 

Super8 does not have major glitches in manufacturing.

 

We've been over this many times. The edge of the film is that which is used for left/right registration. Not the sprocket hole. In other words the sprocket hole is designed to weave left and right.

 

Super8 cameras/projectors register the film using a hard guide on one side of the film, and a spring controlled guide on the other. This allows the camera/projector to obtain perfect left/right registration rather than just one dependant on how precise a slit machine might be.

 

Scanner manufacturers for Super8 have ignored this design. And so they get what they have designed: variable misregistration.

 

An optical viewfinder on the Logmar would have been great but it would, of course, have cost more. A video/LCD solution is heaps cheaper. And using a good quality zoom lens provides you with your critical focus.

 

The Logmar does not have a prism.

 

There is talk of making a magazine for the camera.

 

Just because most people shoot home movies on Super8 doesn't mean the few (like me) should therefore miss out on a camera such as the Logmar. Now I'm not a "professional" filmmaker (weddings, fashion, advertising etc), but I am a filmmaker. A real filmmaker. And the Logmar works for me.

 

And we didn't, if only against all probabilities.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got seven rolls of Super8 in the fridge, waiting to be exposed. One roll of Plus-X, two rolls of V2 200T (for test purposes more than a dedicated shoot) and four rolls of V3 50D.

 

I will be making a short film with these rolls of Super8. I'll be printing these to 16mm on a custom built optical printer, that takes into account how Super8 is designed to work in terms of registration, and how the Logmar is designed to work in terms of pin registration.

 

There will be some digital intermediate work done as well - not as a generic workflow system - but as special effects. And I emphasise the word "special", ie. the exception rather than the rule.

 

And I fully expect the results to look entirely awesome, because that is how I'm making the work. This is not a professional work. It will be a gazillion times better than such.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

We've been over this many times. The edge of the film is that which is used for left/right registration. Not the sprocket hole. In other words the sprocket hole is designed to weave left and right.

If you have a registration pin that fits the sprocket hole snug enough, it will push the film around. HOW could a weaving sprocket hole be a "design" feature?

 

Super8 cameras/projectors register the film using a hard guide on one side of the film, and a spring controlled guide on the other. This allows the camera/projector to obtain perfect left/right registration rather than just one dependant on how precise a slit machine might be.

Yes, in the case of non-pin registered systems, this is the case. The Logmar is a pin-registered camera, so things are different.

 

Plus, the standard super 8 cartridge backplate doesn't allow for perfect pressure on the film. Not a problem with the Logmar, just an inherent trait of super 8 since it's a cartridge based system.

 

An optical viewfinder on the Logmar would have been great but it would, of course, have cost more. A video/LCD solution is heaps cheaper. And using a good quality zoom lens provides you with your critical focus.

I mean, I've been shooting digital stuff with LCD displays for years and they're worthless. The only way I can find true focus with an LCD viewfinder is using the focus aids found is most modern digital cameras. Even if you zoom in on the subject, it can still be tricky to find critical focus in most conditions outside of dark. Carrying around a lens hood with you all the time, just to see what you're shooting, is a real pain. The great thing about C mount is the lens selection, there are a myriad of awesome and very fast primes available. All the C mount cameras I've used in the past, I've done so with primes. This is why people use viewfinders with push up to your face to seal the light off. I guess you could build a rig for the Logmar which would allow you to use a HDMI viewfinder, but now you're just raising the price on a product that is already over-priced for the format it shoots.

 

The Logmar does not have a prism.

Sorry, beam splitter is what I mean. My bad. The point is that the gate isn't accessible from the lens side. So you can't tell if there is any dirt in the gate. Not saying it happens all the time, but with a camera that has such a small gate, it's liable to be very susceptible to dirt.

 

There is talk of making a magazine for the camera.

Now, a 200ft load Super 8 camera with an mirrored shutter, optical viewfinder and super quiet, that would be pretty interesting. But why anyone would invest in making a product that is nearly identical to a 16mm camera, but shoots a narrower gauge? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Just because most people shoot home movies on Super8 doesn't mean the few (like me) should therefore miss out on a camera such as the Logmar. Now I'm not a "professional" filmmaker (weddings, fashion, advertising etc), but I am a filmmaker. A real filmmaker. And the Logmar works for me.

Ohh don't get me wrong, the Logmar is very cool, but it's really just a toy in the swing of things. The Kodak camera is really no different, it's for those experimental artists who want to play or dabble with film. A professional filmmaker needs a certain type of camera to shoot with and it's not just for familiarity reasons, it's for the mechanics as well. It's the same reason why people ignore the Blackmagic Pocket camera in the long run, because it really is just a toy. It may create a great image, but it's not "pro" in any stretch of the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you like to call it - be it 'prism' or a 'beamsplitter' (they are the same thing) - the Logmar does not use one.

 

It uses a mirror shutter.

 

The Logmar performs left/right registration in exactly the same way as any other Super8 cameras does. It is only the up/down registration that the Logmar does differently, ie. using pin registration. The pin doesn't occupy the full width of the sprocket hole. The sprocket has leeway to weave left/right. This is the way it was designed. One can read up the specification for Super8 where the film width is allowed to vary in width. Because this is accomodated by a spring guide in cameras and projectors and the other edge of the film sits against a hard guide. Using the edge of the film in this way is an infinitely better left/right registration system than using a sprocket hole for such. Given that the edge of the film is used for registration, there is no requirement that the sprocket hole maintain some critical distance from the edge of the film. Even if one could engineer sprocket holes to maintain the same distance from the edge of the film, the edge of the film would still remain a better reference.

 

In other words it is not a design flaw. It is a design feature. A feature that scanner manufacturer's, if they were not so blinded by conventional wisdom about sprocket holes, could read up on it, and exploit it.

 

The main benefit of Super8 is that the camera is smaller and lighter than 16mm. Easier to carry around. And with current film stock technology being what it is one can get a particular kind of look that is perfect for certain types of projects, as distinct from certain types of so called 'creative' uses such as a home movie look (dad with the kids, or some romantic's pov of a lost girlfriend), or some flashback sequence, or some horror episode (evil is grainy) but a look in it's own right, capable of being appreciated in any number of other non-cliche ways, ie. without all the stupid cultural baggage that filmmakers might otherwise feel compelled to superimpose on Super8.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Logmar can be regarded as a "professional" camera, if by "professional" one means quality engineering, as distinct from ease of use and/or fast turnaround. In reality, professionals are not really that interested in quality. Deadlines need to be met, and quality plays second fiddle to that. Nothing wrong with that, but it puts a limit on what the word "professional" otherwise means.

 

So saying the Logmar is not a professional camera isn't really saying much at all. So what if it's not a professional camera?

 

But if by saying that one means the camera (and Super8) is somehow lacking in quality, you would be completely wrong about that. For certain types of projects it is a perfect fit. And ultimately it is not the camera nor the film stock that actually makes a work. It is the filmmaker. The artist, be they experimental filmmakers, or some other kind of filmmaker.

 

There is a saying that goes a good artist never blames their tools. This is because, once upon a time, artists made their own tools, so they'd be only blaming themselves. But in the industrial age it still holds true. You choose your tools and you make the most of them. If a work doesn't work with the tools you use, then you should either use other tools, or create a different work - ie. one that does work with the tools you are using. This second option is almost invariably ignored. It is as if a work existed independently of the tools used. It doesn't.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Omar said above:

 

Kodak Super8 camera = Amateur, home-movie shooting

 

Logmar Super8 camera = Professionalism

 

And I said, Logmar wasn't really professional.

 

Your right that most super 8 cameras are smaller then 16mm cameras. However, that benefit is lost on the logmar because it's not really a hand-holding friendly camera. You've gotta hold it in front of you instead of pushing it against your face due to that LCD viewing system. Plus, my 16mm Bolex EBM isn't much bigger and has an old school optical viewfinder system, which works well. The added weight and size of a real 16mm camera that goes on your shoulder is actually a huge benefit because it helps stabilize the image when shooting hand-held.

 

There is absolutely a speciality market for formats like Super 8. I've had super 8 cameras and projectors sitting around my place for 30 years and outside of projecting old home movies, I never use the format anymore. In my eyes, the time it takes to come up with a project that best suits the super 8 format, could be put into a project that is shot on S16 and looks 10x better. Sure, for some people film is simply an art medium, something they can manipulate to create flickering images with. Those experimental and art genera's generally like to work with 16mm though. The wider gauge means they don't have to be as careful with the material as they would with Super 8. Plus, there were hundreds of thousands of Bolex cameras made, most of which with clockwork movements. So the cost to purchase one of those cameras isn't so great. A lot of those art people also process their own film and daylight spools are far easier to deal with then super 8 cartridges.

 

A good filmmaking friend of mine wanted me to help him shoot some super 8 for his feature documentary. It was the first time I had even contemplated shooting super 8 in 20 years. We discussed his reasoning, he wanted to match some home movie stuff shot in the 70's and early 80's on reversal. So I re-built my super 8 camera very carefully, got it up to snuff and went out for a shoot. I brought the LTR along to document the day on 16mm and let the director have a chance to shoot 16 so he knew what the difference is between the two formats. He was blown away by the super 8 material, it matched what he was looking for spot on. To my eyes, it looked like crap, really just horrible gate weave and nasty focus issues related to the cartridge pressure plate. We then watched the 16mm stuff and it was a different world. Perfect registration, perfect color balance thanks to the negative stock and well-made print. Most of all, it just looked like a professional product. As a filmmaker, I want whatever I make to look good, I don't want to invest time and energy into something that's going to look shabby. All these years I've had super 8 equipment hanging around and never once did I contemplate using it. Yet, the moment I bought a Super 16mm rig, I started using it and honestly, haven't stopped. Super 16 is such a superior format in every way, even with the very well registered Logmar, you aren't getting the same image quality as S16 with the same sensitivity stock, it's just impossible.

 

Now my friend's film is an application for super 8, but the reason he's using it is because it looks like crap. If it looked any better, it wouldn't work for his application. In my view, that's really not a great calling card for Super 8 as a format and a lot of people use super 8 for the same reason. They want it to look bad, they don't want a clean look to their product and Super 8 fills that very small void. When I'm not hobnobbing about cinema, in my rare free time I service, ride and race motorcycles. So I know all about having good tools. To me 16mm is like having snap-on and bluepoint tools, they're just the best for every application. Super 8 is like having cheap Chinese tools that don't fit everything. Sure they exist, sure you can use them, but do you really want to? What if you get half way into building an engine and snap a tool off, damaging something? I learned years ago that having a wide range of excellent tools is far better then having just a few speciality tools that are rarely if ever used. Invest in the best, broad-range tools and you will find yourself constantly using them and enjoying the use far more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem shooting 16mm. I have four 16mm cameras plus various lenses. I recently completed a 16mm film, which I also shot and edited (on film), and screened on film. I love 16mm - it's a great format. As is 35mm for that matter. I'd do another 35mm film. It's just brilliant. But I'm not going to stop shooting one format just because I've decided to shoot on another format. The projects are built around the format - not the other way around. The formats are exploited for what they bring to the table.

 

C

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you like to call it - be it 'prism' or a 'beamsplitter' (they are the same thing) - the Logmar does not use one.

 

It uses a mirror shutter.

 

The Logmar performs left/right registration in exactly the same way as any other Super8 cameras does. It is only the up/down registration that the Logmar does differently, ie. using pin registration. The pin doesn't occupy the full width of the sprocket hole. The sprocket has leeway to weave left/right. This is the way it was designed. One can read up the specification for Super8 where the film width is allowed to vary in width. Because this is accomodated by a spring guide in cameras and projectors and the other edge of the film sits against a hard guide. Using the edge of the film in this way is an infinitely better left/right registration system than using a sprocket hole for such. Given that the edge of the film is used for registration, there is no requirement that the sprocket hole maintain some critical distance from the edge of the film. Even if one could engineer sprocket holes to maintain the same distance from the edge of the film, the edge of the film would still remain a better reference.

 

In other words it is not a design flaw. It is a design feature. A feature that scanner manufacturer's, if they were not so blinded by conventional wisdom about sprocket holes, could read up on it, and exploit it.

 

The main benefit of Super8 is that the camera is smaller and lighter than 16mm. Easier to carry around. And with current film stock technology being what it is one can get a particular kind of look that is perfect for certain types of projects, as distinct from certain types of so called 'creative' uses such as a home movie look (dad with the kids, or some romantic's pov of a lost girlfriend), or some flashback sequence, or some horror episode (evil is grainy) but a look in it's own right, capable of being appreciated in any number of other non-cliche ways, ie. without all the stupid cultural baggage that filmmakers might otherwise feel compelled to superimpose on Super8.

 

C

I can't understand the reason why Super-8 perfs are supposedly not made to the same standards as 16mm perfs. I know S.8 is twice as likely to be inaccurate because it's half the width, but you'd think that would be the only technicality. And the fact that they are narrower holes you'd think would help registration if anything. Normal cartridge super-8 cameras that I've come across tend to be only noticeably bad on the up and down registration, so I guess the edge guides tend to work fairly well. I am a little amazed that Logmar have adopted the edge registration method even with a pin-regd camera, so it is obviously an inherent perf problem with super-8. But I'm baffled...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I can't understand the reason why Super-8 perfs are supposedly not made to the same standards as 16mm perfs.

 

Maybe because Kodak considers Super-8 an amateur format and 16mm a professional one? Just a guess. I once heard that when perf punching dyes get worn down for the motion picture stock line, they get used for the still camera stocks because registration is less critical for a still photo. So maybe it's just that the perf puncher is less precise in the Super-8 stock machine because Kodak didn't feel the need for precision and quality control on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very pity that nowadays Kodak consider S8 so bad. I have a Kodachrome 25 shot on Bolex Double s8 that went out ROCK STEADY like 16 mm. That K25 roll was in the fridge and shot just before the last lab closed Kodachrome processing. I have shot Velvia Ds8 too with the same Bolex, but the perforations were weird: they overrun the image area, to avoid this i had to zoom in the frame !

Edited by Roberto Pirodda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have no problem shooting 16mm. I have four 16mm cameras plus various lenses. I recently completed a 16mm film, which I also shot and edited (on film), and screened on film. I love 16mm - it's a great format. As is 35mm for that matter. I'd do another 35mm film. It's just brilliant. But I'm not going to stop shooting one format just because I've decided to shoot on another format. The projects are built around the format - not the other way around. The formats are exploited for what they bring to the table.

For sure, but lets say we are probably a minority as I too own R8, S8, 16, S16 and S35 cameras. Most people who want to shoot film are probably only buying one camera.

 

Which begs the question... if you had a couple hundred dollars for a camera, what would you buy if you had nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Plus, for the price of a Logmar system, you can buy a REAL S16 camera, prime lenses and have an actual silent sound recording camera that shoots almost 12 minutes per load.

 

Not having followed the Super8 market for some years, I was shocked to see that Pro8mm sells the Logmar for $5,995! I'm sure it's a good camera, but that seems really excessive for a Super8 camera. Tyler is right. I bought my Arriflex 16 S/B with three Zeiss primes and accessories for around $4,500. And that was 10 years ago. Now things have really come down to the point that you can get a S16 package for less than the price of the Logmar.

 

Super8 has always been a very low-budget format which is what has made it so accessible to so many people over the years. I'm puzzled as to why Logmar would they price themselves out of the game. Just seems rather foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I once heard that when perf punching dyes get worn down for the motion picture stock line, they get used for the still camera stocks because registration is less critical for a still photo.

Presumably print stock- Kodak stills film has KS perfs. I seem to remember seeing some Ilford stills negs with BH, and they used to make MP stock, of course, but from before my time. It's certainly all been KS since at least the late 70s.

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill DiPietra,

 

The early real Logmar really is priced after its cost. Who expects they can choose a selling price at will after spending so many months/years on design and testing? This while production most likely will remain well below 1000 pieces. I would be surprised if they go over 500.

 

The Kodak Logmars are different machines. Logmar likely will be paid for their efforts and hopefully will receive a pay per piece too on these. Production will be outsourced to manufacuteres who can produce these by the few (ten) thousands Kodak hopefully will sell. Then all will be well.

 

The main thing is for Kodak to drive the price per minute of filming down. Forcefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Andries, Logmar made 50 cameras and they are done making them. I mean, that in a nutshell tells you how much interest there is in a $6k USD Super 8 camera, seeing there are a few models left unsold.

 

Kodak's roughly $499 entry camera is an entirely different world. I'm sure they will make thousands of them because the more they make, the cheaper the price will be to manufacture.

 

Its absolutely Kodak's model to drive the price of film down, which is great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andries, Logmar made 50 cameras and they are done making them. I mean, that in a nutshell tells you how much interest there is in a $6k USD Super 8 camera, seeing there are a few models left unsold.

 

Kodak's roughly $499 entry camera is an entirely different world. I'm sure they will make thousands of them because the more they make, the cheaper the price will be to manufacture.

 

Its absolutely Kodak's model to drive the price of film down, which is great!

I think the only major difference between the Logmar and the new Kodak model is the lack of a pin registered loop in the Kodak camera. The more expensive model will have a metal body and leather trim. I'm a little disappointed with no slow motion or single frame mentioned yet on the Kodak camera. The same was true with the Logmar at first, but frame rates were added via firmware. I hope the same is true for the Kodak S8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand the reason why Super-8 perfs are supposedly not made to the same standards as 16mm perfs. I know S.8 is twice as likely to be inaccurate because it's half the width, but you'd think that would be the only technicality. And the fact that they are narrower holes you'd think would help registration if anything. Normal cartridge super-8 cameras that I've come across tend to be only noticeably bad on the up and down registration, so I guess the edge guides tend to work fairly well. I am a little amazed that Logmar have adopted the edge registration method even with a pin-regd camera, so it is obviously an inherent perf problem with super-8. But I'm baffled...

 

It's to do with the physics. Regardless of perf engineering you don't want the film to vary left/right in the gate. It is far far more stable if the film just travels in one direction, ie.vertically. And it will do this if the film isn't forced to move left/right.

 

What might force it to move left/right?

 

The only thing that could possibly do so is a camera/film system that used the perf for left/right registration.

 

How do you remove this risk? The options are:

 

1. Ensure perfs are made in such a way that they maintain the same critical distance from the edge of the film, or

2. Don't use perfs for left/right registration - use the edge of the film - ie. the same reference that a perf punch would have to use if otherwise adopting option 1.

 

If you were a camera designer, which solution would be more appealing in terms of both cost and quality?

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill DiPietra,

 

The early real Logmar really is priced after its cost. Who expects they can choose a selling price at will after spending so many months/years on design and testing? This while production most likely will remain well below 1000 pieces. I would be surprised if they go over 500.

 

The Kodak Logmars are different machines. Logmar likely will be paid for their efforts and hopefully will receive a pay per piece too on these. Production will be outsourced to manufacuteres who can produce these by the few (ten) thousands Kodak hopefully will sell. Then all will be well.

 

The main thing is for Kodak to drive the price per minute of filming down. Forcefully.

 

Yes indeed.

 

In fact it didn't even reach 50.

 

From the point of view of the consumer the cost of the Logmar was not much different, in real terms, from the cost of a brand new Canon 1014 XLS, back in the day, ie. when you take into account inflation. For what the camera actually is (as distinct from what one might like it to be), the camera is very cheap. For what a consumer in today's world might otherwise want of a Super8 camera it is obviously not so cheap.

 

The Kodak camera will fit into better expectations of what a larger market will want for a Super8 camera. Basically they won't want a pin-registered camera - because for one thing it takes some additional effort to learn how to use such a thing - and on another front it increases the cost of the camera beyond what a larger market considers a good price for a Super8 camera. In many ways one might treat the Logmar camera, not as a "Super8" camera (with the endless cultural connotations that engenders) but as a camera that just happens to use the same film stock that a traditional Super8 camera uses.

 

To complain that it's not a traditional Super8 camera, with a traditional price tag, is just silly. It is what it is, and costs what it costs. And addresses a particular niche market - perhaps a little too niche than what was predicted - but who cares? If the Logmar S8 camera is too much of a shock to one's preconceptions of what a Super8 camera is - don't worry - Logmar are forging ahead with new cameras that will satisfy a larger market - and one can get involved with that. I certainly will. I think their efforts all around are just entirely brilliant.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not having followed the Super8 market for some years, I was shocked to see that Pro8mm sells the Logmar for $5,995! I'm sure it's a good camera, but that seems really excessive for a Super8 camera. Tyler is right. I bought my Arriflex 16 S/B with three Zeiss primes and accessories for around $4,500. And that was 10 years ago. Now things have really come down to the point that you can get a S16 package for less than the price of the Logmar.

 

Super8 has always been a very low-budget format which is what has made it so accessible to so many people over the years. I'm puzzled as to why Logmar would they price themselves out of the game. Just seems rather foolish.

 

There's no necessity to take an either/or approach to these things. One can shoot 8mm, Super8, 9.5mm, 16mm, Super16, 35mm, digital video, etc - and each will have their pros and cons, which one will exploit or not.

 

Once upon a time Super8 was a low budget format, but these days (even if we disregard the Logmar completely) it's no longer a low budget format . Per screen time it's almost the same price to shoot S8 as it is to shoot 16mm. So it can't be just economics which motivates use of Super8. There must be other factors involved, and there is. One is ease of use - the very thing that sells digital video cameras. Not that it's easier to use than digital video (far from it) but it is easier to use than 16mm. Especially those not familiar with 16mm or with using film fullstop.

 

Back in the day people who had no experience with film could shoot Super8 without too much effort. Far less effort than that required for 16mm.

 

But this does beg the question as to why one might shoot Super8 if one is otherwise familiar with 16mm (35mm etc). Certainly one might shoot it for some contrast with whatever else one is using. One exploits the look in the context of a different look. But would one use it all on it's own - without a context which otherwise exploits it's difference from the context, ie. a film made entirely on Super8 and standing on it's own two feet rather than as some title sequence, or experimental interlude?

 

I think so. And that's what I'm interested in doing - making a film entirely in Super8 - in the same way one might make a film entirely in 35mm, or entirely in 16mm. To treat Super8 as an actual film making format rather than just some sort of special effect.

 

This is how many Super8 filmmakers work with Super8. They treat it as a format in it's own right. And that's the same attitude I'll be taking because that's a really really good attitude. That's how 16mm filmmakers work. And how 35mm filmmakers work. They respect the nature of their chosen medium and make their medium work to it's best advantage. It's not just used as some sort of special effect. There is a love affair at work one might say. May be completely irrational but who cares? Why not I say.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It uses a mirror shutter......

 

The Logmar ....

 

I haven't properly foillowed this thread, but this is a fact that stands alone. It indicates something.

 

When photons arrive at a digital sensor, reguardless of what information they might inexplicably embody, they are simply counted. Note the avoidance of the word encode, otherwise useful, but muddied. When we put our eye to an optical viewfinder, those same photons impact on our retina. Hopefully, no-one is thinking the odd, reductive thought that the elements in the retina are simply counting them also. Setting that thought to the side, we have to allow that the eye (the cinematographer) is impacted by the same photons, rich with information and intelligence.

 

So the cinematographer is a participant. But if this relatively direct optical experince is eliminated, then I think he is not really a direct experiential participant. It's all something else. And why all don't complain I have no idea.

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...