shooting dialog scenes with loud silent cameras

[Christian Schonberger]

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things.

 

Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.

Sounding great! My idea of a "reverse scanner" never was literally "printing" anything on film. It was always using a photochemical process and something like a continuous printer (since the continuous contact printers - with perf pitch compensation and all - seem to be gone) actually exposing light onto continuously running 35mm film. Much the same as continuous 16mm to Super 8mm optical printers employed for very high quality Super 8mm full length features (by companies such as Derann in the UK, which still exist) since aspect ratio of the 16mm master print negs and one perf per frame are identical to both formats.

35mm to (standard 1:1,37 or projector 1:1,34)16mm had to be step printed to produce either interpositives or print negs - because of modern widescreen (1,166:1 = European and 1,185:1 = American). But of course I'm preaching to the choir - you all know that better than I do (really!). Thanks again.

 

Christian

[Freya Black]

 

Just to get this 100% clear: I'm not a purist or elitist or a snob. Not at all. I just do what every single serious film enthusiast (including Super 8mm) does: trying to get the best out of an existing format and minimizing undesired artifacts. Super 8mm vertical jitter is unpredictable because of the Cartridge design. Many people do something about it (or at least try). These are not purists or elitists, but hands-on people who actually do something about issues.

Vinyl collectors don't collect vinyl because of the crackles and pops or surface noise. They collect it because it's vinyl, because of the equipment, the look and feel - and the unique silky sound - and most collectors prefer high quality editions in mint condition.

As soon as anything "retro" comes into the equation, it will be a passing trend, because eventually people will get tired of it. I like some light image floating and grain on certain older movies but frankly: the vertical jitter and focus pumping on a lot of Super 8mm scans (or projection) simply are too much and distracting. Super 8mm enthusiasts wouldn't talk about it and do something about it all the time if they loved it.

 

Christian

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote Christian. I wasn't saying anything about Super 8 enthusiasts loving the jitter at all. I think you are right that a lot of them dislike the jitter. I was just saying that some of the 20 year olds who are used to video might like the jitter and that it might not have the same negative associations for them that it has for you. Just like a lot of the faults of anamorphic lenses are now somewhat prized but back in the day there was much effort to avoid them.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about doing something about the vertical jitter in Super 8 because as you yourself suggest, it is a function of the cartridge design. I think the easiest way of avoiding it is to just shoot in 16mm to start with instead! There is the Logmar too I suppose....

Edited March 10, 2016 by Freya Black

[Christian Schonberger]

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote Christian. I wasn't saying anything about Super 8 enthusiasts loving the jitter at all. I think you are right that a lot of them dislike the jitter. I was just saying that some of the 20 year olds who are used to video might like the jitter and that it might not have the same negative associations for them that it has for you. Just like a lot of the faults of anamorphic lenses are now somewhat prized but back in the day there was much effort to avoid them.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about doing something about the vertical jitter in Super 8 because as you yourself suggest, it is a function of the cartridge design. I think the easiest way of avoiding it is to just shoot in 16mm to start with instead! There is the Logmar too I suppose....

Everything is fine :-) We are talking about the same thing. Just wanted to clear it up to avoid misunderstandings: I always kep an open mind.

Well with Max8mm you have, as everyone knows, vertical headroom, so a lot of the jitter can be stabilized by dedicated software (Pro8mm does that already with great results). I wish the Logmar project would have been further developed. To my knowledge it stopped and is still basically a prototype, not fully matured. The results I have seen (at least with Kodak Vision 3 50D and open frame scan - no final cropping) look exellent and more than perfect for the film enthusiast who can't afford 16mm film stock (I basically can't myself at the moment, that's why I do lots of research and advance in baby steps).

 

Good point regarding the Panaflex anamorphic lenses. Some movies definitely have too shallow a depth of field, focus issues and lens aberrations (or artifacts) which still add to the charm and feel are much more obvious now (after many years of non anamorphic Super 35mm being used for 1,235:1 widescreen like, say "Se7en" or "Titanic") than they were back in the day. I remember films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977 - a paradise for film camera buffs BTW!!!!), "Alien" (1979), "Die Hard" (1988) and many in between using the 2x anamorphic 35mm process.

 

All the best,

Christian

[Christian Schonberger]

Typing error correction: the aspect ratio of Panavision type anamorphic widescreen (and equivalent with spherical lens processes such as Techniscope and Super 35mm as the camera film stock) is of course 2,35:1.

 

C.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Well I know we are getting off topic, but I like the conversation a lot. Thanks for all the great information.

 

Now this might be against "house rules" so please if it does: it is 100% unintended and I highly appreciate bringing it to my attention as opposed to receiving warning points :-)

 

I came across this offer on Ebay, but I can't see any images. I contacted the seller and received a reply, but it seemed rather evasive, just referring to the photos I am unable to see. I do NOT wish to discredit the valuable reputation of anyone. I simply see a lot of red flags. Not sure if it's on daylight spools, not sure if it's single perf. Exp date? Seller's history.

 

My purpose posting this here is not only for myself. It is also for fellow film enthusiasts who might have come across the same Ebay item for sale.

 

Here is the offer (the sought after Kodak Ektachrome 100D in 16mm):

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-100D-Ektachrome-100ft-16mm-Rolls-/191808982653?hash=item2ca8b4ce7d:g:SFYAAOSwqYBWncbb

 

If anyone wishes to contact me directly for an honest opinion (to avoid putting anyone's reputation into question - in public):

 

c_schonberger@yahoo.com

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Christian

 

I can't see photos either. seems to be quite expensive, especially with shipping. you can get two rolls of fresh wittnerchrome at that price and don't have to pay customs.

without photos, very few purchases and zero seller reputation and no other items on sale, looks a lot of like a scam.

I mean, come on, even I have lots of feedback on my eBay account without never even selling anything, just buying stuff :blink:

 

eBay sellers tend to list the amount of items if they have more than one on sale so that you can buy more than one at a time and they don't have to relist all the time.

if he can't send you photos or add them to the listing I would advise against buying those although you will probably get your money back after a while with buyer protection if it's a scam :mellow:

Just don't wait more than 25 days for it to arrive, even with that slow 'Global Shipping' option which goes via multiple carriers and is difficult to track because it changes tracking codes multiple times...

 

I would not be worried about the seller's reputation, one can get that kind of feedback in 5 minutes so not a problem for him to create a new account if necessary ;)

[Carl Looper]

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things.

 

Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.

 

A technique I've designed (but not implemented) is for a quasi-analog green screen setup for film, using a hybrid digital/analog system. The camera original material (so called "plates") are analog acquired, and analog printed, without any digital intermediate. In other words the image content, from acquisition to projection, is entirely anlog. But the compositing mattes employed during the printing process are from a digital intermediate printed to film. The result is that it is only the seams in the projected result that are digital. The image content is otherwise fully analog.

 

The technically interesting part of the process is printing the digitally generated mattes on film, because they need to (obviously) exactly match the analog image physically on the film. Solving this problem was the difficult part.

 

All I have to do now is just implement it in reality.

 

C

[Christian Schonberger]

 

I can't see photos either. seems to be quite expensive, especially with shipping. you can get two rolls of fresh wittnerchrome at that price and don't have to pay customs.

without photos, very few purchases and zero seller reputation and no other items on sale, looks a lot of like a scam.

I mean, come on, even I have lots of feedback on my eBay account without never even selling anything, just buying stuff :blink:

Yep, thought so right from the start. An entire "forest" of red flags popped up.

I guess fresh Wittner with just the right color grading, to make it pop a little more, can look great (seen some very nice footage) and still silky and "film-like". Much better and consistent than picking up overly expensive (seen one closed 100 ft box single perf from 2009 (no exp. date though) with three sharp photos for much more than that! - about USD 150+! - this morning) and unpredictable expired Ektachrome 100D (E-6) from various "sellers". Can get W.C. 200D from Wittner Germany diectly, no customs, in a matter of days. Just a little worried about the estar base. Let's see....

 

Thanks for the input,

Christian

[Carl Looper]

Everything is fine :-) We are talking about the same thing. Just wanted to clear it up to avoid misunderstandings: I always kep an open mind.

Well with Max8mm you have, as everyone knows, vertical headroom, so a lot of the jitter can be stabilized by dedicated software (Pro8mm does that already with great results). I wish the Logmar project would have been further developed. To my knowledge it stopped and is still basically a prototype, not fully matured. The results I have seen (at least with Kodak Vision 3 50D and open frame scan - no final cropping) look exellent and more than perfect for the film enthusiast who can't afford 16mm film stock (I basically can't myself at the moment, that's why I do lots of research and advance in baby steps).

 

Good point regarding the Panaflex anamorphic lenses. Some movies definitely have too shallow a depth of field, focus issues and lens aberrations (or artifacts) which still add to the charm and feel are much more obvious now (after many years of non anamorphic Super 35mm being used for 1,235:1 widescreen like, say "Se7en" or "Titanic") than they were back in the day. I remember films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977 - a paradise for film camera buffs BTW!!!!), "Alien" (1979), "Die Hard" (1988) and many in between using the 2x anamorphic 35mm process.

 

All the best,

Christian

 

Max8 doesn't have any more vertical headroom over the traditional Super8 frame. The Max8 frame expands the frame sideways (into what was originally the sound track area). However if targeting 16:9 delivery there will be some unused headroom area. But then if targeting 16:9 the traditional Super8 frame would have even more unused head room.

 

I have a Logmar. It's not a prototype. The cameras were sold as part of a beta program, but were all complete in terms of hardware. It was only ever the firmware that was a beta version. And the firmware has been undergoing updates over time. Indeed with most software these days such can be treated as in an indefinite beta state. In other words, there never is any final version. There's only ever the latest version.

 

The Logmar's registration is perfect. A double exposure registration test was done by Friedemann Wachsmuth in which the same cross hairs were exposed in two passes, and there was no jitter whatsoever between the two exposures. Registration issues occur in scanning because many scanners don't yet respect the same registration architecture that Super8 cameras use. One day we can assume that will change. But in the mean time, various software registration workarounds can be used. Either way the Logmar delivers a really sharp result because there's no breathing of the film during exposure.

 

Super8 is not actually that much cheaper than 16mm. It's benefits are more in terms of convenience than anything else.

 

C

Edited March 11, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Christian Schonberger]

 

Max8 doesn't have any more vertical headroom over the traditional Super8 frame. The Max8 frame expands the frame sideways (into what was originally the sound track area). However if targeting 16:9 delivery there will be some unused headroom area. But then if targeting 16:9 the traditional Super8 frame would have even more unused head room.

 

I have a Logmar. It's not a prototype. The cameras were sold as part of a beta program, but were all complete in terms of hardware. It was only ever the firmware that was a beta version. And the firmware has been undergoing updates over time. Indeed with most software these days such can be treated as in an indefinite beta state. In other words, there never is any final version. There's only ever the latest version.

 

The Logmar's registration is perfect. A double exposure registration test was done by Friedemann Wachsmuth in which the same cross hairs were exposed in two passes, and there was no jitter whatsoever between the two exposures. Registration issues occur in scanning because many scanners don't yet respect the same registration architecture that Super8 cameras use. One day we can assume that will change. But in the mean time, various software registration workarounds can be used. Either way the Logmar delivers a really sharp result because there's no breathing of the film during exposure.

 

Super8 is not actually that much cheaper than 16mm. It's benefits are more in terms of convenience than anything else.

 

C

Yep, I know about the exact aspect ratio of Standard Super 8mm and Max8 (originally: Super-Duper-8). Obviously, when referring to vertical headroom I was talking about Max 8 and its practical uses: 16:9 (1.78:1) HDTV/BluRay etc. or 1.85:1 American non anamorphic cinema widescreen. I am not a fan of open perf scans or any scan that isn't cropped to100% sharp edges compatible with existing standards (1.33:1 and Academy 1.37:1 included - both can and should be seen in the "pillar box" style aspect ratio on widescreen HDTV and BluRay), because without sharp edged crops it looks unfinished and "archival material" or "test footage" - because it is (that is the way I see it - other opinions highly respected). I see no point in using 1.58:1 (the full Max 8 frame) unless cropped to 16:9 - the format it is intended for and Phil Vigeant (whom I greatly admire) makes that 100% clear in his Pro8mm video (I hope it's O.K. to post a hot link to a YouTube video here):

 

 

I read an article about the Logmar (I really don't recall where). There it states exactly that it turned out in some cases that the Logmar only preforms 100% well at 24 fps and that there are issues with the rollers that hold in the Kodak cartgridge pressure plate to get out the loop into the precision camera mechanics (which I find a genius idea BTW!). I also read in several articles that the Logmar was a limited run and that the project has been stopped for good: no further development. Of course without such a new, innovative construction going through extensive field tests (long term reliability etc). I considered it basically "beta testing". The word "prototype" meant: "Not 100% thoroughly field tested and re-tweaked for a final, reliable version as the inventors had in mind". That is not to take away from that great camera as it is right now! I really love everything about it: it resolves all issues I ever had with Super 8 (I used this format in its standard framing from 1975 through 1981 extensively - starting with a Agfa Movexoom and stepping up until a Beaulieu 6008 S with the Schneider zoom lens recording sound with the camera (which was excellent at the time). The remaining issues (I personally have) can all be brought down to the lack of "real estate". We both are 100% on the exact same page. I am just not into film 100% professionally but I came "that" close - and never lost my passion (I got in back again a few years ago after thinking there would be no more hope).

 

Here is the (now famous) Logmar footage which blew me away. (not cropped and the film gate is rather dirty - but it shows that this is a whole new ball game (even with the fine grain Kodak Vision 3 50D - which never looked that great on Super 8mm):

 

 

Best regards - and congratulations on your Logmar: I know this camera is a rare precision tool, bringing Super 8mm to a whole new level.

 

Christian

Edited March 11, 2016 by Christian Schonberger

[Carl Looper]

I read an article about the Logmar (I really don't recall where). There it states exactly that it turned out in some cases that the Logmar only preforms 100% well at 24 fps and that there are issues with the rollers that hold in the Kodak cartgridge pressure plate to get out the loop into the precision camera mechanics (which I find a genius idea BTW!). I also read in several articles that the Logmar was a limited run and that the project has been stopped for good: no further development.

 

I'm not aware of any issues with the rollers, or with non 24 fps shooting. Everyone with a Logmar is on a private facebook group where we discuss the camera, and these issues haven't ever come up. Logmar did do a tour with their original prototype, prior to the 50 that went into production, and with which Freidemann did the first public test roll. Perhaps it was the prototype that had such problems.

 

But yes, production ceased after the first 50, but only because there wasn't any more orders - not because there was anything wrong with the camera. It's a solid camera.

 

Since then, Logmar partnered with Kodak and they cooked up the new Kodak camera, which Phil from Pro8 calls the "Logmar Mini". However it's an entirely new design aimed at your traditional Super8 user. Logmar were mentioned in the original Kodak PR and Logmar confirmed their involvement. But with people like Tyler thinking Logmar is some "bloke in a garage" I suspect Logmar are keeping their involvement more circumspect. God forbid the Kodak brand be associated with some bloke in a garage. Ha ha. Of course, Tyler himself is a bloke in a garage, but Tyler is proof himself that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a bloke in a garage.

 

C

Edited March 11, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Christian Schonberger]

Thanks for the information (re: Logmar rollers). Yes: I knew that Logmar production stopped because of lack of interest. This might change in the near future. I hope for the best (Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge though relying on friction alone and with plastic pressure plates from inside the cartridge - you won't get a steady picture and focus AND aiming just at people who don't care is not the greatest idea in my book).

 

The design of the non-functional Kodak Super8/Max8 prototype is (IMHO) really too much" "70s future retro combined with Lego blocks). It looks disposable. The Logmar looks exactly like what it is: a fine, precision handcrafted, precious camera. The new design doesn't provide the buyer with any sense of class or feel of "cinema". It looks cheap, feather light and disposable. I miss the feel of "heft" and "value" here.

 

I think (not defending anyone who can defend themselves!!!!): "bloke in a garage" was purely referring to the exterior design.

 

Anyway, these are just my personal opinions, I don't belong to any kind of "group" neither "digital or analog film", "Super8 or 16mm". I just try to apply common sense, my humble knowledge and try to achieve the best possible within my taste and budget.

 

1) I am all for Super 8mm - I just go for Super 16mm because it is a larger format and I happen to like it a lot.

 

2) I really want Kodak to make it and help make film once again the gold standard for the movies and for the finest an image can look.

 

3) I simply don't like the design of the new Kodak camera. It's an ugly shiny plastic brick with a tiny lens and it has a toy look and feel to it. It looks cheap and doesn't fit anywhere (it doesn't look modern, it doesn't look like a film camera and it doesn't look vintage). You won't get the old film buffs and you won't get a new target market - not for USD 1000,00 or more plus film and turnaround in bits of 2 1/2 minutes in a quality that simply doesn't cut it (please let's be honest here - I'm NOT an elitist, this is a matter of being dead honest, otherwise the Logmar system with pressure plate and pin registration wouldn't even exist - it exists because there IS a problem with the Kodak Super 8 cartridge: a huge problem to be addressed in any new Super 8mm camera!). Not every potential buyer goes for nostalgic retro - you will lose a ton of customers if you only have one choice: accept blindly how the footage turned out without any true control nor immediate feedback. Not in 2016. Someone really got it wrong. Look at, say the classic Beaulieu 4008. That looks like pure precision vintage class, because it is! That kind of design, even simplified, would be the way to go! And again: Kodak: do something about that old cartridge - don't blow this gig, please!!!!

 

Christian

 

That's MY opinion.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Christian Schonberger

[Mark Dunn]

The shortcomings of the Super-8 cartridge have been discussed for decades. If they didn't see fit to improve it thirty years ago, Kodak isn't going to change it for the tiny market that now exists.

[Christian Schonberger]

The shortcomings of the Super-8 cartridge have been discussed for decades. If they didn't see fit to improve it thirty years ago, Kodak isn't going to change it for the tiny market that now exists.

Yep. Makes sense. Never tried it, but perhaps the GK-Film pressure plate helps stabilize the film inside the cartridge. Problem: if Kodak sells it or even talks about it, it will cause confusion - besides it being admitting that the Kodak cartridge is a flawed design (and always was) and the source of a lot of troubles with Super 8mm. Single 8 and Double Super 8mm - all perform(ed) much better. I watched a Super 8mm film (black and white) at a Super 8mm film festival back in 1981. It looked fantastic, rock steady and sharp - I had to turn around and verify that it was indeed the Bauer T 610 Super 8mm projector the light beam was coming from. I asked the filmmaker after the festival: it was done in double Super 8mm (Canon). The result on screen was very close to 16mm. Huge difference!

 

Christian

[Christian Schonberger]

From what I've heard, they are doing subtitles digitally and ALL of the 70mm screenings are subbed, not dubbed.

 

Quentin has set the stage for others to follow suit. Batman V Superman will be distributed in 70mm as well and rumors are that a few more big tent pole films will also be distributed in 70 this year as well. As long as the equipment is being used, as long as projectionists are busy showing films, we'll be in good shape.

 

I'll say this much, Panavision and Arri have long-term rentals on their 70mm cameras right now and Fotokem is more busy with 70mm then they have been in quite sometime. So there are MULTIPLE shoots working in large format, from Nolan's "Dunkirk" to PT Anderson's next film which is shrouded in secrecy.

 

70mm is clearly making a comeback.

Thanks again for the information. That is fantastic news! Even if the movie was originally filmed in digital (or heavily tweaked and with lots of CGI, which I am not against - only if it looks bad or overdone) the prints are still in good old 70mm 5 perf vertical.

I remember seeing the exact same print (I remember where the scratches were - some vertically running others clearly rubs on the emulsion side - green an yellow = magenta is the top layer, yellow the bottom one, very likely from bad loops) twice during the '70s: Kubrick's "2001" (so we are talking early '70s print stock or earlier!). It was simply breathtaking - and all those slow, lingering shots make much more sense - you can look around and discover details and textures everywhere! I also saw quite a few blow up prints, including "Aliens" (re-run early '90s) which was rather grainy (originally filmed on spherical 35mm as you all know - and Cameron complains about the grainy 35mm film stock available at the time on the DVD director's comment track) but still great and certainly better than any 35mm print from that time. I remember seeing one freeze frame (for fade and titles, near the end - obviously good, clean optical printer work) and the 35mm film grain stopped, remained rock steady and no secondary grain swarming around it. That's how much resolution the 70mm print had! Yep: if the intermediate has enough resolution: 5 perf vertical 70mm is absolutely stunning: it is beyond pin sharp, transparent, yet has that film look (it is not eye piercing but silky without being soft or grainy, gorgeous and invites you to look at it instead of "hitting you in the face"). That is brilliant news: 70mm means lots of film stock being sold (and made) for just one print. Now clean and grease those machines and fire up those xenon lamps!

Unfortunately all traditional movie houses here in Lisbon, Portugal that had 70mm projectors installed, are long since closed (multiplexes took over for good somewhere in the late '90s). Will look out for the right movie to watch in the near future on this great format and get my plane ticket :-)

 

Christian

[Tyler Purcell]

Thanks for the information (re: Logmar rollers). Yes: I knew that Logmar production stopped because of lack of interest.

$5000 + shipping and tax, for a black box with no viewfinder, that makes quite a racket when running, shoots only 2 1/2 minutes at a time and looks like it was made in someone's garage shop. It's missing ALL of the critical things that a modern, small, light-weight motion picture camera NEEDS and has electronic features that aren't worth the money.

 

The developers of the logmar and Kodak camera, don't understand that on-board audio isn't as critical as a viewfinder. If you can't see what you're shooting properly, the camera is worthless. A low-resolution LCD display isn't a viewfinder. In fact, standard def digital cameras with small LCD's are beyond worthless as well. If they had any experience with developing cameras, they'd know this.

 

If the Logmar and Kodak cameras had actual optical viewfinders, were dead silent and dumped all the ancillary electronic crap that were the crux of the cost, the cameras may have sold better due to the lower price. So it's a real catch 22 and it's why I consider the Logmar made by a "bloke in a garage" because any real camera designer wouldn't have made those silly mistakes. It's not a film camera, it's some hodgepodge thrown together half digital, half analog nonsense which doesn't really have a place.

 

This might change in the near future. I hope for the best (Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge though relying on friction alone and with plastic pressure plates from inside the cartridge - you won't get a steady picture and focus AND aiming just at people who don't care is not the greatest idea in my book).

Which is kind of my beef. They're aiming for an audience who doesn't really care about quality. The Logmar looks fine, no real problems. But so far it doesn't look like the kodak will have that mechanic block. I personally haven't seen a perfect focused Super 8 image outside of something shot on a Logmar.

 

1) I am all for Super 8mm - I just go for Super 16mm because it is a larger format and I happen to like it a lot.

Double the resolution of super 8, no registration problems, no backplate focus problems, longer film length (400ft loads), silent camera availability, standard optical viewfinders, most sync sound cameras have rails and accept larger/standard professional lenses as well. You can get a real decent Super 16 package with lenses for LESS THAN a Logmar. Plus the cost to shoot Super 16 isn't much more then super 8.

 

3) I simply don't like the design of the new Kodak camera. It's an ugly shiny plastic brick with a tiny lens and it has a toy look and feel to it. It looks cheap and doesn't fit anywhere (it doesn't look modern, it doesn't look like a film camera and it doesn't look vintage).

Yep, they're trying to attract the "retro" owners and ya know what, I think they will! Their package here in the states is very attractive, from low camera price to flat rate stock, processing and transfer. This is what the retro people want and ya know what, Kodak isn't dumb about it. Will it push more people to shoot film who don't already shoot film? Maybe a few... and I do think it's a fad that will come and go. Still, it's a smart marketing decision for Kodak and it makes them relevant again.

 

Ya know, people with money, sometimes they don't want to buy used stuff. They don't want to deal with it, so they only buy new and that's kind of the market Kodak is going after. They aren't marketing it to people who already shooting film, who already have cameras.

[Carl Looper]

$5000 + shipping and tax, for a black box with no viewfinder, that makes quite a racket when running, shoots only 2 1/2 minutes at a time and looks like it was made in someone's garage shop. It's missing ALL of the critical things that a modern, small, light-weight motion picture camera NEEDS and has electronic features that aren't worth the money.

 

 

The camera is what it cost.

 

Making things below cost can be an effective strategy when you have some longer term strategy, or some wider strategy, that can recoup that cost elsewhere. For example, I'll work for a month, for "free", on something, if I can make good on a bet that otherwise recoups that cost elsewhere.

 

And who the fcuk cares what a camera looks like! So many self conscious filmmakers out there, scared shitless they'll look silly working with a camera that isn't also the latest fashion accessory.

 

Myself, I find the Logmar looks just fine. It certainly doesn't look like it was made by this mythical "bloke in a garage". It's incredibly well machined. But even if we were to agree with such a quip about blokes and garages, as long as it's ergonomic and can get the job done, who cares. There's an important method in industrial design called "form follows function" and it's a very economical method, with it's own particular aesthetic that can be appreciated. The Logmar is very much along these lines.

 

Of course, the market place doesn't necessarily agree with such. Doesn't mean they are right - just means their needs are louder and one can make more of a living satisfying such.

 

The Kodak camera (and Tyler prefers it over the Logmar) is all about addressing this wider market, who don't necessarily need those extras engineered into the Logmar.

 

I'm not sure on what side of the equation Tyler is operating - buyer or creator. As a buyer he seems to prefer a better viewfinder over a better gate system. I assume that's so he can use his brain, instead of the film, as the encoding medium.

 

C

Edited March 11, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Christian Schonberger]

Just my 2C: I am not addressing anyone in particular!

 

Well I do care what my camera looks like. I am a musician and I care about what my keyboard looks like, because it inspires me if it looks the way I like - and a lot of my colleagues are with me. There's a reason software emulations have a certain look and design as their user interface. It's inspiring if well done.

 

Any guitarist (for example) cares a LOT about how their guitar looks. Not for the audience, but for themselves. I love stuff that looks sturdy and cinematic in one way or another (for me). Heck I even like that light chemical scent of unexposed film stock. It's all part of the experience.

 

I admire young folks who shoot short films on a DSLR camera, mainly built for stills photography (basically still looking exactly like the classic Nikon F4). But the inspiration of actually working with a beauties like the classic 1960s Arriflex or Mitchell models is out of the equation. I am NOT getting nostalgia mixed up with what inspires me. I'll gladly accept an Arriflex SR3 or 416 - or an Aaton A Minima. :-D

 

I do care how a camera looks. For myself because I'd like a camera that is both good and looks great for me. It has to scream: "film, movies!" (for me that is). I don't care what others think about my camera.

 

Just my humble 2C and my opinion.

 

Christian

 

P.S. just found this footage on Vimeo. Wow!!!!!!!! That's (so the uploader claims) an Eclair NPR ("Woodstock" 1970 - anyone?) expertly converted to Super 16. I'd buy that in a split second (if I could). Check the image quality (that's what I'm talking about!):

[Carl Looper]

The reality is that, despite what Tyler might think, the Logmar was a success.

 

There was a particular market for the Logmar, at it's particular price point, and this market consisted (as far as we can tell) of buyers for 50 cameras worldwide. They were pre-ordered by individuals and by Pro8 for resale.

 

The cameras were made and everyone who bought into that (one assumes) is happy.

 

What on Earth is there to complain about ?

 

The only complaint I've heard, is that some who wanted to eventually get a Logmar feel they have missed out on such, because Logmar decided to wind up production. But there are still a few remaining cameras available:

 

http://www.pro8mm.com/super-8-cameras/logmar-super-8-camera/

 

 

C

[Carl Looper]

Well I do care what my camera looks like. I am a musician and I care about what my keyboard looks like, because it inspires me if it looks the way I like - and a lot of my colleagues are with me. There's a reason software emulations have a certain look and design as their user interface. It's inspiring if well done.

 

Inspiration is to be found anywhere, and if that includes one's tools that's fine. Where ever you can get it.

 

I like the look of the Logmar because it looks like what it is: a very well designed camera. But if it didn't look like a well designed camera, yet was still well designed, then I'd still like the camera.

 

The stuff I machine in my garage is well designed, but doesn't always look well designed. However I'm the client for such, so I don't have to convince myself, through the look and feel of the parts, as to whether it's well designed.

 

Carl

Edited March 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

P.S. just found this footage on Vimeo. Wow!!!!!!!! That's (so the uploader claims) an Eclair NPR ("Woodstock" 1970 - anyone?) expertly converted to Super 16. I'd buy that in a split second (if I could). Check the image quality (that's what I'm talking about!):

 

This film isn't my cup of tea. A bit too ambient and dreamy for my taste. To be blunt I want to be sick watching it, but that's just me. I couldn't watch it to the end. Give me Tyler's rough and bleak work, shot on an old video camera, than this film.

 

But leaving that all aside, and appreciating simply the image quality of this work (which is very good), would you buy the camera that was used to shoot this film, if the camera looked like it was built by a "bloke in a garage" (even if it wasn't) - and assuming all else being equal (price, ergonomics, etc).

 

Many people I know do in fact buy cameras for their look - camera collectors, who appreciate the look and feel aspect of such - or even the technological aspect of such for that matter. Vintage cameras will provide a connection to history as much through their creative look and feel as their technical aspect. Normally such cameras tend to become display items, but as such they can nevertheless provide much inspiration. Or indeed be used to make a film. I would not want to deny any of that.

 

But reciprically I would not use any of that "commodity fetishism" (for want of a better term) to deny the usefulness of some more mundane, or even ad hoc, yet perfectly functional camera. I have heaps of ad hoc equipment I've acquired or built myself that yields exactly what I'm after. It's the film on the screen that matters most to me. I'm quite happy to jerry rig anything if it gets a particular result I'm after.

 

C

Edited March 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm not sure on what side of the equation Tyler is operating - buyer or creator. As a buyer he seems to prefer a better viewfinder over a better gate system. I assume that's so he can use his brain, instead of the film, as the encoding medium.

Yes, viewfinders are everything Carl. Using a standard definition low-resolution video camera as your ONLY VIEWING DEVICE on a "film" camera, is ridiculous. It would have been cheaper for Logmar to buy a GoPro and make a HD viewfinder system, then what they wound up with. The whole idea of LCD display menu's on a film camera to access basic functions, is scary.

 

I wouldn't consider making 50 units of something "successful". They made 50 prototypes and perfected the design which they appear to be selling a modified version to Kodak. Plus, most of the people who shoot super 8 are looking for "retro", not modern. When they go out and shoot super 8, the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output. Plus, the pricing of the camera is insane for "retro" people, who are the bulk of the Super 8 users. It's like selling a laser reading record player. People who play records, don't want lasers and electronics, they want analog... that's the whole point. So Logmar's grand scheme of making an electronic based camera that shoots a "retro" format, is in essence, going against what would sell. So... no, the Logmar was a complete failure in the grand scheme of things. The 50 cameras they made, many of them not sold, will disappear into the cabinets of those who purchased them and most likely forgotten. You and maybe 3 other people, will most likely shoot stuff with theirs. However, it's just a toy in the long run. Another "cool gadget" for the equipment locker. As I've said many times, when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up.

 

What matters to filmmakers like myself, is the usability on set, more then anything else.

[Christian Schonberger]

Well I would never buy a camera just for the looks alone. I have the exact same mind set: I want my camera to work well for me and never become just a display or collector's item, but It ends with a shiny plastic box looking like I got it from Toys-R-Us. It's not about fetish - it's about how it makes me feel. I tend to lean towards classic film camera design of all sorts - but this is personal.

 

It is hard to put in into few words: I am not extreme in any kind. But "just getting the job done" also involves a mental process, a state of mind. So using ad hoc stuff that gets the job done (for other than budget reasons!!!) might also be an "I want to be different and against the mainstream at all costs, just to make a statement" attitude. Which has its merit as well. It's just not my personal approach. Same as "go with the flow" is not my approach.

 

I don't just love the results, I love the entire process. I don't just love, say, Mozart's Symphony Nr. 40, I also love seeing it performed by a great orchestra - even if pink and green violins with old bumper stickers on them would sound better and dress code doesn't really matter - I prefer seeing the traditional shades of wood finish and some decent dresses/tuxedos- the eyes are part of it. The "how it's done" does matter because different approaches lead to different results. Always.

 

There is a reason many a silhouette representing "film" or even "video" looks a lot like an old Mitchell. It evokes: film.

 

The Eclair NPR is not exactly a beautiful camera (IMHO), but it's a true classic film camera. It is a personal thing. I definitely don't dismiss functional forms (the NPR was basically more functional form than beautiful design).

 

About the footage where I posted the link: sure it's boring as hell - I just love the image quality.

 

Christian

 

P.S. I talk as a serious amateur who might make a nice short film one day (I attempted dozens back in the day). If I was a pro filmmaker, things would change, because other people (especially clients) come into play.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Christian Schonberger

[Carl Looper]

Yes, viewfinders are everything Carl. Using a standard definition low-resolution video camera as your ONLY VIEWING DEVICE on a "film" camera, is ridiculous. It would have been cheaper for Logmar to buy a GoPro and make a HD viewfinder system, then what they wound up with. The whole idea of LCD display menu's on a film camera to access basic functions, is scary.

 

I wouldn't consider making 50 units of something "successful". They made 50 prototypes and perfected the design which they appear to be selling a modified version to Kodak. Plus, most of the people who shoot super 8 are looking for "retro", not modern. When they go out and shoot super 8, the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output. Plus, the pricing of the camera is insane for "retro" people, who are the bulk of the Super 8 users. It's like selling a laser reading record player. People who play records, don't want lasers and electronics, they want analog... that's the whole point. So Logmar's grand scheme of making an electronic based camera that shoots a "retro" format, is in essence, going against what would sell. So... no, the Logmar was a complete failure in the grand scheme of things. The 50 cameras they made, many of them not sold, will disappear into the cabinets of those who purchased them and most likely forgotten. You and maybe 3 other people, will most likely shoot stuff with theirs. However, it's just a toy in the long run. Another "cool gadget" for the equipment locker. As I've said many times, when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up.

 

What matters to filmmakers like myself, is the usability on set, more then anything else.

 

50 is better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick - to use an Aussie expression.

 

Tyler says Logmar made "50 prototypes" and then sold a "perfected" version of this to Kodak.

 

This is simply not true. He just makes this rubbish up and recycles it as if it were true. I've spoken to the real life, living and breathing people behind the Logmar, and I can tell you this just aint so. But Tyler thinks opinion is somehow more relevant than what is actually so.

 

He also says "many were not sold". Well, the only ones not sold are the couple still available from Pro8. I don't know how many that is. I was told it was only a few. But perhaps Tyler can enlighten us.

 

The Logmar's that were built were not prototypes. A protoype was built prior to the 50 that were made. And this went on tour, and field tested and on the basis of such, 50 release versions were built. Or we could call them "release candidates" because if anything needed changing down the track, in subsequent runs, these 50 would be changed.

 

But nothing needed changing. And so the 50 became the release version. The only thing that needed any change was the firmware - which can be downloaded over the internet.

 

Secondly the Kodak camera is a completely new design. This is from the horses mouth. I've spoken directly to the "bloke in the garage" about this. It's a completely new design. The main difference is that it doesn't employ a separate gate. Most of the way in which the Logmar differs from a conventional Super8 camera, is around the custom gate and it's pin registration.

 

Tyler's criticism of the Logmar is completely stupid. He says "when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up."

 

But for the Kodak camera, he has no such requirement.

 

"When they go out and shoot super 8", he says "the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output."

 

Tyler is an idiot. But I can't stop reading his material. He's just far too funny to ignore.

 

C

Edited March 12, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Christian Schonberger]

Sorry if I chime in. I really don't have the knowledge to support any statement made in the latest comments.

 

Just applying common sense:

 

1) Why isn't there footage showing the Logmar shot with a Logmar? Phil of Pro8mm at least has some of his footage explaing Max8

and the scanning/grading/cropping on actual Super 8mm.

 

2) why is there only one (!) Logmar film (test with lens issues, such as vignetting and asymmetrical aberration, among others) on

YouTube?

 

...just asking. Don't shoot me ;-)

 

Christian

[Carl Looper]

Sorry if I chime in. I really don't have the knowledge to support any statement made in the latest comments.

 

Just applying common sense:

 

1) Why isn't there footage showing the Logmar shot with a Logmar? Phil of Pro8mm at least has some of his footage explaing Max8

and the scanning/grading/cropping on actual Super 8mm.

 

2) why is there only one (!) Logmar film (test with lens issues, such as vignetting and asymmetrical aberration, among others) on

YouTube?

 

...just asking. Don't shoot me ;-)

 

Christian

 

Ha ha. I won't shoot you.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I've been very slow to shoot anything on the Logmar. My films, these days, take a long time to gestate. And I had been working on a 16mm film that took up most of my time last year (amongst many other things). It was going to be shot on the Logmar but delays in the arrival of the camera had me investing in 16mm for the project.

 

In terms of the Logmar itself there were issues around the software in the initial stage, and in my case the battery proved a dud (was a third party battery, nothing to do with Logmar) - which was eventually replaced. I also had issues burning new software onto the SD card - again, not Logmar's fault - just my computer at the time. The only other issue was the experience some were having in loading the film. It requires one to follow a particular proceedure, which if you don't do it correctly, can result in misloaded film - just like you might encounter with a 16mm camera, if you are not practiced. That put me off for a little while. Tyler will no doubt jump in here and have a go at the Logmar for not being a "Super8 camera" in this respect. To which I'd just say well, okay, it's not a Super8 camera. So what? Nor is it a hamburger. How does that change the price of fish in China?

 

In any case, I'm locked into shooting some film on the Logmar this coming weekend. Stock has been purchased. The lab is primed. It's all set to go.

 

However you won't see any of this on youtube or vimeo etc. because the neg will be taken through an optical blowup to 16mm, and screened in that way.

 

C