Gregg MacPherson Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Pav, I may be missinterpreting the conversation, I don't have time to follow it carefully.... But, the ACL has a rotating shutter, sitting very close to the film plane, and an oscillating mirror sitting just in front of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) There is a short section in the video where they are shining a light through the gate while the shutter is going, in an effort to demonstrate there is nothing between the light and film, ie. that the camera uses a mirror shutter (or oscillating mirror) to facilitate the viewfinder image. The Logmar uses a similar design, with a flickering viewfinder for the same reason. When the shutter is not spinning the image does not flicker. When the shutter is going slowly the flicker goes slowly. Note that the visible flicker we see in the video may additionally be due to interference between the video camera shooting the scene and the Super8 cameras viewfinder image. But the flicker of which I speak is not this potential source of interference but that to which the commentator refers, which you can see in the difference between when the shutter is going and when it is otherwise stopped. C Edited January 13, 2017 by Carl Looper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 13, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 13, 2017 Ahh I didn't see that last video until now, interesting. That's one positive thing about the camera. It also looks like they're grabbing the image without a ground glass, which is how they do it on the Logmar I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) In the Logmar camera the viewfinder image is by means of a second internal lens imaging a ground glass screen. I don't know if this is the same for the Kodak camera. Ideally (from a user experience point of view) you would not have a ground glass screen at all and simply have a lensless sensor of the appropriate physical size in place of the ground glass screen. Either way I suspect the Kodak camera uses a higher definition sensor to facilitate it's viewfinder image. C Edited January 13, 2017 by Carl Looper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 13, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 13, 2017 Yea, the screen seems a lot better on the Kodak camera then Logmar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) A flicker free viewfinder is not out of the question in such a system (and perhaps it's just a question of a software update). The flicker is only there because the viewfinder display is being continuously updated. Were it to otherwise update itself only when an image is available (in phase with the shutter), it would then not exhibit any flicker. Not that it actually matters in any way. And indeed the flicker can be regarded as a reminder that the viewfinder image is just a viewfinder image. C Edited January 13, 2017 by Carl Looper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Sekanina Posted January 14, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) Hi all Carl Looper explained it beautifully why there's a ground glass to pick up the reflected image of the spinning or oscillating mirror. There isn't a lot of space due to the C-mount's short FFD - cramming in a sensor at the orange line (ground glass) is nearly impossible - unless you engineer and manufacture you own camera module. Having an optical system that images the GG image allows the sensor module to be moved to a location where more space is available. Edited January 14, 2017 by David Sekanina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) Ah yes. It would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to get a quality off-the-shelf sensor module in there as a substitute for the ground glass screen. The ground glass provides for more flexibility in sensor options. David's design graphic is beautiful. C Edited January 14, 2017 by Carl Looper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Stevens Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 So how LOUD is this camera? That is something I have yet to hear about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 31, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 31, 2017 The video from CES has the camera running, it sounded like a normal super 8 camera. Nothing crazy loud, but not sync-sound quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 The video from CES has the camera running, it sounded like a normal super 8 camera. Nothing crazy loud, but not sync-sound quiet.I thought the same tbing, when they were showing the flicker by design in the viewfinder when the camera runs. Based on the video, my Canon 814XLS seems quieter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) It would be interesting if the camera could have an interchangeable gate (but this may not be possible or recomendable). This would allow to continue shooting super-8/max8 with the same 50 feet (15.2 meters) cartridge, but changing the gate would allow to shoot 1.85:1 or even 2.35:1 with spherical lens. The idea is to replicate something like Paramount's VistaVision but in 8mm. Like a Vista8 new format. Changing the gate would also require to rotate the camera 90º, so the ergonomics and the functionalities of the camera would need to remain similar when rotating the camera. Challenging, but provided this is possible, then the effective image area would be much bigger than what is super-8 or max8. The potential is to use the equivalent of two current super-8 frames (aprox). I calculated with a physical super-8 piece of film thet the image wide, in an eventual "Vista8" format could be as much as 8mm whilst the height would be up to 5mm aprox. Through proper ground glass or a system like Aatonite or Arri Glow the Director of Photography could see the aspect ratio lines clearly visible on the viewfinder and video-assist. Sure, the cartridge would now have a duration of 75 seconds (at 24fps) instead of 150 seconds... but the improvement of image quality should be really apparent. However frame steadiness is a technical issue with super-8; so hopefully addressed on your camera design too. Other important consideration are sync speeds, the noise from the camera (when the film is running), as well as single frame exposure (hopefully with adjustable time up to several seconds or minutes). Edited February 3, 2017 by Daniel Henriquez Ilic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 it would be also great if the camera could record Timecode in between the perforation of the film. 1 foot is equivalent to 72 frames in super-8 (50x72=3600 frames), timecode should be exposed in between perfs three times per foot (so each second)... this would require some R&D too at telecine/scanner stage to recover the timecode and to embed it to the DPX image sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now