Jump to content

Logmar.dk is now accepting preorders for their new precision Super 8 camera called Gentoo GS8


Nicholas Kovats

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

The 16S movement (pin registered) is much much more complicated than the movement of an Aaton. But i I always loved the mickey mouse ears form factor, which is simpler than a coax design. Although with daylight spools you can do a relatively simple coax design, similar to the A-cam or A-minima.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just by coincidence I ran across a video shot with the camera on Vimeo. I didn’t really realize it was this camera just that it was Super 8. Footage looked great and reminded me more of 16mm. So, regardless of all the price discussions I’d say at first glance it looks pretty good. 
Logmar S8 on Vimeo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Sekanina said:

The 16S movement (pin registered) is much much more complicated than the movement of an Aaton. But i I always loved the mickey mouse ears form factor, which is simpler than a coax design. Although with daylight spools you can do a relatively simple coax design, similar to the A-cam or A-minima.

interesting. I guess Im asking in case these threads provide any insight to Logmar should they go forward with a new 16mm camera. Something thats arri S or even A minima size would be wonderful in my mind. heck even bolex sized. I dont think its the end of the world if you had to use a soft barney to silence it if needed, but I also learned on the old arri 16s so I suppose I may have a tolerance for things like that which modern, professional users may not have the time for? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I am not a machining expert but it looks like to me that the magazines would need to be 3d printed from metal alloy or machined from solid metal blocks if wanting to get anything done in smaller scale manufacturing which would be even near the quality of the original cameras tried to be replaced.

Both methods are very time consuming and expensive but on small scale one would probably still save a lot compared to actually molding the parts using traditional methods.

I think the precision mechanical parts in the movement and film transport would still needed to be made with traditional methods.

People are fixated to think that making new electronics for a camera would be the most difficult task but making the actual camera body and precision mechanical parts is the most demanding part of the process whereas assembling the electronics is much easier to automate if there is someone to cad design the boards and write the firmware for them.

Even copying a simple Krasnogorsk 3 camera would be an impossible task to do without ridiculous amount of time and budget because making the mechanical parts in small scale is just not economical. The only reason why these good film cameras exist now is because they were manufactured in thousands back then and thus the economy of scale allowed the parts be made for less than ridiculous prices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
6 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

interesting. I guess Im asking in case these threads provide any insight to Logmar should they go forward with a new 16mm camera.

I'm curious to see where they go with their design, they're very smart and capable engineers.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
18 minutes ago, Jim Perry said:

Just by coincidence I ran across a video shot with the camera on Vimeo. I didn’t really realize it was this camera just that it was Super 8. Footage looked great and reminded me more of 16mm. So, regardless of all the price discussions I’d say at first glance it looks pretty good. 
Logmar S8 on Vimeo

This is from the original Logmar camera called the Chatham, it has a very cool system that bypasses the S8 cartridge pressure plate. So with a real gate, real pressure plate, registration pin and nice big loops, it can be super crisp with 50D stock. It looks like 500 ISO 16mm, which is pretty impressive. The "new" Gentoo S8 camera doesn't use this design, but they do have a little metal plate that goes into the cartridge, which can be re-used and creates a proper pressure plate. Will it be as good? No, because a real pressure plate is not just a piece of metal. However, It'll probably be darn close. 

Also, I don't think perfect focus and registration is what people are after when they think super 8. I think the problems super 8 has with it's plastic pressure plate, iffy loops and poor gate design, are what people are after "look wise" from the format. To me the esthetic of using the camera also reigns supreme. Not a pretty shot on a tripod, but a handle and tigger for handheld use and an optical viewfinder. 

Not saying the Logmar design doesn't have a place, it does for sure. But the footage is from a very "different" camera than the one this thread is about. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, aapo lettinen said:

Even copying a simple Krasnogorsk 3 camera would be an impossible task to do without ridiculous amount of time and budget because making the mechanical parts in small scale is just not economical. The only reason why these good film cameras exist now is because they were manufactured in thousands back then and thus the economy of scale allowed the parts be made for less than ridiculous prices

The K3 would be very easy to reverse engineer. But you're right, I mean it costs a lot of money to scan, build drawings, print/machine the new parts and test. Aaton maybe easier because getting drawings maybe easier to acquire. So you could just use the drawings to make new parts, but the K3 probably can't get them. If ya could, then it may not be bad. 

In my eyes, with the right staff, startup cost doesn't really change, (around $500k) over a more complex camera. Any new K3 would still need all new electronics, new video tap, battery solution and possibly a different housing. It would need a lot of re-engineering to make it a feasible camera, but I do think it's a good "start" for a lightweight small camera. If I were to make a small camera, I would absolutely use that movement but modified. 

The question is... how much would it cost? I'd say probably close to $10k if a batch of 50 were made. It also would not be quiet. So is there a market for it? Not really. That's the main reason why nobody has done it. The only way to make a small 100ft daylight spool camera, is to as others pointed out above, get close to the current pricing of used cameras. You need to make 1000 units, very low cost design and get into the $5k price range. Personally, I don't see that happening because it would take years to get that initial cost back, but if you had an investor who was willing to lose their shirt financially just so people can have a new camera, maybe it's possible? You would make back manufacturing cost for sure, but you wouldn't make any profit. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The question is... how much would it cost? I'd say probably close to $10k if a batch of 50 were made. It also would not be quiet. So is there a market for it? Not really. That's the main reason why nobody has done it. The only way to make a small 100ft daylight spool camera, is to as others pointed out above, get close to the current pricing of used cameras. You need to make 1000 units, very low cost design and get into the $3k price range. Personally, I don't see that happening because it would take years to get that initial cost back, but if you had an investor who was willing to lose their shirt financially just so people can have a new camera, maybe it's possible? You would make back manufacturing cost for sure, but you wouldn't make any profit. 

It could be possible to make a pretty OK sync sound camera for something like 4k if most of the precision mechanical parts are repurposed from existing cameras (for example using the Auricon movement) and if molding issue can be mitigated someway (for example by using aluminium project boxes as a base for making magazines and camera body instead of custom making large metal parts out of scratch. 3d printing can be used for simple parts which can be made out of low durability plastic.

But this would NOT be a neat and cool camera people are asking for. It would surely work pretty well for actually shooting short films and low budget stuff but no hipster in the world would buy one just for the looks of it alone ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, aapo lettinen said:

But this would NOT be a neat and cool camera people are asking for. It would surely work pretty well for actually shooting short films and low budget stuff but no hipster in the world would buy one just for the looks of it alone ?

Yea exactly, I don't think anyone wants a square brick.

I do like the idea of subbing current parts into new bodies. It's clever. However, it would make the cost of those parts skyrocket. If you don't have control over the entire camera, then you can't make it. 

I do think a "kit" camera is smart, but not yet. Read what I said in the other thread about a new S16 camera. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

It would be interesting to learn how many of the buyers that committed to buying the Gentoo were professionals or rental houses. 
 

 

Following the discussion on Facebook, there are several people who have indicated that they would be willing to buy two of them just to get it into production. They are professionals who use super-8 for their own work and seem very committed. But who knows how big share of those who backed away are professionals and how many "prosumers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Heikki Repo said:

Following the discussion on Facebook, there are several people who have indicated that they would be willing to buy two of them just to get it into production. They are professionals who use super-8 for their own work and seem very committed. But who knows how big share of those who backed away are professionals and how many "prosumers".

I know they're a pain to deal with, but I think this might be where the project could have benefited from a 1 month kickstarter or something similar. gives people a long-ish but not too long window to decide, give people a link to share, allows credit card purchases, and the ability to alter an order to add a 2nd camera body, or even just commit more money to it because the backer wants to see the thing exist. Also creates FOMO as the window closes and you have to finally decide to buy or not. I know one of the reasons I had not put in an order was I figured there was still time (I also assumed they were going to add an "order now" button to the website and that it wasnt technically for sale yet).

Hopefully they can do either this product or a small s16 product of some sort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea exactly, I don't think anyone wants a square brick.

With some small attention to detail it could be made to appeal to hipsters. There's a minimalist trend and some contemporary cinema cameras look a bit like bricks. Doesn't have to have the classic curvy lines of an older Arri to appeal to new buyers, except maybe the film magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there really all that many professionals shooting on Super 8? I can't help thinking that in nearly all cases 16mm can do everything Super 8 can do (you can grain it up, crop in closer etc) and also easily do a lot more that Super 8 can't. About the only thing Super 8 has that 16mm doesn't is the jittery Super 8 jump - which the new camera wouldn't have had. With Super 8 I feel that the existing cameras are relatively low-cost, if you can get ones that are reliable, and so if you're fine with the jitter and you want to shoot Super 8 then maybe just have an extra back up camera or cameras with you.

But even so, I wish they'd done ahead with the Gentoo. It really did look fantastic.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
31 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

With some small attention to detail it could be made to appeal to hipsters. There's a minimalist trend and some contemporary cinema cameras look a bit like bricks. Doesn't have to have the classic curvy lines of an older Arri to appeal to new buyers, except maybe the film magazine.

They only use them because they can't afford anything else. If SR3's were inexpensive, they'd own one of those. 

When building a new camera, theoretically if you can't make something low-cost that falls close to the price point those people can afford (price point vs performance), then you're kinda already limiting your audience. 

The idea of making a 3d printable camera and all you do is move the movement over, is clever. I kinda dig it, but it would not be as popular as a "new" camera. So it would be a fun experiment, I don't think it would go far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
30 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Are there really all that many professionals shooting on Super 8?

No, not at all. 

Also, what those people want is the trigger grip, hand held, optical viewfinder, small camera with a shaky image. That's why they're shooting super 8. The physical aspect of the format is 60% of it. The aesthetic of the finished product the remainder. 

That's part of why I don't understand the necessity for a "pro" S8mm camera. It's cool, but it doesn't serve any purpose. There just isn't any demand. One would argue 50 people is "demand" but 50 people isn't even a small fraction of those who shoot on super 8. I bet in the San Fernando Valley where I live, there are 100's of people that have super 8 cameras and shoot with them for fun. The only reason they do, is because you can get one for $50 bux. Otherwise, they'd not bother. Pro's are no different. They're only really using the format because it looks different than 16 or 35.

If suddenly the camera felt like a pro camera and was big and bulky, if the image was perfect like a 16mm camera. Then the whole point of the format goes out the window. The advantage of the format -which is light weight, low cost shooting- is not important to a pro. They aren't into the low cost nature, they're into the esthetic of the final result. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you're saying is true, then most pros would probably prefer to have authentic old Super 8 cameras from the 70s and 80s, shaky picture and all. Buy a stack of them on ebay, throw out the ones that give you problems, and go to gigs with 4 or more cheap cameras stuffed into a bag. If one jams while filming, or just suddenly decides not to start running, grab the cartridge out and put it into the next camera you grab from the bag. The frame line would vary but that can be fixed in post. That strategy might work for the next couple of decades, until the supply of Super 8 cameras dwindles. By then a lot of the nylon gears and motors/wiring will have given out. The other big appeal of Super 8 is the extremely quick change over of the film. I forgot to mention that above, comparing it to 16mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 6/16/2022 at 7:24 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

If what you're saying is true, then most pros would probably prefer to have authentic old Super 8 cameras from the 70s and 80s, shaky picture and all.

They do, I mean if you look at the BTS of pro shoots working with Super 8, the majority have 4008's. It's a rock solid camera, super well made and you can buy them for $500 bux. So you can buy a few of them and just keep a few working. We have 2 of them and I haven't been able to make either work. I almost bought the next model up recently for $900 bux because I always wanted one, but I was concerned about not having any spare camera. I also don't shoot much super 8, so it's not a big deal for me to have a fancy camera.

The nylon parts are easy to re-create through 3D printing tho, so nothing to worry about there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny,  back in the late 1970s and 80s oldsters like me certainly weren't looking for a shaky image ?  Maybe we actually got more stable images then.  New Beaulieu cameras I recall were good.  We used the sound cartridges which I think were steadier due to the loop for the sound head.   (And also gave excellent sync sound too.)

I think the "super-8 look" is perhaps more to do with the way most people back then handheld and zoomed their movies. And cheap cameras, except the Kodak ones, probably weren't very steady with silent cartridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 6/21/2022 at 1:24 AM, Doug Palmer said:

We used the sound cartridges which I think were steadier due to the loop for the sound head.

I think you're right, my super 8 sound home movies were always very stable due to the larger loop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
35 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I think you're right, my super 8 sound home movies were always very stable due to the larger loop. 

additionally the cameras were 50 years younger back then and of course in better mechanical condition.

 

People often associate film look with the slightly blurry, shaky and inconsistent image with poor overall stability. But that is more of a feature of poor quality film PROJECTORS than the fault of good quality film CAMERAS. 

More often than not, the film from the camera is perfectly fine, the bad projector is just ruining the end result and thus people think that the image on the film itself must be crappy too ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...