Erkan Umut

 

What other crystal-sync Super8 cameras with easy sound recording are around? Especially brand-new? And I definitely agree with Lasse: A flash card inside the camera is much better than having to carry yet another box around with you. In my case, there already *WOULD* be such an external box, i. e. a Sound Device in order to level and monitor the audio before it's going into the camera. A second one for recording would be both pointless and superfluous.

For example, you work with two men crew, and the sound-man should be far away from the camera, and you cannot use any wireless due to radio signals. Then your sound-man plugged the module away from the camera by inserting a simple gum battery, and began to record sound.

I work nearly 20 years for documentary work in more than 50 countries, and once I faced with that situation at the Russian Space Center near Moscow...

What I mean is that, for this type camera, these types of add-on really fit.

Also you don't need any other camera supplying "1/F pulses"" via Flash sync socket most of cameras have. As well as, few companies offer the X-tal sync mods...

In our opinion, sound on super-8 has always been a problem. We wanted to overcome it in an easy matter without people having to carry yet another "box" with them for the audio recording alone, if we think of our option B or the contemplated option C this would be exactly what people where already doing today (I believe).

 

We could strip away the audio entirely from our camera (it would still be a crystal synchronized camera though) that would properly reduce the price point by 200$ but would anyone really appriciate that?

No, Lasse. I am talking about designing the plug-in/out sound module here, not stripping it away!!! Of course, nobody appreciate it as the excellent built cameras are around with reasonable prices already.

Lasse, you see...

Many people are cautious about the digital part of your new-born camera, esp. the sound and the post syncing.

It will be better, if you can redesign the sound part as a separate module for the future. Also, doing so, this module could be act as a portable recorder when separated from the camera (needs an extra small Lithium gum battery supply though)...

Maybe this is too much for a S8 camera...

Lasse, you did not make a mistake. This is not a hammer-like tool. Its gonna be used by the people who cares for esthetics and art forms, as well as used many cameras and films. Its good to get views from the people. Why not?

We all should show respect for what you are working on, and you are spending hours as well as making investment...

But be careful, please keep attention to what the potential users are trying to tell, and try to do your best, when your project become successful, the strong competitors might be waiting for you. The some of ex-Soviet and Chinese designers and engineers (with reasonable salaries) and works or factories (with precision manufacturing capabilities) in this field are still available...

Good luck!

Just to make sure, you do know about the b/w SVEMA and ORWO stocks currently sold by Wittner, right?

No Benjamin. I went back to the end of 70s for ORWO, and the beginning of 90s for SVEMA :)

We had a variety of films from Eastern Germany thru a distributor in Turkey (Importers from VE AHB ORWO-EXPORT-IMPORT, Berlin) when Eastern Bloc was in their heydays; and then first Polish black market sellers (probably in 1989), later Russians after the collapse.

I have proof that Turkey had used the SVEMA and ORWO materials in the past when the USSR was alive..

There was an authorized lab located in Vienna, Austria working for ORWO, in charge of processing the reversals coming from the countries not in Eastern Bloc.

Most of my SVEMAs are processed in Budapest, Hungary and in Baku, Azerbaijan. What a journey I miss... :)

I grew up with Eastern Bloc equipment and films mostly, because my pocket money was limited :)

Whatever you make for Super 8, say thousands of Dollars cameras, its still the limited small format, so the quality will be limited compared to that of other larger formats.

What do a good lens and steadiness make are better results in its category. Nothing more actually.

So, if you want to get a small format scent, why do you need for a better Super 8 equipment? Just do it with available in any format... There is enough technology today for whatever you want. You need grainy look? Add it in the post to an excellent shot. You want shaky images, so its the same, etc.

Why are the small formats chosen in the movie history?, because of simplicity and economy. (Don't forget,16mm and 9.5mm were the amateur home movie formats in the past prior to 8mm.)

But today its a utopia among filmmakers, because this format is became highly endangered so quickly, and most people behind it grew up with these home movies mostly with family memories, dark home or party rooms with a magical lantern, shortages and limitations of the system, tasting the pictures manually and optically, etc., etc., that's why this format gains so popularity. Nothing more. This is a missing that the fascinated old generation tell to the new generation somehow. I experienced this with my 19-year old students at the university I teach. Also, today's technology is limitless and causes dissatisfaction...

If you want to simulate a Super 8 look with any other media, don't forget to add more shaky images (due to small camera movements in smaller formats cause bigger movements than any other bigger format on screen) and bigger grains (the same enlargement phenomenon).

So, we should not expect more than it can...

Lasse et al. are lucky cause there are many cameras and people around them to examine what are the pros and cons...

Chris, maybe you know, Nic Kovats from Canada is a very knowledgeable guy about the UP8 format and a serious follower.

Thanks to God, in these days that Ferrania is working hard to market a new or improved stocks for the various endangered formats. Without any film, cameras are only toys, but projectors (everywhere has tons of films to show even most of them have vinegar syndrome...). So we should pray for the new stocks coming, and more manufacturers come into the play especially for the reversal stocks.

I am missing the ORWO UTs and Svemas. Unfortunately, the improved Svema Och-90L (90 GOST near to ISO 90) Tungsten reversal stock for TV stations is gone when the Soviet Union collapsed. I was being lucky to shoot some rolls of it when they were given in Azerbaijan TV as a present. It was similar of AGfa-Gevaert stocks of that time, little brownish. At that time, Svema in Shostka, Ukraine was already finishing the Kodak processing friendly stocks...

The max8 issues you've seen are because of the optics and/or a bad conversion, not the film itself. The edge of the optics are always softer especially as you near wide open. Thats what makes c mount awesome. You can use optics intended for 16mm and avoid those soft edges.

Benjamin,

I agree with David completely. In optics, there is a certain image area of every lens giving the most of its quality relative to aperture. That's why the centering is so important. Also, most cinematographers use the 35mm format lenses in 16mm filming like me (but not often). "The focal length remains the same, but the angle of view."

The pressure plates duty is to contact the film by applying the proper force - an even distribution of force, also lateral guides are important, too. The thicker base (acetate) might be much more helpful than thinner base (polyester). That's also why Single-8 plates are flat probably.

Im not sure why someone would think that the soundtrack area of the film would be of any lower quality. it's all cut down from huge (feet wide and long) sheets in the first place. they dont manufacture the film at only 8mm.

Yes, exactly. Its bulk making and cutting down (confection) into widths (then perforated) are like as in gear making from a long tube...

Its interesting that the pressure forces of the reloadable S8 Soviet (Kasseta), disposable S8 Soviet (Svema) cartridge and disposable S8 German (REVUE) cartridge are more than 150grf while the one for ELMO-300 Single-8 back is around 148grf (maybe the spring force is loosed due to time, I didn't take a reading of the one for FUJICA Z800).

The Single-8 pressure plate is flat, the cartridge plates are grooved as you know.

I think that S8 cartridges have good enough force.

Hi Erkan, Bordeaux is a true small Paris, beautiful and wonderful people. It is also true that we talked about two different cameras and, more importantly, different lenses. But the conclusion is that in some cases the pressure plate makes a difference.

Really the building in the middle of the two roads looks like the one in Paris :) What a wonderful city.

All my music videos are shot on 16/S16 and 35mm unfortunately. You lucky!

Your music video is tres genial!!! Merci beacup again...

In my experience the pressure plate on a 4008 Beaulieu gives excellent results. In this film you can see the difference between Beaulieu 4008 with pressure plate and Canon 1014xls without it. The scenes are sharper with Beaulieu and there is a shot, 1:18, you see the problem with 1014xls.

https://vimeo.com/69642459

Excellent example and very nice music video. Thanks Jose for remembering my Paris visits, and those lovely song, nice woman and the city!

As you know, the comparing shots should be done in the controlled light situations and test patterns. Several things could affect the judgement... But the pressure plate really makes the difference especially when it comes on the big screens.

What the interesting thing is that I get nearly crisp images with my Nikon R10.

 

With respect to the design, I do not seem bad to look like a Leicina. The most important thing will be the final price of the product.

 

When the things are getting bigger the shapes will be more obvious. Leicina is smaller of course. Please don't give the samples like ASKANIA and Debrie cameras or the wooden box cameras. Of course, we cinematographers are forced to work with shoe boxes nowadays despite the build quality is perfect like ALEXA or SONY F55 because of electronics are used to be the same geometrically.

If everybody thinks of its price important, there would be no camera shapes we love esthetically today. Some people might not want to work with an esthetically bad thing after investing a lot of money... Say you have a latest generation Mercedes in a shape of Lada Samara. What you think? Why do many people buy classical or modern redesigned VW Bettles?...

Ohh sorry, I misunderstood the oscillating mirror you mean, its a rotary mirror. So you don't utilize a beamsplitter prism...

Our shutter is an oscillating mirror (please read original post and explanations further up)

the beamsplitter is use solely because we want to add light meter functionality - if this was not a requirement the beam splitter would not be needed.

Many thanks for all your explanations. I am so excited!

I don't understand why you have to use the beamsplitter for a built-in metering?

Mostly cameras used to utilize a focal plane disk shutter and a beamsplitter for reflex viewing (20% loss for the VF) for a simpler and minimum spacing design like Bolexes.

eclair acl uses an oscillating mirror for reflex viewing while a focal one (175°) for exposing, very quiet indeed. Most Panaflexes use a butterfly shutter for reflex viewing while a focal one for exposing, too. Both use disk shutters for exposing.

The butterfly ones for exposure and viewing having two blades like in 16S (St) and Krasnogorsk, etc. reducing the shutter shaft rpm time cuts to half down.

I like the one on the right.

The shutter should open up to 180° max. no need for an XL 220/230° shutter as it really causes unnecessary more stroboscopic effects, and today's high speed films are well tolerated as latitude and grain, and people likes more film style grainy effects, as well as noise reduction is at its best today.

Don't use the beam splitter for the video output (don't sacrifice the geometric apertures by applying the photometric apertures), use mirror shutter positioned at 45° with focal plane blades. Needs a more place for the shutter than the beam-splitter prism thou.

For the shallow depth of field for overcoming the Super 8 small diameter you may use an optical compensation...

Kodak was able to stuff 100 ft of polyester base film in a standard Super 8 cartridge.

 

Link:http://www.super8data.com/database/film_list/film_kodak/kodak_mfx.htm

It would be very nice if this type film would available with today's technology - 2-in-1 :)

Hi Lasse,

Great effort!

Any provision for a magazine mount for bulk stocks (as Germans call it Meterware) around 250ft?

That would be fine for that type camera (on top). Needs a clever solution for the carrying handle.

Design the SD card an individual plug-in block, so in future it can be adapted for other card systems. And think the people who want still double system sound. Place it on a proper place in the design as the other formats might require larger in size block.

Change the battery place, it will unnecessarily make it long in width. Take the battery on bottom. In the colder places it will help to keep the cold away.

Make the overall design rounded on the edges, it should not need to look liket a digicam. Always think of future possibilities, the parts of new tech add-ons should be replaceable for the investing customers.

Please do not forget the handgrip attachment connected to the body.

More could come, if you wish...

[FYI, Who am I? I am a Turkish poop teaching the Japanese the Japanese cinematographic equipment. This is just the only one example. Believe it or not.]

Based on the pictures alone, I would say outstanding work!

With an obvious nod to the Mekel Cine-8.

 

Jean-Louis

Yes, it looks like VIC SP-1 Cine-8 by Visual Instrumentation Corp. (the original manufacturer Mekel Engineering).

Is there one in english?

Yes, I have sent the link in the PM.

I have searched some service manuals, and got these results:

Canon DS8 has these characteristics: Pressure plate pressure - 70-90gr, Side gate pressure - 40-60gr, Take-up torque - 60-90gr per cm (100ft), etc.

Canon Canonet 8 (D8): Pressure plate pressure - 40-60gr, Counter pressure - 20-25gr at the tip, Take-up torque - 40-60gr per cm (25ft), etc.

Hi Folks,

I am wondering what is the Super 8 cartridge pressure pad weight (in grams). Do you have any info regarding those rare figures?

Also, may the polyester based new stocks cause problems in Super 8 cameras? Is any adjustment necessary for the pressure pad weight for thinner polyester film?

Thank you very much for any info!

Erkan

When you said "last" I thought you meant Sekonic was stopping production of light meters!

 

I freaked out for a moment. :)

Don't worry Zac.

I was at SEKONIC in Tokyo last month.

They have no plans for that :D

For Cine, its very well known that when you enter the shutter angular data and the fps rate, the exposure time will be changed as one constant Time:

Example, for 172.8° shutter angle

T = 1/62.5 @ 29.97fps

T = 1/52 @ 25fps

T = 1/50 @ 23.976fps

For HD Cine, as far as I understand, nothing is limited, so you have to enter the Time and the fps, and each one affects the exposure individually. So, different fps rates will be locked with the same Time such as,

T = 1/125 could be @ 29.97, 25, 23.976fps (no shutter angle for rolling shutter)

This is confusing for an old fashioned cinematographer. :)

For sure, just PM me with your e-mail address.