Nicholas Kovats

Anthony, Yes, modified Bolex. Actually a second variant exists called UltraPan8 3.1 which utilizes the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 film with the classic vertical Super 8 pulldown. Here is an scanned example using E100D color reversal stock, i.e. To recap, i.e. 1. UltraPan8 2.8 with aspect ratio 2.8 uses the full 16mm width of Regular 8mm film with vertical 8mm pulldown. Frame = 10.54mm x 3.75mm. 2. UltraPan8 3.1 with aspect ratio 3.1 uses the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 film with vertical Super 8 pulldown. Frame = 13.00mm x 4.22mm The UP8 3.1 format is actually wider than Super 16 and technically requires a re-centering of the lens mount. But I am quite happy with the above scanned example of UP8 3.1 regarding the coverage provided by the 10mm Zeiss Tevidon C-Mount lens relative to the unmodified lens mount. All of the approximately 14+ re-manufactured Bolex conversions were undertaken by Jean-Louis Seguin (bolextech@gmail.com).

Thanks for the great graphic, Carl.

Anthony, You just described the UltraPan8 format transport system . Full 2 perf 16mm width with vertical 8mm pulldown utilizing Standard 8mm film which is sold in 16mm widths with 80 perfs per foot as opposed to standard 16mm film stock with 40 perfs per foots. The perfs are identical in shape and the 8mm pitch is exactly half of standard 16mm pitch. Both are key concepts in the implementation including the interchangeability of classic Bolex 8mm and 16mm optics, transport, etc. Many scanned examples available on Vimeo, i.e. (Standard 8mm V3 200T color negative reperfed from 16mm acetate)

Brilliant. Would this idea be locked into a 180 degree shutter? Would a variable shutter be out of the question? Do ultra tiny digital projectors exist? And if they did how would they safely emit an ultra narrow focused beamed light much like a precision laser? Spill might be an issue regarding the exposed frame. Introducing controlled light into the film transport area is a fascinating subject. I believe Panavision actually had a device that pre-flashed frames. I found it. No less invented by Panavision founder, Robert E. Gottschalk, i.e. Patent = http://www.google.ca/patents/US4298255 It was called the Panaflasher and flashed film internally with a low intensity light to reduce contrast and increase exposure detail in shadows, i.e. http://panavision.cz/pdf/downloads/operation-manuals/panavision/panaflasher-manual.pdf

Doug and Carl, I have not followed up with Steve Buckingham regarding his father Laurie's incredible 16mm/35mm camera engineering in over a year and half. I did end up purchasing the 1964 issue of American Cinematographer detailing Laurie's superlative pin registered and vacuum based Bolex modified transport system. That is not a typo. He implemented a completely self contained vacuum system that pulled the film flat against the gate during exposure. Laurie called it the the Varispect 16mm system. "Vari" as in variable aspect ratio. He was able to film an 16mm image edge to edge. I have uploaded Steve Buckingham's original scan of one of his Father's Varispect films. It is a historic artifact and needs to be recognized as such. The image is of Laurie and his four children in the late fifties, i.e. Laurie also developed a very compact 2 perf Techniscope 35mm camera that was discussed in detail with an industry leader at the time. But is was not meant to be. This is all prior to the development of the "tiny" Super 16mm format in the late sixties. I cannot recall his Techniscope 35mm timeline. I wonder if there is a connection to the eventual introduction of "official" Techniscope in 1960 by Technicolor Italia? A brilliant engineering "renegade" waaaaay ahead of his time. Almost lost to the annals of history. Last I heard there was an internal family dispute regarding Laurie's cameras upon his passing in Dec. 2014 at 92. You can read more in Doug's excellent blog article, i.e. http://www.filmisfine.com/?p=36&v=3e8d115eb4b3.

What method are you purposing to record the metadata at the time of exposure? Lasse appears to be wary of lasers. Albeit both Aaton and Arriflex utilized lasers to record LTC timecode metadata. Aaton at the gate. Arri in their modified magazine. I suspect the Aaton system was inherently more stable relative to recording data at the actual gate during exposure whereas the Arri system would require some kind of programmed offset. What I mean is the Aaton system would brilliantly use the non-moving held frame at the gate whilst the Arri lasers would have to expose metadata onto a moving "target" as the film flew by continuously.

How would you "impose" a crosshair, Lasse? With a tiny backlit aperture or a laser?

Great to hear your real-world scanner input, Perry. Much appreciated. Isn't Carl Lopper in Australia working on a implementation whereby the perfs are NOT utilized as part of the registration and/or frame count? Using the edges? Would be great if the interdependency between frame and perf were optional.

Anyone with a sprocketless scanner. Then rotate the frames ninety degrees in post.

Talk about not thinking "laterally" on my part! I am evidently biased towards the vertical axis. :) Fantastic idea! VistaVision Super 8! The proposed horizontal 2 perf frame dimensions = 5.69mm (h) x 8.44mm (w) w/ AR = 1.48:1 which would be it's flat aperture but with a 2x anamorphic expands laterally to 3:1. The run time is fine. Can't please everyone.

Definitely interested, Lasse! But can you please clarify the 2-perf design? Do you mean to say shoot the entire 16mm width of Double Super 8 film stock which technically is 2-perf as per the Bolex UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 camera? i.e. http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=57047 UP8 3.1 (Double Super 8) AR = 1:3.1, FRAME = 13.00mm x 4.22mm; AREA = 54.86 square mm The Russians had designed something similar with Double Super 8 film but with the classic Cinemascope aspect ratio (AR = 2:55:1). The Zenit link is dead but I could arrange a working link or documents from a Turkish/Russian contact, i.e http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=30389 "Surprisingly enough the Russians tried it first, i.e. http://www.zenit.ist...uarz/index.html a.) Quarz 10: Format frames: 4.22 x5.69 mm (Super), or 4.22 x 10.8 mm (wide) Focal length: 15 mm Viewfinder: parallaksny Drive: Springs The frequency of shooting: 8, 18, 32 fps b.) Quarz 2x8S-W (Wide): Format frames: 4.22 x5.69 mm (Super), or 4.22 x10.8 mm (wide) Focal length: 15 mm Office diaphragm: automatic and manual Viewfinder: parallaksny Drive: spring (5 m) The frequency of shooting: 9, 18, 24, 36 fps Dimensions: 197x104x60 mm Weight: 1.2 kg" The adapted Russin DS8 cameras were similar to this specimen, i.e. http://tinyurl.com/negp9hh Or are you referring to halving the height of the Super 8 frame from 4.22mm to 2.11mm? Therefore the proposed aspect ratio (AR) of 2.68:1 with frame dimensions of 2.11mm x 5.69mm.? You would in essence double the run time of a standard 50ft S8 cart from 2'30" to 5'00" at 24fps. But as the image height is decreased the total imaging area available is less than the standard Super 8 frame or proposed full width Double Super 8 Cinemascope design. Hence, a decrease in resolution. Exciting times!

That is a audio monitoring connector on your Bolex. No video out on any stock Super 8 cam prior to the last year of manufacture in 1982. New Danish Logmar Super 8 camera has SD video ouput built in and hinged LCD screen. Pin registeted. http://www.logmar.dk After market video retro fits avaible for Nizo and Beaulieu Super 8 cameras by Jean-Louis Seguin. Please do your research on Super 8 fundamentals.

Ahhhh. I see. Excellent job nevertheless.

Beautiful colors, pacing, music, edit, flow and building the space up known as Morocco. Superb application of the tiny format that could. I suspect his was Kodak V3 color negative. Excellent transfer. I might have reduced the saturation a bit and removed the leading flash frames as the camera comes up to speed. But that's just me. Superb! I wish I could donate a Logmar camera as a prize!

I apologize for the primitive x,y axis ASCII art. I cannot display the z-axis. :)

Drew, You should not have moved your shooting test chart "a bit" regarding your second exposure. Both exposures utilize identical setups relative to framing and distance from focus chart (x,y and z axis). The projected or scanned footage will reveal x,y,z axis movements indicating potential registration issues. Both the projector and the scan introduce small "registration" errors but can be neglected for your purpose. . . .. .. ----------------- ------------------ .. .. .. . .

Panavision.

Geo camera in LA may still be renting their Beaumont VistaVision camera with Panivision mount, ie http://www.geofilmgroup.com/products/cameras/

I see. I tried sending him a message on eBay but the system would not allow me. Good luck with sourcing a pro S8 camera.

Whoa. That was quick. I am curious as to why he is selling his Logmar so soon?

Interesting. Would that happened be a Logmar Beta camera? Beaulieu 6008/7008 form factor is very comfortable to hold for long periods of time. Good luck.

Any responses. Matt? I have two of the three cameras listed but I am located in Toronto. When does your project commence shooting in NY?

Another excellent overview, Doug!

Best crystal sync motor, proven engineering are the quiet "small format" camera's in the 16mm format. All selling for fire sale prices. Aaton is one the best examples.

Great to hear of this splendid singular exception, Glenn. But it sounds a tad unwieldy for handheld shooting. And probably just as loud as my own TXM crystal motor setups. Seth's web site is down but I managed to get a glimpse of his efforts via the Internet WayBack Machine, i.e. http://web.archive.org/web/20140517010332/http://americancinespec.com/