Nicholas Kovats

I plan on mounting my Leicina Special/ST1 Controller/10mm Cinegon on my bike this weekend for some nighttime time exposure experiments with the average exposure per K40 frame = 3 seconds. In general I prefer shooting at optimal apertures, e.g. f/5.6. Another factor is the age of the stock. And this is not a typo. It is factory sealed refrigerated K40 from 1982. I am not concerned about possible color shifts nor reproducibility failure. It's experimental footage, dudes! I have had a previous wonderful experience with an identical setup back in the early nineties with FRESH K40. The streaking solidity of crazy colors is amazing and ended up in a film of mine called Silly Billy which ironically played in Germany this year. I may eventually release it publicly. Back to the point. I utilize a digital spot meter for my work in general and my exposures tend to be spot on. However it's been awhile since I have dabbled in the extended exposure realm of time exposures. What are the best guides that take into account film stock ASA, exposure time per frame and ambient tungsten lighting (car headlights, windows, buildings)?

Your welcome, Carl. Interesting how you built custom controllers. I am actively working on getting these Leitz micro-fiches scanned. Call me crazy but I am mounting my Leicina Special + ST1 on my bike this weekend for time exposure ride through the city, i.e. approx. 3s exposure per frame. The film stock in question is K40. However I expect some major color shifting as the stock is from 1982. That is not a typo. I am not striving for color accuracy but replicating the amazing streaks of color "solidity" that I produced in the early nineties in my film Silly Billy. It played in Germany this summer. I may release it into the public domain sometime in the future ...if anything for the techies and an example of the 10mm Cinegon, ST1 + Leicina Shutter effects. The original footage specifically the b/w sequences look like miniature 16mm.

Carl, Congrats on your Leicina Special purpose. What lenses and accessories came with it? I would like to provide some incentive for your Super 8 signal processing project. :) If your Leicina package is absent the ST1 controller I would like to donate my additional one. It is absent the strange German connector but I have a diagram of the pin outs necessary to construct your own if your interested. The ST1 controller automates the incredible time exposure capabilities of the Leicina Special shutter. Automated opening times ranging 0.5 - 360s. Think streaking flows of lights. A Montreal film-maker put his Leicina on a rotating 360 degree gimbal, "manually" clicked through this feature whilst in motion (car) and the results are spectacular a la the trip sequence in 2001. Awesome analog stuff. I have other goodies to wet the inner Super 8 engineering heart, e.g. the entire official Leitz Leicina Special technical drawings on microfiche. Right down to the screw thread pitches utilized. Including blow-ups of the funky auto-exposure Leicinamatic.

Excellent points, Robert. You are speaking correctly of planned obsolescence as perfected by the auto industry. Digital is relentless in this regard and has no sense of refinement or for that matter gradual evolution nor perfection of product. That motion picture film and it's wonderful apparatus are still with us is a testimony to the perfection of the 100 year old Geneva film movement and fundamental random silver particles. It also speaks to the fundamental analog nature of the medium in contrast to the binary approximation of reality as represented by digital video. But I recognize that the digital juggernaut is here to say and that a hybrid approach to our filmic co-existence is inevitable. I do not miss the physical labour and imperfect craft of editing tiny Super 8 frames. Carl's attempts to extract maximum information from silver particles(b/w)/cloud dyes(color) deserves our support. I am enjoying this discussion regarding a "new" Super 8 camera. I will add my two cents eventually in greater detail. For now all I will say is that the possibility of purchasing the machining plans to a fundamental and historic early 70's niche precision and modular Super 8 camera (double pin registeration - "digital" servo feedback loop) are available to this community. But it would require a major fund raising effort and some earnest dedication. This camera is built like a tank, is noisy from its extreme upper speeds, requires 28 volts and employs a simple modular C - lens mount of rectangular machined aluminum (?)held to the body of the camera with four precision aircraft thumb screws. The DIY nature of such a collective "open source" camera project could conceivably machine multiple lens mount by nature of it's large thick plate design and effective precision alignment. And it "re-purposes" the standard 50 foot Super 8 cartridge. I forget if it employs TTL ground glass or aerial focusing. Think of it as a Mini-Mitchell. :)

Heathens! Damnation! Super 8 will not die its deserved digital death! Masturbate digitally in full 1080p. Everybody else is. Join the sweaty undifferentiated pixel crowd. The pessimists are attempting to subvert exploration of extracting additional information from the incredible tiny format that could. And just is. My plethora of Super 8 cameras are loaded and shooting and waiting patiently for assistance to maximize their fundamental and minuscule particle/ dye cloud randomness. Onward!

Which one would that be, Carl?

Carl, By film transport I meant to say the actual motion, speed, velocity, etc necessary to appreciate the actual and increased resolution inherent in random silver particle based film. Hence my point regarding the comparison of noiseless HDSLR originated digital frames and static film frame captures. Would you consider initiating the concept of Super 8 digital signal processing over at the Filmshooting Forum? A slightly more technical bunch who react quickly to posts in general, i.e. http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewforum.php?f=1 Cheers!

Carl. Full steam ahead. This is fascinating stuff. I must say that reviving 4-6 year old threads is quite the entrance to this concept of "Super 8 signal processing". Wow. Unification and aggregation of terminology. Love this. Have you examined Avisynth? Would you say this is a variation of Super Resolution methodology? Do you have access to 2k Super 8 scans? Where are going with this? Alpha software? Let's not forget that actual motion (film transport) is also part of the perceived experience of resolution. It isn't enough to compare a static noiseless HDSLR photograph to a typical "untreated" film frame. Your reference affirms the "superior" information available in the fundamental random pattern of silver particles, i.e. http://www.infognition.com/articles/what_is_super_resolution.html "Super-resolution (SR) works effectively when several low resolution images contain slightly different perspectives of the same object. Then total information about the object exceeds information from any single frame. ...which is distinct from film grain as per your excellent reference doc on the revived thread "True Resolution", i.e. http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-03-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf That "film grain is a perceived property; due to clumping of these fundamental silver particles" and that the "resolution of film is related to the size and distribution of fundamental particles in the emulsion."

Stuart. My terminology stands corrected. I wish to extract a 2.35 aspect ratio utilizing standard 16mm spherical optics...in the anamorphic style. :) Thanks for the heads up regarding Arri. In fact I could very well have the standard 1.85 Aaton ground glass taped off accordingly.

Thanks Alvin. I was just about to contact Bernie at Super16.com. Aaton just informed me yesterday that the S16 2.35 ground glass is no longer in production. Regards, NK

I am interested in shooting 16mm spherical anamorphic via ground glass 2.35 markings such that the 2.35 aspect ratio is extracted in post. I have located the following reference material for both Arriflex and Aaton respectively, i.e. 1. http://www.arrimedia.com/files/arrimedia.c...ass%20Guide.pdf 2. http://www.aaton.com/files/viewing_screens16.pdf It seems Aaton does offer a specific 2.35 markings, i.e. Ref#01-812-29 format=Super 16 markings=2.35 Full + 1.78 Full. Are there any alternative sources for S16 or R16 2.35 marked ground glass for specific 16mm cameras?

Hi everyone. I have been shooting Super 8 on and off since 1979. There is something mystical about shooting such a miniaturized format, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdnpOGKIgJI *YouTube search term = "Kis Angyal" ratio=1.33 However the allure of Cinemascope 1:2.40 is undeniable and my attempts have resulted in a fusion of the two mediums. My initial approach has been to utilize an Anamorphic 2X projector optical adapter + step down ring + prime/zoom lens + c-mount S8 camera as shot by Justin Lowell, i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrvQCV2kfn4 *YouTube search term = "Anamorphic super 8 film test = "Zoology"" ratio=2.66 The difficulty of a practical shooting technique whilst dealing with 3 major variables of two separate focusing barrels plus what I call horizontal Anamorphic skew is at best an exercise in triple diligence. The minimum focusing distances of these projector Anamorphic adapters at 5 feet plus their misaligned interface with prime/zoom lenses is suboptimal. I commissioned a preliminary CAD sketch for a proposed CNC machined adapter that would attempt to handle the concerns outlined previously, i.e. http://picasaweb.google.com/nkovats/AnamorphicAdapterProject But I began to wonder if in fact there could be a more reasonable and precise approach such that a Cinemascope Super 8 wannabe could obtain the equivalency to the all in one, heavy and ultra expensive 16mm or 35mm anamorphic compression lenses? Surprisingly enough the Russians tried it first, i.e. http://www.zenit.istra.ru/archive/quarz/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 In the spirit of the global 8mm/16mm DIY culture I propose the following hybrid solutions for a proposed spherical Cinemascope Super 8 system with the following definitions and disclaimers, i.e. 1. Spherical Cinemascope Super 8mm with a 10.12 x 4.23mm frame resulting in the classic cinemascope 2.40 ratio. 2. The 4.23mm vertical height conforms to the Super 8mm SMPTE specification with the ideal potential and anticipated conformence across 'scope S8 cameras and classic 1.33 Super 8 brethren. 3. Current crystal structure of modern film stock such as S8/16mm Kodak Vision exceeds resolution of 1950's/1960's film stock. 4. This proposed format is in the spirit and relative to DIY Super 8mm and not 35mm scope setups. 5. The full range of spherical 16mm optics would be available w/o compression artifacts. I see three major options ranging from most expensive to least relative to conversion costs, i.e. 1. A 16mm camera converted to Cinemascope Super 8mm camera utilizing 16mm wide Double Super 8 film stock (DS8), i.e. -JK Camera conversion of 16mm Bolex REx5 - $2,000 US. -Parts available. Tried and true conversion of many H8 to H16=DS8, S16 conversions and some H16 to standard DS8. -Bolex cameras were originally designed to be converted from 16mm to 8mm and vice versa. -JK Camera conversion of Krasnogorsk-3 (K-3) - $5,000 US - ...an attempt to bring the cheap Soviet camera of the people to the masses. A big Nyet! -readily available 100ft DS8 stock, i.e. Fomapan, Kahl, etc -a DS 8 precision privately commissioned one off precision die is potentially available approx. $6,000 US. to reperf 35mm stock. -mechanical conversion requirements: -Super 8mm sprockets + pitch adjustment, -machined Cinemascope gate 10.12 x 4.23mm -viewfinder etchings/mask, etc. PROS: -single pass w/ a typical 100ft roll of DS8 perf stock as opposed to a double pass, i.e. see No. 2 below. CONS: -cost=$2000 minimum (camera only) -no sprocketless 16mm telecine projectors available, i.e. estimated conversion cost of 16mm telecine projector = formidable bucks. 2. Cinemascope mask w/ 16mm camera/optics/gate utilizing 16mm film stock with off-centered gate, i.e. -double perf 16mm film stock - 10.12 x 7.49 mm standard frame, i.e. two cinemscope 10.12 x 3.75mm frames + frameline per 16mm frame (10.26 x 7.49mm). -necessitates off center gate with a realignment of 16mm lens amount. -user would have to flip, rethread and expose the same 100ft roll to expose the second 10.22 x 3.75mm frame. -user would end up with two oppositely aligned Cinemascope 10.22 x 3.75mm frames which would have to be realigned/synced in telecine or editing software. -greater likely hood of misalignment and/or user/camera error. -mechanical conversion requirements: -machined Cinemascope gate 10.12 x 4.23mm -viewfinder etchings/mask, etc. -off-center gate -realignment of 16mm lens amount PROS: -100ft 16mm film results in roughly 200ft of Cinemascope Super 8mm. -current sprocket 16mm telecine transfer bays can be utilized, i.e. Workprinter, Tobin, etc. -plethora of single or double perf 16mm film stock available. CONS: -cost=$1500? -double pass required. Prone to error. -smaller vertical axis = 3.75mm results in less resolution relative to options no. 1 and 3. 3. Cinemascope mask w/ 16mm camera/optics/gate utilizing 16mm film stock with centered gate, i.e. -double perf 16mm film = 10.12 x 4.23mm frame -optimizing the 16mm frame real estate = 10.26 x 4.28 mm frame. -mechanical conversion requirements -machined Cinemascope gate 10.12 x 4.23mm -viewfinder etchings/mask, etc. PROS: -single pass -cost=cheapest ($500?) -current sprocket 16mm telecine transfer bays can be utilized, i.e. Workprinter, Tobin, etc. -plethora of single or double perf 16mm film stock available. -centered gate -no realignment of 16mm lens mount necessary. CONS: -approx. 10.12 x 3.27mm of 16mm frame real estate per 16mm frame wasted. -frameline? If I have omitted key considerations or proposed an incorrect spec please post as such to this thread. My newly acquired 16mm K3 and Bolex Rex5's are standing by awaiting baptismal Cinemascope Super 8mm conversion. :) Regards, Nicholas Kovats Toronto, Canada

Hi everyone. I have been shooting Super 8 on and off since 1979. There is something mystical about shooting such a miniaturized format, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdnpOGKIgJI *YouTube search term = "Kis Angyal" ratio=1.33 However the allure of Cinemascope 1:2.40 is undeniable and my attempts have resulted in a fusion of the two mediums. My initial approach has been to utilize an Anamorphic 2X projector optical adapter + step down ring + prime/zoom lens + c-mount S8 camera as shot by Justin Lowell, i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrvQCV2kfn4 *YouTube search term = "Anamorphic super 8 film test = "Zoology"" ratio=2.66 The difficulty of a practical shooting technique whilst dealing with 3 major variables of two separate focusing barrels plus what I call horizontal Anamorphic skew is at best an exercise in triple diligence. The minimum focusing distances of these projector Anamorphic adapters at 5 feet plus their misaligned interface with prime/zoom lenses is suboptimal. I commissioned a preliminary CAD sketch for a proposed CNC machined adapter that would attempt to handle the concerns outlined previously, i.e. http://picasaweb.google.com/nkovats/AnamorphicAdapterProject But I began to wonder if in fact there could be a more reasonable and precise approach such that a Cinemascope Super 8 wannabe could obtain the equivalency to the all in one, heavy and ultra expensive 16mm or 35mm anamorphic compression lenses? Surprisingly enough the Russians tried it first, i.e. http://www.zenit.istra.ru/archive/quarz/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 In the spirit of the global 8mm/16mm DIY culture I propose the following hybrid solutions for a proposed spherical Cinemascope Super 8 system with the following definitions and disclaimers, i.e. 1. Spherical Cinemascope Super 8mm with a 10.12 x 4.23mm frame resulting in the classic cinemascope 2.40 ratio. 2. The 4.23mm vertical height conforms to the Super 8mm SMPTE specification with the ideal potential and anticipated conformence across 'scope S8 cameras and classic 1.33 Super 8 brethren. 3. Current crystal structure of modern film stock such as S8/16mm Kodak Vision exceeds resolution of 1950's/1960's film stock. 4. This proposed format is in the spirit and relative to DIY Super 8mm and not 35mm scope setups. 5. The full range of spherical 16mm optics would be available w/o compression artifacts. I see three major options ranging from most expensive to least relative to conversion costs, i.e. 1. A 16mm camera converted to Cinemascope Super 8mm camera utilizing 16mm wide Double Super 8 film stock (DS8), i.e. -JK Camera conversion of 16mm Bolex REx5 - $2,000 US. -Parts available. Tried and true conversion of many H8 to H16=DS8, S16 conversions and some H16 to standard DS8. -Bolex cameras were originally designed to be converted from 16mm to 8mm and vice versa. -JK Camera conversion of Krasnogorsk-3 (K-3) - $5,000 US - ...an attempt to bring the cheap Soviet camera of the people to the masses. A big Nyet! -readily available 100ft DS8 stock, i.e. Fomapan, Kahl, etc -a DS 8 precision privately commissioned one off precision die is potentially available approx. $6,000 US. to reperf 35mm stock. -mechanical conversion requirements: -Super 8mm sprockets + pitch adjustment, -machined Cinemascope gate 10.12 x 4.23mm -viewfinder etchings/mask, etc. PROS: -single pass w/ a typical 100ft roll of DS8 perf stock as opposed to a double pass, i.e. see No. 2 below. CONS: -cost=$2000 minimum (camera only) -no sprocketless 16mm telecine projectors available, i.e. estimated conversion cost of 16mm telecine projector = formidable bucks. 2. Cinemascope mask w/ 16mm camera/optics/gate utilizing 16mm film stock with off-centered gate, i.e. -double perf 16mm film stock - 10.12 x 7.49 mm standard frame, i.e. two cinemscope 10.12 x 3.75mm frames + frameline per 16mm frame (10.26 x 7.49mm). -necessitates off center gate with a realignment of 16mm lens amount. -user would have to flip, rethread and expose the same 100ft roll to expose the second 10.22 x 3.75mm frame. -user would end up with two oppositely aligned Cinemascope 10.22 x 3.75mm frames which would have to be realigned/synced in telecine or editing software. -greater likely hood of misalignment and/or user/camera error. -mechanical conversion requirements: -machined Cinemascope gate 10.12 x 4.23mm -viewfinder etchings/mask, etc. -off-center gate -realignment of 16mm lens amount PROS: -100ft 16mm film results in roughly 200ft of Cinemascope Super 8mm. -current sprocket 16mm telecine transfer bays can be utilized, i.e. Workprinter, Tobin, etc. -plethora of single or double perf 16mm film stock available. CONS: -cost=$1500? -double pass required. Prone to error. -smaller vertical axis = 3.75mm results in less resolution relative to options no. 1 and 3. 3. Cinemascope mask w/ 16mm camera/optics/gate utilizing 16mm film stock with centered gate, i.e. -double perf 16mm film = 10.12 x 4.23mm frame -optimizing the 16mm frame real estate = 10.26 x 4.28 mm frame. -mechanical conversion requirements -machined Cinemascope gate 10.12 x 4.23mm -viewfinder etchings/mask, etc. PROS: -single pass -cost=cheapest ($500?) -current sprocket 16mm telecine transfer bays can be utilized, i.e. Workprinter, Tobin, etc. -plethora of single or double perf 16mm film stock available. -centered gate -no realignment of 16mm lens mount necessary. CONS: -approx. 10.12 x 3.27mm of 16mm frame real estate per 16mm frame wasted. -frameline? If I have omitted key considerations or proposed an incorrect spec please post as such to this thread. My newly acquired 16mm K3 and Bolex Rex5's are standing by awaiting baptismal Cinemascope Super 8mm conversion. :) Regards, Nicholas Kovats Toronto, Canada

Thanks for the response Freya. I am aware of the stability offered by double perf stock as per high speed cameras. I am leading to an idea in a round about way with these initial questions. What is the definitive resource for double perf 16mm frame dimensions? i.e. 1. What is the maximum shooting height available the 16mm frame? 7.49 mm? 2. What is the maximum shooting width available in the 16mm frame? 10.26 mm? What 16mm cameras exist with machined interchangable gates/aspect ratios? If not what 16mm cameras are the best and/or easiest to modify? Bolex? Regards, Nicholas Canada

Thanks for the link Dominic. What I mean to say is the following, i.e. taking into account the space taken up by 2 perf 16mm stock by the perfs themeselves ....can one still shoot the standard 16 frame dimensions = width: 10.26 mm x height: 7.49 mm? Regards, NK

Hi. I was just wondering as to the general availability of 2 perf or double perf 16mm stock? Do the standard 16mm frame dimensions still apply, i.e. width: 10.26 mm height: 7.49 mm Regards, Nick K. Toronto, Canada

My Visual Instrumentation SP-1 250 fps "dual" pin registration Super 8 cartridge camera on my camera shelf...says otherwise.

Kevin. I paid around $36 US for the camera and $69 US for the 117vdc/28vdc transformer. Add another $100 US for total shipping to The Great White North. I will I post the manual to a neat Super 8 camera manual site when I get one... Cheers! Nicholas K.

Hi, Alessandro. Can you possibly forward a copy of the Cine 8 SP1 manual to my address, i.e. nkovats@gmail.com? Regards, Nicholas K. Toronto, Canada

Alessandro. I am looking for looking the required 12 pin cabled between my Visual Intrumentation 250fps Cine SP-1 camera and it's associated 28vdc/ac transformer. Would you happen to have one for sale? Regards, Nicholas K Toronto, Canada

I doubt if they ever put this monster zoom into production. It would never have been profitable in the Super 8 market, i.e. how many global users could actually justify it's expense? It's actually bad design to have mate it to a puny c mount without any proper lens support... ...which would have incurred additional expense on the part of the user. A interesting casuality in the historic Super 8 zoom wars.

... was a c - mount prototype made by Schneider in the late 1970's, i.e. http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/knowhow/variogon_e.htm I wonder how many Super 8 c - mount face plates collapsed under the sheer weight of this honken lens? Way back when Schneider had actually sent me the optical engineering diagram for this zoom monster. I had actually forgotten of it's existence until some semi-related Googling revealed it's previous existence. Ouch! "It's really all in the wide angles, baby..."

The Santos of the world would rather snipe then appreciate Lenny Lipton's systemic attempt at bringing clarity to the Super 8 scene of the 70's. Lenny had a distinct voice and was a good writer. Has anyone written a knock out primer on modern DV cams that trumps Lenny's writing style? Nothing comes to mind at the moment... And an excellent challenge, David! You referenced two superb engineered cameras. Whilst the truly wealthy independent filmmakers amongst us..if they really really must shoot S8/Single 8 with these type of high end cameras why not just have these instruments converted to shooting Double Super 8 (16mm) wide? :) Overkill you say? Back to shooting and financial reality. A smaller lighter new S8 camera with single strand coaxial magazines would be interesting but there does exist a good choice of older cameras with C/M mounts to mix and match your shooting style(s), i.e. Fujica ZC1000, Leicina Special, Beaulieu 4-5-6-7000's and the very wicked little superb Nizo 156 Macro (Schneider 7-60mm fixed lens). I apologize if I am preaching to the converted. But I am only speaking to what machines I am directly familiar with, use or own. The Nizo 156 is well balanced, light and even allows burst filming speeds in the middle of a time lapse shot. I suspect I just elevated this camera's eBay auction value. Merde! My 40, 100 and 200 Asa B/W transferred with Justin Lovell's excellent frame by frame transfer to HD AVI file format and digitally projected has been amazing. In fact this may be my point re this post. Transfer your exposed film immediately to a digital format as quickly as you can. This effectively reduces this tiny format's susceptibility to scratches, electrostatic buildup, dust gouges, etc. And yes, Dennis most S8 cameras are old, there are no new camera's manufactured (..maybe S8 Pro 7008 mods "might" qualify but barely..." and I believe the Beaulieu 7008 series were the last new cameras to be pumped out. Hey, Dennis! Don't you have some respectable pull with Hollywood machining types that might be interested in prototyping a newish camera for this frikken little sexy format that refuses to die?!?!? ...it's good to be back and shooting S8. NK in TO