Bengt Freden

Try cleaning the ground glass (one wipe, VERY gently, with lens tissue and a drop of lens cleaner)! Or ask Björn Andersson what he recommends. I've also heard that the 6008 S - 9008 models have slighly different back focus than the earlier (purely French) 2008 - 5008 cameras. Some zooms, like the Angénieux 1,2/6-80mm and 1,2/6-90mm lenses, are VERY narrow in the wide end, so you can only use the big series glass filters, that you can put INSIDE the original Angénieux short two-part lens hood. Bengt

Hi Fredrik, The best thing to do is to phone (or e-mail) Mr. Björn Andersson at Filmkonsult AB, in Hässelby, Sweden. He is the "The Man" on all things Beaulieu, having worked there in the past. He services all Beaulieu cameras and projectors, and he has done wonders for my 4008 and 5008 (and R16) cameras. His phone number in Sweden is: +46-8- 38 10 74 (during daily business hours, 9 am to 5 pm) and e-mail address: bjorn.andersson@brevet.nu He is very well versed in English, so no problem there. I suggest you e-mail him first, and give him specific questions - he might be able to just give you advice, or if you need service on the camera, he'll give you his postal address and a cost estimate. IF you need service on the camera, his terms are very reasonable. He will always give you an estimate, before starting any work. Tell him I sent you. All the best, Bengt in Stockholm :)

Hi Tommy, Thank you for that clarifying reply. That is most reassuring! No problem, then, to use the FULL potential of the wider format. And thank you so much for the gate format specs - I will draw some diagrams around that, and play around with aspect ratios. Best regards, Bengt in Stockholm PS. Regarding the movie I was referring to earlier, I found some more info on it on the 16mm forum here at Cinematography.com: "THE DRAUGHTSMAN'S CONTRACT (shot in 1983) by Peter Greenaway, photographed by DoP Curtis Clarke with an Aaton Super16 camera, Zeiss primes and the (then) new Cooke Super16 Kinevarotal 10,4-52mm zoom" (A bit off-topic): At Cooke's web site, one can read about the zoom lens above: "This lens was first used by American cinematographer Curtis Clarke to film "The Draughtsman’s Contract," the first technically and commercially successful Super16 feature to be made. The lens offered advancements in filming under difficult lighting conditions in 16mm and Super16mm formats. It began production in 1983."

Hi Lasse and Tommy, What is your reasoning, or thoughts, behind the current round corners of the LOGMAR prototype camera's gate? Is it harder or more costly to produce gates with sharp-angled corners? I would imagine that the end result of most user's of the upcoming production camera would be 1,78:1 (16x9) or thereabouts, being presented on a screen or TV panel. Then there might just be a problem, if you really want to use the FULL potential of the SuperDuper-8/MAX-8 format, from close to the sprocket hole over to (or at least very near to) the other edge of the film. (I will try to measure this on my screen, to be sure). However, if your objective is feature film cinema theater presentation in a 1,85:1 ratio (or wider still) there wouldn't be a problem. But I am very much in favour (inconsistent BrE and AmE spelling here, I know) of the beautiful (in my view) slightly 'higher' European theater format of 1,66:1 aspect ratio (about the same as Super16 native camera format), which is roughly what we are seeing in the first video sample from the prototype LOGMAR camera. A fine film example (one of my personal favourites) in this ratio, by the way, if you'd like to see it, is The Draughtsman's Contract by director Peter Greenaway - the first feature film shot in Super16, on an Aaton camera, and 'blown up' optically (before the days of the Digital Intermediate) to 35mm distribution format. (It might have been cropped slightly for distribution in the US). It is simply breathtaking, even if there has been major advances in development of negative film stocks since the late 60s (Vision3). IF I were to buy a LOGMAR camera, I wouldn't want to start filing away at the corners of the camera gate by hand (God forbid!). So, would it be feasible, early in the production stages, to modify the existing gate to more sharp-angled corners, or at least corners with a less pronounced round shape? Thank you both. Please forgive my ramblings - I am so thrilled with the possibilities of this camera! All the best, Bengt in Stockholm PS. By the way, please DO keep the in-built Nutrik XLR and 48V Phantom power contacts for professional Sennheiser shotgun microphones! Blimping the camera and lens (if it needs it) shouldn't be too difficult.

There's one thing that I instantly came to think of, with regard to various stabilization software, having seen it recently: When trying very hard to restore and read the rather fuzzy contents of the famous Regular-/Normal-/Dual-8mm film material known as "The Zapruder Film", which shows the shooting of president Robert Kennedy in Dallas in 1963, MASSIVE amounts of digital registration and filming stability error corrections in all directions (up, down, sideways) have been done to the material, to be able to clearly see what actually is going on in front of the film camera, which is held by hand and also panning. The original footage is INCREDIBLY shaky. This digital restoration can actually be viewed (before and after) on a YouTube video clip. Very interesting indeed to watch. It is quite astonishing what can be done to shaky film footage these days. With respect, Bengt Fredén, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

Friedemann, Could you please explain, as understandable as possible to us mortals, the type and degree of software stabilization that you applied to the scanned film sample? To what degree (if any) did it change or alter the original (photographed) Super-8 image, which is what I thought I was watching . .? Thank you. Bengt Fredén, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

Thank, you, Perry, for those very thorough replies to my questions. I much better understand the scanning process now, and the slight wavering or rather tilting sideways to the right of the whole image must then be attributed to the tolarences of the physical 8mm film, if I get it right? However, as you so eloquently explain, the sprocket hole on the film is ALWAYS relative to the camera gate, irrespective of varying film width or, as in the case which Friedemann so clearly shows us, of repetitive errors in the punching of the sprocket holes in the manufacturing of the original film stock. Film, after all, is a living, breathing thing..! Best regards, Bengt Fredén, photographer Stockholm, Sweden PS. I read, by the way, the whole of the PDF article (link in former Logmar thread) called "The Kink in The Cartridge", which is, although written many years back, extremely informative as to what actually happens in the merger of the Super-8 camera gate and the cartridge's inherent plastic pressure "pad" (not plate!), with the film suspended freely in between. Only three small points of contact, really. A lot can be learned from this article - most enlightening.

I have a question for Friedemann: From how many 50ft rolls of Vision3 50D negative was this sample footage composed? I assume it must be at least two rolls, as the whole footage is 3:46 min in length, whereas you normally only get a little more than 2:30 min on a 50ft roll (at 24 or 25 fps). I likewise assume that must have edited some of the cuts in FCPX? Because any physical cutting of the film (cement or tape splicing) might cause the film to shake or jitter sideways. Thank you, Friedemann, for sharing your findings. All the best, Bengt, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

Here's a thought: Perhaps a couple of extra meters/feet of END LEADER at the very end of the film would keep it in place better (sideways), as it is running out of the scanner?.. Bengt Fredén, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

Hi again, I watched the footage again, and it seems clearer to me now that it must be in the scanning process, because the whole GATE FRAME (the black border) rocks or turns very slightly sideways to the right, along with the image, towards the end of the footage. So, the camera's pin-locked registration is not to blame, of course. I read at GammaRayDigital's web site that the 2K fram-by-frame scanning of small format film is done with digital pin registration. The question is what guides the film sideways? Any takes on this, Perry? Bengt Fredén, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

Hi Lasse and Tommy, After viewing the sample test footage by Friedemann (over and over again) on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/87243287 looking very critically at the borders around the camera gate, there seems to be a VERY SLIGHT rocking sideways, or perhaps better explained as a turning/screwing in a central axis, especially at the very end of the sample, before the film goes completely out of the scanner. It is best seen in the scene near the end with the wall of the high building, that completely fills the frame. It looks like the image is turned or rocked very slightly to the right, viewed (as here) with the image the right way (it would of course be upside-down in the camera or scanner gates!). It would be really interesting to know whether this is something from some very minor play in the camera gate (I doubt it), bad film sprocketing from KODAK (as in fact seen in a recent test by Friedemann, with the very same film stock - Visoon3 50D), or some very minor play in the gate of the 2K scanner station at GammaRayDigital (film feeders or side springs/ sprocketless wheels?). At any rate, it is VERY MINOR (we are talking thousands of a millimeter of sideways play here!) and the camera registration vertically is still OUTSTANDING by any 8mm standard!!! Another thing that I find to be very important to address is whether the round corners of the camera gate can be omitted? To be able to maximize the usable area of the camera format (to gain the best possible quality from the SuperDuper-8 format), there is now a limit to how far out into the format corners you can go when framing the image for the final digital showing format. It is apparently as close as possible to the sprocket hole (as we can see from the very slight orange discoloration to the left in the scanned image). If the round corners can be filed out, lenses that cover a wider circle than the Super8 zooms do (at least at their wideangle end), for example many 16mm/Super16 zooms (Canon, Cooke or Angénieux comes to mind) or hi-quality prime CCTV lenses (like Fujinon) would project a bright image all the way into the very corners. Here's the interesting test that Friedemann made of the varying sprocket punching of the KODAK Vision3 50D negative film in 50ft cartridges: A final word: The amazing quality of this camera, and especially it's pin-locked registration movement, puts a lot of focus on the very best lenses obtainable (e.g. the Leitz Leicina Macro-Cinegon F1.8/10mm prime lens!), working with the best possible aperture settings of the lens in question (not so easy with 50D!), ultimate back focal plane calibration (collimation) of every lens screwed into the camera C-mount, extremely narrow tolerances in the making of the film material (KODAK will probably have to revisit this issue!) and of course extreme care (as usual) with the choice of the best camera supports (tightly locked camera plates, solid fluid heads, heavy-duty tripods, etc etc). The future of Super8 is extremely exciting! Thank you all. Bengt Fredén, photographer, Stockholm, Sweden

Lasse & Tommy, I just saw the first sample footage, produced by Friedemann Wachsmuth, and I was quite taken aback by it. It is PERFECTLY STILL!!! It’s absolutely mindblowing – there is no movement AT ALL at the image dividing line. And the wide image ratio of the gate is impressive, it even looks slightly a bit wider than MAX-8/ SuperDuper-8. (Can the round corners be omitted completely, though?) One thing is absolutely clear from seeing this footage: This sets A COMPLETELY NEW STANDARD for 8mm filming, especially in Super-8. In fact, it resembles 16mm or even Super16 very much. I have a recent example of what we are used to: I was watching a projected image just last night – a Super-8 film of Blackbirds just outide our kitchen window in winter, shot on the old fine-grained 50 ASA Plus-X Reversal 7276 *some years ago* (1977), with the best of my Beaulieu 4008 ZMII cameras (with the superb Optivaron 1.8/6-66), on a very steady MILLER wooden tripod with a fluid head, projected on an ELMO ST-1200 M/O (with a cleaned gate). I used the long-throw 1.4/25-50mm ELMO lens, which is very sharp, and I had a black cardboard disc in front of the lens with a smaller aperture opening in the center of it (5.6-8?) to bring out the best in the lens. Adjusting the frame line up a bit, so I could clearly see it in focus, I was standing just a few meters away, looking at that frame line for the duration of the film. And, as usual with cartridge Super-8, it is all over the place vertically. It widens and shrinks all of the time, and sometimes there is more pronounced jitter (usually at the end of a 50ft cartridge). The image is tack sharp, to the point where I can clearly see the the grain structure across the entire screen (about 1,8 meters wide), when the lens is focused at it’s finest (not easy on an ELMO!) – but the image stability is terrible, it just jumps up and down – not that much, but it is annoying enough up close… The footage of Friedemann's sample film (on scanned Vision3 50D negative) is something else entirely, quite another ballpark. A new kid’s in town! I want one, too... :) Thank you for sharing it with us. Regards, Bengt Fredén, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

It was obviously a success: http://www.directors.uk.com/about-us/news/uk-broadcasters-accept-super16mm-film-hd-channels It can only be a good thing, if BBC producers/directors (and DPs) can have a creative freedom of choice of media. In the US, commercial feature film director Christopher Nolan still always favors Super35mm over digital capture (ALEXA or RED). Here in Sweden, the 'Merlin' series has been aired for several years now, and it has always looked very, very good. The cinematography is also nice and tight, moving in close on actors during dialogue. Grading is first-rate. 'Poirot', during later years, has also been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, not only from narrative merit but also from a cinematography point of view. Long live Super16, Bengt in Stockholm

Hi Steve, Before you do this, contact Beaulieu service guru Björn Andresson in Stockholm. He will now what to use, and, if you are having problems re-assembling your R16 camera, he has reasonable rates and a fairly quick turn-around. Postal address, e-mail, and phone: Björn Andersson, Filmkonsult Svebaco KB, Vidholmsbackarna 54, SE-165 72 Hässelby, Sweden <bjorn.andersson@brevet.nu>, +46 (0) 8-38 10 74) Good luck! Bengt in Stockholm

Yes, Iluis! The Draughtsman's Contract (1983) is a masterpiece! I seem to remember that it was the very first full-length feature film where the Super16 format was used to shoot the actual scenes, which were then subsequently blown up optically and printed to 35mm release prints. The dynamic photo (with many central perspectives), sparse lighting and color saturation of this film really brings you back to the murky 17th century (indoors). I have it on DVD and I watch it now and then, for the beauty of it. I consider, by the way, the 1.66 : 1 ratio format as being one of the most beautiful - it is very proportionate and picturesque. Super16 was, as everybody knows, of course, first invented by Swedish DP Rune Ericson in 1969, for the Aäton 16mm sync sound cameras developed by Jean-Pierre Beauviala. All the best, Bengt in Stockholm :-)

Yes, Dan, If you remove the Reglomatic control motor housing from the Schneider Macro Optivaron 1.8/6-66mm lens (just unscrew the four little screws, tape them to their respective holes, and very carefully yank the whole thing off backwards). Put it aside in a plastic bag and mark it with the lens serial number. You will then find a small black lever with a rectangular plastic top that is used to engage or disengage the 'Macro' close-focus function. You can turn it sideways by hand. On this particular lens (and also later versions of the 1.9/8-64mm Angénieux zoom lens), you can use any focal length for macro shooting. However, on the 1.4/ 6-70mm Optivaron (which isn't as good as the 6-66), you can only focus in the 'Macro' region at the 6mm wide angle setting. I have taken off the Reglomatic motors on all my Beaulieu zoom lenses and when I use the big aspherical wide angle attachment lens (which renders the wide angle 6mm to a 4mm), this lever is used for critical focusing at 1 meter - when this is done, the depth of focus reaches almost from the front lens to infinity. This is very close to the normal infinity focus, so it's a bit tricky, because there is a sort of infinity locking groove inside the lens. Best regards, Bengt F

Hey, Richard, I might be interested in the Plus-X Reversal 7276 rolls, for some black & white experiments. I used that film in the 70s and 80s. Is it Super-8 in unopened boxes? I guess they haven't been stored in a freezer, so I suppose no guarantees for image quality? If I buy all eight of them, could you make me a better price sum? I live in Sweden, so a shipping cost will have to be added (plus customs and VAT expenses for me). Let's keep in touch! Best regards, Bengt :-)

Hi Matt, I use the light gray oval rubber BOLEX eyecups. They fit my Beaulieu 4008 and 5008 cameras perfectly. There's a guy from Israel that occasionally sells them on eBay for about $20. On top of that, I often have a small oval Chamois eye cushion, that I got from the UK in a bundle of 10 (eBay). And here is one oval rubber eyecup on eBay for larger cameras, such as ARRI, Canon Scoopic, Aaton, etc: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271102771266?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649 The BlueStar eyecushions (made in Toronto, Canada) are great for larger eyecups. They are the industry standard for ARRIs, REDs, Aatons, etc. They are made in Microfiber, Fleece and Chamois (which is a supersoft kind of thin leather, the kind you wax your car with). The Microfiber eye cushions are very nice and durable. Have a look at their PDF size chart here: http://www.bluestarproducts.ca/eyecushions.php Best regards, Bengt in Stockholm :rolleyes:

Jamie, Have you seen that this guy in Turkey is now offering a package deal on eBay with processed and one-light wet gate postive PRINTS from Vison3 50D Super8 (5 rolls plus reels and cans)? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KODAK-SUPER-8-FILM-7203-VISION3-50D-PRINT-PACKAGE-DEAL-/190790872327?pt=UK_Photography_Film&hash=item2c6c05ad07 It must be through the ANDEC Lab in Berlin, which as far as I know is the only lab that can do Super8 prints from a negative. All the best, Bengt in Stockholm

Will, How about this aspherical 14mm M42 Samyang lens? It's a little bit wider than the Kiev 16mm and almost rectilinear it seems (no fish-eye): http://www.rugift.com/content/samyang-14mm-f28-aspherical-lens-pentax.htm That might work fine on a K-3 (if the back focus is OK) and the dark corners on a full frame DSLR or SLR wouldn't be a problem on a K-3. Bengt in Stockholm :)

Will, Perhaps a bit off-topic, but as you mentioned the Aaton A-Minima camera it got me thinking about the future: At the moment, KODAK has only TWO films for the A-Minima, the Vision3 250D and the Vision3 500T negative stocks, having recently discontinued the crisp Vision2 100T. There seems to be no Vision3 50D to take it's place, although it is just becoming available in Super8 (January 2013): http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Production/Aaton_AMinima_Camera_Films/index.htm Who knows what sudden "portfolio" surprises the slowly dying dinosaur has in store for A-Minima owners . . ? We Super8 enthusiasts have seen the three finest stocks vanish in recent years (Kodachrome 40A, Plus-X Reversal 7265 100 ISO, and now Ektachrome 100D 7285 Reversal). Bengt in Stockholm

Hi Rodrigo, Unfortunately, Fujifilm has recently (September 13, 2012) decided to discontinue their entire production line of both negative (Color) and reversal movie film stocks, along with ALL black & white products, including the b&w still photography films: http://www.fujifilm....ws/n120913.html They are keeping the professional color still films, though, both negative and reversal (thank God!), for example the beautiful Velvia 50 ISO and Provia 100 ISO (E-6 process) films. So, there is still very good color transparency films out there for my analogue Hasselblad or Fuji 6x8 cameras, which I use now and then for the sheer beauty if it. All the best, Bengt in Stockholm

Steve, I checked with Wittner Cinetec in Hamburg, Germany, and in fact they do have complete new "eneloop" battery cells for the Beaulieu R16 camera - but scroll down the page and check out the price in Euros, it's quite stiff: http://www.beaulieu.de/start.html There are "eneloop" cells for the 4008ZMII and 5008 MS Super8 cameras as well. I will consider these when I get richer, because I am constantly re-charging the NiMH cells I have for these two cameras. I will give the usual AA "eneloop" cells a try first, though. All the best, Bengt in Stockholm

Steve, This DIY approach is really interesting. Very cleverly performed. I used to own an R16 camera in the 90s and I remember well how incredibly expensive the new bigger battery cells were back then. If you are using rechargable NiMH AA batteries, have you seen these new "eneloop" batteries: http://kenrockwell.c...nyo/eneloop.htm I have just ordered 20 of these from Amazon.co.uk, and I will give them a try in my various battery-eating cameras and hand flashes: http://www.amazon.co...d=AN7UD8BGDUSKP All the best, Bengt in Stockholm, Sweden

David, Is this by any chance the Cavision rod system that you bought? http://www.cavision.com/rods/minidv.htm I noticed, by the way, that the tubes are not aluminium as I sumised but carbon fiber here as well - light and perfectly straight. Are you happy with this set-up now that you have had it for a couple of years? Was there room, by the way, for a tripod socket directly in the bottom of the camera housing? I like very much that the underside of the Cavision plate has many tripod sockets and thus gives you several choices (four) of balancing your camera, zoom or prime lens, and matte box: http://www.cavision.com/rods/rearbracketbottom.htm -some tripod heads also do have long slits for the tripod screw, which gives you added balancing possibilities forwards or backwards. Furthermore, I read at the Cavision site that the Mini-DV rod system above had no horizontal adjustment. Did you have to take this into consideration when you determined where to place your tripod socket (if any) on the camera? So many questions . . . All the best from Stockholm, Bengt :)