Carl Looper

Yes, the timecode on optical track is a very robust and portable idea. In the alternative that I ended up building, screenings required that a custom projector be used. The downside of this was having to have this projector accompany the film on it's tour. For the custom projector I attached an encoder to the drive shaft of the projector which would feed frame count to the computer. The film had leader with handwritten numbers across about 30 frames. I'd lace up the projector and have it stopped somewhere in the middle of this leader. Whichever frame happened to be in the gate, I'd enter this number into the computer, at which point the system was primed. All that was then required was to start the projector, and off it would go. The software I wrote varied the rate at which the sound played according to the rate at which the projector played. If the projector ran slow, then the sound would run slow. If it ran fast, so too would the sound. Indeed, if the projector ran in reverse, so did the sound. I didn't use any pitch correction but that was certainly considered. However tests demonstrated that it didn't really need it. Or at least I couldn't pick any problem, but perhaps some good ears in the audience might have been able to pick a slight difference in pitch to what the sound should have otherwise been. With timecode printed on the film's optical sound track, it means one doesn't have to take a particular projector to a given venue - just the custom audio-to-computer cable - where one can just use projectors and audio systems already available at the venue. Coinicidentally I'm working on an Auricon next week, where I'll be fitting a rate encoder to it. Like a projector, the auricon doesn't run exactly at the rate it otherwise should, so we're using the rate encoder to vary the sound recording to match whatever the auricon rate happens to be during the recording. Will eventually (I hope) test a timecode encoder/decoder for it as well. For future projects that might use this method. C

Oh certainly. One is dealing with a whole range of expectations. Sometimes, of course, there is an obvious mistake, ie. it's obviously meant to work this way rather than that way, eg. the computer crashing when you click on a particular button is obviously not going to be something anyone wants. Such problems are really easy to solve because every ones on the same page (ie. nobody wants it). All that's required is a fix. It's everything else that is a more difficult problem. What features should the software have that it doesn't yet have? How should it behave? Anywhere there is a difference of opinion one has to weigh up what to do. In short, it's not a computational problem. It's a "political" problem. Once that's solved the rest is just computational. C

Yes, printing timecode on the sound track is a good idea. I was going to try that last year, but didn't get around to it. A lot of good ideas such as these get discussed but end up being shelved - not because there is anything wrong with the ideas - but becasue there's a kind of barrier that exists between an idea and it's implementation - requiring a kind of spark to occur - that will jump start one out of the world of ideas into the world of actually doing it. :) C

Hi Tyler, I'm sure Logmar wished they could sell more cameras than they did, and as such one could call the result somewhat unsatisfactory. However, it's not like the old days where you have to sell a lot of cameras to make back your investment. I don't really know what Logmar's investment was, or if they made enough to make it all worthwhile, but they said early on they needed a certain minimum order to go through with the cameras and they got their orders. And they went ahead with it. So I don't see what the problem is. You say "nobody wanted the camera" but if nobody wanted it, they would not have gone ahead with it. It's as simple as that. And in the grand scheme of things it need not matter. The camera can easily be regarded as an experiment, which tested out the idea of making a camera, and selling it. And out of such an experiment it can (and did in fact) position them for better business opportunities. In the same way that young filmmakers might make a film off their own bat, or young actors might do some gigs for free on a couple of short films, so that they can use such work as a demo or show reel. It's an investment, which need not pay off in the short term, but might pay off in the long term. Or not as the case may be. It's a gamble. But that's just the way these things are. And as for a camera targeting a retro/hipster crowd - well I don't have any problem with anyone doing that at all. Why should I ? It's of no interest to me. But I don't see why anyone should have any problem with a camera that targets the market to which I belong. Why should anyone care at all? I have has much right to desire a custom gate registration pin Super8 camera as a retro/hipster has to desire a camera in which the end result is (according to you) unimportant. This whole debate is just completely silly. The camera is what it is. One could just as equally argue the Logmar isn't a cup of coffee, and hold it to account on that basis. That's the ridiculousness at which your argument is effectively operating: that the camera isn't a chicken roll. That's not the camera's problem. That's your problem. Live with it. C

Yeah I'm right into it. The optical printer is one I've built myself from various components, including 3D printed parts. It's fully programmable using software I've written myself, with programmable motion control over the lens and camera. The sound track I did for my last work (on 16mm) was done using double system sound in which the soundtrack plays on a separate sound system while the film runs through a projector. A digital sync system maintains sync between sound and film. This simply allows for a more complex sound track than that provided by an optical sound track, and it can be any number of tracks, but I just did it as a stereo track for the last film. However a friend has a large number of huge speakers that don't see much action these days - so we're thinking of making a film where we have a large number of speakers for the screening - and therefore a more complex sound track to be prepared for such. That would be awesome. Regarding aspect ... If the blow up makes the width of the source fit the width of the target, the result on 16mm will have black bars top and bottom. But if one blows it up where the height of the source fits the height of the target, there won't be any black bars - one just loses the sides of the source. Will probably just use 4:3, no black bars. C

Yes, testing is good. In the area I work, I write software and this gets sent to a tester who has absolutely no idea of how the software works - which is actually a good thing, because they are free of any assumptions I've otherwise built into the software. They'll bring their own assumptions to the software and in doing so are able to identify anything in the software that clashes with my assumptions. And any clash is a good idea to address, because it means that same clash could occur elsewhere, ie. in other users of the software. As a programmer, I know exactly what I'm assuming because I will have formalised it all in black and white. It's there in the code, staring me right in the face. The tester has no such access. They don't know how to read the code. But they know how to run the code and test it. And they can come to me with anything they find differs from what they were expecting. And we can, together, change it - if required. But some testers think it's only their preconceptions which matter - and what's worse, that anything different from such must be some sort of incompetence on behalf of the programmer. Even though they couldn't write a program if their life depended on it. Some testers also don't quite understand that what you write determines exactly what the result will be. A producer with whom I was working once (who came from a backgound as a software tester) asked me to test some code I'd written (as we didn't have a tester) and I said to him - look you do it - I already know it works - you don't. After a lot of shouting and me walking out he eventually sat down and tested it - and unable to find any fault in it, spent the rest of the day playing it over and over again, convinced there must be some fault in it. But the only reason there was no fault in it is because we both had the same expectation of what the software should do. The difference is that I could implement that expectation whereas he couldn't. And no amount of testing was ever going to change that happy state of affairs. But he spent all day trying. I felt very sorry for him. Not that the prick would ever understand that. C

Nice.

Tyler isn't really an idiot. He just gets carried away by outrageous things from time to time. No different from me in that regard.

Ha ha. I won't shoot you. I can't speak for anyone else but I've been very slow to shoot anything on the Logmar. My films, these days, take a long time to gestate. And I had been working on a 16mm film that took up most of my time last year (amongst many other things). It was going to be shot on the Logmar but delays in the arrival of the camera had me investing in 16mm for the project. In terms of the Logmar itself there were issues around the software in the initial stage, and in my case the battery proved a dud (was a third party battery, nothing to do with Logmar) - which was eventually replaced. I also had issues burning new software onto the SD card - again, not Logmar's fault - just my computer at the time. The only other issue was the experience some were having in loading the film. It requires one to follow a particular proceedure, which if you don't do it correctly, can result in misloaded film - just like you might encounter with a 16mm camera, if you are not practiced. That put me off for a little while. Tyler will no doubt jump in here and have a go at the Logmar for not being a "Super8 camera" in this respect. To which I'd just say well, okay, it's not a Super8 camera. So what? Nor is it a hamburger. How does that change the price of fish in China? In any case, I'm locked into shooting some film on the Logmar this coming weekend. Stock has been purchased. The lab is primed. It's all set to go. However you won't see any of this on youtube or vimeo etc. because the neg will be taken through an optical blowup to 16mm, and screened in that way. C

50 is better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick - to use an Aussie expression. Tyler says Logmar made "50 prototypes" and then sold a "perfected" version of this to Kodak. This is simply not true. He just makes this rubbish up and recycles it as if it were true. I've spoken to the real life, living and breathing people behind the Logmar, and I can tell you this just aint so. But Tyler thinks opinion is somehow more relevant than what is actually so. He also says "many were not sold". Well, the only ones not sold are the couple still available from Pro8. I don't know how many that is. I was told it was only a few. But perhaps Tyler can enlighten us. The Logmar's that were built were not prototypes. A protoype was built prior to the 50 that were made. And this went on tour, and field tested and on the basis of such, 50 release versions were built. Or we could call them "release candidates" because if anything needed changing down the track, in subsequent runs, these 50 would be changed. But nothing needed changing. And so the 50 became the release version. The only thing that needed any change was the firmware - which can be downloaded over the internet. Secondly the Kodak camera is a completely new design. This is from the horses mouth. I've spoken directly to the "bloke in the garage" about this. It's a completely new design. The main difference is that it doesn't employ a separate gate. Most of the way in which the Logmar differs from a conventional Super8 camera, is around the custom gate and it's pin registration. Tyler's criticism of the Logmar is completely stupid. He says "when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up." But for the Kodak camera, he has no such requirement. "When they go out and shoot super 8", he says "the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output." Tyler is an idiot. But I can't stop reading his material. He's just far too funny to ignore. C

This film isn't my cup of tea. A bit too ambient and dreamy for my taste. To be blunt I want to be sick watching it, but that's just me. I couldn't watch it to the end. Give me Tyler's rough and bleak work, shot on an old video camera, than this film. But leaving that all aside, and appreciating simply the image quality of this work (which is very good), would you buy the camera that was used to shoot this film, if the camera looked like it was built by a "bloke in a garage" (even if it wasn't) - and assuming all else being equal (price, ergonomics, etc). Many people I know do in fact buy cameras for their look - camera collectors, who appreciate the look and feel aspect of such - or even the technological aspect of such for that matter. Vintage cameras will provide a connection to history as much through their creative look and feel as their technical aspect. Normally such cameras tend to become display items, but as such they can nevertheless provide much inspiration. Or indeed be used to make a film. I would not want to deny any of that. But reciprically I would not use any of that "commodity fetishism" (for want of a better term) to deny the usefulness of some more mundane, or even ad hoc, yet perfectly functional camera. I have heaps of ad hoc equipment I've acquired or built myself that yields exactly what I'm after. It's the film on the screen that matters most to me. I'm quite happy to jerry rig anything if it gets a particular result I'm after. C

Inspiration is to be found anywhere, and if that includes one's tools that's fine. Where ever you can get it. I like the look of the Logmar because it looks like what it is: a very well designed camera. But if it didn't look like a well designed camera, yet was still well designed, then I'd still like the camera. The stuff I machine in my garage is well designed, but doesn't always look well designed. However I'm the client for such, so I don't have to convince myself, through the look and feel of the parts, as to whether it's well designed. Carl

The reality is that, despite what Tyler might think, the Logmar was a success. There was a particular market for the Logmar, at it's particular price point, and this market consisted (as far as we can tell) of buyers for 50 cameras worldwide. They were pre-ordered by individuals and by Pro8 for resale. The cameras were made and everyone who bought into that (one assumes) is happy. What on Earth is there to complain about ? The only complaint I've heard, is that some who wanted to eventually get a Logmar feel they have missed out on such, because Logmar decided to wind up production. But there are still a few remaining cameras available: http://www.pro8mm.com/super-8-cameras/logmar-super-8-camera/ C

The camera is what it cost. Making things below cost can be an effective strategy when you have some longer term strategy, or some wider strategy, that can recoup that cost elsewhere. For example, I'll work for a month, for "free", on something, if I can make good on a bet that otherwise recoups that cost elsewhere. And who the fcuk cares what a camera looks like! So many self conscious filmmakers out there, scared shitless they'll look silly working with a camera that isn't also the latest fashion accessory. Myself, I find the Logmar looks just fine. It certainly doesn't look like it was made by this mythical "bloke in a garage". It's incredibly well machined. But even if we were to agree with such a quip about blokes and garages, as long as it's ergonomic and can get the job done, who cares. There's an important method in industrial design called "form follows function" and it's a very economical method, with it's own particular aesthetic that can be appreciated. The Logmar is very much along these lines. Of course, the market place doesn't necessarily agree with such. Doesn't mean they are right - just means their needs are louder and one can make more of a living satisfying such. The Kodak camera (and Tyler prefers it over the Logmar) is all about addressing this wider market, who don't necessarily need those extras engineered into the Logmar. I'm not sure on what side of the equation Tyler is operating - buyer or creator. As a buyer he seems to prefer a better viewfinder over a better gate system. I assume that's so he can use his brain, instead of the film, as the encoding medium. C

I'm not aware of any issues with the rollers, or with non 24 fps shooting. Everyone with a Logmar is on a private facebook group where we discuss the camera, and these issues haven't ever come up. Logmar did do a tour with their original prototype, prior to the 50 that went into production, and with which Freidemann did the first public test roll. Perhaps it was the prototype that had such problems. But yes, production ceased after the first 50, but only because there wasn't any more orders - not because there was anything wrong with the camera. It's a solid camera. Since then, Logmar partnered with Kodak and they cooked up the new Kodak camera, which Phil from Pro8 calls the "Logmar Mini". However it's an entirely new design aimed at your traditional Super8 user. Logmar were mentioned in the original Kodak PR and Logmar confirmed their involvement. But with people like Tyler thinking Logmar is some "bloke in a garage" I suspect Logmar are keeping their involvement more circumspect. God forbid the Kodak brand be associated with some bloke in a garage. Ha ha. Of course, Tyler himself is a bloke in a garage, but Tyler is proof himself that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a bloke in a garage. C

Yes, the clipping in the highlights is horrible eh? But it doesn't really matter. One of the great things about making a film/video is that it really doesn't matter what you use. You can make a work with anything really. You just work with what you have, and get the most out of it that you can. I can't say I "enjoyed" the video (it's a bit bleak) but I couldn't stop watching it, so in my books that's a success. As for the look, it doesn't look anything like film at all, but whatever you want to call it, it is a particular look, and that's all it needs to be. Who cares if it looks like film or not. As long as one is happy enough with it, that's all that really matters. And if not that happy, (are we ever happy?) there's always the next film. C

Max8 doesn't have any more vertical headroom over the traditional Super8 frame. The Max8 frame expands the frame sideways (into what was originally the sound track area). However if targeting 16:9 delivery there will be some unused headroom area. But then if targeting 16:9 the traditional Super8 frame would have even more unused head room. I have a Logmar. It's not a prototype. The cameras were sold as part of a beta program, but were all complete in terms of hardware. It was only ever the firmware that was a beta version. And the firmware has been undergoing updates over time. Indeed with most software these days such can be treated as in an indefinite beta state. In other words, there never is any final version. There's only ever the latest version. The Logmar's registration is perfect. A double exposure registration test was done by Friedemann Wachsmuth in which the same cross hairs were exposed in two passes, and there was no jitter whatsoever between the two exposures. Registration issues occur in scanning because many scanners don't yet respect the same registration architecture that Super8 cameras use. One day we can assume that will change. But in the mean time, various software registration workarounds can be used. Either way the Logmar delivers a really sharp result because there's no breathing of the film during exposure. Super8 is not actually that much cheaper than 16mm. It's benefits are more in terms of convenience than anything else. C

That's a good way of putting it. C

A technique I've designed (but not implemented) is for a quasi-analog green screen setup for film, using a hybrid digital/analog system. The camera original material (so called "plates") are analog acquired, and analog printed, without any digital intermediate. In other words the image content, from acquisition to projection, is entirely anlog. But the compositing mattes employed during the printing process are from a digital intermediate printed to film. The result is that it is only the seams in the projected result that are digital. The image content is otherwise fully analog. The technically interesting part of the process is printing the digitally generated mattes on film, because they need to (obviously) exactly match the analog image physically on the film. Solving this problem was the difficult part. All I have to do now is just implement it in reality. C

Richard Feynman is great. His work in quantum physics is awesome. I'm not sure about what is being argued in the second video. Analogy is a really important aspect of film making. What is a photographic image if not (amongst many things) an analogy? The interviewee in the video is assuming that the source of any analogy is that which is already given. But one of the most important things in cinematography is actually creating that which will be the source of the analogy. What is proactive lighting if not altering the given. In many ways the result is always new in the sense it's always unique (can't be repeated in quite the same way). Unless of course one is shooting something like a test chart. Secondly, first principles don't guarantee any external assumptions will be correct. But before getting to that, first principles are definitely a good idea. For example, they allow one to re-derive something from scratch, where one might have otherwise misplaced a rule of thumb, or a more complex formula. I'm often going back to first principles simply because I can't find some particular book in which a derivation was otherwise documented. But I'd certainly prefer if the book wasn't misplaced. Would be a lot faster. But it's also the case that a previously derived formula may not be quite relevant to a given task. One may have to go back to first principles in order to derive a new branch more specific to the task at hand. While mathematics is incredibly useful it's almost invariably incapable of being a full solution, because in it's practical application, it works with assumptions outside of mathematics - and those assumptions can easily be incorrect. For example, one might design some setup in which various factors have been mathematically solved and realtime software written accordingly, but some "idiot" responsible for building the setup decides it won't matter if they tweak the design a little. He's run out of wood and makes a workaround, and doesn't tell anyone. Without attention to such possibilities a mathematical solution can end up idealising otherwise incorrect assumptions in play (such as a builder knows the purpose of what he's building). The math itself won't be the issue. In itself it's never wrong (we think). I mean, if you make a mistake when doing mathematics it's not the mathematics which will be in error. It will be because you will have done something that is mathematically incorrect (such as 2+2=5). Or otherwise made an incorrect assumption (turning up for an eclipse on the wrong day). One eventually learns to how take into account more than just the maths. To predict all the vagaries that can occur external to the maths, and factor such into a solution. To make a thing in such a way that it can be recalibrated on location to account for all the conceivable vagaries that could occur. Statistics becomes more important than mathematics in this regard. And in some cases, particularly quantum physics, there is no mathematical solution (it would seem) - there is only the statistical solution. Something Feynman would definitely understand. And thirdly, of course, mathematical solutions presuppose a problem, whereas a lot of creativity is about creating an interesting problem to solve in the first place. C

Here's a short doco on the behind the scenes work at my local cinema, in preparation for a screening of the Hateful Eight: And Tarrantino, Jackson and Russel even made an impromptu visit to the cinema a few days after the premiere, shocking the audience. Unfortunately I missed it. Was just the luck of the draw really. A friend texted from the cinema saying he was there. I almost thought of running down the road to the cinema to see them - but was otherwise engaged in some work I needed to get done. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/quentin-tarantino-shocks-fans-in-melbourne-20160119-gm8moz.html We're lucky here in Australia. Tarrantino likes our movies. And we like his. C

Ha ha. Which terms require elaboration?

When we speak of details, be they within shadows, mid-tones, or highlights, we're really talking about contrast, without which there would be no details. It is in the variation of light that we appreciate anything we might call an image. Without such variation (or contrast) we would have nothing but the same value across the entire visual field. In film noir, details were elaborated in the midtones to highlight end of the range, and otherwise 'suppressed' in the shadows. This had a lot to do with the nature of photo-chemical film and the cost of lighting - and particularly so during the war. But the filmmakers, instead of treating such as some sort of compromise, would exploit such constraints to find what would become a virtue within such constraints. There was a particular kind of reality that could be elaborated, which could resonate with otherwise independant cultural fascinations, such as crime. The shadows become devoid of information. The world beyond the walls disappears into darkness. It is as if there is no world out there at all. Or if there is, it is all just some sort of illusion, which, if we turned elsewhere, would return to the void from whence it came. There is a heavy emphasis on the psycho-logical as the ultimate if equally doomed frame of reference. But details operate at all scales - not just at the level of the small. While the darkness will be devoid of details, the darkness itself will become a "detail", in the sense that it will contrast with the remainder of the field. The shape of the blacks will become just as important as the lack of detail within such blacks. Now, while all of this is easy to understand using one's eyes, it's not impossible to represent these same insights (as well as many others) in numerical terms. Indeed it becomes completely necessary to do so in the development of digital post techniques. HDR toning will find it's basis in the mathematical representation of the various factors in play within such an otherwise sensory-perceptual field. Even in the analog domain a mathematical representation will facilitate analog precursors to such things. Things like digital sharpening, and indeed motion tracking (!) will find it's basis in the mathematics of analog techniques, developed during World War II aerial reconnaissance photography analysis. Does any of this matter, or should it matter to the cinematographer? No, not at all. But neither does it hurt. It's not in opposition to cinematography. It won't in anyway make you any worse at cinematography. C

No not really. The autopilot quip was actually quite good. :) C

I've often wondered at what the difference in meaning would be between the terms "resolution" and "definition". They are often interchangeable. I think the term "definition" was introduced to avoid abuse of the term "resolution". For example, one will often find references to resolution in terms of the number of pixels in an image. And while the number of pixels is related to resolution, it's not really what resolution is essentially about. Resolution is more about the sensors involved in some system (including lenses), rather than a display system. However the use of the term "resolution" in relation to a display systems is widespread, so even if it is an abuse it has acquired that meaning and so can be used in that way. It was used in the early days of digital - before there were digital cameras. One will find terms such as "hires" used to describe a display that might be 640 pixels vs a "lores" display that might be 320 pixels. I suspect the "abuse" of the term eventually annoyed someone enough for them to scribble out the term "resolution" and replace it with "definition". C