David Cunningham

Hi All, I'm replacing the jaeger connector on my ACL body with an XLR connector. However, I am finding that my existing jaeger cable appears to have no voltage OR ground on 2 of the pings. If you are locking at the connector on the body of the camera, the wide line key is on the top and the two pairs of tiny key notches are on the bottom left and bottom right. Assuming that and you go around the pings clockwise like this: 1 4 2 3 I appear to have ground on 1, 12v on 2 and nothing or 3 or 4. But, there are clearly wires going to the circuit board. I assume for the light meter or other function. Can someone tell me these pin outs so I can wire the new XLR correctly? Thanks! Dave

Heres one where you can see the plastic loop formers were taken out. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/necro4130/Picture005.jpg

Another thing about those K-3s. They were infamous for film path issues, especially faulty loop formers. Most rebuilds usual take the loop formers out all together and make the loader manually make the loops... which takes some paying attention to what youre doing.

To answer the question... camera is probably in need of a tuneup or was loaded wrong.

To me that looks like ever so slight variations in the film speed in the camera likely caused by tension in the film path somewhere. You can see that the flicker also appears to correlate with some slight frame registration jitter. Those cameras are very cheap and simple cameras with very little registration precision. Something like a Bolex with a trailing arm, a well tuned ACL or a pin registered Arri is not going to have those issues. But they are also $1K,$2K or more cameras. Not $100 cameras.

Does anyone have the inside scoop in ready player one? It looks like its half anamorphic 35mm and half 4K animated CGI. There is a 70mm release right now and it would appear to me that these prints were made from 4K digital intermediates of the 35mm footage. Is that true? If so, whats the point? Just watch it in digital 4K. If the 35mm scenes are optical blow ups to 70mm then I can at least see the point. But it looks likes thats not the case. Anyone know for sure? If its a 100% 4K digital source, what would be the advantage of a 70mm print?

Usually the biggest reason for poor image in Super 8 vs Regular 8 is the gate. A regular 8 camera has a proper gate and keeps the film flat in the gate during exposure. The film tends to flap in the breeze of the gate of a Super 8 camera. The cheaper the camera, generally the worse this issue is. Another draw back of cheap Super 8 cameras is crap lenses. Many of the later ones were actually plastic. Ick!

Video Film Solutions does this with their own home-grown system. I have never seen the results, but it sounds good: http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/film-scanning

Who is the one place? 16mm would be interesting too.

Thanks! The color grading is a lot of work, unfortunately. I probably spend more time doing that than anything else. It would be great if there was an HDR multi flash option for Super 8 reversal/print as it is hard to get all the fine details in shadows in E100D, Velvia, Provia, etc. The blacks do get muddied. But, it's still miles ahead of any other Super 8 scanner out there. Also, the camera options for the ScanStation continue to improve every year and new software for it makes improvements frequently too. For negative, it's pretty much perfect unless you significantly over expose the negative or have excessively bright highlights relative to your midtones. In those cases you can get some sensor noise in the highlights... but these are extreme cases. Also, being a color Baer sensor, it's technically not a true RGB scan. But, we're talking extreme details that would be nearly impossible for anyone to perceive, especially after grading.

grrrr

Does anyone know when tickets will go on sale for Dunkirk's 7.21.17 premiere? I cannot find it anywhere yet.

Perry/Gamma Ray Digital Super 8 scan examples using ScanStation: (reversal) (negative) Be sure to watch them in their full 2k or 4k settings even if you only have an HD monitor. It increases the bit rate and lets your browser downscale.

Thanks everyone! Good to know!

Interesting problem... I cannot even personally think of a pin registered scanner that scans super 8. I'm sure there must be/have been one, but I have no idea where that would be. If you find out, please post here as I'd be very interested to know. The only place I can think that might have that is Color Lob (formerly Video Film Solutions) in Maryland. http://www.colorlab.com They had a home built, pin registered, wet gate Super 8 system. However, I believe scans were quite expensive. Dave

Hi David, Yes, that's exactly my situation. What do you think about my questions related to this scenario? Dave

Hi All, I apologize if this has been asked/answered before, but I cannot find anything clearly dealing with this already in the forums. I understand the difference between Super35 and Full Aperture is simply the lens centering position. Full Aperture and Super 35 have the same full width gate but Full Aperture is lens mounts are centered slightly offset as if the gate were actually an Academy gate so that framing will be at the lens center when cropping for Academy. This is especially important in anamorphic shoots so you know exactly where the center of the squeeze is. True Super 35 has the lens centered on the center of the frame expecting a scan and crop, likely to 16x9 for HD TV. Based on my calculations, the difference in lens centering position would be less than 1.5MM off center to the non-sound track side of the frame. This seems like it will be pretty much meaningless unless you are shooting anamorphic or heavily zooming during a scene. When used with primes this offset is probably negligible and makes for no real visual difference, am I wrong? And, if I want to shoot anamorphic, the lens being centered for Academy means I need only frame my scan for Academy and now my anamorphic centering is correct. Right? In short, I'm asking because I have an Academy centered full aperture camera that I want to use for all purposes (Super 35 cropped for HD, Academy 35mm for anamorphic, etc). There is no real drawback (or reason to recenter the lens) unless I want to zoom mid shot when shooting full width Super 35/Full Aperture.... correct? Most of the time I would shoot with a prime or a zoom without zooming and scan the full width of the frame, then crop top and bottom for a wide-screen aspect ratio. Other than zooming mid shot, there is no real reason to recenter my lens for this, correct? Thanks! Dave

I have plenty of Super 8 film stored in their normal plastic cases in relatively cool and dry places since the 1980s. They are in nearly new condition (especially since most is Kodachrome). Even my E160 (Ektachrome 160 G) films appear to have no color shift yet that I can see. Unless your film was poorly stored (damn, hot, extreme changes in temp, etc) they should be in fine shape. Like Perry suggested, started to unreal one just a bit. If it's flat and pliable with no signs of fungus it's likely to be as good as it was in the 80s. I would go with any of those except the HD Spirit which will have very poor results with Super 8. They don't deal well with jitter or any warpage, etc. The Director would be a great option if you can find one that does Super 8. But, only the newest 10K version does Super 8. So, you might have a hard time finding that. Your best solution here in the US is the ScanStation (unless you can find an Super 8 Director which is HDR and full RGB). Definitely 4K... or, as I do, the fully 5K overscan that includes the frame lines and perfs. This allows you to do your own re-framing and image stabilization as you see fit. It also allows you to export to your desired final media be it HD, 2K, 4K, etc. It's true there is not 4/5K of "image data" on Super 8, but there is 4k/5k worth of film grain to correctly resolve. You might not gain "resolution" but you will gain "sharpness". Plus, as Perry pointed out, if you ever plan to have a 4K media output you don't want to be upscaling... always bad. I have worked with nearly all these companies (except Roundabout) and can say the overall experience with Perry at Gamma Ray Digital cannot be beat. Between cost, quality, turn-around, dedication and willingness to answer questions or concerns, they are the best. Again, if you can find someone with a Director 10K and a Super 8 gate, HDR is totally worth it for film prints/reversal. The subtle detail and reduced noise in the shadow areas is very noticeable. Otherwise, the ScanStation does a fantastic job. I send all my Super 8 to Perry at Gamma Ray... and trust me, I've been around the block. This is the most recent Super 8 reversal scan I had done with Perry: Dave

Unfortunately the aquarium and museum of science are domes... not going to be screening Dunkirk... and shouldn't. Wrong format. Providence is really our only hope.

There was a time when the providence location had 70mm... that time may have passed. Definitely isn't one in Boston, sadly.... definitely all FAUX.

Even a cheap blackmagic pocket cinema camera will blow away an iPhone. And excellent Super16 glass can be rented for peanuts.

I just hope I get to see it in actual 70mm IMAX. My understanding is that this is possible at the IMAX theater in Providence, RI but otherwise no where else close to Boston,MA.... and no confirmation hat it will actually happen there.

These sensors are far too noisy for a big screen and their compression is terrible especially with panning and fast motion. You will be disappointed. Just rent a decent camera instead. You'll spend far less time and money trying to get an iPhone to look cinematic. Those Bentley examples look terrible to me... cinematically that is. The people shooting and editing did a great job with what they had to work with.

Your budget is far better suited to just pay someone else with a good system. Perry at Gamma Ray Digital on his laser graphics scan station is very reasonably priced and will by far exceed any possible results you will get with a home $2000 system. You will have to transfer a lot of film at very high resolutions to get to $2000.

I have only ever seen this with batteries in backwards... in fact, it's really the only thing that can explain it (or the motor wired backwards by someone).