Tom Chabbat

I've worked on some occasions with Color City. They're great if you're short on time, because it's the closest lab there is in Paris, and if you're sweet enough with them they can be really quick to process. Their prices are ok for processing, but expensive for scan. If you have more time, and less money, processing and scanning from Andec in Berlin is a cheaper option.

We really should focus on keeping those little marvels running instead of introducing new useless junk. But capitalist/industrialist societies have to make us believe we always need new things to make profits. They made us all believe newer always equals better.

Love your homemade work ;) but it doesn't look like it was milled but filed, am I wrong ? Right now I'm wondering about purchasing a milling attachement to my Unimat 3 to get the job done, I think that should do the trick... Has anyone modified himself a NPR, be it in S or U16 ? There's a LOT of screw around the gate and I wonder which are the ones I need to get off to put just the gate away. Still on the NPR, does the U16 modified units got a new ground glass with proper marking or do you just put a frame mask on the slot just before the ground glass ? (And how did you get the ground glass/make the frame mask ?)

I'm curious, how did you do it ? Do you have your own lathe or mill ? Or did you go to some workshop ? Which one of these formats you use the most in the end ?

Hi all, I was curious to know, is there anyone here shooting in the ultra16 format in Europe ? And if so, how do you get your conversion, film processing and transfer ? From the few information I succeed to gather it seems the only U16 friendly facilities are all based in the U.S. The most recent post of european filmmakers I found here comes back to more than four years ago, so I'd be curious to know if things evolved since, as I'm seriously considering adopting it. I'd very much like to see this format stepping a little more into the light.

You got my attention there... Do you have footage you shot at this frame rate ? I'd really be curious to see it. I don't think I ever saw something shot at 12 fps. I only suspect some shots of the 1977 japanese film "Hausu" (House) to have this frame rate, but can't confirm. Anyway I'm glad I'm not the only one terrified about going under 24... I just wish we could have more choice for the screenings, DCP standards. I mean, it's all about the possibility of going slower. I'm not saying everyone should use les than 24 fps but it would be great if those who actually want could.

I agree 16 fps may be too low, but a lot of people were quite pleased with 18 fps. But that's not my point. Of course with higher frame rates you'll have higher temporal resolution. But while we can always go higher, do we really need to do so ? Do we really need 30, 48 or 60 fps ? When people see a movie, do they think "aah, this was shot at 48 fps, it really made the film great" ? I think this trend to always go higher will cost us much in the long term. There's no valable reason to me to use higher frame rates than 24 fps. But I think going lower could help a little... Well, per second, 4 frames is not much. But over a whole feature film, it begins to be much. And over a lot of movies, well... 4 frames less is equal to 16% savings on everything. So when people are accustomed to something, we can't change it ? A generation ago we were all well accustomed to slower frame rates, and yet we changed it. So why can't we change it back ? I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking television's smooth pictures look crappy...

In this 1975 issue of American Cinematographer, page 1290, there's a good case for filming at 18 fps while recording sound for Super 8 shooters. To summarize quickly, it mentions that when movies with sync sound came, standard frame rate was changed from 16 fps to 24 fps because higher speed permitted better quality in the optical audio track. But with the advent of magnetic sound recording, good audio quality was possible at lower frame rates so one could make his Super 8 sound films at 18 fps. While reading it, I wondered : with today's digital workflow, audio quality being totally independent of projected frame rate, why not going back to "roots" and shoot 16 or 18 fps ? Why not pushing for a new, slower sync sound standard ? I'm thinking of this because the reduced frame rates would equal money and energy savings. Cameras would require less power, we would need less storage capacity, less CPU requirements for manipulating the workflow (not to mention time savings in calculations), and so on. For celluloid fans like me, benefits would be huge too as it would directly reduce the price per minute of the whole chain, film stock, processing, printing and/or scanning. In today's context with film prices always going up, a little disount would me more than welcome ! And for sound engineers, running at a lower speed would made the cameras quieter. The only problem I can see has to deal with HMI lightings. Unless you use some expensive flicker free ballast, being able to shoot at 16 or 18 fps with 50 or 60 Hz HMI would require some pretty weird shutter openings to get 1/50th and 1/60th exact speeds. To solve this, I thought adopting a 20 fps standard would be a good compromise. With this frame rate, you can use 50 and 60Hz HMIs with 144° and 120° shutter openings respectively. Being more than 16% slower than 24 fps it would mean at least 16% savings in film stock, which is quite important for most productions. I'm beginning to like the idea of 20 fps, it's round, decimal and it's right in the middle between 16 and 24 fps... The cost of adopting this kind of new standard would be negligible. A little firmware update for most digital cameras. MagicLantern's firmware already makes it possible. Modern 35mm and 16mm cameras can readily shoot this way, as their quartz regulation works at all speeds (only older designs prior to the 1990's may need some adaptation, but nothing too expensive I think). And at last an update for DCP standards. All we need to do is to join forces to push the whole cinema community towards it. It could really benefit to anyone. I'm aware I'm going here against recent trends in our trade to do always more. Trends pushed by Cameron or Jackson to shoot 48 fps. To use 4K, soon 8K resolutions. And a little 3D on top of it, just to double everything in case we haven't enough yet. And please use the biggest sensor possible of course ! The industry is so pleased we need always more new products... While I'm not sure these trends really make a better cinema, I'm sure slowing down would at least help the world to go a little better. In a context of environmental and energy crisis, isn't time for us too cinematographers to push for slower, more eco friendly standards ? I know standards are created by people. This could only work if a good part of us, including the most influent ones, goes for it. So tell me, would you consider shooting slower ?

Well I don't want to do this debate again, but from the footage we've all seen online, Logmar's results aren't sharper than other beautiful examples found here, and that should speak for itself. What I sense here is always a will to "bash" super 8, wether from guys like Tyler who thinks it's not professional enough, or by Logmar advocates implying Kodak's engineers would market a flawed system. Reality is, Super 8 was a popular format. But to some here, "popular" is a bad word, as bad as "amateur" or "enthusiast". Because it's cheap, it must be ugly. Because it was intended for everyone, it can't be used for anything worth the attention, for real, serious, beautiful work. I'm glad most artists don't listen to them, don't wait for someone to tell them what is a professional camera or not to use them, aren't afraid to use the same means most people have to tell stories for the people.

Carl, I don't know if you remember the debate, but people here, including the guys from Logmar, believed it would not only improve registration but the whole image quality ! They were all certain that the combined pressure plate and registration pin would deliver a better sharpness to their image. In my opinion it partly explains Logmar's demise, as people were expecting too much for a camera, forgetting, as I said, that image quality is a function of the lens and film stock combination only.

Mirror shutter has been available on super 8 camera since the very beginning with the Beaulieu S2008 in 1965. Same thing with "independent" gate as you call it, since Fuji Single 8 system was too introduced shortly after Super 8 in 1965 (and Pathé made Double Super 8 cameras in the same period). Crystal motor lock came as early as 1971 when the folks of Super 8 Sound began adding crystal modules to existing cameras. You can read their story there. This document is very interesting because it shows how even in the 70's there was a push to make Super 8 more "serious".

That's a point I was trying to make when the Logmar guys were still developing their camera. Some guys here thought adding registration pin and an more traditional pressure plate would somewhat magically improve the image quality. Of course when first sample shot was released, all could see it looks the same as the best super 8 videos we've already seen. Because the quality of a film motion picture all comes down to filmstock and lens. What really is the super 8 look ? An ultra cropped 35mm film with a 1960-70's zoom lens. I think the picture instability we observe in super 8 does not come from the films sprocket holes or cameras but from our digital era. Films always looked to me rock steady when projected the "old way", via a film projector, but it's when we transfer it digitally that problems show. As explained above, They ARE the same format. Only the cartridge design differs.

You nailed it Carl, Super 8 is for film nerds ;) Tyler, being mean won't prove your point. Artists and nerds having fun are to me much more enjoyable than "pros" doing commercial stuff.

I don't understand why most people here are so attached to the "professional" word. As if what you make only counts if you get paid for it. I don't mind using an "amateur" format or "amateur" cameras. If they can get me cool pictures, that's all I'm asking for. Is there a lot of people here getting paid for their super 8 footage ? The extremely rare times I do get paid for super 8, it's never for having sync sound dialogues with ultra clean and steady pictures. It's for having THE super 8 look, this amateur look I find so terribly cool. I'm not afraid to say that most times I use super 8, it's for myself. I don't care getting paid or not for it. I do it just because I like it. Humans made art before they invented money, so we don't need money to make art.

I wonder if Kodak will succeed making more than 50 camera ;) I think consumerist logics don't apply in the graveyard of consumerism Super 8 is. In such a community, what we need to keep it alive is not new cameras with always more electronic crappy stuff packed inside, but more people to repair the old ones. We have to stop producing things we don't need and take care of what we already have. And if we really need a new camera, we should think in the long term, how to make it durable, easy to maintain and repair for every owner, make it open source so information won't be lost. To me a LCD viewfinder is nothing but future proof... I really don't want be in Logmar owner's place in 50 years when all its electronics will be impossible to replace, while I'm sure some B&H 2709 will still crank !

That's quite a romantic view of how things worked but simply not true ! We have to remember that in 35mm there's not a lot of depth of field, so there was from the beginning ways to achieve precise framing and focusing. How did they achieved this ? Simply by looking through the film gate, with film itself used as a ground glass. That's how framing and more importantly focusing was achieved in early camera. If you read french, there's the original manual of the Cinématographe Lumière online, see page 14 how it was focused.

Ok so maybe it was a little too easy at first sight ! The Perfectone crystal is sadly nothing like the ACL. At first I couldn't find it. I was looking for the metal enclosure crystal like the one on the ACL or any electronic circuit i'm used of. Then I wondered about the vacuum tube I found... Could it be it ? A quick internet search confirmed that some quartz crystal can be found in vacuum tube enclosures. But the one I have is wrapped into some old foam, so I can't say for sure yet. The foam is held tight against the tube by two soldered wires, and as I'd have to remove them to access the tube, I thought it'd be wiser to ask some advice here first before doing anything stupid. Here's what it looks like : The tube has 7 pins, I wonder if messing with those could easily alter the frequency... On the back of this board, you can see written : "base de temps quartz 20900" (time base in english). Seems to be the frequency, but it's not specified wether it could be 20.9 kHz or mHz (seeing similar vintage crystals, I'd say the former). Anyway I fear finding a matching crystal for 24 fps (something like 20,064 kHz) will be next to impossible with this kind of obsolete electronics. But seeing how big is the crystal tube, I doubt very much there was two of them in the 24/25 version, so there must be another way around ? Any insight ?

Wow thanks, it seems almost too simple ! I'm going to check if the same crystal frequency is used for 25fps in the Perfectone motor as in the ACL. Would love to hear how your mod goes too.

Hello Eclair fans, I have a little question that may sound stupid... I have on my NPR a Perfectone crystal controlled motor but with a single speed of 25 fps, and I wondered if it was possible to "hack" it to add 24 fps... I know this motor was made in a multi speed version (like this one), and I'd be curious to know how different are the electronics from one version to another. Maybe we could compare the motors with someone who have the multi speed one or even the fixed 24 fps version ? What do you think ?

Addendum, there's also a brief mention of the 1913 patent in the Lusznat article...

Before you go any further, you should make a simple search in google patent. You will discover that yes, ARRI did not "invented" per say the reflex shutter, but neither did Bell & Howell. There's actually at least a dozen patents ranging from the 1910's to the 1930's of various origins and countries. The reflex shutter was an old idea floating around. Bourdereau apparently made a reflex camera as early as 1922 (source here). If you can read german, there's a good story about it here, citing a 1913 german patent (if you still have doubts about german engineering). What ARRI actually did is to develop a method to successfully mass produce it. They certainly took some inspiration with the then successful Eyemo as they wanted to make a lightweight, portative model, but the link does not go further.

From my experience, networking and reputation are not all. I worked almost 10 years as a camera assistant working on various commercials and music video, hoping that I will rise naturally to the upper echelon (DoP, that's right) with a good reputation. But it never happened. One day, after a shoot, one director told me : "You're good, you actually seem to know more than the DoP. Why don't you become one ?" I stupidly answered : "Because no one asked me to." That's when I realized that my network only saw me as an assistant, and people only asked me to do this job. Because when you're an assistant, the people who call you are mostly DoPs, and they don't want you to make their jobs. If I wanted to be a DoP, I needed a whole different network. And the best way to build a network from scratch as a DoP, is to show people your work. So I worked first for free on some student shorts, then used the best footage for my demo, and that's how I found actual paid work as a DoP. It's true that most of jobs are given based on what people say about you. But when people don't know you, you have to show them something. And there's always some young directors who don't happen to know a good cinematographer and who will look for some fresh and young people like themselves, and it's with these people you can build your network.

Friedmann, Your insults are not a way to prove your point. I'm aware that I lack some informations, that I don't know everything, but who can really claim it ? I'm not ashamed of it, I'm just asking questions, because, apart from Jean Louis and Erkan, nobody seems able to provide actual proofs of what they're saying. Again, I want to see some critical test results, some serious articles. I'm not all new to this world, but as we experienced with Jean Louis' article, vintage super 8 documentation is hard to find nowadays. I know there's also Tommy on the team, but he's not the one we're talking to. I asked about Lasse's motivations, not Tommy's. I read too that they initially wanted to make a 16mm camera, but as the market is declining more rapidly, they turned to Super 8 instead. Put this way, it sounds like a marketing move to me. My whole point is that I find it difficult to believe that Super 8 is this flawed, with so many talented people having working on it, be it on the manufacturer or user side. Friedmann, I understand your point about newer film stocks not being the same, but do you think the Super 8 cartridge was only made for Kodachrome ? I thought that from the start they used different stocks, with a black and white emulsion too. Please, do not insult me this way, there's an actual person behind those word. Filming, being Super 8 or any other format, has always been my passion, and being curious by nature, I tend to ask questions. This is not by sounding condescending that you'll prove to me you actually know what you're talking about. You'll just seem rude. So again, sorry to ask questions, sorry for sometimes being wrong, but I feel I help this way other people to better understand what's going on. Without my "pathetic reluctance to accept simple fact", we won't have seen Jean Louis' article or Erkan's specs they had. Don't you think it's good sometimes not to blindly accept everything as true ? To try to know how things really work ?

Lasse, I all agree with you, some people sometimes buy on a feeling, on an impression. But "some", not "all". If you look at the specialized literature of the time, like "Popular Photography" or "Movie Maker", you can see that nonetheless they tested the cameras, and wrote articles about picture quality, because a lot of people cared as much as us today for picture quality. They compared models. Even serious cinematographers of the time used sometime Super 8, be it for personal use or even work. I saw on Friedemann's blog that you "never shot super 8"... Is that true ? Maybe the reason you feel it's cheap is because you didn't actually tried it. I can assure you, having (and still) used it a lot of time, it's not as bad as you may think. Now that I've seen this statement, your product makes me feel a little uncomfortable, because I thought it was at last a product made by someone like us here, a real enthusiast that love the format. Now I can't see clearly your goal if you won't use it, apart from just making money. You too are trying to sell a product here. You too put a wealth a feature to appeal to us. "Pressure plate, sprocket feeding, register pin" are too words to make the potential buyer comfortable. I don't want to prove anyone right or wrong here, so be it clear. I'm just using some critical thinking to better understand your product, to see if it really is better than what we already have as you claim.

Oh I see now what you meant for the sound. Actually, recording of sound depends too of the film running speed, since the magnetic stripe is on it. So if there was erratic running of the film, it would have impacted on sound, like when you play back a record at a lower or higher speed.