Tom Chabbat

Oh, and I almost forgot : Aside from sounding condescending, there were already actual "professionals" in those consumers, it was not only used for "amateur" purpose, if not Beaulieu wouldn't had sell much of its expensive cameras... Think of the engineers and technicians that were behind those products. Don't you think they wanted their design to work well, to be the best available, to make the finest product ? What was the point of making such marvels as the Angenieux 1.2/6-80 if it could not focus properly ? Or making the Nikon R10 ? The way you say it, people could just be happy with cheap instamatics. About the sound, I think you misunderstood, I never talked about it. The lines I'm quoting makes an allusion to it saying "gate tension has made any difference to the running or to the sound quality", but that's all. It was just here to prove neither running OR sound quality were affected by gate tension. This article alone proves that there were serious amateurs too concerned by image quality. Regards, Tom

Actually, the article Jean Louis provided us prove you both wrong. You can read in it those actual lines : "Subsequently I have exposed several cartridges of sound film in the camera, and I cannot detect that the increased gate tension has made any difference to the running or to the sound quality - exempt that the breathing effect at the start of the shots has now been completely eliminated". Actually, the whole point of this article was to suppress an effect only occurring "at the start of the shots". When running, the design worked well. Here's a passage of the article "The Coming Of Super 8", in Smallformat 01/2005, p. 29 : "Some 8mm users, thinking no doubt of past experience with 8mm magazines, were quick to point out the potential for trouble with the pressure plate being located in the film cartridge rather than in the camera and the possibility of film jamming in the cartridge. Neither of these fears was realized; the cartridge designers had done their work carefully. Millions of Super 8 users seemed to be quite satisfied with the sharpness of their films. Jamming or any other malfunctions due to the cartridge were extremely rare."

Thank you Jean-Louis for your priceless contribution ! I'm eager to look at some other articles you may find ! I tried to email you a PM but it seems you're not able to receive any...

Thanks Heikki, it was the link you gave I thought about ! Those are just viral publicity for design agencies or students, nothing else.

Beware ! I think it's just a study from independent designers, nothing concrete... Sometime design agencies create some "dummy" products rendering just to show off their skills, creating some kind of viral publicity for them. I remember of a similar april fish made by an other design agency for digital 35mm "flexible" sensor you could put on your old trusty SLR camera some years ago.

But I feel having those specs helps us better understand design principles and myths about super 8. I really feel that if such articles emerged a long time ago, Lasse wouldn't have go through the trouble of making feeding sprockets and separate pressure plate. Friedemann, really, I hope you have no hard feelings towards me, but you understand that when you said such things as "film is moving freely" and "gates are curved", I find it hard to believe you ? You were right that there was a gap, but all the explanations you gave were wrong, so it was difficult for me to understand. Again, I wish so much Jean Louis document would have been much more spreader on the net earlier so everyone could actually understand the design principles.

Thanks Erkan ! This topic really is becoming interesting ! What I learned from Jean Louis article is really new to me, I had never seen this simple explication anywhere before ! I didn't suspect film could use its curling tendency to hold himself in place during exposure. Thank you deeply again Jean Louis ! I think that the lesson of the day is that we need to share more serious information !

Oh, and I forgot to say... Film isn't totally free even with bigger tolerance ! As explained in the wonderful article Jean Louis provided us, the film's natural curl provides the necessary friction to stay in place. Again, it validates what I was saying : the smaller the format, the easier it is to achieve the wanted function. So when you say the film should move freely, it's again a big NO ! If it does, the film would always be blurry...

I see what you mean. My bad, I must admit I did not saw those little elevated parts. At last I can see some serious facts ! But still, film should not move this freely, the little support you show shouldn't exceed this much the film's thickness. What you show here is a very low tolerance plastic molded gate. No wonder film will have "breathing" problem. Now, make the same experiment with a Beaulieu gate. You will notice that with tight tolerance, well machined metal gates, the film won't move this freely. Actually, I just measured the difference of thickness between the film guides and the pad resting support, it's only 0.14mm, the exact thickness of acetate based color film. So, on these camera, the pressure pad will play his role, ensuring film does not deviate in depth from film plane with,thanks to those little supports you showed me, the less friction possible. This is certainly why the sharpest super 8 test results are with Beaulieu cameras. So, my point still is that if you are within the right tolerances, everything should work fine. And if you still want a "true" pressure plate, you can do a little grinding like suggested on the article, it should do the trick !

Here's a quick drawing I made. I hope it'll help a better understanding of the design. In figure 1, our pressure pad is pushing the film towards the chamber opening, thus preventing fogging as said. The arrow represent action of the spring. Fig. 2 : When inserted, the cameras gate, protruding inside the chamber, push back the film and with it the pressure pad. The film is resting against its film guide to reduce friction during pull down. Fig. 3 : How the film gate should look if it permitted the film to run freely. The pressure pad should rest on wider guides than those we actually observe. I gave you a little bonus to see the action of side clips on film. M. Seguin, I think your confusion came in the misinterpretation of the role of the film guides. If they were designed to push the pad away from the film, there would have been wider. Or you can see that they're actually in the path of the pull down claw. As the claw engages in the film perforations, those guide are then situated where those perforations are. So the film effectively rests against those guides, maintained on its back by the pressure pad.

Now we're talking ! Nice to have you here M. Seguin ! So now, we can all see that the pressure pad effectively push the film a little outside the cartridge when removed, preventing effectively fogging. All of you can see that when you insert the cartridge in the camera, the camera's film gate protrudes INSIDE the cartridge. So the pressure pad effectively rests against when aligned. Now, if you want your film to run freely between this pad and the film guides of the camera's gate, you must have another set of guides, wider than the already mentioned gate's film guides so the pad can rest on them without perturbing the film. Or, when I look to a super 8, I only see film guides, on which the film really rest since their path goes through the pull down claw. I'll try to make a drawing later so everyone can see clearly.

Really ? That's the only argument you can put ? This is really basic film transport design, you'll find the same design in most of 16mm and 35mm cameras. There's just no justification Kodak engineers would go with something else when there's already simple proven design.

Remember, the pressure pad is spring loaded. Springs have inertia, so there's always fluctuation. I've read your post. The "gap" Dom is describing is the same "recess" I talk about. When not in front of the aperture, the pressure pad push the film only on the lateral film guides, the said recess allowing the film to not have unnecessary friction when moving. When in front of the aperture, if you look closely, the little area surrounding the aperture is of the same thickness than the film guides, letting the film being placed evenly on the right plane. Never does the film runs freely ! Only Jean Louis talks about this gap, along with another misconception about the side clips function. They are not "grippers" to give the film some resistance, they are springs pushing the film laterally so it can use the opposite film track to limit horizontal movements of the film. Think of it this way : vertical movement is limited by the pull down claw height, horizontal by those clips and depth by the pressure pad. And here you have a 3 dimensional stabilizing system.

Andries, those informations are relevant because TOLERANCES are at the heart of our debate. When I said "somebody else", I was using your own words when citing the apparent source of Friedemann's statements. Remember : Now, please, READ the patent, I gave you the link ! Nowhere in it you can find anything about this 0.14mm film channel allowing the film to run free. The patent is not about a film cartridge which works without the need of a pressure plate. It's about a compact film cartridge which allow the film to run smoothly inside, despite the small size. Period.

I cannot thank you enough Erkan for your precious knowledge. What you say is totally relevant to my point. That premium cameras like the wonderful Nikon were made by skilled technicians and engineers who knew exactly what they were doing. The whole point of this kind of cameras was to have the best quality possible in Super 8. If the cartridge wasn't capable from the start to achieve what was required, there would be no point of putting such fine glass and precise gear around it. Don't underestimate japanese engineers from the 70's, they made in their time most the of finest manufactured products. I know you don't like it Erkan, but when you open it, the Fujica ZC1000 has the most beautifully machined gear I ever saw on a 8mm camera... The Beaulieu's internals seems so crude in comparison !

Thank you Erkan to give some actual precise information ! Read carefully people. This fluctuation is way bigger than the freedom allowed by Friedemann's "film channel", proving that even if it existed, it would be inefficient as film moves far beyond those specs.

Am I really the only to find that these unchecked statement don't make any sense ? Friedemann, when you say the film path is "concave", you do realize that if it really was, the film guide of the gate would push the film well beyond your 0.14mm "channel", pressing it against the "useless" pressure pad ? You do realize that only a small portion of the film would actually be concave, near the center of the image area, because the pressure pad behind it, being straight, could not make the film follow the form of the whole gate ? And if the film is not pressed against the gate, why do all film gates are machined with film guides and recess ? A straight plane gate would have the same effect. A 0.01mm difference between film thickness and your "channel" is a really, really tight tolerance, giving only a 0.005 freedom of movement on each side of film. To achieve that, cartridges would have to be machined extremely precisely, the molded plastic would be insufficient. Unless, like you all seem to think, Kodak engineers really wanted to sell a flawed design. People, please do not assume wild statements as actual facts, just because "somebody else" said it. Check the facts. Ask for the actual source.

Sorry Friedemann, but you don't seem to understand really well how the cartridge works... If the film is supposed to "run freely" as you imply, why putting a spring loaded pressure pad behind it ? Why even putting "pressure" in its name if it does not apply any ? A fixed plate would have done the same job. I know the ramps you're talking of, I've seen them on a R10. They DO NOT make the film concave. If you observe it closely, you'll see that their thickness in the end does not exceed those of lateral film guides, which stays STRAIGHT around the gate. And to prove it, photo of the R10 gate, and, bonus, of a M4 (which looks straight don't you think ?). What purpose really have these ramps ? Between the film guides and over and under the gate aperture, there's a recess so the part of the film which is not placed on the aperture have less friction when moving. The ramps just help to delicately put this part of the film over the aperture which is in another plane so it can then be held tightly between the gate and pressure pad. You describe very well that Kodak designed their cartridge so that the film has the right friction when moving. But you misinterpret the goal to have this "right friction". It is not to replace the pressure pad function, it is to assure the film, when moving inside the cartridge, forms the right loops so the pull down claw intermittent action does not perturbe the winding of film around the take up reel. You made me read the patent, you should read it too, all of this is very well explained. The patent describe very well the goal of this design. Here's the link for all of you who are interested in technical details ! :) But you've got one thing right actually, that the GK plate adds some friction to the film since it's pushing the pressure pad back, adding more tension on its springs.

But you really are a gold mine ! I'll let you dig then ! :)

Thank you so much Erkan ! I'm sure M. Lossau will have some precious insight. Let's wait then ! To bad the Soviet engineers you know won't help... Their knowledge bust me so valuable...

Erkan made a good point here ! As long as we don't make any serious tests, our "feelings" and "impressions" are not a factor for real quality judgement. I know Erkan you've collaborated with schmallfilm magazine (I loved your article about chinese cameras), do you know if there's ever been in their archives an article about regular/super/single/double super 8 comparison ? I can't believe this hasn't been done before... We could align together a Beaulieu MR8, a Beaulieu 4008, a Fujica ZC1000 and a Pathé DS8, put each time the same lens as they are all C-Mount compatible and see what comes out.

Friction and/or precision of the speed governors. Depending on the way the motor is electronically controlled you'll have more or less consistent speed. Some electronics components like certain types of capacitors are prone to age. Are you experiencing speed problems ?

Heikki, difficult to judge the sharpness here... Macro shots "look" sharp, but it's only an impression, we can't judge it objectively. But look closely, there's big registration problems on this video, the footage does not have a good vertical registration. Anthony, nice work ! You're right, the GK seem to improve a lot the footage... Too bad you didn't use it on tripod too to have a better comparison ! You serve my point, a well made in-cartridge pressure plate is as good as a well made in-camera pressure plate !

Again, I stand corrected, but I don't know why DS8 would have a better registration as the cameras works in the exact same way, with same tolerances, as Super 8. The pressure plate, no matter if it's in a cartridge or in the camera, acts the same way. It just push the film evenly on the gate. And they have the exact same pull down claw mechanisms. So I really don't see how it could be better. I don't see any logic in this statement. Remember, we're dealing with old cameras. Of course they have issues, but the pressure pad, being just a piece of plastic on springs, is not this prone to problems. There's so much other parameters there's a good chance your jitter problem originates from somewhere else (and it seems to me that Jose's footage with the 1014 is way more stable than with the Beaulieu... So maybe it's just a servicing to do...)

I'm all with you Erkan ! I'm waiting for actual serious tests and comparisons. I actually don't mind being wrong. I still think what Lasse is trying to do is simply incredible, making a new 8mm camera today is such an exciting thing ! Please Lasse, prove me wrong ! :) I just tried to explain that in theory as well as in practice, a pressure pad can be placed indifferently inside the magazine or inside the camera, and that a registration pin can be avoided in a lot of cases. I don't know why but most people here seem to deeply believe that these are two unconditional parameters of picture quality... Thanks Erkan, it feels good to at last see someone supporting my point.