Jump to content

Lasse Roedtnes

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5976 profile views
  1. No worries, I just didn't want there to be false rumors in the market. We are not at liberty to discuss the project due to NDA, despite us exiting in December 2019. Yours truly Lasse R. @ Logmar Camera Solutions
  2. @Tyler Purcell - Please stop making false and unfounded accusations – none of what you’re saying is correct. Logmar and Kodak has been cooperating in good faith since 2015.
  3. Hi Nicholas, The ultimate outreach :: our bank. Regards Lasse
  4. Hi Nicholas and Andries We are currently busy on three other projects that we need to finalize first before we could jump on this but we just wanted to see if there was any real interest before wasting time making a MRD on it. It doesn't seem to attract enough interest to be something that we would invest in however. All the best Lasse
  5. Please be advised that we are in no way. shape or form connected to Tyler Purcell and his camera project. We wish him the best of luck however. /Logmar
  6. We would not be interested in doing conversions, only designing new cameras as conversions are not sustainable from a business point of view. BR Lasse
  7. Could you define cheap/affordable? (Naked camera body price without lens) for a 35-2 with integrated sound
  8. Most likely backlit and not laser to avoid a lawsuit from someone looking into the lens mount and going purposely blind to get a "pay day"
  9. Hi Perry We could impose a crosshair between each sprocket for scanner registration. Granted we havent really thought it through yet it's just an idea we are kicking about at the moment. Regards Lasse
  10. Exactly Mark 3:1 aspect ratio with standard Super8 cartridge and horizontal pull claw
  11. Hi, I'm wondering what the interest (if any) there would be for a 2-perf anamorphic super8 camera which accepted the normal Super8 cassette but didn't require threading etc. Price is unknown but it would be higher than 2500$ for sure. Best regards Lasse
  12. Hi Craig, Our camera does not support auto exposure, everything is under user control. All the best Lasse
  13. Hi Perry, In our camera the pressure plate is always "engaged" and it's not possible to run the camera without the pressure plate pressing on the film as otherwise the claw would bend and damage the pressure plate (as it would force itself into it) The film can be loaded wrong however so that it's not lying "where it's supposed to be" and then the pressure plate will still apply pressure to it which causes emulsion tearing, sharpness issues and other artifacts as you have seen. The side steer CAN be disengaged on our camera and in fact the user must disengaged it in order to be able to load the film. If the user forgets to engage it again after loading film he/she can still shoot film with the side steer disabled as there's no user feedback. The side steer is controlled by a manual lever with no software feedback telling or warning the user if he hasn't engaged it, therefore it's the responsibility of the user to make sure it's engaged. It is therefore plausible that a film can be shot with the side steer disengaged. All the best Lasse
  14. Hi Tyler, I think 500T can look fantastic just see here: especially the lamp shot I think is one of my favorites All the best Lasse
  15. Hi Andries, You need to take up your concern with the scanner manufactures and get them to adhere to the SMPTE specifications then you'll get rid of the weave. As long as they keep "doing their own thing" you'll never combat this issue and just for the record KODAK and the other film manufactures are not to blame for this either as they follow the specifications as well so all this "moaning" about weave and jitter should really be aimed towards the source of the problem which is the scanners that are not designed to the specifications of the medium they are supposed to capture and not the cameras nor film material. We could have designed our S8 camera so that it would work with modern scanners by changing the way we register the frame and guide the film however if we did that we would break the SMPTE spec and the people who wants to project would complain that the footage was jittery and full of weave. So why not follow an industry standard when it exists instead of doing things "your own way". All the best Lasse
  • Create New...