Jump to content

Omar Alboukharey

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    60

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Omar Alboukharey

    WTB: Beaulieu Super Drive SD8/60

    in Cine Marketplace

    Posted

    Hi everyone,

    New to this Marketplace and I know this might be a stretch but I'm after a Beaulieu SuperDrive SD8/60.

    This is how one looks like (there are very little images around):

    post-67761-0-59959000-1428326693.jpg.a7d02771a87bb967f0e5422ba70ba3fb.jpg

    I have been trying to ages to find one of these but I just cannot thus I would try my luck here.

    Sincerely look forward hearing back from you all! :)

    Super 8 Pressure Plate

    in Super-8

    Posted

    On 9/11/2020 at 8:19 PM, Martin Baumgarten said:

    These GK Super 8 pressure plates are rare as not that many were made.  After reviewing all the initial testing done on them, as well as my own tests, I find that it's not really worth it.  IF you wipe the film gate prior to each cartridge load with some soft cotton flannel that has been moistened with either Movie Film Cleaner with lubricant, or a good quality Silicone spray (one that doesn't harm plastic, and wait several minutes until the propellant has evaporated prior to wiping the gate.  I keep one in a small zip lock bag in my camera bag so that I can always do this)....then the film will glide right through the gate easily.  

    - - - -  The KODAK made Super 8mm film is already lubricated  inside the cartridge, however this helps, especially on humid days.  Note, the pressure plate built into the cartridge is very strong....and from a pure technical standpoint, isn't the same as a pressure plate in a conventional spool loading movie camera.    It rests against two raised dimple areas on either side of the Super 8mm film gate, otherwise it would actually be too much pressure against the film!  Once against these raised areas, it creates a 'channel' through which Super 8mm film passes through.  Thinner based film might have a little bit of play, and thicker based films will run tighter (thus the lubrication of the gate and film helps).  

    - - - -  Adding this smooth metal film pressure plate to the cartridge still really only rests against those two raised dimples on either side of the gate....it doesn't really press any more against the film itself.  The smooth polished metal surface helps the film glide over it's surface...but the cartridge already has a smooth plastic pressure plate, and the film lubricant on the film itself in the cartridge does the same thing.  I have also wiped that plastic pressure plate, and this has helped in hot humid summer weather, when film emulsion swells upon opening the foil pack, as the humid air comes contact with the film and swells the emulsion a bit.  This can cause film jamming or sticking, as many have experienced with Super 8 cartridges at times.   Wiping the gate, and even that pressure pad has eliminated any sticking for me over decades of use.  Of course...sometimes during the manufacturing process of the Super 8 cartridges when film is loaded, there can be the rare event where the film is too tight on the stationary hub and won't rotate easily causing a jam, or some other anomaly.  These can be cleared up via cartridge opening and reloading in a darkroom (best done by someone that can do this of course....but certainly no need to throw film out....not at what it costs these days!).

    IF you persist and eventually locate the GK Super 8 Pressure Plate, just be diligent to remove it each time you finish a cartridge, as you could lose it easily if you don't  when sending it to a lab for processing.  Good luck, hope this helps.

    Thank you very much for that incredibly informative post, it was really helpful!

    I do find that they are kinda rare and expensive at the same time, but I REALLY do like to try one out, therefore that is why I am asking here if anyone might've had one?

    I was really hoping to borrow it so I can trial it myself before committing to purchasing one. Unlike your experience, mine with a Beaulieu 6008S and Kodak Vision3 cartridges has resulted in pretty unstable footage. The shakiness and microjitters interfere in resolving detail properly (or sharpness), so I wanted to try and rectify that.

    Anyone might have one? Or yourself Martin by any chance?? :) 

    Metal Pressure Plate for Super 8 Cartridges.

    in Super-8

    Posted

    Hi guys,

    Sorry for bumping this thread up, but this was the closest to what I had in mind.

    On 1/18/2016 at 3:26 PM, Anthony Schilling said:

    I have one but haven't used it for a while. The idea is to reduce breathing and jitter, and it does help. The downside is if you're using thicker emulsions like Vision, and your cameras motor isn't working to its full potential, the film may not advance. I had that happen twice, you,re done shooting only to find you still have 50ft of film in the camera.

    That's probably the only real-life review I've seen from anyone who's directly experienced it, so really appreciate you sharing your thoughts about it!

    I was wondering, do you still have the plate? Have you used it recently??

    I know this might be a bit straight forward, but I was really hoping to ask of a BIG favour from you. But more importantly, hope you (and everyone here is staying safe and sound! ?

    2-perf Super8 Anamorphic

    in Super-8

    Posted · Edited by Omar Alboukharey

    I think one of the reason why there wasn't that much takers to begin with was because the price was just a bit too high, if ti was on the more affordable range of a high-end DSLR camera then I'm sure people would be shelling out and I would've gotten the camera sooner!

     

    I mean the whole new Kodak Super 8 camera does genuinely make me happy, it still lack a lot of the more modern and professional features that the Logmar has, and the fact that the creators are in communication with the community things can be done to the camera to people's liking, only making it a much better camera, if not it can still be better! If anything I think the Kodak Super 8 camera should be more of a motivation for them to continue as it offers choices to the people:

     

    Kodak Super8 camera = Amateur, home-movie shooting

     

    Logmar Super8 camera = Professionalism

     

    The prices between the two will obviously inform people subconsciously what each camera is capable of, but since now only one remains in the market (and not the one I would shell money for) is a REAAALLL let down and I cannot continue my investigations with the film format, nor does it encourage those who want to take film more seriously. I thought this was the start of something new and great when I discovered this a couple years ago.

     

    Apparently they are in the process of designing a 65mm film camera, that takes a lot of balls, and I'm sure it would require more resources financially to continue such a project, selling more Logmar Super 8 cameras would rectify this problem :)

     

    Also, what do you think are the chances of them lending me their design so I can produce a one-off camera for myself? :D Haven't they thought of out-sourcing this as well??

    2-perf Super8 Anamorphic

    in Super-8

    Posted

    Yeah i saw that and i cant believe it! This isn't what (from what i remember) part of their plan. Wasn't suppose to be that they would make these cameras based off their pre-order system??

     

    At the time when they were accepting orders there was no way i could've afford one of these (and still cant) but i hoped it would've gotten cheaper as time went by. Now that im somewhat working and doing jobs here and there i was now initially planning to save up for one of these. Now is this not a possibility anymore???

     

    Ahem......as you can see, im clearly upset about this :(

    Spectre mixing film and digital

    in In Production / Behind the Scenes

    Posted

    Wouldn't you say that this would be the equivalent to attaching an APS-C lens onto a Full Frame SLR body???

     

     

    I was having a bit of a hard time understanding that table, however if you say that is the case, then how would one optically and physically design the focal reducer to retain the native image circle???

     

    Also, just this Sunday I finally managed to watch SPECTRE at the BFI IMAX (largest screen in the UK), and I can safely say that I absolutely loved it! It is a "Spectrecular" film, a very strong opening and finally blending traditional Bond into the modern era. In my honest opinion, I would say it is better than Skyfall.

     

    I can go on about the tech side of things, the cinematography is superb and truly shows that 35mm can still its own, Howeveeerrr...the image quality (projected 2K) looked horrendous (exaggerating)! I took a very close look inspecting certain areas of the film and I can almost be so sure that somesort of DNR process was applied to reduce the grain, because it certainly not looking natural onscreen, it was almost as if it was blending in subtly (not a good job). I could be wrong, but this is where I think things take a bit of a turn, the Arri Alexa 65 footage did actually stick out a bit like a sore thumb, I'm sorry but I was able to notice (despite the low resolution projected) the change in image quality, things just looked a tad bit sharper and to be quite frank didn't really impress me at all. I still argue after watching the film that a Vision3 500T wide open would've done the job! Even with some soft lighting techniques done off-screen would've not been distracting and would probably enhance the visual quality as well.

     

    I dont know...I'm not the processional here but the grain in the majority of the film shots simply didn't look as it is was resolved properly during transfer and somesort of DNR applied to hide the resulting artifacts from a 2K scan. At least 4K or 6K the print and downsize it! :(

    Hmmm, probably what I said here was a bit too much for people to respond? :D

    Spectre mixing film and digital

    in In Production / Behind the Scenes

    Posted

    What Satsuki is saying is that a focal reducer, while it concentrates the light coming through the lens, also reduces the image circle, so that 35mm format lens would no longer cover the 35mm image circle, making it useless. The only way around this would be to use lenses designed for a larger image circle, such as medium format lenses, but as they tend to be slower than Cine lenses the net gain in exposure would be minimal.

     

    This is a solution in search of a problem.

    Wouldn't you say that this would be the equivalent to attaching an APS-C lens onto a Full Frame SLR body???

     

     

    If you look at this chart:

    https://matthewduclos.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/image-circle-database.pdf

     

    You can see that going from, let's say, a 50mm to a 100mm, doesn't give you twice the diameter image circle, but using a 2X focal reducer would cut the image circle in half and therefore the lens would no longer fill the standard 35mm frame.

    I was having a bit of a hard time understanding that table, however if you say that is the case, then how would one optically and physically design the focal reducer to retain the native image circle???

     

    Also, just this Sunday I finally managed to watch SPECTRE at the BFI IMAX (largest screen in the UK), and I can safely say that I absolutely loved it! It is a "Spectrecular" film, a very strong opening and finally blending traditional Bond into the modern era. In my honest opinion, I would say it is better than Skyfall.

     

    I can go on about the tech side of things, the cinematography is superb and truly shows that 35mm can still its own, Howeveeerrr...the image quality (projected 2K) looked horrendous (exaggerating)! I took a very close look inspecting certain areas of the film and I can almost be so sure that somesort of DNR process was applied to reduce the grain, because it certainly not looking natural onscreen, it was almost as if it was blending in subtly (not a good job). I could be wrong, but this is where I think things take a bit of a turn, the Arri Alexa 65 footage did actually stick out a bit like a sore thumb, I'm sorry but I was able to notice (despite the low resolution projected) the change in image quality, things just looked a tad bit sharper and to be quite frank didn't really impress me at all. I still argue after watching the film that a Vision3 500T wide open would've done the job! Even with some soft lighting techniques done off-screen would've not been distracting and would probably enhance the visual quality as well.

     

    I dont know...I'm not the processional here but the grain in the majority of the film shots simply didn't look as it is was resolved properly during transfer and somesort of DNR applied to hide the resulting artifacts from a 2K scan. At least 4K or 6K the print and downsize it! :(

    Spectre mixing film and digital

    in In Production / Behind the Scenes

    Posted

    I think you're missing the fact that when you apply a focal reducer, the entire image circle gets reduced as well. So you'd basically just get the same effect putting on as a 25mm lens made for the 16mm format. Not terribly useful unless you are going for a peephole effect.

     

    But isn't this where you would use a lens with a larger or double the originally intended focal length??

    Spectre mixing film and digital

    in In Production / Behind the Scenes

    Posted

    If you are talking about using medium format lenses with some sort of speed booster adaptor for 35mm cine, the problem is that there are already f/1.3 lenses made for 35mm cine if "Spectre" was willing to switch to 35mm Super-35 from anamorphic (there are some f/1.4 anamorphics out there too but are rather soft at that aperture). There are even f/1.0 lenses made for Super-35, whereas many medium format lenses aren't much faster than f/2.8.

     

    Actually no, was talking about your standard and anamorphic lenses you use for 35mm cameras (like the Arriflex 435). so what I was trying to say was, if one was to use a focal reducer (a Speed Booster like you've mentioned) specifically made to bring focal lengths down by 0.5x which technically becomes half the original focal length, another benefit to this (which is why I brought this up in the first place) is the fact it is able to transmit light through the lens by 2-stops (at that particular focal reducer)!

     

    Therefore...if a DOP was to originally use a 50mm T1.4 cine lens on a 35mm film camera, this would effectively become a 25mm T0.7 lens with the focal reducer applied. The same would go for if a 25mm lens was used which would then become a 12.5mm lens. Of course something that wide would look unnatural, thus if you want to retain the 25mm wide-angle look but with the focal reducer one would have to then use a 50mm lens because that would become a 25mm with a focal reducer and with 2-stop of exposure gained. Does this all make sense??? :D

×
×
  • Create New...