Jump to content

the lowdown on superduper 8.


xoct

Recommended Posts

If this has been answered in detail in another thread, I appologize in advance...

 

Hi all,

 

You can email me at mitchsperkins@gmail.com for the conversion, ($85 CDN), but I'd rather you do it yourself, and here's why -

 

it's easy!

 

Use a short strip of film placed in the gate, between "go's" with the file, to gauge how much material you're removing. It's safe to take it just a peep beyond the edge of the filmstrip; the frame is so tiny it will not buckle.

 

Use a file that is narrow enough to avoid contact with the top/bottom of aperture. I dremelled the sides of the file I use.

 

Extra care is needed for 1) plastic Canon xls series gates, and 2) Nizo gates with their insanely tiny film-guide springs, which *will* pop out to be lost forever on removal of the gate, and which were designed by Satan.

 

You have to take the right side panel off the Nizos and pull the gate out with right side facing down over a bowl or something to catch those devil springs. If you lose 'em, cut tiny chunks of rubber and contact cement them in place; the springs provide push resistance, not pull.

 

Don't know the numbers, but she blows up pretty perfectly into a 16:9 frame in the capture window...

 

I do regret christening it "Super Duper 8", because I now feel certain that "Superdee Duperdee 8" would've made everyone happier. Jeez, I'm sorry...

 

Mitch

Edited by Mitch Perkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

 

But there is no additional area on the top or bottom of the frame to crop off when transferring to standard def, that was my point, it's all already being used.

:blink:

 

Obviously I'm missing something... are you saying that nothing is gained by widening the gate if you are ending in a 4:3 video format?

If you are finishing in a 16:9 format (HD or SD) you have to crop a tiny bit less with super duper 8... but that is obvious. :unsure:

Edited by jacob thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Sounds like you're forgetting that 16:9 is HD OR SD in which case that 13% extra width reduces the amount of frame area you have to crop off the top and bottom to get it (16:9).

 

This is where I think it gets complicated. If one crops the transfer so that more of the super duper area of the film can be transferred, the number of television screen pixels capturing the additional film area has actually been reduced because of the top and bottom cropping (edit-....of the television picture area)! Less television pixels capturing more film area might not always be a good thing.

 

It could come down to certain shots will look better, and others perhaps not as good, issues such as contrast/lighting, and how wide the shot is might now come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I think it gets complicated. If one crops the transfer so that more of the super duper area of the film can be transferred, the number of television screen pixels capturing the additional film area has actually been reduced because of the top and bottom cropping! Less television pixels capturing more film area might not always be a good thing.

 

It could come down to certain shots will look better, and others perhaps not as good, issues such as contrast/lighting, and how wide the shot is might now come into play.

 

I don't know what you guys are all twisted up about. Read my last long post again. It's very simple.

If you transfer to a 4:3 screen you can get the entire wide frame on the screen. It will be tighter than a conventional super 8 frame. This is probably the best way to get the tight grain advantage of super-duper 8 because you have to shrink it a little. If transferring to widescreen video, the aspect ratio of the film more closely matches the aspect ratio of the TV frames, so it fits better and if you want to fill that widescreen you don't have to crop as much from the top and bottom as you would from a conventional super 8 frame, which is more square.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I think it gets complicated. If one crops the transfer so that more of the super duper area of the film can be transferred, the number of television screen pixels capturing the additional film area has actually been reduced

 

Technically, there were *no* pixels capturing the *additional* film area...~:?)

 

because of the top and bottom cropping (edit-....of the television picture area)! Less television pixels capturing more film area might not always be a good thing.

 

This is interesting. I think the reason it's not a concern is that the grain is so much bigger than the pixels - as in so many other cases, there is improvement up to a point, after which there is deterioration - as you say, "might not always..."

 

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Technically, there were *no* pixels capturing the *additional* film area...~:?)

This is interesting. I think the reason it's not a concern is that the grain is so much bigger than the pixels.....

Mitch

 

That's a great way to explain it. However isn't it possible that the back-lit, high contrast, wide shot, migt be the scenario in which the grain may actually not be bigger (or more discernible) than the pixels that are used to represent it on the screen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a great way to explain it. However isn't it possible that the back-lit, high contrast, wide shot, migt be the scenario in which the grain may actually not be bigger (or more discernible) than the pixels that are used to represent it on the screen?

 

I don't think so; the only way one will ever see TV pixels is by getting right up close to the screen - on our telecine chain, the grain shrinks as you zoom out from the image, (of course!), but one would have to zoom out past any reasonable point to make the grain smaller than the pixels...

 

Still, you've given me a puzzle here to think about, because I always jokingly claimed that if one made the Super 8 image small enough on the TV screen, the resolution of the resulting tiny box of image would equal that of 35mm! Not so however, as you've pointed out that the pixels would "become larger" in relation to any object depicted in the film frame.

 

Truth be told, I find myself hard-pressed to think/write intelligently on this. Must...have...more...time! ~:?)

 

Meanwhile the SD8 (there you go - just call it SD8), frame is well suited to 16:9 capture - every grain of the film image is put to use.

 

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ever since I saw the first Indiana Jones on laser disc have I wondered about this. Half of the screen (the top and bottom of the screen) was just the black border, so the remaining 50% pixels of the television pixels, now have to display almost TWICE the information, yet at a much smaller size with only half the pixels available.

 

Complicated stuff no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello there,

 

This is my 1st post so please be kind. I have recently gotten into film more specify 8mm. I have gotten a Bolex H8 and was wondering if it was possible to create the SD8 effect using the Bolex. I realize that the SD8 is meant to refer to super 8mm film but I was not sure if there was a way to ?modify? the gate on the Bolex. I believe that I read somewhere that perhaps this camera was one of the first to be used when test this idea.

 

Thanks for your time and I look forward to learning all about the 8mm world.

Michael Moore

Van. B.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I believe that I read somewhere that perhaps this camera was one of the first to be used when test this idea.

 

Correct.

 

really and were would a person find info on such a task.

 

 

The Bolex H8 is available both in Double 8 (a.k.a. Regular 8, Standard 8, Normal 8) and Double Super 8 (no a.k.a. here) and should be modifiable from one to the other of these ISO-compliant formats, however, at some expense.

 

With regard to modifying Super 8 to Super-Duper 8 (a.k.a. Super 8 B or Max 8, I prefer the term Ultra 8 analogue to the similarly special Ultra 16 format, but that's just me ;) ), Mitch Perkins and Rick Palidwor are the best to contact for details on mods in North America.

 

If you are located in Europe, then the best person to approach would be Ruedi Muster in Selzach, CH, who was one of the earliest (if not the first - plenty of myth-making around that) to come up with the idea to "expand" the Super 8 film gate. He was the one who used a Bolex H-series for what he then called Super 8 B.

He is still prolific at work, his most recent creation being DS-16:9 (a.k.a. DS-410) where he stretches the film gate across a 16mm-wide Double Super 8 film. I saw a test film of that in Davos, CH, and its quite awesome, without the potential optical errors that widescreen filming with anamorphotic lenses can produce.

Ruedi Muster is a great engineer and cine-technician of the kind that is increasingly difficult to track down. He is anything but a "freak dwelling beyond the mountains" :blink: as he was once described by Filmfreund Jürgen Lossau in "Schmalfilm" <_< , the original German-language edition of "Smallformat" (an deranged attempt at German humour, I assume; and I say that as a German passport owner, please).

 

I hope that was a bit helpful, Michael. Welcome to this kind place, BTW, and looking forward to hearing how it goes.

Edited by Michael Lehnert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I think it gets complicated. If one crops the transfer so that more of the super duper area of the film can be transferred, the number of television screen pixels capturing the additional film area has actually been reduced because of the top and bottom cropping (edit-....of the television picture area)! Less television pixels capturing more film area might not always be a good thing.

 

It could come down to certain shots will look better, and others perhaps not as good, issues such as contrast/lighting, and how wide the shot is might now come into play.

 

There are 16:9 standard Definitition TV sets too!

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
There are 16:9 standard Definitition TV sets too!

 

love

 

Freya

 

I never hear about those.

 

Good Lord, can we stop using this "superduper8" title?

 

UltraSuper8 sounds much more professional, and has been used for longer.

 

Sorry to be so picky, but I just cringe when I hear this!

 

Matt Pacini

 

How about Elongate. There are different ways to spell it, Elongeight, Elong8, although I think I like Elongate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Super 8 Elongate?

 

Actually, Alex, at my second reading of it, it kind of grows to me... It woudn't have been the name Kodak would have chosen had they developed it. However, if Jean-Pierre Beauviala at Aaton had had his hands in it, with their penchant for poetic and meaning-laden naming, they woud indeed have called an imaginary camera for that format something like "Aaton Superette Elongate" :D

 

Super 8 B as originally chosen by Ruedi Muster sounds indeed sterile and professional, and hence gives an impression of convincing seriousness. Matthew is right about that. And it is somehow fitting to the stereotype given to its country/place of origin, too ;)

Of course, the B in Super 8 B was an analogy to Super 16 being originally named Normal or Standard 16 W.

 

I think, however, that the jovial Super Duper 8 will somehow prevail in the scene.

 

But Max 8 - which I dislike the most as it sounds somewhat playboy-mansionish or like a vitamine pill - might get a foothold in industry pro circles if Vigeant & Co can sell it in quantities...

 

Personally, I shall stick to Ultra 8, as this is a consistent name in line with Super 8 to Super 16 and Ultra 16.

It's neither too serious, but also not too garish. And its bigger brother Ultra 16 is very similar by approach to Ultra 8 (Super Duper 8), as its a purely DIY and totally ISO-uncompliant variation of the Super 16 format formed by widening the film gate of a Super 16 camera to expose the area inbetween the remaining line of perforation holes as well, hence exposing the entire film width from one end of the film strip to the other.

 

Everybody can stick to his or her own name for that format-also-known-as-Super-Duper-8. The funny thing is, whether Matthew sticks to Super 8 B, Alex to Super 8 Elongate, Phil Vigeant to Max 8 and myself to Ultra 8, we all immediately know what we are talking about: that DIY super duper thingy thing :lol: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Major issues regarding SD8 for me:

 

My main S8 cameras are Beaulieu 7008 and Canon 1014XLS and no one has ever definitively shown that they can successfully mod the Beaulieu (exception Pro8mm, but how exactly do they do it?) while the Canons that I have seen vignette badly at the wide focal lengths, diminishing the benefit greatly.

 

I also have 3 DS-8 camera: Bolex H8 conversion, Canon (Scoopic) DS-8, and a Pathe DS-8, but frankly feel extremely nervous about attempting such a mod on these, and again, if I can't match my other cameras, what is the use. Also, most likely would run into vignetting problems here.

 

I would like to hear more from Rick Palidwor and Mitch Perkins regarding the practical issues with lens vignetting and the mechanics of using this format in general.

 

I would like to hear more about Ruedi Muster and his DS-16:9, but cannot find / google anything in english about him.

 

And finally, for Matt Pacini, did your Ultra-16mm attempt on the CP-16/RA ever work out? Once you said you were going to run some tests and post some clips, but never heard any more about it. What did you finally end up with regarding your CP-16?

 

Regards to all,

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Excellent post!

 

no one has ever definitively shown that they can successfully mod the Beaulieu (exception Pro8mm, but how exactly do they do it?)

 

I would love to learn more about that as well. Pro8mm wasn't really forthcoming on some technical questions I put to them a while ago (plenty of "n/a" coming back). With me being in Europe, I can't really drive down to Burbank, either.

 

Jürgen Lossau said the next issue of "Schalfilm", the German "Smallformat" edition, due next month will feature a test of the Max 8 Beaulieu 4008 conversion. But there is a certain history with "Schmalfilm" inviting to great parties yet then serving cold turkey, so I am not sure if the crucial points involving mirror reflex system modification, viewfinder conversion etc will be substantially discussed.

 

Wittner Cinetec will distribute the cameras in Europe, it's been stated.

 

I would like to hear more about Ruedi Muster and his DS-16:9, but cannot find / google anything in english about him.

 

Yeah, that is a true, there isn't much actually, in total. The hyperlink I placed in an earlier post is already the most extensive info in the "cloud" ? apart from a short paragraph in "Schmalfilm" whiches oddly-scribbled essence I've quoted (in understandably bad mood) above already.

 

What I can translate further from that German-language website to you guys and lasses is that DS-16:9 (a.k.a. DS-410) is fully working, including projection systems and potential telecine adaptation. It was presented to the Second German Broadcasting Corporation, the ZDF, and they liked the idea very much in light of the early stages of the launch of 16:9 TV in SD here in Europe back in the late 1980s, early 1990s (yes, Alex, Freya is right about that!). But in order to be sold and used, an ISO standard had to be applied for and granted, and that process is apparently still ongoing. In the meantime, DigiBeta in 1993 killed off the plan of the ZDF to buy DS-16:9 equipment, and it has since not been taken up anywhere else. ENG progress kind of made the conclusion of the ongoing ISO certification obsolete. And hence, as no-one can guarantee that your DS-16:9-shot film reel isn't split in half in the lab after development, being mistaken for regular Double Super 8, it won't go anywhere.

 

But Ruedi Muster is all-to-happy to show his creations to visitors. So if you happen to be in Switzerland, shooting the next Bond film or whatever, make some arrangements (hmm, that could be a good Super 8 Today article, would't it?).

Edited by Michael Lehnert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
How about getting that 8 in there.

Elong8ate or Elonga8te.

 

Yeah, I know, it's just to much a nice marketing clou to leave it out. But.. I don't know... :unsure:

 

If you wanna sell Elongate as a format of its own (i.e. without the "Super 8" addition), then I would motion "Elong8" or "Elong-8".

 

If you wanna sell it with a reference to "Super 8", then I would probably second "Super 8 Elongate" - the rhythm of it when you pronounce it is kind of nice and musical... B)

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, I guess, not a good sign.

 

What I did not like about 'Elonga8te' or 'Elong8ate' is the look of the word when typed, and the confusion the 8 placed within causes, as part of the intrinsic pronounciation of "eight" is taken up again by using all letters of the word 'gate'. This causes a sort of double-phonifiation.

 

If you trust on the intinctive reflexes of the human brain to decypher a word even though it is mispelled or uses unconventional orthography via its purely visual impression, then I put a solution to you that you might maybe like:

 

"Elong8te"

 

But if you want to put a new branch of business up with Ultra 8-modified cameras for hire or so, then I fear that in the US, going with Max 8 because of the potential liking to Vigeants efforts is a good business proposition: that way, clients know you are both in the same market.

Problem with that: don't know if Pro8mm trademarked 'Max 8'. If so, you won't evidently be able to use it.

If not, however, I suggest, to quote Arnie, that you "DO IT NAAOU!"

Edited by Michael Lehnert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...