Sharpest Super 8 Camera and/or Lens.

[Mitch Perkins]

The 2nd claw on a Nikon R10 is not a reg pin.

 

It seems to have only sprung, passive retraction, perpendicular to the film plane, between perfs, no film transport...two tilt-axis-mounted, reciprocating-action-tipped claws, one for each direction...

 

Is a true reg pin never passive?

 

Mitch

[Matthew Buick]

Just to put up a lengthy reply to your original question, Matthew:

 

As it's such a frequent question, I just submitted a series of articles to Chris from Super 8 Today that touches on that subject. I was part of a project where we shot nearly a hundred S8 cartridges for the testing of film stocks and cameras of various make and age - all with regular CLA (cleaned, lubricated, adjusted/collimated)! The test films were then projected up to 16ft wide in a screening room and discussed.

(We also put S8 and DS8 side-by-side, and I've not been as overwhelmed by DS8 as I hoped I would be, but that's another point).

 

Discussing sharpness is a fuzzy topic. There are so many parameters that determine every shot: light condition, shutter opening angle, aperture, exposure time, film pressure and flatness, mechanical transportation and registration, and film development. Even when boiling it down to camera-mechanical excellence body-wise and optical resolving power lens-wise, it's still virtually impossible to come up with a definitive answer.

 

I know this can be a potentially heated topic as many cameras have real love/hate-fandoms here in the "cloud", but from the tests we made, the best combined results for S8 vario lenses (!) on S8 cameras came from the

 

- Schneider Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm

on the Beaulieu 4008 ZM II (C-Mount) and Leitz Leicina Special (M-Mount)

- Angénieux f/1,2 | T/1,4-2,1 / 6-80mm (C-Mount) for Beaulieu 4008 and 5008-series

- Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1,8 / 6-70mm on the Bauer A 512

- Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1,8 / 7-80mm on the Nizo professional

- Canon Macro 1:1,4 / 7-56mm on the Canon 814XL-S

 

As there wasn't a Nalcom 1000 FTL (with Pentax-Mount) and an Elmo 1018R involved, I can't comment on those, Matthew. Sorry :(

 

I don't share the view that newer glass is necessarily better than older glass. Actually, S8 vario lenses (!) by Angénieux and Schneider put on cameras from 1978/9 onwards suffer from serious quality deficits that troubled late generation Beaulieu and Nizo sound cameras.

 

When it comes to prime lenses used on S8 cameras with interchangeable lens option, that's another ball game: The Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1.8 / 10mm is excellent and probably the best prime calculated and designed specifically for the S8 format ? it's also the only one as far as I know (please correct me) :) . However, it obviously can't compete against a Cooke S4 or Zeiss Ultra 16. But then again, that REALLY is another ball game, as Daniel showed with "Halogenuros".

 

Thank you very much, Michael Lehnert. :) I have a Canon 814XL-S.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Just to add a viewpoint here, I was looking at Super 8 wiki and someone commented that the Sankyo CME-1100 Hi-Focus used a special Dichroid focusing system that made it the sharpest focusing Super 8 camera in existence. Here is the link if anyone wants to see it:

 

http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Sankyo_CME-1100_Hi-focus

 

I own a Sankyo 620 XL Supertronic and I like it. I've never shot with the above camera and the page says its extremely rare to find. I only hope I can find one and try it out myself. I noticed that Sankyo seems to be either overlooked or reviled in the Super 8 community and I don't know why. Mine is very durable, good in low light, has manual exposure, multiple frame rates, tons of dissolves/ fades/ effects, and has pretty good weight to it which I like. Is it just because it is Japanese made instead of European? David Mullen is the only one I ever heard give Sankyo the benefit of the doubt. Consequently I bought one after that since his opinion is a very valuable one.

[Michael Lehnert]

I noticed that Sankyo seems to be either overlooked or reviled in the Super 8 community and I don't know why. ... Is it just because it is Japanese made instead of European? David Mullen is the only one I ever heard give Sankyo the benefit of the doubt. Consequently I bought one after that since his opinion is a very valuable one.

 

Many early projects of the film group I am now part of were shot with a Sankyo (we are talking 1982/83 here). I think it was a mid-level model, and although serving well, it too was never held in very high esteem. Actually, it wasn't even regarded as equal to the Canon 514 XL that was also in use then.

Needless to say that the replacement was a Bauer C 700 XLM.

 

Actually, when looking at these older films, the quality the Sankyo delivered isn't bad at all, and the camera survived really weird shooting set-ups. But I must admit the Bauer's Macro-Neovaron 1:1,2 / 7-45mm lens (Japanese-made too!) is visibly better.

However, I would agree that in some circles, there is a bit of "badge-snobbery" going on with regard to Japanese products. It's basically the same as with automobile makes. It seems to me that the US market was always more open-minded to Japanese or Asian products than parts of the European market, but I might be wrong.

[Alessandro Machi]

The very last Sankyo's made around 1978 to 1980 were a strange combination of a steel body but the lens felt cheaply made.

[Mitch Perkins]

Thanks, Tony, for pointing that out! (although I assume Mitch made a joke).

 

No joke, look at the picture -

 

http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/plate_r10r8.jpg

 

Again, it seems to have only sprung, passive retraction, perpendicular to the film plane, between perfs, no film transport...two tilt-axis-mounted, reciprocating-action-tipped claws, one for each direction...you can see the "top"(left-hand) claw is in place for forward filming, with the "bottom" (reverse filming), claw tilted out of the film path.

 

I've just run a short filmstrip along this second claw - it snaps into each perf, being subsequently pushed back down by the trailing edge. Again, it remains stationary with film transport trigger depressed.

 

If it's not designed to help stabilize image registration, I can't imagine what it is designed for...

 

Mitch

Edited September 8, 2007 by Mitch Perkins

[Tony Hudson]

No joke, look at the picture -

 

http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/plate_r10r8.jpg

 

Again, it seems to have only sprung, passive retraction, perpendicular to the film plane, between perfs, no film transport...two tilt-axis-mounted, reciprocating-action-tipped claws, one for each direction...you can see the "top"(left-hand) claw is in place for forward filming, with the "bottom" (reverse filming), claw tilted out of the film path.

 

I've just run a short filmstrip along this second claw - it snaps into each perf, being subsequently pushed back down by the trailing edge. Again, it remains stationary with film transport trigger depressed.

 

If it's not designed to help stabilize image registration, I can't imagine what it is designed for...

 

Mitch

 

As far as I know, the little sprung arm comes out to add stability to the film, in it's place, as soon as the first claw pulls it down. This is not the action a reg. pin performs, a reg. pin actually pushes from behind the film and engages a perforation, pushing the film flat against the gate allowing for a more static, flat frame. The Nikon thing doesn't force the film flat against the gate, it only adds minimal support at the front, I'm not too sure if it really adds anything as there is no real force applied to the film.

[Mitch Perkins]

As far as I know, the little sprung arm comes out to add stability to the film, in it's place, as soon as the first claw pulls it down.

 

This is exactly what it does. ~:?) I'm unsure of the difference between "stability" and "registration", as applied to a moving image. That's why I'd call it a reg pin for lack of a better descriptor. It could be there to ensure that the frame lines are in the same place whether filming in forward or reverse...

 

 

This is not the action a reg. pin performs, a reg. pin actually pushes from behind the film and engages a perforation,

 

Yes, the Nikon second claw, retracts passively, much like a Nizo pulldown claw. Both engage perfs.

 

pushing the film flat against the gate allowing for a more static, flat frame. The Nikon thing doesn't force the film flat against the gate, it only adds minimal support at the front, I'm not too sure if it really adds anything as there is no real force applied to the film.

 

I can't imagine the techs at Nikon recommending the additional expense (to the consumer), of installing the thing if it really had no beneficial effect. The tiny Super 8 frame is in no danger of buckling/warping; there's simply not enough area.

Passive retraction PDCs are more likely to catch the trailing edge of the perf on the way "back up", as some 20+ years later, the cams are worn, leaving the PDC still in the film path after exposure. Old sticky lube adds to the problem. The Nikon R10 second claw would certainly work against such catching, as it disengages only via forward motion of the film. Of course, if the second claw gets to sticking, then you have to do what I did and get the hell rid of it. ~:?)

 

Mitch

[Michael Lehnert]

No joke, look at the picture -

 

Oops, sorry Mitch, please accept my apologies.

 

I know Mike's pictures as much as the real thing. There have been endless debates about that time and again, and many Nikon R10's had "open-heart-surgeries" performed to get behind the internal construction.

 

Again, it seems to have only sprung, passive retraction, perpendicular to the film plane, between perfs, no film transport...two tilt-axis-mounted, reciprocating-action-tipped claws, one for each direction...you can see the "top"(left-hand) claw is in place for forward filming, with the "bottom" (reverse filming), claw tilted out of the film path. I've just run a short filmstrip along this second claw - it snaps into each perf, being subsequently pushed back down by the trailing edge. Again, it remains stationary with film transport trigger depressed.

 

Your description of the "Nikon thingy" (let's call it like that for now) is bang on precise...

 

Is a true reg pin never passive?

 

...but that touches the difference! Tony Hudson has elaborated on that absolutely correctly: a registration pin is usually an integral part of the transport mechanism, has its mechanical movement combined and coordinated with the pull-down system, actively (as in "driven"!) engaging the perforation and thus pushing the to-be-exposed frame against the film gate in order to stop and freeze it.

As I wrote earlier above, not every transport mechanism needs this kind of additional stabilisation and featuring it does not necessarily mean that its frame stability will be superb. Some Arriflex 16SR-series cameras need it because their patented transport mechanisms would allow for too much variance of the frame stability, while Aaton and some Eclair cameras feature a patented transport mechanism that makes the use of an additional device unnecessary. So again: pin registration per se does not necessarily mean that the frame stability is superior. Even with a reg pin, the Arriflex 16SR II is visibly inferior in respect to frame stability than Aatons or an Eclair ACL.

 

If it's not designed to help stabilize image registration, I can't imagine what it is designed for...

 

I fear this will be a question that future generations of cinematography.com members will raise again and again, and rightly so.

Nevertheless, let's try to recapitulate: What are these mysterious two additional "pins" for which are located in a separate slot underneath the regular single pull-down claw (as found in any other Super 8 camera)?

As Nikon did not bother to publish an exact term for them, they could best be described as "dual spring-pressured drag claws". When the camera is running conventionally, they are inactive. However, when the semi-automatic double exposure-based effect features (like lap dissolves, multiple exposures and rewind filming, to quote the Nikon R10 brochure of 8/1974) are activated, these two claws become active and do protrude: the upper one in forward mode only, the lower one in reverse mode only. Again, they are not actively driven in any way: as the film moves, they get dragged over the film perforation. Because of their disconnection from the pull-down system, they are not really able to slide into the perforation at normal filming speed in order to stabilise and/or freeze the frame, as a registration pin would otherwise do. They only truly slide into one perforation hole and "fixate it" when the film movement, i.e. the camera, stops. This hinders the stopped film from potentially slipping by one or maybe two frames. It might come under pressure to do so because for such double exposure-based effects, a piece of film 90 to 100 frames long is wound back "by force" into the cartridge chambers. As the cartridge wasn't originally designed for this, it was believed that under certain circumstances, the wound-back film might force its way back, thus moving or pushing away the frame currently placed at the film gate.

 

I can't imagine the techs at Nikon recommending the additional expense (to the consumer), of installing the thing if it really had no beneficial effect.

 

As the Nikon R10 was one of the first cameras in the Super 8 sector to offer these features in a semi-automatic package, it was a real testing ground for this kind of features (which would become standard on better cameras later on).

The necessity for such overengineering remains somewhat questionable, however, as no other Super 8 camera seems to have the need to keep the film "at bay" during such operations (though Nizo manuals continued to warn about potential jamming later on). As Nikon never advertised their unique construction in any way, one could conclude that this is an orignally ingenious attempt to tackle a potential problem that never really materialised on set or on location.

 

 

(By the way, Mitch, loved your article in Super 8 Today #5 from last summer. Great work: Respect!)

[Mitch Perkins]

Thanks Michael for taking the time to reply, and for the good words about the S8Today article.

 

I'd like to address a couple of your points below, unfortunately...~:?)

 

When the camera is running conventionally, they are inactive. However, when the semi-automatic double exposure-based effect features (like lap dissolves, multiple exposures and rewind filming, to quote the Nikon R10 brochure of 8/1974) are activated, these two claws become active and do protrude: the upper one in forward mode only, the lower one in reverse mode only.

 

Who's to argue with the "literature", eh? but on every R10 I've seen, including the one in the picture, (unless they de-powered the camera in mid-dissolve), and the one sitting beside me now, the "upper" claw is in the film path during normal filming - as I say, it engages the perfs of a short filmstrip moved across the gate by hand.

 

Again, they are not actively driven in any way: as the film moves, they get dragged over the film perforation. Because of their disconnection from the pull-down system, they are not really able to slide into the perforation at normal filming speed in order to stabilise and/or freeze the frame, as a registration pin would otherwise do.

 

But, many Nizo PDCs, as well of those of many other manufacturer's, also have only passive retraction - the cam only moves it up and down - and certainly these PDCs are engaging the perfs at normal filming speeds...

 

They only truly slide into one perforation hole and "fixate it" when the film movement, i.e. the camera, stops. This hinders the stopped film from potentially slipping by one or maybe two frames. It might come under pressure to do so because for such double exposure-based effects, a piece of film 90 to 100 frames long is wound back "by force" into the cartridge chambers. As the cartridge wasn't originally designed for this, it was believed that under certain circumstances, the wound-back film might force its way back, thus moving or pushing away the frame currently placed at the film gate.

As the Nikon R10 was one of the first cameras in the Super 8 sector to offer these features in a semi-automatic package, it was a real testing ground for this kind of features (which would become standard on better cameras later on).

 

Only the bottom claw would have any effect in the above scenario, and yet there's that top claw...not to mention the PDC is left protruding when film transport is stopped, effectively preventing any "slip back".

 

Anyhoo, the built-in cartridge pressure plate is also holding the film in place, and that didn't change with better cameras.

 

I sure don't want to be a jerk about this, but I would like to make sense of it. ~:?)

 

Mitch

[Michael Lehnert]

Thanks Michael for taking the time to reply, and for the good words about the S8Today article.

 

You are welcome.

 

I'd like to address a couple of your points below, unfortunately...~:?)

 

I was expecting that, Mitch. Anything else would have been a disappointment. B)

 

Who's to argue with the "literature", eh? but on every R10 I've seen, including the one in the picture, (unless they de-powered the camera in mid-dissolve), and the one sitting beside me now, the "upper" claw is in the film path during normal filming - as I say, it engages the perfs of a short filmstrip moved across the gate by hand.

 

Hmm, that's interesting. On the Nikon R10 which I know (not my own, but a fellow filmmaker's one) which was also used for the testing project I described above, the "Nikon thingy" you regard as a 'registration pin' and I refer to as a "dual spring-pressured drag claws" does actually react as I described it. This is especially odd as that Nikon R10 gets annual CLA jobs in Germany! :blink:

In whatever way we look at it, my memory stands in opposition to your statement. :huh: As you own a Nikon R10 and I only have access to my memory about dry-shooting with one, I shall give you right and continue my line of argumentation based on your description, namely that the forward "Nikon thingy" is always protruded in normal filming.

BTW, the owner is also convinced that it's a reg pin, as every Nikon R10 owner seems to be :P . So let's return to that discussion:

 

But, many Nizo PDCs, as well of those of many other manufacturer's, also have only passive retraction - the cam only moves it up and down - and certainly these PDCs are engaging the perfs at normal filming speeds...

 

Sure, a simple pull-down claw system features passive retraction depending on make and model. I haven't come across a co-planar movement in a Super 8 camera yet, either (which is something of a shame, actually... ;) ).

 

But the point we are discussing here is not if the "Nikon thingy" "engages" (I use your words now to avoid any semantic communication error, okay?) the perforation at all: by being out in the film path, it will engage contact with the cartridged raw film and its perforation in any way because of its mere physical presence. Nor are we discussing if its retraction is passive. It must be passive, as the "Nikon thingy" is obviously disconnected from the pull-down system and only spring-pressured. Both you and me have agreed on that in the earlier reply post already.

 

The point we are discussing here is whether the initial "engagement" (and not the forthfollowing retraction) is either an active, motor-driven and pull-down-coordinated motion with the clear intent to slide into the perforation and stabilise and/or freeze the frame by pushing it against the film gate, as a device IIRC referred to as a 'registration pin' would normally do;

or whether the "Nikon thingy" is more of a passive device that is merely spring-pressuredly "lurking out" of its slot and being dragged over the perforation while the film runs over it (as you said yourself when you described the "Nikon thingy" and ran the piece of film over it by hand). The latter would namely mean that the level of engagement, the degree of penetration into the perf hole is significantly different at varying speed of filming (thus indicating rather frame "support" than frame "freeze" during filming), and that the disconnection from the motorised pull-down system and the passive spring-pressure-only force that engages it into the perf hole could not be in any way comparable to what a registration pin (as described above) intends to accomplish.

 

You are arguing for the first part, that the "Nikon thingy" is a registration pin. However, you do also state yourself that actually it is a completely passive device. And that statement of yours would actually mean and substantiate that it is not a registration pin but could rather better be described as "dual spring-pressured drag claws". That is what Tony Hudson and I argue for, as a registration pin is an actively-driven device. Your question...

 

Is a true reg pin never passive?

 

...gives the anwer: As I wrote before, "a registration pin is usually an integral part of the transport mechanism, has its mechanical movement combined and coordinated with the pull-down system, actively (as in "driven"!) engaging the perforation and thus pushing the to-be-exposed frame against the film gate in order to stop and freeze it."

 

Rest assured, I am not saying that the "Nikon thingy" might not provide some form of frame support. But I would not go as far and claim that it is a registration pin, as this invokes a dimension of mechanical intent that the "Nikon thingy" does not even set out to achieve. To be frank (and I say this well knowing that the Nikon R10 has a quite resolute and fearsome fandom in the "cloud"), from my experience of Nikon R10 footage, both for film projects and the test film orgy I mentioned earlier in this thread, I just cannot say that the frame stability of a CLA'd Nikon R10 footage I saw over the past years is superior to other S8 cameras.

(and although I could start to get annoyingly repetitive, I must mention again that a reg pin is not ? although all too often assumed ? about absolute (!) better frame stability. Frame stability variance in cameras can be better without it featuring a reg pin.)

 

Now, you asked...

 

If it's not designed to help stabilize image registration, I can't imagine what it is designed for...

 

...so I offered, in line with above argumentation, what this "Nikon thingy" device might be best useful for apart from a questionable and (IMHO invisible) frame support in normal filming.

 

I established the theory outside of the reg pin idea (and in line with Nikons "literature") as well as well bearing in mind that ? as you state yourself ?

 

Only the bottom claw would have any effect in the above [reg pin frame support] scenario, and yet there's that top claw...

 

...that one possible use could relate to the semi-automatic double exposure-based effect features in order to fixate the film at all costs. Especially when reward filming, which is when the other drag claw is protruding au lieu of the "forward" one. My theory would make sense in respect to then-scepticism towards the film being forcefully wound back into the cartridge chambers for these effects.

 

You are of course right by stating that...

the PDC is left protruding when film transport is stopped, effectively preventing any "slip back".

... but then again, as a reg pin in a 16SR-series is only a further device ameliorating the frame stability possible with the used pull-down system, so might it be the case that the "Nikon thingy" is only a further device fixing the effect's starting/stopping frame in the film gate.

 

I sure don't want to be a jerk about this, but I would like to make sense of it. ~:?)

 

And I don't want to be a jerk disagreeing with the reg pin theory, as the "Nikon thingy" is just not straight and simply what would be correctly described as a reg pin! The heated debates that raged on that matter showcase that it's not that clear-cut. And the circumstance that whenever someone (usually a Nikon R10 owner :) ) shouts "reg pin" other people beg to differ straight away should give those shouters something to think about. New books claiming that the Nikon R10 is a mecha-wonderwork à la Mitchell with two double registration pins aren't helping here either! <_<

 

I (and friends, colleagues and even family!) have been like raiders of the lost ark trying to figure out what the **** Nikon was hoping to achieve with the "Nikon thingy". Correspondence with Nippon Kokagu a colleague initiated years ago lead to nothing, so there isn't any help coming from the manufacturer (so far).

 

Somehow, the grizzly feeling is creeping up my spine that we won't be able to convince each other that it's (not) a reg pin :) . Actually, we might not come to any conclusion on that matter at all, just as many lost souls before us haven't ;) . Would you agree with that, Mitch?

[Mitch Perkins]

Somehow, the grizzly feeling is creeping up my spine that we won't be able to convince each other that it's (not) a reg pin :) . Actually, we might not come to any conclusion on that matter at all, just as many lost souls before us haven't ;) . Would you agree with that, Mitch?

 

Absolutely not; it makes sense that a true reg. pin would never be passive...(hmm, nor would a true 16/35mm PDC...for that matter), so I disagree with your prediction by agreeing with your point in the main - if a true reg. pin is active, then the Nikon thing is not a true reg. pin.

 

At least I got to disagree with something...~:?)

 

Actually, of course it's been a pleasure keeping it civilized. On top of it all, while I'm pretty sure the top claw of the dual spring-pressured drag claws is there for stability during normal shooting, as I say, I had to disable the thing in the R10 I owned, as it was sticking and responsible for some very unstable footage!

 

Mitch

[Michael Lehnert]

Absolutely not;

 

:lol:

 

it makes sense that a true reg. pin would never be passive..., so I [...] agree with your point in the main - if a true reg. pin is active, then the Nikon thing is not a true reg. pin.

 

Well, let's settle for that indeed, stating to the public that because of the nature of the "Nikon thingy", it should not be referred to as a registration pin but maybe rather as something along the line of dual spring-pressured drag claws.

 

(hmm, nor would a true 16/35mm PDC...for that matter)

 

...and of course, not many 16/35mm cameras feature a simple pull-down claw movement as found on most Super 8 cameras. Rather more sophisticated mechanism are used such as simple or dual pull-down intermittent systems (which actively retract), or pull-down/pin reg'd systems, or a co-planar movement, or a rotary prism system or whatever else engineers patented for their companies...

 

At least I got to disagree with something...~:?)

 

I think we disagreed on so many agreements, we should just get out and run a cartridge through a camera ? just for the sake of it, as a sort of therapeutic measure to get over "reg pin exhaustion". ;)

 

Actually, of course it's been a pleasure keeping it civilized.

 

Wouldn't you agree that this is one of the quality pillars of this forum here ;) ?

 

I had to disable the thing in the R10 I owned, as it was sticking and responsible for some very unstable footage!

 

Was there a mechanical problem with the springs, or did the lubrication go so bad that it could not be salvaged? Also, in what way was the footage unstable, if I may ask. Was it permanently unstable, with every frame being equally off, or was there a longer period of stable frames and then unstable frames?

[kevin jackman]

even if it did have a pin you are still working with the plastic cart that acts as a pressure plate. we all know this design would never happen in 16mm or 35mm but many accept it as being acceptable in super8. heres the thing, the smaller the gage the more critical tolerances have to be. in fact those tolerances have to be better exponentially as you get smaller. the mekel is the way to go. hence why im on the hunt to find some. plus its got great features!

[Mitch Perkins]

I think we disagreed on so many agreements, we should just get out and run a cartridge through a camera ? just for the sake of it, as a sort of therapeutic measure to get over "reg pin exhaustion". ;)

 

Every weekend - I shoot weddings for a local prodco. Usually about 10 rolls, to be cut into the main MiniDV product. Keeps my hand in and it's a blast, long as there's little kids running around...and a lot of money spent. ~:?)

 

Wouldn't you agree that this [keeping it civil] is one of the quality pillars of this forum here ;) ?

 

I like to call a thing what it is, enjoying the civility where it's actually warranted. That way it means more, as opposed to being a rule. But hey, I can adapt...~:?)

 

Was there a mechanical problem with the springs, or did the lubrication go so bad that it could not be salvaged? Also, in what way was the footage unstable, if I may ask. Was it permanently unstable, with every frame being equally off, or was there a longer period of stable frames and then unstable frames?

 

Not sure exactly what went wrong. I took it to a local 16/35 repair/rental house, and the Big Cheese there recommended disabling. I agreed as I've found most Super8 camera "repairs" costly and ineffective, except the ones I do myself. ~:?)

 

The footage, all exposed using a tripod, looked as though it were shot from a jackhammer, from beginning to end. Funny thing is most folks we showed it to shrugged and said they didn't notice! It was PlusX in the countryside, so perhaps they were distracted by the extremely beautiful content....~:?)

 

Mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

even if it did have a pin you are still working with the plastic cart that acts as a pressure plate. we all know this design would never happen in 16mm or 35mm but many accept it as being acceptable in super8. heres the thing, the smaller the gage the more critical tolerances have to be. in fact those tolerances have to be better exponentially as you get smaller.

 

While all that is true, we've run tens of thousands of feet of 8 and 16mm home movies through our telecine here, and the Super 8 registration is almost always extremely good. Back in the day, the system was fully supported with R&D etc.

 

Usually it's the 16mm that has reg. issues, though I assume it's mostly from improper loading of the film into the camera.

 

Mitch

[Michael Lehnert]

I like to call a thing what it is, enjoying the civility where it's actually warranted. That way it means more, as opposed to being a rule. But hey, I can adapt...~:?)

 

I see your point and agree with you (incl. the content of your posting on the other thread that caused resentment). However, if civility and respect for the other in communication breaks down, than the to-be-transmitted content might get buried with the form. And that helps no one. B)

 

The footage, all exposed using a tripod, looked as though it were shot from a jackhammer, from beginning to end. Funny thing is most folks we showed it to shrugged and said they didn't notice!

 

Hmm, so I assume the entire mechanism was messed up and would have necessitated major repair. Still, I am sure it could have been put to order quite easily if a technician wants to and knows how to do it.

 

I agreed as I've found most Super8 camera "repairs" costly and ineffective, except the ones I do myself. ~:?)

 

Disagree here, as I like to keep my equipment in pristine condition. Costs aren't that prohibitive, spare parts are amazingly readily available, and the knowledge that the tools are working fine at every moment is priceless, too. I guess I prefer to treat top gear cameras similarly to top gear cars: treat them well, and they just run and run and run. Just buying a new Super 8 camera off eBay and slaughter its life out of it for one film project only, then throw it out isn't my thing. Ciné-film cameras are amazing things, and can be kept alive with very little effort. As long as that effort is regular CLA.

 

It was PlusX in the countryside, so perhaps they were distracted by the extremely beautiful content....~:?)

 

Any clip available :D . Interesting though, how often today's viewers don't notice major visual imperfections anymore: out-of-focus theatre projections, ill-focused shots, ill-exposure etc. The irony, considering that we bring this up in a thread dedicated to the "sharpest" gear for Super 8...

 

I don't know why but when I read your above line on Plus-X, I thought of Anton Corbijn's "Never Let Me Down Again" video clip for Depeche Mode... beautiful imagery! And Corbijn used Super 8 already when people were throwing their gear away to buy into S-VHS-C and Betacam...

 

But let's get back to the topic...

[Matthew Buick]

Just to let you all know. I have a Sankyo CME 1100 in excellent condition that will be going on sale fairly soon. The price will be around $200.00 USD, perhaps a little more.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Just to let you all know. I have a Sankyo CME 1100 in excellent condition that will be going on sale fairly soon. The price will be around $200.00 USD, perhaps a little more.

 

Matthew, nice name btw, have you seen my post that the CME 1100 is arguably the sharpest S8 camera? I wanted to ask you since you own one if you would agree with that synopsis? I love Sankyo cameras despite negative talk from others who are on the Beaulieu/ Nizo bandwagon. I did want a Leicina Special but I realize now that it's out of my range to get one plus getting the lenses that I would want with an interchangable setup.

[Michael Lehnert]

even if it did have a pin you are still working with the plastic cart that acts as a pressure plate. we all know this design would never happen in 16mm or 35mm but many accept it as being acceptable in super8. heres the thing, the smaller the gage the more critical tolerances have to be. in fact those tolerances have to be better exponentially as you get smaller. the mekel is the way to go. hence why im on the hunt to find some. plus its got great features!

 

Well, the Kodapak Coaxial Instamatic-Cartridge wasn't really the "Normandie" of engineering efforts, but it isn't the "Titanic" either! Actually, though not without problems, the cartridge is much better than its reputation. And technical changes to it as seen in form of the Russian reloadable cartridges or Gottfried Klose's FrameMaster device havn't really produced much better results (quite often on the contrary).

 

In my experience ? apart from the recent cases of carelessly loading raw film into the cartridges which were too thick and hence caused jamming ? problems with frame stability or incorrect film transport I heard of or saw were in effect mostly caused by badly or non-maintained cameras rather than the much maligned cartridge. Once the cameras were serviced, cartridges from the same batch produced great results.

 

That such a design would not work in 16mm and 35mm is a fair claim. However, remember the many cartridge-based 16mm formats by Bell & Howell or Siemens that did not succeed in the market because manufacturers wouldn't gamble on potential "island solutions": their mechanical workings were well R&D'd, just as the cartridge for Super 8.

 

And after all, the cartridge allows Super 8 to offer a serious and unique proposition. No other ciné-film format can play the 'easy-to-handle'-principle in so many ways (size, readiness, usability, quality, fx, publicity, HR) so thoroughly to its advantage.

(And just before someone mentions something otherwise: Double Super 8 and Single 8 are not without problems either, despite the concerted efforts by their user base that suggest that they are essentially impeccable).

 

Kevin, I sincerely hope you can track down a Mekel. I can't wait to finally see a film shot in it. That would be a very interesting thing to experience. Please keep us posted.

Let's also see what Gottfried Klose has up his sleeves with regard to his supposedly all-new cartridge design (hope that fares better than the ill-fated Cinevia start-up).

[Mitch Perkins]

Hmm, so I assume the entire mechanism was messed up and would have necessitated major repair.

 

No, just that blasted thingy. Once I got rid of it things smoothed out.

 

 

Any clip available :D . Interesting though, how often today's viewers don't notice major visual imperfections anymore: out-of-focus theatre projections, ill-focused shots, ill-exposure etc. The irony, considering that we bring this up in a thread dedicated to the "sharpest" gear for Super 8...

 

~:?)

 

I'm not sure folks ever did notice, speaking of which, you're going to have to pardon a *lot* when viewing the clip - it looks purplish, it's the wrong transfer, (I did a much better one with no frame lines, no scratches [wetgate]) etc...but I believe there were problems loading it. Click on "films", then the right-hand arrow at bottom -

 

http://lauriemaher.com/

 

Our heads were full of Mr Hulot's Holiday...not a bad thing to have a head full of. ~:?)

 

But let's get back to the topic...

 

Okay - Nikon Superzoom 8. ~:?)

 

Mitch

[Michael Lehnert]

Our heads were full of Mr Hulot's Holiday...

 

Good point. Seeing Tati's "Play Time" on Criterion's DVD edition made me feel lusting for 65mm and 70mm cinema projection, but we are in the wrong forum for discussing that.

 

Okay - Nikon Superzoom 8. ~:?)

 

Try again :D .

 

Actually, wait: how would you compare the Nikon R10 against that one regarding mechanics and optical resolving power of the lens. Similar, or is the Nikon R10 more capable?

[Mitch Perkins]

...how would you compare the Nikon R10 against that one [Nikon Superzoom 8] regarding mechanics and optical resolving power of the lens. Similar, or is the Nikon R10 more capable?

 

The R10, like most cameras, gets a little softer when wide open, the SZ8 does not, I suppose because there's much less glass. Again, even with a wide angle attachment, the SZ8 is sharp as a tack.

 

Mechanically, the SZ8 is of a simpler design, which I like, especially now that dissolves etc. can easily be done in post. Also, the handgrip folds out of the way for tripod mounting, IMHO an essential design feature.

 

Mitch

[Guest Glenn Brady]

This question has been beaten to death over the last several years, and the answer always is: Any camera needs overhaul and regular maintenance in order to provide its best performance. Curiously, almost nobody in the Super 8 world bothers to spend $500 on an overhaul of a camera they bought off eBay for $100. If you are willing to expend the resources necessary to get your Nizo, Braun, Beaulieu, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Bolex, Elmo, Sankyo or whatever camera up to snuff you will get better pictures than 99% of the S8 shooters out there. But if not, it doesn't really matter what brand of 40 year old, broken down piece of crap you have. ya dig?

 

That cameras need regular maintenance to perform as they should is exactly what I suggested in my post, so I wonder why you chose to quote me as if I needed to be convinced of that (ya dig?). The question posed at the start of the thread - "What would you say is the sharpest Super 8mm camera, lens, or camera-lens combination?" - isn't, as you say, answered by "any camera needs overhaul and regular maintenance".

 

I look forward to reading the article in Super 8 Today reporting the results of comparison tests of various cameras, even if those results demonstrate there isn't an appreciable difference. At least the question will have be answered with more than the weight of mere opinion.

[Matthew Buick]

Matthew, nice name btw, have you seen my post that the CME 1100 is arguably the sharpest S8 camera? I wanted to ask you since you own one if you would agree with that synopsis?

 

What it means is that the Dichroid System is more accurate than the Split-Image, Microprism system. There is a separate trigger on my camera for the focussing. You get a blue and a yellow double image when the camera isn't focussed and you really know when the camera is in focus. The double images are clean gone. That viewfinder is great. So yes. I'd agree with what I wrote in Super8wiki. :lol:

Edited September 12, 2007 by Matthew Buick