"New" super-8 camera to market

[Marc Marti]

Anthony,

 

Switar 16mm primes (the AR models, not the RX ones) work like a charm in super-8.

I use to travel only with a 10mm Switar in the Fujica and the quality is outstanding. Besides, they are small, light and not very expensive.

 

Carl,

 

That's the point. Quality standards are not the same now as in the 70's, and this camera puts super-8 directly in this century.

Designed as an amateur format, its flaws were "acceptable" when it was created, but not these days, where everybody is used to HD images and can shoot a high quality picture for very little money.

I remember a test from José Luís Villar where he confronted images from an HDSLR with the Vision stocks shot with a Beaulieu. Sharpness was almost the same, but the filmic image looked much more richer. That's the way to follow...

And of course, if anyone wants the old "home-movie look" always can purchase an old Sankyo on ebay for a few bucks. As simple as that.

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

I would not recommend to use CCTV C-Mount lenses. They are rather bad if compared to real cine lenses -- much bigger Circle of Confusion, more Distortion, weaker glass, 3-blade triangular aperture or even just "scissor aperture", worse coating... they are made for surveillance, not for filming.

I am currently trying my Kern Primes and the Optivaron 6-66, which has an image circle big enough (not sure yet about sharpness in the edges, subject to be tested). The H8RX-Primes don't fit -- image circle is too small (good enough for DS8, but not for this Max-8 widened gate) plus their Flange focal distance is too short.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Friedemann Wachsmuth

[Heikki Repo]

Friedemann,

 

we really need to see some nice Switar+Logmar+Vision3/Velvia footage so don't keep us waiting! ;)

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

It's too dark vor 50 ASA most of these days... Anyway, I plan to shoot some cartridges on the weekend (all three kinds of Vision), then send them to Andec and afterwards to Scanning. Stay tuned.

 

(I so wish I had José Luis' Indi&Cold Models here...)

[Carl Looper]

Carl,

 

That's the point. Quality standards are not the same now as in the 70's, and this camera puts super-8 directly in this century.

Designed as an amateur format, its flaws were "acceptable" when it was created, but not these days, where everybody is used to HD images and can shoot a high quality picture for very little money.

I remember a test from José Luís Villar where he confronted images from an HDSLR with the Vision stocks shot with a Beaulieu. Sharpness was almost the same, but the filmic image looked much more richer. That's the way to follow...

And of course, if anyone wants the old "home-movie look" always can purchase an old Sankyo on ebay for a few bucks. As simple as that.

 

Hi Marc - yes - that was exactly the point I was making.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Carl Looper

[Erkan Umut]

It's too dark vor 50 ASA most of these days... Anyway, I plan to shoot some cartridges on the weekend (all three kinds of Vision), then send them to Andec and afterwards to Scanning. Stay tuned.

 

(I so wish I had José Luis' Indi&Cold Models here...)

 

Come to Istanbul we gonna have clear days following. I'll show you the best viewpoints... :) Otherwise I'll use my Nikon :) :)

Edited November 28, 2013 by Erkan Umut

[Erkan Umut]

computar CCTV lens, made in Japan - C-mount - f/1:1.2-16 plus Closed, F=12.5-75mm (very reasonable priced, Cons for filmaking: a little smoother aperture friction than I used to)

 

I had used it on a FUJICA ZC1000 New once, the results were not bad...

 

 

 

[Carl Looper]

In addition to what a better Super8 camera facilitates, and what the new film stocks provide, there is also today, over and above what was barely conceivable in the seventies, the state of the art in film transfers, and post processing - that anyone using a cheap laptop, and appropriate software, can employ.

 

The work of José Luís Villar is ample proof that we're not living in the seventies anymore - or perhaps proof we're living in the seventies that was supposed to occur rather than the one that did.

 

One of the things that pin registration provides which digital registration (on it's own) can't, is ellimination of the small vertical motion blur that a non-registered camera might otherwise encounter. You would otherwise have to use some inverse motion blur filters in post - calibrated according to a computed estimate of the motion distance - not something that easy to compute (but at least it is computable). When all is said and done the pin registration provides a primary solution.

 

For anarchial film-makers there might be an argument that one is tampering with the image through registration - but this would be incorrect (I'd argue). A cinema image is not in any given frame - but in the interval between the frames (in space and time) - in the movement that takes place between one frame and the next (at the very least). Despite commentary to the contrary this movement is 'real' by which is meant it is something visible (or potentially so) as distinct from something which is not. What is arguably illusory is the concept that there is nothing between the frames (no movement etc). A concept that has attached itself to the brains of those looking at a filmstrip in their hands as distinct from in a projector (or a Moviola). When looking at a filmstrip in one's hands one is looking at a film that is still partly in an encoded state. The movement hasn't been decoded. One see photographic images rather than a cinematographic image. For the latter you have to put the film in a projector - that is what the projector does - it decodes the information otherwise encoded in the filmstrip. The filmstrip is only one part of the overall mechanism.

 

The small random movements that otherwise occur without registration interfere with the cinematic interval between the frames - they interfere with a decoding of the cinema-image. They interfere with the movement. While technically and experimentally interesting they are not in any way some required aspect of a cinema-image. They are optional. But without a registration strategy the option to elliminate it is not there.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

I should add that one can't just ignore the limitations of a particular medium. One still has to make those limitations work. And this will be the case whether the camera is old or new. There is still plenty of work that can be done on a cheap Sankyo off ebay - and not just works after a home movie look. My main argument is that the limitations of any system (old or new) are not some sort of "natural" attribute that needs to be glorified. One can make a camera (etc) work despite the limitations, rather than as a function of the limitations. Sometimes one does enhance the limitations. It is one way of making a film work. But it's not the only way. That's the main point. Photography/cinematography is able to make use of the world beyond the camera (beyond the limitations of the system). It is this world which can also be used to make an otherwise limited system work.

 

C

Edited November 29, 2013 by Carl Looper

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

Very good write-up, Carl. It is this space and time that people too often ignore.

Pointing to the Phi-Phenomenon often helps explaining.

 

I too wrote an article about this interesting topic a while ago, unfortunately I have it in German only...

[Carl Looper]

Very good write-up, Carl. It is this space and time that people too often ignore.

Pointing to the Phi-Phenomenon often helps explaining.

 

I too wrote an article about this interesting topic a while ago, unfortunately I have it in German only...

 

Great article Friedmann - I don't read German but a google translation seems to have done a pretty good job:

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmkorn.org%2Fzwischen-den-zeilen-wie-wir-film-sehen%2F

[Carl Looper]

Yes the phi-phenomenon is a good starting point - however it maintains (as can be seen in the Wikipedia entry) the traditional concept of the individual frames as "real" and the motion as an "illusion". What I try to do in my writing is to actually reverse this: to suggest that what is real is the motion (in the cinematographic image), and that what is an illusion (in terms of motion) are the individual frames.

 

Now by "real" I don't mean anything outside the image as such. I don't mean some hidden reality outside of perception. Rather, what I mean is just anything which is observable, as distinct from that which is not. So by this definition dreams would also be real since they are observable. Now movement is observable (we can see it) so it is an image, and by the definition of reality just made, I would therefore call it real.

 

But in a still frame we can't see any movement - so by the same definition, it would not be real - well at least in terms of movement. It would remain real in terms of space. Now this doesn't mean one can't suggest movement in a still frame, for example, using motion blur. Or by having figures in some dynamic pose that suggests movement. There are many photographs (and paintings) that suggest movement. This is what I mean by a single frame being an illusion - an illusion of movement - because the movement isn't actually visible. It can only be suggested. The movement is thinkable (intelligable) but it's not visible (not sensual). But in the cinematographic image movement is visible.

 

Philosophically this way of writing (or theorising) is called "reversing Plato".

 

Carl

[Avery Dark]

computar CCTV lens, made in Japan - C-mount - f/1:1.2-16 plus Closed, F=12.5-75mm (very reasonable priced, Cons for filmaking: a little smoother aperture friction than I used to)

 

I had used it on a FUJICA ZC1000 New once, the results were not bad...

 

Thank you for bringing this one up Erkan, I had been contemplating it for some time. Seems they are still available new from one source. I can live with a twiddly smooth aperture but when you say the results were "not bad", how do you mean it specifically? Not bad in comparison to other TV lenses? or compared to the Fujinon 1.8 / 7.5-75mm? or to other cine specific C mounts generally? If I'm reading it to mean not bad in your experience, it would be a good bet, but asking just making sure... :)

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

Try to find out the Circle of Confusion Diameter. Most CCTV lenses are made for PAL or NTSC output, so theirs is much bigger than what a good cine prime provides. Might be that Erkan's lens is the exception, I don't know that one.

[Erkan Umut]

 

Thank you for bringing this one up Erkan, I had been contemplating it for some time. Seems they are still available new from one source. I can live with a twiddly smooth aperture but when you say the results were "not bad", how do you mean it specifically? Not bad in comparison to other TV lenses? or compared to the Fujinon 1.8 / 7.5-75mm? or to other cine specific C mounts generally? If I'm reading it to mean not bad in your experience, it would be a good bet, but asking just making sure... :)

 

You are welcome by all means!

 

I should check the film I've shot again just to be more specific and correct, but I have no Telecine possibility at home to share with you unfortunately, and I do not want to transfer it to digital using my projector thou my ELMO is one of the good models.

 

In any case, it may be not correct to compare it with the TV Zooms. I never try to compare it with Kern lenses, etc. of course. But its OK for its price, and available as brand new. Also, its made in Japan from a good company at least. Worth to try...

 

Certainly, keep away from the lenses Friedemann told before. But this lens and similar are different than those. Let me check my literature as I have almost all the documentation form serious manufacturers.

 

What I know exactly is I've tested several times for the back focus on the eclair ACL II and FUJICA ZC1000 C-mounts for its clearance to the mirrors. Everything is proper and perfect. Good built quality.

 

Hope this helps for now.

[Anthony Schilling]

If the AR primes work, that would be good. It's just too bad that I got rid of mine when i sold my non-reflex H16 5 years ago, and they're not cheap. I think I would want to start with 1 standard, 1 wide angle prime, and a C-mount zoom from the S8 Beaulieu Angenieux or Schnieder lens.

[Pavan Deep]

I was told to stay away from CCTV lenses, but I have used many c mount CCTV lenses for both Super 8 and 16mm, some I found terrible as they were either difficult to work with, or don’t allow manual aperture control [many CCTV lenses lack manual controls] and others tend to produce softer images.

 

In my opinion there are a few that are very good for film use like the one mentioned the Computar 12.5 - 75 TV zoom, I have this lens, it's available new and it’s a very fast lens and does produce sharp images, I have used it for 16mm and Super 16 not Super 8, the non zoom Cosmicar/Pentax 16mm and 25mm lenses are also very good for both Super 8 and Super 16. The best CCTV zoom lens for Super 8 I found is the Pentax 8-48 which is also available new.

 

Pav

[Erkan Umut]

In my opinion there are a few that are very good for film use like the one mentioned the Computar 12.5 - 75 TV zoom, I have this lens, it's available new and it’s a very fast lens and does produce sharp images, I have used it for 16mm and Super 16 not Super 8, the non zoom Cosmicar/Pentax 16mm and 25mm lenses are also very good for both Super 8 and Super 16. The best CCTV zoom lens for Super 8 I found is the Pentax 8-48 which is also available new.

 

By the way, I am the admin of the popular ECLAIR 16MM COMMUNITY @ http://eclair16.com.

 

We have been discussed these lenses among the followers a lot of time. They have got good results when the correct lenses are used.

 

Yes, PENTAX and Cosmicar offer good manual lenses as far as I know. I don't like the new manual lenses with the locking mechanisms on the lens barrels...

Edited November 30, 2013 by Erkan Umut

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

8 or 12mm are still pretty long for the wide angle part on Super 8. The Schneider Optivaron 6-66/1.8 can often be found for <100$ and is really good. Also, with the UWL-III attached, you get down to 3.9mm (the UWL was actually made for this lens!)

 

I prefer primes though, but that is just me. :)

[Jose luis villar]

The Schneider Optivaron 6-66/1.8 is the lens that I have on my Beaulieu, is very sharp, a fantastic lens.

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

Indeed. I find the aperture ring way too friction-less though when used on another camera... is there any trick to make its movement a bit more smooth?

[Erkan Umut]

Indeed. I find the aperture ring way too friction-less though when used on another camera... is there any trick to make its movement a bit more smooth?

 

Once I have tested it: Leaving a lens in cold helps, causing to force the internal grease viscosity gets solidified. But not a proper solution...

 

By the way, interestingly, I never faced with that problem, a lens behaves different when used in different camera mounts in same type...

Edited November 30, 2013 by Erkan Umut

[Jose luis villar]

Indeed. I find the aperture ring way too friction-less though when used on another camera... is there any trick to make its movement a bit more smooth?

 

I thought the same.

[Carl Looper]

 

Great article Friedmann - I don't read German but a google translation seems to have done a pretty good job:

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmkorn.org%2Fzwischen-den-zeilen-wie-wir-film-sehen%2F

 

This is bit of a digression. Can't help myself.

 

The article by Friedmann Wachsmuth intersects with some of the work I'm doing in the same space. The article is about the difference between an analog image and a digital image, drawing on the idea of "Super Resolution" (SR) amongst other things. SR is a technique employed to enhance the visibility of a target (in terms of resolution) over that which more conventional sampling strategies might otherwise obtain. The essential strategy is over-sampling the target and re-integrating such - in terms of space and/or time - with some clever interchanging of energy/information between these two domains.

 

Freidmann employs the metaphor of "reading between the lines" and I find this is a great metaphor. And this is where I digress ...

 

Does reading between the lines occur in the brain? I'd say yes and no. If by brain we only mean the network of information inside our heads I'd suggest it's not just in the brain as such. But if by brain we also mean the part played by the world at large as well (the entire universe as a brain - as part of the complete network) then I'd say yes it does occur in the brain (ie. in the universe at large).

 

The main argument put forward here is that an image is not entirely located in our heads as such - but is in the relationships between all of the otherwise isolatable parts of the entire system. The universe as a whole becomes the entire system. One can ask the question as to where does the brain stop in terms of an image? Does it stop at the retina? I'd argue that the light "entering the eye" is also part of the brain, ie. that one can extend the concept of a brain (a network) beyond the retina, beyond the lens, out into the world - where it would there be facilitated by a network of light rather than neurons. The eye becomes just another interface between this larger brain (the world at large) and the smaller brain (our personal brain) within that larger brain. The information processing going on in the larger world is in terms of light (and matter) and what we might otherwise recognise as the domain of physics. Physics gives us an idea of how this larger brain thinks.

 

So the "reading between the lines" that takes place, would be in the world at large, as much as it is in our personal brain. The image is taking place outside of our heads as much as inside our heads.

 

Are there any practical aspects to such a philosophical position? I think so but I can't be sure of course. The general idea is that the universe is essentially information. It is only information. There isn't anything else. Information and energy are the same thing. And energy (information) is conserved (it is indestructible) but that doesn't mean it's always accessible to all parts of the system. Energy can also be regarded as "seeking" conservation and a way to conserve information (or to conceive such conservation) is in the form of a brain. But to conserve it in one place is also to "unconserve" it elsewhere. So there are inevtiably blindspots that are created. All sorts of mazes evolve but always a connection, if only by means of the finest of threads. So a brain can be regarded as a function of the conservation of energy. The quantum mechanics of light (and matter) can be regarded as a function of energy conservation (ie. as a brain). Soon to be exploited by quantum computers.

 

But I still digress. What is the practical value?

 

I find this philosophical approach is very useful in the design of image processing algorithms. If the world at large is a brain and is already reading between the lines (in it's own way) the task of reading between the lines for an algorithm (or for our personal brain) need only be a strategy that translates the "thought" of this larger brain into that which our personal brain understands. A "google translator" for the thinking going on outside of our personal brain, ie. as distinct from something that attempts to mimic our personal brain - ie. a slightly different idea from the computer as "artificial brain". It becomes more like an augmentation - or evolution of the idea of a brain into an alternative domain. Such a brain would operate differently.

 

On a very simple level we can appreciate the general idea of this in the relationship between two adjacent pixels. The pixels represent isolated information, neither of which consitute an image on their own (or they constitute the barest of an image). Rather the image is in the relationship between the pixels - in the difference between the pixels. It is in the "gap" between the pixels where the signal actually subsists - that what we see (an image) is never in an individual pixel as such but in the relationship between the pixels - which is a relationship that is as much "out there" in the world as it is inside our head. Or another way of putting it is that the two things are just two sides of the same thing. The relationship between one pixel and another is an image, a signal or a thought, regardless of whether one locates that inside or outside the head. The signal constitutes something of what would be this brain.

 

Likewise the relationship between one frame of film and the next (or previous) can be regarded as an image-thought on the same basis.

 

The relationship between every pixel and every other pixel, between every frame and every other frame, between every shot and every other shot becomes a kind of ginormous image-thought-brain. So a suitably designed algorithm, that assumes this ginormous image-thought-brain-universe, can set out exploring such - where it just brings back relationships (images) otherwise already "out there". Or already "in the image" as such.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

I'd add that the algorithms required to find these images are not just those one can run on a laptop (or our children might do on a quantum computer) or ones that go in search of sharper images, but are also those algorithms we can do with quite low tech devices such as a camera and film and that look for any image. The way we shoot the film (point the camera) or process the film in a wet lab, or manipulate the process with sticky tape, toilet rolls, and rubber bands. Or screen the film. To perform a kind of thinking outside of our head, in a larger brain - in the world at large.

 

C