Jump to content

Best Super 8 footage you have ever seen (I bet)


Friedemann Wachsmuth

Recommended Posts

What is a "casual observer"?

 

I was going to say any system which substitutes, for what is observable, that which isn't.

 

For example, a system which substitutes a shimmer on the desert horizon for water.

 

Or equally, a system which substitutes a shimmer on the desert horizon, for the refraction of light in hot air.

 

But both of these demonstrate (if nothing else) that the shimmer on the desert horizon (in itself) was still observed.

 

So a better idea might be any system that simply fails to see the shimmer on the desert horizon at all. That can only see water. Or hot air.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decent attempt to define "casual observation", however I felt that the answer lacked a degree of contextual relevance, so only a six and a half out of ten from me B)

For me the "imperfections" I associate with super 8, i.e. grain, a general softness of focus, saturated colours, are elements that are missing in this footage. That is why I think it looks more "video" rather than Super 8 film.

For me, it is merely down to a matter of taste over anything else. If I get commissioned to shoot Super 8, which admittedly is a rare occurrance these days, the client paying for that privelege wants a "Super 8" look.....while I think this footage looks "quality", I don't think my clients would be happy with the lack of "super 8ness". Most of my clients want video to imitate film, rather than paying a hefty price for film to imitate video.

Edited by Keith Marley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decent attempt to define "casual observation", however I felt that the answer lacked a degree of contextual relevance, so only a six and a half out of ten from me B)

For me the "imperfections" I associate with super 8, i.e. grain, a general softness of focus, saturated colours, are elements that are missing in this footage. That is why I think it looks more "video" rather than Super 8 film.

For me, it is merely down to a matter of taste over anything else. If I get commissioned to shoot Super 8, which admittedly is a rare occurrance these days, the client paying for that privelege wants a "Super 8" look.....while I think this footage looks "quality", I don't think my clients would be happy with the lack of "super 8ness". Most of my clients want video to imitate film, rather than paying a hefty price for film to imitate video.

 

Ah ok. I see what you're saying.

 

Not that I agree, but I see the problem.

 

Basically you have acquired a certain kind of conception of what that term "Super8" should mean (grain, soft focus, saturated colour, etc). So it's not so much the film itself that's a problem - but the wording that goes along with it, ie. using the word "Super8" to describe the film.

 

Someone else mentioned something along these same lines in another forum.

 

I think the only answer to that is to simply treat the film as not a Super8 film, as crazy as that sounds. I said much the same in the other forum. Basically, if you already have a preconception of what Super8 should look like then this film isn't a Super8 film.

 

But nor is it video.

 

This is what I said elsewhere, before Friedemann had posted his film. Indeed the subsequent appearance of his film lent complete support for the argument I was otherwise advancing here:

 

 

 

As strange as this might sound:

 

The Logmar camera isn't for "super8 film making".

 

Although with additional effort, one could use it for such.

 

Rather, the Logmar camera is designed (I'd argue) for making a different kind of film, although what kind remains to be seen.

 

Certainly films made with this camera will be shot on Super8 (after all it is a Super8 camera), but that's about all one can say at this stage. I certainly have a few ideas about the kind of films I'll be making with this camera and it certainly won't be "super8 filmmaking". It will be firstly a film, but saying that doesn't mean, having been shot on Super8, such won't play an important role. Indeed it will. It just won't be what is otherwise meant by "super8 film making".

 

Nor should that automatically imply that it would be the type of film making one might otherwise pursue with 16mm, or 35 mm, or digital - a false conclusion to which many might inadvertently jump.

 

No, the camera is a particular type of technology, exploiting Super8 film, in a particular type of way, with it's own particular type of potential that artists will leverage in whatever way is appropriate, given such a camera.

 

Film, regardless of gauge, encodes an image in a very different way from the way a digital camera encodes an image. And if used for subsequent transfer to digital, it produces a very different type of image from the direct-to-digital path that a digital camera employs. Whether the result is considered better or worse than digital is ultimately beside the point. For what is important is that the result is different. Very different.

 

Exploiting this difference is the key.

 

But without a film camera (such as the Logmar, as much as any other film camera), this is impossible.

 

But what of the Logmar compared to another Super8 camera (as distinct from comparison to a digital camera)? Well, If you use the same lens on a Logmar, that you otherwise use on another Super8 camera, you'll get the same result, in terms of what the lens does, on both cameras. The Logmar, however, allows the use of new lenses, which only a few traditional Super8 cameras would allow. And unlike any other Super8 camera it has a fine adjust on the flange distance. Normally this shouldn't be adjusted (at all) but in those cases where it might be the only practical solution - there it is. The other thing is the way the Logmar facilitates sync sound. For a particular type of film making this is an improvement on older Super8 cameras. The crystal sync speed being the main one. But also the ability to save sound on an SD card in the camera (for a quasi-single system sound setup) - which no Super8 camera can now do because there is no longer any sound film. This is good for on the fly, one person shooting, that traditional Super8 sound facilitated. But perhaps the most important feature is the camera's pin-registration. This is the jewel in the crown. Not only do traditional Super8 cameras not have this but many 16mm cameras don't have it. And as much as one might enjoy jittery films there is plenty of room for enjoyment of non-jittery films as well. When blowing up to 35mm or digital, for screening on a big screen, this is really important, I find. A particular aspect of film (to do with time) becomes far more visible when the image isn't jumping around in space (as fun as that might be in a music video, title sequence, or nostalgia dribble).

 

I also think there's going to be a bit of a surprise for many as 4K transfers of Super8 become the norm. If traditional wisdoms on how many pixels Super8 needs in a transfer haven't already been proved rubbish, they will be.

 

 

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is mostly a demonstration of modern film and scan quality. The see-saw rocking of the image is produced by the faulty perforation by Kodak. The Logmar was equiped with a C-mount lens which is common to Beaulieu (and Leicina M-bayonet).

So what of the indeed beautiful images stems solely from the Logmar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is mostly a demonstration of modern film and scan quality. The see-saw rocking of the image is produced by the faulty perforation by Kodak. The Logmar was equiped with a C-mount lens which is common to Beaulieu (and Leicina M-bayonet).

So what of the indeed beautiful images stems solely from the Logmar?

 

I agree. Much of the work is actually in the lens, the filmstock, the scanner, and the post digital work. So the same result may very well be obtained without the Logmar, using a modded Beaulieu or Leicina. Of course, putting together a viable alternative to the Logmar isn't necessarily that easy. But yes, certainly in my tests on Super8 over the last few years I've not required the benefit of the Logmar to reach the conclusions I've reached about Sup[er8: ie. that there's more to Super8 than just a facilitator of traditional fetishes with grain, soft focus, etc.

 

It actaully remains to be seen if the perf is faulty, ie. outside the range of tolerances permitted for Super8. Or how the pin-rego handled the film . In other words it's not due to any perf problem that image stabilisation was used. There just isn't yet any scanner set up to exploit the camera's pin-rego. Absence of proof isn't proof.

 

The pin-rego in combination with the custom pressure plate could very well be making for a sharper exposure than a custom cart. Don't know. But surely it will be doing a better job over the default plastic pressure plate of a conventional cart.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Friedemann. I know this is 50D which is fine-grained to begin with, but did you have any grain-removal done?

 

No grain removal was done at the scan stage. Basically nobody should ever evaluate the quality of a film's grain based on YouTube or Vimeo. They're highly destructive file formats that cram a ton of data into a small file for easy transport to a variety of devices. Something (many things) have to give in that process, and grain, which is inherently random and difficult for compression algorithms to deal with, is one of the first.

 

I don't know exactly what steps Friedemann took after getting the scan from us, but I can say definitively that if you look at the original scan, the grain is sharply resolved and looks fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It actaully remains to be seen if the perf is faulty, ie. outside the range of tolerances permitted for Super8. Or how the pin-rego handled the film . In other words it's not due to any perf problem that image stabilisation was used. There just isn't yet any scanner set up to exploit the camera's pin-rego. Absence of proof isn't proof.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I can say without a doubt that the perforations in Super 8 are not precisely placed in the exact location (perf to perf) relative to the edge of the frame -- at least in film from Kodak. This is, however, within the SMPTE Spec (according to Kodak, I haven't read the document myself). They went back and looked at their perfs and determined that they're within spec.

 

The camera and scanner combined are almost too precise (for now) for the film. The reason that the stabilization had to be used is precisely because of a imprecise perfs (definitely a perf problem), exposed by this very precision in the other equipment in the chain. But because the perfs are "in spec" according to Kodak, they claim there's no problem. That means it's left to others to deal with.

 

And stabilization will be done at scan-time in the near future, at least with the ScanStation. A fix for this is in progress and that will eliminate the need for a post-scan stabilization pass, since it will steady the image while scanning.

 

This is *only* a problem for Super 8, by the way, and only on specific cameras. 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and other formats that do pin registration (physical or optical) do not have this issue.

 

-perry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see an excess of unsharp mask in this footage, so I think that it may seem like video, also some scenes shows a blur on the left side.

Look at this shot with a Beaulieu of 40 years but reviewed by Björn, in my eyes there is more real detail, the unsharp mask is minimal. Do not look at stability, this handheld shot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see an excess of unsharp mask in this footage, so I think that it may seem like video, also some scenes shows a blur on the left side.

Look at this shot with a Beaulieu of 40 years but reviewed by Björn, in my eyes there is more real detail, the unsharp mask is minimal. Do not look at stability, this handheld shot.

 

It doesn't looked cropped, how do you avoid having the side bars?

Edited by Anthony Schilling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely has a steadyness and sharpness you rarely see in Super8 footage although I very much dislike the Transfer/Grade.

I prefer the footage from the Beaulieu above in fact.

The best footage I ever saw in Super8 was about 10 years ago or more from flying spot in seatlle (now Lightpress I think?)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIkely the beta-testers use all kind of film. Possibly there are some who shoot old film from the mass-produced Super-8 meters in pre-going-bad-Kodak cartridges. ADOX has a very nice, perfed somewhere else BW film in the Klose redesigned cartridge. Or somebody could spool some Wittner stocks like Aviphot in a Kaccema :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

No grain removal was done at the scan stage. Basically nobody should ever evaluate the quality of a film's grain based on YouTube or Vimeo. They're highly destructive file formats that cram a ton of data into a small file for easy transport to a variety of devices. Something (many things) have to give in that process, and grain, which is inherently random and difficult for compression algorithms to deal with, is one of the first.

 

I don't know exactly what steps Friedemann took after getting the scan from us, but I can say definitively that if you look at the original scan, the grain is sharply resolved and looks fantastic.

 

I understand what you are saying, Perry. But seeing as how I can't view Friedemann's film any other way, I am forced to make a judgment based on what I see on the web...just like every other video that is shared across it.

 

And there are shots in the film that just look far too crisp for my tastes. After seeing this transfer of the same stock, I have to say this has more of a filmic look to it:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand what you are saying, Perry. But seeing as how I can't view Friedemann's film any other way, I am forced to make a judgment based on what I see on the web...just like every other video that is shared across it.

 

My point though, is that there are about 1000 ways to arrive at "a video on the web." One can't make a judgement call about many factors in something like this, based solely on what is seen on a web site. For example:

 

1) Image stabilization - we don't know what tools or settings were used. If there was interpolation, there will be grain decimation and softness (and possibly sharpening to compensate for softness), for example.

 

2) Was the video exported from the grading system in the same format that went in, or was it converted to something like H.264 before uploading to YouTube and Vimeo. If it was converted to H.264, for example, what encoder was used? what were the bit rate settings? the prefiltering filtering settings? Brickwall filtration on or off? How aggressive?

 

3) Was the uploaded file at 2k resolution, or was it a scaled down version?

 

Those are just three. But every single one of those has the potential to affect the grain, the sharpness (or softness), the color, etc. With so many variables between source file and destination, nobody can make an accurate judgement call on the quality of the material at the beginning of the process, based on the end product.

 

This is an ongoing problem with this kind of thing - unfortunately, to truly evaluate the quality of a scan at high resolution like this, you have to look at the original files, not at highly compressed (and I'd expect the YouTube files are probably between 50-100x smaller than the source) web versions. But those files are too big for most people to download and play in a meaningful way, which makes this tough.

 

There are just too many variables in the mix to reach any conclusions about what came out of the camera.

 

-perry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This is an ongoing problem with this kind of thing - unfortunately, to truly evaluate the quality of a scan at high resolution like this, you have to look at the original files, not at highly compressed (and I'd expect the YouTube files are probably between 50-100x smaller than the source) web versions. But those files are too big for most people to download and play in a meaningful way, which makes this tough.

 

Again, I totally understand and agree. I'd like nothing better than to view the original files, but as you say above...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I can say without a doubt that the perforations in Super 8 are not precisely placed in the exact location (perf to perf) relative to the edge of the frame -- at least in film from Kodak. This is, however, within the SMPTE Spec (according to Kodak, I haven't read the document myself). They went back and looked at their perfs and determined that they're within spec.

 

The camera and scanner combined are almost too precise (for now) for the film. The reason that the stabilization had to be used is precisely because of a imprecise perfs (definitely a perf problem), exposed by this very precision in the other equipment in the chain. But because the perfs are "in spec" according to Kodak, they claim there's no problem. That means it's left to others to deal with.

 

And stabilization will be done at scan-time in the near future, at least with the ScanStation. A fix for this is in progress and that will eliminate the need for a post-scan stabilization pass, since it will steady the image while scanning.

 

This is *only* a problem for Super 8, by the way, and only on specific cameras. 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and other formats that do pin registration (physical or optical) do not have this issue.

 

-perry

 

The exposed image does not vary with respect to the edge of the film, so one should use the edge of the film as the reference.

 

Perfs are allowed to weave left and right with respect to the edge of the film. Neither a Super8 camera nor Super8 projector cares about what the X position (left/right position) a perf occupies. Cameras and projectors use the edge of the film as the reference for where the film should be positioned during exposure and subsequent projection. It is only scanners that started treating the x position of the perf as some sort of reference for positioning the film, and deeming the perf "faulty" if it varied with respect to the edge of the film.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the fix from Lasergraphics will likely do what you're suggesting. That was my suggestion to them as well - use the perf for vertical registration, the film edges for left/right.

 

But just to be clear: this is only an issue in Super 8. We scan a ton of 16mm and regular 8 and have never seen this happen, on both pin registered cameras and those without registration pins, on those formats. The variability of perf position is unique to this format, and is really only an issue on specific cameras. For most Super 8 scans, we get rock steady images on with the perf used for both vertical and horizontal registration.

 

-perry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the fix from Lasergraphics will likely do what you're suggesting. That was my suggestion to them as well - use the perf for vertical registration, the film edges for left/right.

 

But just to be clear: this is only an issue in Super 8. We scan a ton of 16mm and regular 8 and have never seen this happen, on both pin registered cameras and those without registration pins, on those formats. The variability of perf position is unique to this format, and is really only an issue on specific cameras. For most Super 8 scans, we get rock steady images on with the perf used for both vertical and horizontal registration.

 

-perry

 

I totally understand, but it's not a question of fixing some problem with the Super8 film. The problem is having relied on an assumed "standard" rather than an actual one. The idea of a standard is to ensure different parties (manufacturers) can interface with each other without this sort of thing happening (the blame game).

 

The variability of the perf may very well be unique to Super8 or indeed a particular batch of such, but the standard allows for this variablity to take place. The original architects of Super8 designed it that way. Indeed Super8 was designed as an independant standard to which different manufacturers could sign up. Cooperation in an otherwise competitive environment, because such would benefit all the parties involved rather than just one.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second problem that needs to be addressed is the vertical positioning. From the scanned footage there appears to be some variability in the up/down position of the perf with respect to the image. But again, this is to be expected. The pin-registration (as per standard) uses a perf 2 frames away to position the film for exposure (a bit like a sound head being x frames away from the image to which it corresponds).

 

If a scanner is using the perf next to a given frame it will be using the wrong perf to register the film (wrong with respect to the standard).

 

So to exploit the pin-registration of the camera, a scanner should use the same perf that the camera is using, ie. the same perf that the standard defines for such. And this may not be so easily accomplished in current scanner setups.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no real blame to be apportioned here.

 

We're in fairly new territory that nobody (save a few perfectionists) thought would ever be an issue. Basically, in the main, various ad hoc standards and expectations have become normalised.

 

If we address these at all it's only because there is a potential opportunity to exploit solutions to such. Or just to make the perfectionists happy. Something to do on a lazy afternoon.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see an excess of unsharp mask in this footage, so I think that it may seem like video, also some scenes shows a blur on the left side.

Look at this shot with a Beaulieu of 40 years but reviewed by Björn, in my eyes there is more real detail, the unsharp mask is minimal. Do not look at stability, this handheld shot.

 

 

Yes, it's what one can get with attention to all of the various components involved (lenses, camera transport, scanner, filmstock, digital post).

 

A Beaulieu or Leicina are decent alternatives to the Logmar. But just because the Beaulieu and Leicina are 40 years old doesn't mean anything at all. Most other 40 year old Super8 cameras won't provide what the Logmar, Beaulieu and Leicina provide. Not because they are 40 years old but because they do not necessarily provide for a good lens (amongst other things)

 

If the Logmar gets the same results obtainable with a finely tuned custom optimised 40 year old camera, that's what it should be doing. Certainly not any less.

 

The Logmar itself can be regarded as a custom optimised 40 year old camera. That it uses fresh materials for such makes no difference. It's following a design established 40 years ago.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A film camera is only one part of an entire system. Pushing the run button on a camera without any film stock loaded won't work. Projecting unprocessed film in a projector won't work. Using a camera without a lens won't work. Storing a film in an archive won't work. Turning on a projector without any film running through it won't work.

 

We assess each component, not in terms of the composite result, but in terms of the part each plays in that composite result. When we look at a film we're unavoidably seeing the result of many parts in co-operation with each other, and all of which should be operating to the best of their ability. But we can't ascribe the collective result to any one part of the system.

 

All we really require of any component is that it plays it's part - that it doesn't interfere with the operation of every other component. It is otherwise free to optimise it's particular role.

 

And the only way we can do that effectively, is to establish a set of standards (as Super8 did) for which each component will agree to co-operate. Each component is then free to optimise their particular role without concern they'll be infringing on some other component's function.. For example filmstock can become finer grained (using flat crystals) without such interfering with any other other part of the process.

 

But some exceptions do arise. In particular the 'Max-8" frame which reclaims the sound track area that had otherwise become unused. This is not defined in any standard anywhere. It's a defacto standard that has emerged within the Super8 community. And one that can be exploited. Or not as the case may be.

 

C

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The enhancements to the Logmar footage are very impressive. Some impressions:

 

1. Left side of picture is soft with some lens vignette.

 

2. Light path appears unusually dusty around the edges.

 

3. Odd gyration of image (possibly due to camera or transfer).

 

4. Image appears electronically enhanced. Sharpening, grain reduction and dust removal enhancements likely applied (Neat Video?).

 

Overall, due to the well done enhancements, it is some of the cleanest looking super 8 I have ever seen. Probably as close as we will ever get to making super 8 look like digital video.

 

However, I have seen raw footage from other cameras like Beaulieu, Nikon or Canon look as good or better. Corner to corner sharpness could use some improvement. That being said, building a camera from scratch is no easy task and I respect Logmar for their efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just fyi, the corner to corner sharpness and the vignetting is from the choice of lens, not the camera itself. And the odd gyration is from image stabilization added after the transfer, and wouldn't be on the raw footage, or on the original film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it again and although it's very clean, the colors and latitude look much nicer than digital. You have to think of it in terms of how you would make the stock look, or the other stocks which all have more grain. But it's nice to see how far you can take the format. I would love to shoot a short feature on it for someone if i had the chance, and use all three negatives.

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...