Lasse Roedtnes Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Hi, I'm wondering what the interest (if any) there would be for a 2-perf anamorphic super8 camera which accepted the normal Super8 cassette but didn't require threading etc. Price is unknown but it would be higher than 2500$ for sure. Best regards Lasse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Rakowski Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Sounds cool Lasse, I'd be interested but probably shy away from using it in a real project unless we could use some 200ft mags with it. I know you guys had mentioned the Logmar S-8 is adaptable to an unreleased larger magazine as well. Would be nice to have something available that works with both. What kind of glass are you thinking? There isn't a whole lot of anamorphic options for c-mount that I've seen other than adaptors. Also, would using 2 perf of the super 8 frame and then an anamorphic adaptor kind of defeat itself for wide screen? You would be un-squeezing a pretty tall image back into a more standard ratio? Maybe I'm not really understanding what you mean. Otherwise you guys have my interest if accessories can be interchangeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Definitely interested, Lasse! But can you please clarify the 2-perf design? Do you mean to say shoot the entire 16mm width of Double Super 8 film stock which technically is 2-perf as per the Bolex UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 camera? i.e. http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=57047 UP8 3.1 (Double Super 8) AR = 1:3.1, FRAME = 13.00mm x 4.22mm; AREA = 54.86 square mm The Russians had designed something similar with Double Super 8 film but with the classic Cinemascope aspect ratio (AR = 2:55:1). The Zenit link is dead but I could arrange a working link or documents from a Turkish/Russian contact, i.e http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=30389 "Surprisingly enough the Russians tried it first, i.e. http://www.zenit.ist...uarz/index.html a.) Quarz 10: Format frames: 4.22 x5.69 mm (Super), or 4.22 x 10.8 mm (wide) Focal length: 15 mm Viewfinder: parallaksny Drive: Springs The frequency of shooting: 8, 18, 32 fps b.) Quarz 2x8S-W (Wide): Format frames: 4.22 x5.69 mm (Super), or 4.22 x10.8 mm (wide) Focal length: 15 mm Office diaphragm: automatic and manual Viewfinder: parallaksny Drive: spring (5 m) The frequency of shooting: 9, 18, 24, 36 fps Dimensions: 197x104x60 mm Weight: 1.2 kg" The adapted Russin DS8 cameras were similar to this specimen, i.e. http://tinyurl.com/negp9hh Or are you referring to halving the height of the Super 8 frame from 4.22mm to 2.11mm? Therefore the proposed aspect ratio (AR) of 2.68:1 with frame dimensions of 2.11mm x 5.69mm.? You would in essence double the run time of a standard 50ft S8 cart from 2'30" to 5'00" at 24fps. But as the image height is decreased the total imaging area available is less than the standard Super 8 frame or proposed full width Double Super 8 Cinemascope design. Hence, a decrease in resolution. Exciting times! Edited November 16, 2015 by Nicholas Kovats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 He wants to use the Super-8 cartridge, so I assumed he means Vistavision-style, so 3:1 with a 2x squeeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jay Young Posted November 16, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2015 Interesting notion. I would be interested in seeing a horizontal pull 8mm cartridge camera, however at 2 perf they'll only last 80 seconds or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Roedtnes Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Exactly Mark 3:1 aspect ratio with standard Super8 cartridge and horizontal pull claw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted November 16, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2015 I would be interested in seeing a horizontal pull 8mm cartridge camera, however at 2 perf they'll only last 80 seconds or so... That would be more than my 60 second Eyemo loads. :) Not as much film real estate as 16mm though. Guess the advantage would be a compact camera and easy loading. But the film costs would be the same as 16mm for the same time...possibly more for processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jay Young Posted November 16, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2015 That would be more than my 60 second Eyemo loads. :) Not as much film real estate as 16mm though. Guess the advantage would be a compact camera and easy loading. But the film costs would be the same as 16mm for the same time...possibly more for processing. Yes, and who/what would scan it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Yes, and who/what would scan it? Stretching the VV analogy, I'm hoping for a flat optical extraction to 35mm. silent aperture and 'Scope projection. Perhaps Quentin would be interested. Edited November 16, 2015 by Mark Dunn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 16, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yea, I can't see much advantage to 2 perf super 8 with anamorphic lenses. Purchasing appropriate anamorphic lenses can get expensive and shooting costs have doubled, making the whole purpose of shooting Super 8 (low cost) not matter. By contrast super 16mm would be a similar image size. Since 16mm has lots of other advantages, I don't really see the need for a super 8 camera that mimics something that already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Talk about not thinking "laterally" on my part! I am evidently biased towards the vertical axis. :) Fantastic idea! VistaVision Super 8! The proposed horizontal 2 perf frame dimensions = 5.69mm (h) x 8.44mm (w) w/ AR = 1.48:1 which would be it's flat aperture but with a 2x anamorphic expands laterally to 3:1. The run time is fine. Can't please everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yes, and who/what would scan it? Anyone with a sprocketless scanner. Then rotate the frames ninety degrees in post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Anyone with a sprocketless scanner. Then rotate the frames ninety degrees in post. It's not that simple. You're talking about scanning a frame that spans 2 frames. Firmware/software in the scanner would need to be modified so that the count of frames uses ever other perf instead of every perf, and gates would need to be widened to accommodate a wider frame. Some scanners may not be capable of this at all, depending on their design and the coverage area of the sensor/lens. Theoretically, the ScanStation should be able to do it, and I'm sure the Xena and FlashTransfer machines could probably also be modified, but it's not trivial, and frankly, I think it'd be a tough sell to the makers of these scanners. There's serious engineering time that has to go into that kind of a design change, and you're talking about a one-camera format that may or may not have legs. It's a neat idea, though I'm not sure it even make sense unless it also involves a 200' mag, since you're halving the duration of the film by doubling the number of perfs per frame. -perry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Great to hear your real-world scanner input, Perry. Much appreciated. Isn't Carl Lopper in Australia working on a implementation whereby the perfs are NOT utilized as part of the registration and/or frame count? Using the edges? Would be great if the interdependency between frame and perf were optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Great to hear your real-world scanner input, Perry. Much appreciated. Isn't Carl Lopper in Australia working on a implementation whereby the perfs are NOT utilized as part of the registration and/or frame count? Using the edges? Would be great if the interdependency between frame and perf were optional. That's essentially impossible - you need some way to know where you are, and perfs are the obvious choice. I'm not sure what Carl is working on exactly, but the frame edges are not a good way to either count frames or register the film, since it's entirely possible for the edges to disappear in to the area outside the frame boundary. That is, on a positive image, a dark frame will have no apparent frame edge because it blends in with the unexposed film around the frame. Perfs are the only logical choice for knowing where you are in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Roedtnes Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Hi Perry We could impose a crosshair between each sprocket for scanner registration. Granted we havent really thought it through yet it's just an idea we are kicking about at the moment. Regards Lasse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Hi Perry We could impose a crosshair between each sprocket for scanner registration. Granted we havent really thought it through yet it's just an idea we are kicking about at the moment. Regards Lasse How would you "impose" a crosshair, Lasse? With a tiny backlit aperture or a laser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Rather see an "affordable" 2 perf 35mm camera 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Roedtnes Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Most likely backlit and not laser to avoid a lawsuit from someone looking into the lens mount and going purposely blind to get a "pay day" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Cunningham Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Ditto on the 2 perf 35 mm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasse Roedtnes Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Could you define cheap/affordable? (Naked camera body price without lens) for a 35-2 with integrated sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 We could impose a crosshair between each sprocket for scanner registration. Granted we havent really thought it through yet it's just an idea we are kicking about at the moment. It's an interesting idea, and that would definitely solve the problem. However, it would still require buy-in from scanner manufacturers, because the basic transport in most scanners and telecines rely on the perforations to know where they are. It'd be easier to do with scanners like the ScanStation, Xena, kinetta and Flashtransfer, since they do what they do in software. But it'd still require a fair bit of engineering, and I think it'd be a tough sell to the manufacturers. BTW - I love the idea of a cheap 2-perf 35mm camera too. We can scan 2-perf on our Northlight and it looks amazing. I'd love to shoot some myself at some point! -perry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 17, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2015 I just got a Moviecam Super 35mm camera for peanuts. I can see how challenging it would be to covert from 4 perf to 2 perf. The gate, ground glass and pressure plate are easy. The movement is a lot harder, plus the drive sprocket speed would need to be decreased substantially. I haven't pulled the camera apart yet to determine if everything runs off one motor. If it does, that makes things very complex because now you're dealing with the shutter speed as well. What I do know is that most cameras can do 3 perf without many mod's, so that gives me some hope. I'll take the camera apart soon and see what's in side. I'd really love to make my camera 2 perf. Ohh and I think it's too costly to build an all new camera. You can get 35mm cameras for peanuts, less then 5k. It's the conversion that you should be focused on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yes, the cross hairs are definitely the answer. Anyone with After Effects, or similar, can lock onto those. Or software devs like myself can make available efficient dedicated transcoders of raw capture data into registered results. And for contemporary scanner manufacturers, it shouldn't be that difficult for them to rewrite the relevant section of code to lock onto crosshairs instead of sprocket holes. I can get my film-to-film optical printer to lock onto crosshairs. I'd be up for putting money into such a camera. Sounds great. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Perhaps the pull down (or pull sideways?) mechanism could be made adjustable so that you can shoot at any aspect you like, with or without an anamorphic. Using crosshairs means the mechanism doesn't have to be that precise in terms of positioning the film. In a design I have for a made-from-scratch camera, I designed crosshairs for that reason - so that my film transport system wouldn't require precision engineering. So long as the frames didn't overlap, or waste too much film real estate between the frames it would be just fine. Indeed one could use completely sprocketless film, with cross hairs in-between the frames. The image could then occupy the full width of the film. Not sure how difficult or effective that would be. But whichever way - crosshairs is definitely the go. C Edited November 17, 2015 by Carl Looper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now