Super 16 converted to use double super 8?

Brent Powers · June 24, 2016

I'm sure someone has thought of this, not even sure it's possible, but why not convert the gate AND the sprocket assembly on a standard 16mm camera to accept DS8 film? Seems to me you could go to an even roomier 16:9, perhaps even wider frame utilizing the extra space provided by the smaller sprocket holes. All you gear heads, say, tell, share.

Jay Young · June 25, 2016

Double Super 8 Gate - 6.223 mm x 4.2164 mm

Regular 16mm Gate - 10.2616 mm x 7.493 mm

16 mm perforations 0.0500" high by 0.078" wide.

Super 8 pitch is 0.1667" and perfs are 0.045" high by 0.036" wide.

You would need to change (remove?) any registration pin from a pin-registered camera, as I fear that would just eat the perfs right out of the film.

You would need to change all sproketed parts out to double perf. I believe you would need to half the pull-down cam timing as DS8 uses twice as many perfs as 16mm (half the 16mm perf pitch), which is where the real engineering comes in.

There are a few people who convert Bolex H16 and H8's to double super 8 for between $500 - $1000...

Other than that its not well documented, but hopefully that info will help you.

June 25, 2016

What you describe may have been discussed in the '2-perf Super8 Anamorphic' thread in this forum.

Brent Powers · June 26, 2016

Thanks for replies. Really, just putting it out there.

Nicholas Kovats · June 26, 2016

Brent,

This was implemented back in 2012 as per my UltraPan8 Facebook page, i.e.

https://www.facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm/info/?tab=page_info&view

"The second adaptation utilizes the full 16mm width of 2 perf Double Super 8 film (DS8) in conjunction with a Super 8 pulldown cycle. It is known as UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 and debuted in 2012. The 3.1 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 13.00mm x 4.22mm. Note that the actual frame width is greater than Super 16. Also note that the Super 8 perforation is smaller dimensionally than Regular 8 /16mm which allows more of the 16mm film width to be used. Magazine run time is also doubled as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 34% greater than the smaller Super 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture),"

e.g.

The most common variant is the Regular 8 model, i.e. UltraPan8 2.1 R8, e.g.

The DS8 version technically requires re-centering of the lens mount similar to Super 16. It is wider laterally than 16mm at 13mm. But I achieved good results as per the link above with a Zeiss Jena 10mm APO telecentric lens w/ a Bolex Bayonet to C-Mount adapter. The Bolex cameras are re-manufactured by Jean-Louis Seguin in Montreal, i.e. bolextech@gmail.com.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Nicholas Kovats

Brent Powers · June 26, 2016

That is one WIDE image! Glad someone with tec chops thought of this before I did. Here's a dumb question. How is it scanned? What's it look like in editing software?

Nicholas Kovats · June 27, 2016

Brent,

Both UP8 formats are scanned by John Glehill at bitworks.org on a custom sprocketless scanner. Which is the key. A sprocket based scanner would require custom Regular 8 or Super 8 teethed sprockets that are 16mm wide. They do not exist. But there are a fair number of sprocketless 16mm scanners out there. The same logic applies to processing. My local film lab has a sprocketless 16mm processor and I label my exposed film clearly requesting no slitting.

John's setup is a special custom rig and he is able to re-center his scanner lens to the UP8 optical center. Remember. Both UP8 formats are half the height of a 16mm frame.

The sprocketless Lasergraphic scanners could also scan a full 16mm frame of UP8 footage resulting in two stacked UP8 frames per scanned frame. I am not aware if Lasergraphic scanner lens can recenter . It's all or nothing and is specific to R8, S8, R16, S16 and 35 Academy apertures. I do have an instructional PDF buried somewhere by a US based fan regarding extracting these stacked UP8 frames and then stitching them singularly into an image sequence for digital editing. In fact Lasergraphics almost developed special firmware for UP8 scans but nixed the project. Long story. But in essence it's a small market. But then again the CEO of Lasergraphics was not aware of the availability of 65mm film stock. I am not kidding.

My UP8 scans are technically overscanned at approximately 3.5K resolution into a JPEG image sequence. Huge files. Very easy to import this into my Sony Vegas Pro. There are not full edge to edge scans like Lasergraphic based scans but the UP8 R8/16mm perfs are partially visible as are preceding and following frames. You can crop to your hearts content down to CinemaScope or 16:9 if you wish. Mind you the pixel density decreases accordingly.

Cheers!

Nicholas

Edited June 27, 2016 by Nicholas Kovats

Jame Lo Piccolo · March 11, 2018

There may still be somewhere on the Internet an item, or article, possibly from a European publication, or Website, that describes an inventor / engineer's proposal to convert a Standard 16 camera to use Double Super8 film (with all that entails in new sprockets, pull-down claw, etc)., but NOT to the Super8 format.

Instead, his proposal is for a conversion to a variation of the Super16 format.The inventor claims that his new format is superior in a number of ways to the present Super16: Those advantages include a better use of the film-frames's real estate, side-to-side, and up-and-down; It allows for elimination of the necessity of physical A/B-roll editing, because the frame-line is between the film's smaller Super8 sprocket holes, and; there is no need to recenter the lens position, since the gate is still dead center (in the manner of Ultra16).

It is unclear, whether he built a proof-of-concept model, or just did drawings, and diagrams, but that is owing to my faulty memory, the loss of the site from my computer, and an inability to find it again on-line (Apparently, I never printed it out the page.)

Perhaps someone here on this forum already knows where the site can be found, and can confirm, or refute my recollection dating from early 2017, or late 2016 - my best guesses.

Meanwhile, the father-son team that invented the Logmar could adapt their $7000+ camera to this new format, and still retain the internal single-strand 50' cartridge.

To make their camera even more flexible & modular, they could come up with a variation of the Ritter re-usable SD8/60 top-mounted 200' magazine, but could take single-strand Super8, as well as Double S8, It could be a multi-format camera, even including Ultra8 31.

As for the problems of two pull-down claws, and two sprocket-sets; well, the Eclair CM-3 has coincident 35 & 16mm gates, and claws; and doesn't Aaton(?) have a lens-mount that rapidly re-centers between standard, and Super16?.

No doubt, it would add substantially to the cost; maybe an additional $7000 to make a nice round, even number of $14,000, and that's not including all kinds of add-on accessories that would make the camera even bigger, clunkier, heavier, and if possible, even less-ergonomic, than the basic model. Say; another $6000, that would bring the full-kit to $20,000?

When you are doing a vanity project, or a fantasy project, cost is no object.

Kodak could have done it in 1965, when The Great Yellow Father introduced Super8 as a consumer product. Had they supported processing labs, and professional users of Super8, it might have competed with Super16, before that format became established. But, it would have been like turning the Queen Mary, given Kodak's moment of inertia.

If anyone has actually read all of this reply, thank you for you kind indulgence.

James

Jean-Louis Seguin · March 11, 2018

I think this is what you mean:

http://www.super8site.com/fanzine/aktuell/r_muster.shtml

Jame Lo Piccolo · March 14, 2018

Thank you so much, Jean-Louis for your reply, and for the Link: it is, indeed, the very Website, that I remembered; also, thanks for relieving me of the suspicion, that it was a false-memory, a made-up fantasy.

The diagrams of the coverage on the D S8 16:9 prompts a question for you, as a camera technician: Would there be any advantage of extra width in a single-perf version of DS8, or would it be outweighed by the need to re-center the camera lens, as in Super16; or, would it require a registration pin, because the gate, and pressure plate could not have enough contact on the narrowed edge of the film to keep it steady?

James

Jean-Louis Seguin · March 15, 2018

The problem would be finding DS8 film perfed only on one side. Even classic DS8 film is hard to find. There's only Fomapan and Kahl I think.

Nicholas Kovats · March 15, 2018

Jame,

Jean-Louis Seguin re-manufactured the Bolex DS8 model to shoot a non-anamorphic 3.1 aspect ratio w/o a non-centered Standard 16mm lens mount. Did you not read the prior posts from 2016? I shot this with that camera and a non-centered 10mm C-mount Tevidon. Although the width is greater than Super 16, the image exposed wonderfully, i.e. https://tinyurl.com/y8v2yzz9

The exact frame dimensions can be found on my UltraPan8 Facebook page, i.e.

"The second adaptation utilizes the full 16mm width of 2 perf Double Super 8 film (DS8) in conjunction with a Super 8 pulldown cycle. It is known as UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 and debuted in 2012. The 3.1 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 13.00mm x 4.22mm. Note that the actual frame width is greater than Super 16. Also note that the Super 8 perforation is smaller dimensionally than Regular 8 /16mm which allows more of the 16mm film width to be used. Magazine run time is also doubled as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 34% greater than the smaller Super 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture), "

Edited March 15, 2018 by Nicholas Kovats