- → Most Liked Content
Most Liked Content
Posted by Lasse Roedtnes on 17 August 2013 - 08:57 AM
Here's a few photo's of the prototype - bear in mind that it's still work in progress, the red parts are printed plastic parts and will not be there in the final version - the body is 3mm aluminium black anodized.
What you get here is an exclusive sneak peak - there will be video's available and professional photo's taken once the final camera has been made and we are ready for production.
The photo's are taken with my mobile phone so they are not the best quality by far.
Side view of camera
As mentioned the red potentiometers will be replaced and the cover behind them will not be there as well - this will be all aluminium the reason for the cover was because there used to be an LCD display here but that was taken off.
The potentiometers control monitor volume for the headphone and recording gain for the microphone.
All functions / menus are controlled by the JOG wheel - this will not change.
There's one record button, an on/off button and a third button "Phase Advance" which is not showed here as the aluminium side used for this photo series doesn't have the hole for it.
The SD Card is popped up here (it's used for storage of audio) - when inserted it aligns with the aluminium edge of the camera.
On the back side here's what you get:
3.5mm Jack stereo line input
3.5mm Jack monitor audio for headphones
3.5mm Jack mono microphone input
Neutrik XLR + 3pin Jack for true 48V Phantom powered microphone (mono)
USB for firmware upgrade, parameter settings, audio retrieval etc.
7.4V Lithium Ion battery which will last several films worth of shooting on a single charge. (there are many different batteries in different sizes available)
A photo of the Lilliput monitor showing the thru-lens shot with overlaid information - right here the camera is parking it's shutter - what is not shown (because of current parking mode) is:
- Audio VU level
- Light level
- SD Card and audio information
Also you have the option to choose from remaining or elapsed frames.
Camera seen from the other side with the lid on - the white wifi antenna is also visible.
Sorry Matt but you need to go somewhere else for a c*** tease this time
Posted by Lasse Roedtnes on 27 November 2013 - 06:10 AM
I've always been a fan of a heated debate - it's nice to see people getting passionate and if we keep it going we might hit 500 replies to this single thread - think about that isn't it amazing that this thread has spawned so much action in such a short period of time, I find that really encuraging.
I saw on Friedemann's blog that you "never shot super 8"... Is that true ? Maybe the reason you feel it's cheap is because you didn't actually tried it. I can assure you, having (and still) used it a lot of time, it's not as bad as you may think. Now that I've seen this statement, your product makes me feel a little uncomfortable, because I thought it was at last a product made by someone like us here, a real enthusiast that love the format. Now I can't see clearly your goal if you won't use it, apart from just making money.
You too are trying to sell a product here. You too put a wealth a feature to appeal to us. "Pressure plate, sprocket feeding, register pin" are too words to make the potential buyer comfortable.
I don't want to prove anyone right or wrong here, so be it clear. I'm just using some critical thinking to better understand your product, to see if it really is better than what we already have as you claim.
Tom, It's completely true what is mentioned - I have properly only shot one film in total of Super-8 in my lifetime, and that film has been shot on our own camera entirely. Obviously I've worked endless hours with test cartridges inside our camera and played with that but when talking about real shot film for private purposes then it's only that one film - My first motion camera was a Panasonic NTSC video camera which I purchased on my first trip to USA after graduating university in 2004. I still own it today and the last time it was in use was in 2010 when I used it to film my daughters first months after birth, I wish I had our camera ready back then as the NTSC video looks "horrible" (especially when my PAL TV tries to convert and upscale it to HD).
Just because I wasn't born back when Super-8 had it's glory days doesn't mean I don't want to strive at creating the best camera electronics ever made (just like all the people Erkan mentioned tried to do before me) nor does it imply that I'm not affectionate about what we (Logmar) are trying to achieve - I would put it the other way that I do not carry any emotional baggage from the Super8 era so I can concentrate on looking at the results and judging from that.
In all honesty this camera started as a farther / son project back in 2008/9 being a Krasnogorsk motor driver and then quickly evolved from there since we both had the appetite to make something more grand than just a plug-in for an existing camera body - In the beginning I just went along for the fun of it (I really enjoy working with my father) and although many people including our own family thourght we where nuts for spending so much spare time and money I could see that my father really believed in film and thourght it so important to finish this camera, so that other's could also share his passion, that's when I realized that perhaps this camera we were building could have some success as there had to be more people out there with the same dream.
Does Tommy love the super-8 format? - Absolutely - if he didn't we wouldn't have a camera for it today!
Do I love the Super-8 format? - I love the image our camera produces - I do not like the image other cameras which I've seen produces like for instance this video I just randomly found on youtube:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qd87_jjK1-8 not judging the content but only looking at the video I do not like the lack of Image stabilization, the image moves all over the place and the image pulsates in brightness/intensity which makes it (to me) miserable to watch.
My "dream" (which might be different from yours) is to reproduce the look of movie theather quality on an 8mm easy to use camera, that will allow people to film (for instance) their children and proudly show it to their friends without having to excuse the quality or state "you know how super-8 looks like - this is expected behaviour". - I realize this is a strong statement which might hurt some people's feelings but never the less this is my dream and since I was born in 1983 and brourght up with video and later on with HDTV and plastic colors looking at my fathers old super8 recordings from his childhood just looks dull and bad to me - it's hard (in my mind) to make this format appealing to a younger generation without doing a mayor overhaul and vetting out all the "quircks" as well as making it appealing from a technical standpoint (no more wind-up cameras etc.).
I have a dream that one day my daughter (who is severely handicapped) will be able to show her caretakers or perhaps remaining family (when my wife and i are no longer around) some film of how her life was growing up and the only media that can give me this assurance of time is film, which doesnt fade out or becomes lost as digital memory does it - this is why I'm doing it, that's my motivation and it's a very strong one for me.
Are we in it for the money? I would be lying if I said no, since there has to be a profit to ensure warrenty and pay back our investment, but make no mistake we are not whipping the cream on this camera with the current price point of 2.000€ ex. vat, the small scale of things makes it extremely expensive to make. If we had the luxury of say Arriflex that we could manufacture 1.000 cameras inhouse with existing equiptment the case would be different
however we need to get third-party vendors to do the majority of the work and they do not work for free as mentioned earlier labour costs are extremely high in Scandinavia - properly amoung the highest world wide which doesn't help us at all.
I know there's also Tommy on the team, but he's not the one we're talking to. I asked about Lasse's motivations, not Tommy's. I read too that they initially wanted to make a 16mm camera, but as the market is declining more rapidly, they turned to Super 8 instead. Put this way, it sounds like a marketing move to me.
My motivations are listed above
It was a "marketing move" - There didn't seem to be a point of releasing a camera with no market for it
That said our camera is a platform - the "box" supports 8, 16 and 35mm with more or less the same mechanics* and electronics (*=ofcause there's big differences on take-up etc. but the motor etc. is the same)
it was build in this way so that we could "quickly" spin derivatives depending on the market situation and allow us to build follow-on camera's later.
Our vision is to become the preferred supplier of easy to use, afforadble film cameras wheather it be 8, 16 or 35mm.
It's a big vision but we believe we have the ingredients to make it work.
Also you mention: "if the playback speed varied that would be noticable only as "lip sync" problematic - you wouldt be able to tell if it was running too slow or too fast (unless we are talking many fps difference)".
Small format sync difference could be more understandable due to the slower speed than larger formats!
Film transport speeds, mm/sec. @ 24fps: 456 for 35mm film, 182,98 for 16mm, and 101,5 for Super 8/Single-8.
Erkan - your statement about the transport speed is true, however when watching the recorded film you are playing it back at a fixed speed and hence you wouldnt notice if it ran a little too fast or slow regardless of the transport speed since frame rate is what you see with your eyes and then it doesnt matter what the transport rate is - the only way to tell is that audio comes out of sync or if the movie all of the sudden plays back in charlie chaplin mode
Please don't throw these words.
People may think that "It also smells that you are the third person or guaranteed a free camera"...
I would like to clarify this a little so that people dont get the wrong impression or starts screaming conspiracy
Logmar is compromised of Tommy and myself - a two man strong team doing mechanics and electronics, we've had help externally with certain aspect of the project, for example we've hired in some marketing people to do logo and website and we've had an external FPGA designer wokring on our first CMOS based viewfinder but that is "history" now as we now use CCD, we've also had help from friends with getting some of the first mechanical parts manufactured before we had enough money put together to have it made a proper factory.
When we the first time told people about our project (on this very forum, in this exact thread) a few people approached us volunteering to alpha test our camera. One of these people was Mr. Friedemann, who amoung others have been instrumental to our current success by providing feedback on things to improve in both hardware and software. We rely on these people to give us open and honest feedback on things they like and things they don't like as well as figuring out what can be improved - for instance when it comes to stuff which can break (see below)
As a direct result of this feedback we are doing a major overhaul of the camera just now - removing the jog wheel and replacing it with navigation buttons instead - as Erkan also pointed out the jog wheel could break off and that happened to one of our testers - also the WIFI antenna placement is under consideration (luckily we haven't had any lawsuits over an alpha tester going blind yet) but it's position will most likely move. Other things we are improving is the battery holder (making it more sturdy) as well as placing the record button and alternate speed/phase advance button in a different more accessible place and adding the provision for an external record trigger - for example from a handgrip with trigger button or similar.
There's no agreements of giving away free cameras to any of our alpha testers nor paying them to work for us! - their work is entirely voluntarily – we just provide them with a camera and film plus accessories, provided they give us the film shootings they’ve made so that we can publish them on our website as well as provide us with feedback on the camera - after the alpha test the cameras are returned to us as the alpha camera's will no longer resemble the final product this has been agreed with all our testers in advance.
Also having external testers provides us with an unbiased opinion - obviously we think we are the best in the world and that our product is as well, but third party people doesn't have this bias and that's why we use them.
Posted by Friedemann Wachsmuth on 25 November 2013 - 11:24 AM
Tom, sorry for the troll comment, but it feels just unreal if so many tangible and verifyable facts are simply ignored.I just made a little video for you. You can reproduce this test yourself easily.
Here is the pressure plate of a Kodak Cartridge, freshly extracted for you:
Here I am extracting a film gate from a Frankenstein Canon 310xl just for you:
https://dl.dropboxus...25 at 17.13.png
This shows the two parts before forming a film channel:
Note you can actually SEE the film channel when pressing them together:
And finally here you can see that the film runs "free" through it. Note the swiss spring scale in the second scene and see how free "free" is. It needs less than 5 cN to pull the film through even though my finger's pressure was much higher than that from the cartridge spring:
I hope we can finally close this discussion down now once and forever. The pressure pad is NOT a pressure plate and does not work the same way a pressure plate does. Period.
(Imagine Queen's "Under Pressure" as Soundtrack underneath the video, please)
Posted by Joshua Turner on 24 September 2013 - 12:26 PM
I'm a focus puller in the industry, and can tell you a few basics. During rehearsals (if we get a rehearsal anymore), we take measurements of where the camera is in relation to the marks that the actor hits. It's a choreography if you will. As the actor and camera moves through the set from mark to mark, we have measured each of those distances to know in relation, where the subject is from the focal plane of the camera, using a follow focus or wireless FIZ (Focus Iris Zoom) controller to match those distances on the lens. We have an onboard monitor that allows us to see what the operator is pointing at, at any given time, and must make minor adjustments to the best of our ability to compensate for an actor or camera op, missing a mark.
Anymore though, with the onslaught of the digital revolution, we are not given rehearsals as much because a lot of young DP's, directors, and producers don't understand how focus works, and we are expected to pull off the monitor because so many 1st AC's now pull off the monitor. There's this myth that we don't need a rehearsal or marks anymore with pulling from the monitor, which is completely false. This usually leads to the first take having a few buzzes here and there, especially if the 1st hasn't had a ton of experience pulling off the monitor. More experienced DP's will make sure we still have our marks before allowing the scene to roll, especially on longer lenses. For those of you in the video game generation, monitor pulling becomes much of the same eye-hand coordination that you use when playing your favorite video game. Knowing where you are on the lens, either with the follow focus or FIZ, becomes muscle memory after awhile, and getting a feel for the movements and distances becomes second nature. On larger shows, there has been times when I'm not even in the room of the camera. I will sit in the next room at a 17" full 1080 OLED monitor (full 1080 is important, because there is no degradation of the image, and allows us to see full sharpness) and wireless Preston FIZ. Before that can happen though, I still go in and take measurements of the room and grid it out. Measuring the size of the room, and objects in the room such as a couch or table or counter, help to give spatial awareness and make sure you don't pull to 15' when it's really only 12' away, etc. Also with HD, critical focus is so much more apparent, and the roll off of the depth of field is substantially more noticeable than on film. It's either in focus or soft. There is no "kind of sharp" anymore that you could get away with occasionally on film.
One problem that many people experience is not using proper cinematic lenses with good, clear, witness marks. This can screw over even the most talented of 1st AC's. I've turned down jobs because they were using canon still lenses before (the barrels continuously spin with no hard marks). In that situation, there is no way for me to guarantee focus to someone, and it makes me look like a terrible AC if everything is in and out of focus. I would rather turn down the job, than not be able to deliver quality, in focus images. People know you by your work in this industry, and the last thing you want is a show you worked on, playing in a theater, and half the movie is soft, followed by your name in the credits.
Hiring a good 1st AC is critical in the digital world of cinema. We are usually one of the least noticed and hardest working people on set, as we rarely get to leave the camera, and are responsible for knowing everything about how the cameras works, how to fix it, as well keeping the image sharp. A good 1st can save you missing that critical take where the performance was incredible, but you missed it because it was soft, or even get the camera back up and running ASAP after it has had an issue (though some glitches and failures are not repairable on set). We may not get the credit and fame of cinematographers and directors, but we are an important part of the filmmaking process. Visually, you'll only know we are there if it's out of focus, which if we are good, should rarely happen.
Joshua R. Turner
1st AC - IATSE Local 600
Posted by Marc Marti on 28 November 2013 - 12:37 PM
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.
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.
Posted by Guy Holt on 29 December 2012 - 04:50 PM
…. you first have to decide what you want it to look and feel like before deciding how to light it, you can't just light in a general way, there should be a concept behind it first.
David is right, to successfully light a night scene on a tight budget requires that you first have a concept for the shot. From there you can figure out an innovative approach to accomplish that look. What tools who need and how you deploy them will follow. A good example is a very similar scene I lit on a “low budget” feature called "Black Irish." It was a pivotal scene where the youngest son of an Irish American patriarch crashes his derelict older brother's car setting off an unfortunate series of events. For the scene we had to light 1000 ft of Marginal Street in Chelsea for driving shots on a process trailer and the scene of the accident. Our biggest challenge was to create through the lighting the feel of a car hurdling down the road at high speed.
The problem was that even after lighting the equivalent of three football fields, the process trailer couldn't obtain a speed of more than 30 mph before it was out of the light. The traditional approach of under-cranking the camera to increase the speed was not an option because the scene was a pivotal one with extensive dialogue inside the car. So, we had to create the effect of speed through the lighting.
I came up with a concept that was as beautiful in its practical simplicity as in its psychological complexity. To heighten the sense of speed of the process trailer shots we rigged 500w practical fixtures along a four hundred foot wall on one side of the road. We spaced the practical wall lights twice as close together as they would be normally. This way, as the car passed by, areas of light and dark would pass rapidly by in the background and exaggerate the speed at which the car was traveling. When it came time to shoot the static wide establishing shot of the car racing down the road, we dismantled every other wall practical in order to reinforce the effect. On an unconscious level the viewer's mind registers in the establishing shot the wider spacing of the wall lamps. So when in the close up process shots the pools of light in the background are racing past at twice the rate because there are, in fact, twice as many lights, the viewer's mind registers the car is traveling at twice the speed it is, in fact, traveling.
In addition to the wall practicals, I simulated car dash board light on the actor's faces with a 12v 9" Kino Car kit. The play of the passing wall lights on the actor's faces were created by a revolving 650W Fresnel with diffusion on its doors rigged on the process trailer. To light the long stretch of road, I simulated the pools of light that would be created by street lights by rigging 6kw space lights under the baskets of 60' condors that were spaced about 200' apart over the road. In addition to the Space Light, each condor basket also carried a 4k HMI Par that filled the stretches of road between the pools of tungsten light with a cool moonlight. To continue the moonlight down the road there was yet another 4k HMI Par on a Mambo Combo Stand. Because this 4K was further down the road than was practical to run cable, it was powered by a Honda 5500W portable generator. A 12kw HMI Fresnel with 1/2 CTO through a 12x frame of Soft Frost served to pick up the deep background from the front on one end of Marginal Street while a 6kw HMI Par lit the other end.
To supply power on both sides of the road for a 1000' stretch was no small task. I used three generator plants strategically placed so that our cable would never cross the road in a shot. In addition to the Honda 5500W portable generator that powered the 4kw HMI Par light for the deep background, I used a 800A plant to power the 4kw HMI Pars and 6kw Space Lights in the condors, the 12kw Fresnel, and the base camp trailers and work lights. The 6kw Par, 12 - 500W practicals, and an assortment of smaller HMI's used to light the post crash scene were powered by a 450A plant on the far end of the roadway.
This example, demonstrates that once you have a concept you can come up with an innovative approach to accomplish it. The tools and how to deploy follow. This example also demonstrates that the right tools, used in an innovative way, can create startling results on a low budget. Since “low budget” is a relative term, to address Megan’s situation, it would be helpful to know what the budget is for this scene and have more details about the sequence and location.
Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting Rental & Sales in Boston
Posted by David Mullen ASC on 19 December 2012 - 12:02 AM
Sound killed the use of the noisy Cooper-Hewitts (as did color). But many 1930's movies still created soft lighting using tungsten lamps through spun glass or silks. By like all styles, people became tired of it and the sharper, crisper look using harder lights become the norm by the 1940's.
Soft lighting started reappearing in the work of the French New Wave and also in England from DP's like Ozzie Morris, late-1950's through the 1960's.
It's sort of a side benefit that soft lighting is more generalized in a space allowing actors to move more freely, or for the blocking to be changed in the last minute. The main reason it re-emerged is that soft light is one aspect of natural light and in the light depicted in paintings (based on natural light) and thus filmmakers were interested in recreating it or capturing it for real. It's too limiting to only use hard lighting or only soft lighting.
Posted by David Cunningham on 24 November 2013 - 11:17 PM
It's amazing how this thread has gone on. We are a passionate bunch about our 8mm.
Something was said earlier that I must correct. The DS8 and Regular (Double) 8mm pressure plate and pull down system is not even close to the same as super 8. It's actually almost identical to regular 16mm. The pressure plate presses evenly on the entire 16mm surface of the film, with the edge of the gate preventing significant "breathing". So, between the even pressure and breathing aspects, there is a lot that is superior to the image in Double Super 8.
Although the overall design of the Super 8 system may have been very good and the system works extremely well when working and used properly, all the reasons mentioned in this thread are reasons why it simply does not work very well a significant portion of the time. The cartridge was designed for film with characteristics that simply do not exist anymore. Also, the cartridges themselves seem to have inconsistencies that cause problems.
Posted by Richard Boddington on 18 November 2013 - 04:31 PM
Normally I would not share this story, but maybe it will inspire others who are in film school etc.
On Saturday we had the Toronto premiere of Against The Wild. After it was over I was out on the street talking to some people. I was tugged on my arm and a man and a woman were standing beside me. The woman said, "our son needs to tell you something." I look down and there's this cute little boy maybe 4 or 5 years old.
So I had to kneel down to his level so I could hear what he wanted to say. He says to me, in his little voice, "I just want to tell you that your movie is better than my most favourite movie of all time now." I said, "wow what is your favourite movie?" He said, "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, but now I like yours better."
I gave him one of my industry screeners, and he was so excited to be able to take the movie home before it comes out in stores. He had paid me a 100% sincere compliment, with no "adult" motives.
If movies didn't cost so much, and needed to generate revenue, I would say that boy paid me in full for making the movie.
Ok it's a corny story so sue me. But in the fake and cynical film world, this boy was a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Adam Frisch FSF on 13 August 2013 - 10:08 PM
As mentioned by previous poster - they tend to get involved with either technical things, or background minutiae/actions/extras and ignore the actors right in front of the camera. Often because they're nervous and don't know how to deal with actors or the bigger picture. I don't know how many times I've had actors turn to me for feedback (because I'm closest), whilst the director is buried in some technical nonsense three rooms away in video village. I see this all the time.
1. Don't direct five rooms away and from a video village and yell across the stage and/or direct over the walkie talkie. Sit right next to the camera, close to the actors, where you should be and where you don't have to yell. And if you sit on the dolly and watch the actors performance without looking at a video monitor, then I know you're a good director already and you have nothing to prove in my book (never happens these days, btw).
2. Don't get a "shit hot" DP in to mask or try to hide the fact that you're lazy, haven't done your homework, haven't prepared and don't have a point of view and expect everyone else to prop you up. It's my most hated pet peeve. I can't really save it for you, but if I have to, I'm gonna step on your toes and take a bigger place than you might be comfortable with. The void and lack of direction/preparation will be filled one way or the other as long as my name is on this thing as well. The key word here is "hide" - if you pretend. If you genuinely don't know and you tell me so, I will do everything in my power to help you silently and supportively to make it the best it can be.
3. Learn blocking, for chrissakes. It's what telling stories with moving images is all about. Yet, it's the most lacking skill of all bar none.
4. Be a leader. Always have an answer and a plan or a point of view. Even if it's wrong. That's all we need and we'll follow you to the end of the earth, do anything, if you have that. Note, this does not mean you're not a collaborator. They're not at all mutually exclusive.
5. Don't cover your ass with million 6-camera setups and every size available and then let the editor figure it out. It's lazy, it's shows poor form and lacks professionalism. Have a plan, shoot what you need. Never over-shoot. Never over-cover.
6. Be clever. Show that you know film language. Bring the line with you, or cover a scene in just a master, or cut to the one not talking in a dialogue scene. Be bold. That's what all the great filmmakers have in common - they know how to do that and add flourish. Any hack can hose it down in masters, mids, and CU's.
7. Stop shooting close ups for everything. It's an underline, an emphasis. The same as writing with BOLD LETTERS. It's a useful tool, but it get tiresome if you do it in every scene, no matter if what is said is important or not. Let things play wide once in awhile. Let us know where we are.
Two final thoughts:
One is the simple matter of taste. Now, taste is very subjective and it can be hard to be on the same page as others. It's our job together to be ahead of the curve, or be so behind it we're retro again and therefore right. But taste is not a fixed set of parameters, it evolves and moves with the times. What's right today, isn't going to be tomorrow. Film is fashion. But if you're unsure, err on the side of less. Minimalism never goes out of style. In my mind there is a simple rule: if you've seen any kind of gimmick too much lately - flares, rack focuses, handheld, slo-mo, bullet time (remember those?), swing shift - then don't do it! That's where taste comes in. But so many people love to beat a dead horse. I know I'm sounding like a grumpy old man here, but these days I find most things to be gimmicky. If I see one more DSLR handheld shot with a flare in it from the sun, I'm going to scream. Anything that draws attention to the camera is ultimately detrimental to storytelling and the art.
Finally - a gift of a director is one who comes on set and knows what they want. As simple as that. "We're going to be here, on this lens and then we'll pan over here and see that. We'll cover it in a wide and in two overs. No need for a mid". When that happens it's music to my ear. It doesn't mean you as a DP can't contribute, not at all (in my experience), it just means that you have a plan of attack and you know the parameters and you can create within. Limitations are good.
In defence of directors; it's not an easy job to do. Everyone thinks it is and are eager to step in your shoes, from the PA's to the film school grads. We've all said to ourselves "I could do that better" at some point on a film set. But the reality is we probably couldn't. It's the hardest job on set to do well.
Posted by David Mullen ASC on 30 March 2013 - 10:08 AM
APS-C is closest to the size of Super-35 cinema / 3-perf 35mm (approx. 24mm x 13mm); Full-Frame 35mm is closest to the 8-perf 35mm VistaVision format (36mm x 24mm). So the focal lengths used in APS-C for typical field of view would be the same if shooting in Super-35, and if you used any PL-mount cine lenses, they would be designed to fill the APS-C sensor area, not the FF35 sensor area.
APS-C sensors vary in size from 20.7mm × 13.8 mm to 28.7mm × 19.1mm. The Canon 7D sensor size is 22.3mm x 14.9mm.
Generally the only difference in "look" is the typical depth of field because the larger sensor sizes use longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view. Once you had matched field of view by using a lens that was about 1.6X shorter on an APS-C camera, you'd have to stop down a FF35 lens by 1.6-stops to match the depth of field. So FF35 cameras tend to produce a shallower focus look; however, they also tend to be more sensitive in low-light and thus it's not hard to rate them faster and stop down for more depth of field to compensate.
Posted by David Mullen ASC on 17 March 2013 - 10:56 AM
Sorry, even though the colorist here made a major contribution, that doesn't mean he photographed the project. He could get a special made-up credit of some sort to emphasize the importance of his contribution, but he shouldn't get co-DP credit if he never shot one second of footage. If this was a live-action shoot (not an animated film) the DP has to have been on set, working with the camera, actors, crew, director, etc. -- i.e. doing the cinematography.
Expert people do beautiful jobs reprinting Ansel Adam's negatives but I don't see them asking to be listed as co-photographer.
Posted by Friedemann Wachsmuth on 28 November 2013 - 05:22 PM
Posted by Carl Looper on 28 November 2013 - 08:09 AM
We had been missed you Carl! Welcome again our optics expert!
Last night, I made some observations using four S8 gates, molded plastic/machined metal plates, 60X magnifier, and electrical micro contact sensors. The results were so clear: The people, who advocate the need of a pressure plate/pad are so right! There is no any contact between the plate rails and film back absolutely. And I am ashamed!
The obsessive passion with the almost all branches of motion picture technology and reading a lot of rare documents in the field for nearly 30 years made me blind and tired. If I were an engineer, would be a very bad one, hopefully I am not, but a technologist.
Don't be ashamed. The very fact that you went to the trouble to actually test the theory you were otherwise entertaining means that you weren't just taking it for granted. The world at large is part of who we are as much as whatever happens to be running around in our heads at any given moment.
Posted by Friedemann Wachsmuth on 24 November 2013 - 06:11 PM
Some Super 8 facts:
- The film guiding piece with the gate – let me call it film track – (usually metal) in each Super 8 camera, together with the pressure pad in the cartridge, forms a channel for the film to run in. This channel is supposed to have 0,14mm space for the film. The Kodachrome films that introduced Super 8 where 0,13mm thick, so the film "ran free" in the channel, unlike to how pressure plates work.
- Kodak themselves had a non-flat film track e.g. in the Kodak M4 Instamatic Camera. There were little ramps before and after the gate to put the film into a slightly concave shape in the gate. This was supposed to compensate for optical imperfections in the relatively simple lenses (and it worked!). Do you see that a concave shape does not fit together what a pressure plate does?
- Actually, some high-end S8 cameras as the Nikon R10 and I think also the Leicina Spezial use the same trick, so this wasn't a one-off. Ergo: S8 Cartridges do not contain a pressure plate. The pressure pad forms one side of a channel and does neither work like a pressure plate.
--> The channel allows film to move back and forth and causes "pumping" focus as well as non-flat focal planes. (I hope my terms are understandable, I am not a native speaker)
- To keep the film in place during exposure, the cartridge is supposed to provide a certain, defined friction. Since the film core is turned constantly, the film is also pulled constantly by the core. The pulling torque is higher at the beginning of a cartridge (small core diameter) than at the end (high core diameter). While the core is supposed to be wound with a torque of iirc 90-110 cN, this torque alone must not advance the film. Only when supported by the claw the film must move.
- To achieve the required transport friction, Kodak relied on and defined a bunch of different parameters, such as the film's thickness, the film base's bending behavior/flexibility, the presence of a remjet layer on the back side, a slip disc in the unexposed-compartment, several 90° and 360° curves the film has to take (one with roller, one without) plus a defined tension on the film due to the ratchet on the wind-up core. There are like two dozens of parameters that have to be right to achieve the right friction.
- Just to revive memory: In "normal" cameras, the pressure plate is supposed to hold the film steady during exposure, provide this friction. Sprocket gears do the continuos movement, the two film loops give space during exposure and the claw advances "under" the pressure plate while the shutter is closed. This system basically depends on one parameter only: the pressure plate force. All other speeds and forces are defined.
So far so good -- the S8 system worked surprisingly well and often still does! However, it is far away from ingenious. Film today is thicker than Kodachrome was (7285 for example has 0,15mm after development). Other film is stiffer, especially Fujis, also some slide materials as EPY/E64T. Then, modern films often no longer have the remjet layer. Kodak's cartridge molds and manufacturing steps are not as precise as they used to be. For example, the slip discs (which only people who do the development ever see) often have rough edges these days and tend to not move. Camera's wind-up torque is most often below 80cN sicne the slip clutches got oily or aged. There are many other factors here that can impact. Not one of these things is to blame -- its usually a sum of factors that cause the S8 system to run out of specs and start showing failure (as way too much jitter, bad sharpness etc).
Due to the high complexity of this system, it tends to fail (your words actually!) and any camera with a straight film-path, two loops, a pressure plate and ideally sprocket gears is and will be superior to the S8 system.
TL;DR: Super 8 Cartridges can work well (as in Jose Luis Example), but they often don't. Servicing a camera often helps, but often not, since other factors (film, cartridge) chime in. "Invention of a better cartridge" is a nice idea but won't bring any guarantees, since there still would be no loops, no sprocket gears, no straight film path.
Sorry for the long read. I hope this clarifies some things for those who didn't know and also explains why standard systems (sprocket gears, pressure plate film loops) are desirable normality and not at all "over-complexity".
(Oh, and to everybody who followed me till here it should be clear now why the GK Framemaster plate is not without risk. It can help, but it can also make things worse. Hint 1: Measure the Current on your Camera Motor with and without the little shiny plate. Hint 2: Consider what it does to light hitting emulsions that don't have a remjet layer.)
Posted by Tim Tyler on 18 November 2013 - 02:54 PM
I contacted Douglas Trumbull. Here's his reply.
The shot you are referring to (I think) was mostly performed by Dan Glass. I delivered to him (and Terry Malick) a large number of "elements" that were shot in tanks or sheets of glass, etc., which he then composited in Nuke, often combining with other elements such as actual astronomical photos, etc. It is impossible to get more specific. Our tank was approximately 4 feet square, and 3 feet deep, and we used a wide array of paints, dyes, milk, ink, etc., with numerous types of lighting, including a 2K Xenon movie projector lamphouse that allowed us to focus a lot of light through a tiny one inch diameter hole in a sheet of steel. This could represent the sun, or a star, etc., and would create beautiful beams of light through the various pigments in the tank. Sometimes these were shot at 1000 fps with the Phantom HD camera, or at 12 fps with a Red Epic.