Jump to content



Photo

"New" super-8 camera to market


  • Please log in to reply
594 replies to this topic

#461 Lasse Roedtnes

Lasse Roedtnes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Electrician

Posted 26 November 2013 - 03:54 PM

Hi Erkan,

 

I can only say that pin registration, pressure plate and side stabilizers makes our camera stand out from the others and in my opinion we have the best engineered solution ever made for 8mm.

 

Ofcause we have the advantage of 30 years dwell time and we've had all the time we needed (3+ years) to make it work where our former competitors had to release cameras in an endless spree to keep up with competition - just like you see a new TV model being launched every quarter or iPad etc...

 

I wonder that why didn't the engineers add a pressure plate provision for Kodak's cartridge (although it is called pressure plate by engineers, pad is the same jargon), and other following manufacturers? Why did the pressure plate become available so late for the Super 8 cartridge for a long time? Why did many finest camera manufacturers leave the cartridge faith alone? Forget Kodak, what about the giant Bell & Howell Manufacturing Co.?

 

My personal belief is that they opted out because of one (or more) of these facts:

 

A ) It was a cost adder hence less money in their pockets

B ) They didn't think the consumer's had the brains to figure it out (loading is no longer trivial)

C ) Perhaps they didn't have the skills to engineer it in the first place

 

I would say A & B are more propable than C, but think about it - everyone else was using just the cartridge so the consumers where already used to an image shaking like a parkingson patient and they where satisfied - so why change it for a more expensive solution and risk loosing market share?

 

We haven't had any of these concerns ( A & B )  when we designed our camera and the market share issue was non existing since there was no market share to be had in the first place from anyone (our competitor is eBay) and since we are not targeting "average joe" and his dog but either professionals or semi-professionals that have some experience with film already

we do not have to make our camera completely "idiot proof" like the earlier manufactures.

 

Regards

Lasse


Edited by Lasse Roedtnes, 26 November 2013 - 03:56 PM.

  • 3

#462 Friedemann Wachsmuth

Friedemann Wachsmuth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Other
  • Hamburg, Germany

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:04 PM

The complicated coaxial design plus the insane filmpath with all its u-turns and snubbers and rollers and gliding discs causes so much friction already that a pressure plate would have killed the camera motor. Or would have teared the film apart. My guess. ;)

 

(I tried it on a Nizo 801: Motor current goes up 60% when using the GK Framemaster plate. Not good for the driver.)


Edited by Friedemann Wachsmuth, 26 November 2013 - 04:04 PM.

  • 0

#463 Tom Chabbat

Tom Chabbat
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:16 PM

 

 

It was a cost adder hence less money in their pockets

 

 

 

The complicated coaxial design plus the insane filmpath with all its u-turns and snubbers and rollers and gliding discs causes so much friction already that a pressure plate would have killed the camera motor. Or would have teared the film apart. My guess.

Actually, the article Jean Louis provided us prove you both wrong.

 

You can read in it those actual lines :

 

"Subsequently I have exposed several cartridges of sound film in the camera, and I cannot detect that the increased gate tension has made any difference to the running or to the sound quality - exempt that the breathing effect at the start of the shots has now been completely eliminated".

 

Actually, the whole point of this article was to suppress an effect only occurring "at the start of the shots". When running, the design worked well.

 

Here's a passage of the article "The Coming Of Super 8", in Smallformat 01/2005, p. 29 :

 

"Some 8mm users, thinking no doubt of past experience with 8mm magazines, were quick to point out the potential for trouble with the pressure plate being located in the film cartridge rather than in the camera and the possibility of film jamming in the cartridge. Neither of these fears was realized; the cartridge designers had done their work carefully. Millions of Super 8 users seemed to be quite satisfied with the sharpness of their films. Jamming or any other malfunctions due to the cartridge were extremely rare."


  • 0

#464 Lasse Roedtnes

Lasse Roedtnes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Electrician

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:31 PM

Hi Tom,

 

I do not want to come off arrogant at all, but I take note in these lines below and that reassures me that I'm right in my assumptions which are that people where satisfied with mediocre quality and hence there was no need to improve it further.

 

"Millions of Super 8 users seemed to be quite satisfied with the sharpness of their films. Jamming or any other malfunctions due to the cartridge were extremely rare."

 

Also I cannot understand what the below statement actually means since I fail to see how the sound relates to this issue? 

 

"Subsequently I have exposed several cartridges of sound film in the camera, and I cannot detect that the increased gate tension has made any difference to the running or to the sound quality - exempt that the breathing effect at the start of the shots has now been completely eliminated".
 

I do not know how sound was made on super-8 film back in the day, but if it was a magnetic stribe I would argue that you wouldnt be able to tell from the sound wether the camera's film was shaking around or not since the camera's run rate would run in the range of 1fps to perhaps 60fps which would be heard as a hum (just like 50/60Hz line hum) and for magnetic stribe solutions they do not typically have the dynamic range to record such a signal anyway (just like on an LP).

 

Regards

Lasse


Edited by Lasse Roedtnes, 26 November 2013 - 04:34 PM.

  • 0

#465 Tom Chabbat

Tom Chabbat
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:40 PM

Oh, and I almost forgot :

 

 

 

They didn't think the consumer's had the brains to figure it out (loading is no longer trivial)

 

 

people where satisfied with mediocre quality and hence there was no need to improve it further.

Aside from sounding condescending, there were already actual "professionals" in those consumers, it was not only used for "amateur" purpose, if not Beaulieu wouldn't had sell much of its expensive cameras...

Think of the engineers and technicians that were behind those products. Don't you think they wanted their design to work well, to be the best available, to make the finest product ? What was the point of making such marvels as the Angenieux 1.2/6-80 if it could not focus properly ? Or making the Nikon R10 ? The way you say it, people could just be happy with cheap instamatics.

 

About the sound, I think you misunderstood, I never talked about it. The lines I'm quoting makes an allusion to it saying "gate tension has made any difference to the running or to the sound quality", but that's all. It was just here to prove neither running OR sound quality were affected by gate tension.

 

This article alone proves that there were serious amateurs too concerned by image quality.

 

Regards,

Tom


Edited by Tom Chabbat, 26 November 2013 - 04:42 PM.

  • 0

#466 Tom Chabbat

Tom Chabbat
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:01 PM

Oh I see now what you meant for the sound.

 

Actually, recording of sound depends too of the film running speed, since the magnetic stripe is on it. So if there was erratic running of the film, it would have impacted on sound, like when you play back a record at a lower or higher speed.


Edited by Tom Chabbat, 26 November 2013 - 05:01 PM.

  • 0

#467 Lasse Roedtnes

Lasse Roedtnes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Electrician

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:04 PM

Hi Tom,

 

 

Aside from sounding condescending, there were already actual "professionals" in those consumers, it was not only used for "amateur" purpose, if not Beaulieu wouldn't had sell much of its expensive cameras...

Think of the engineers and technicians that were behind those products. Don't you think they wanted their design to work well, to be the best available, to make the finest product ? What was the point of making such marvels as the Angenieux 1.2/6-80 if it could not focus properly ? Or making the Nikon R10 ? The way you say it, people could just be happy with cheap instamatics.

 

Every engineer wants to see their invention succeed, otherwise they wouldnt have become an engineer in the first place so obviously they did what they could to make their products the "top notch" however it's extremely rare that a design is not driven by a marketing team - what I mean by this is that marketing would figure out what will their user segment pay for the item in R&D, what do the users expect in terms of features etc. and how should it look appealing enough for people to actually buy it?

Once this is figured out a MRD (marketing requirement document) is written which is then handed over to the R&D team together with a target cost price and a whole set of design constraints, especially in terms of estetics (the way the product should look when done) and in 99.9% of all cases the wanted look of the product or the target cost contradicts the best way to design it and then you have to make compromises - I have never in my 10 years of R&D heard about a (bigger) company that doesnt do this simply because if you dont do it you are not sure that your product will satisfy the market and hence you could end up designing for nothing.

 

The camera's you mention I do not know but they properly had a wealth of buttons and features that made them appealing when they came out - perhaps it was the build quality, perhaps it was the feature or maybe it was the marketing budget in terms of ads in newspapers that did the trick - I wouldnt know but people have always wanted to purchase for sometimes less-obvious reasons.

 

Look at the people who sleep outside apple's stores before a product launch - that's great marketing right there!

Is the products really better than anyone elses on a technical level? - I doubt it. People, unlike machines sometimes act upon "feelings" and emotions rather than common sense and facts and that to me what makes life worth living and also why I believe we have a chance of actually selling our camera in the first place because compared to the millions of digital cameras out there it would be hard to compete if just looking at the technical details since they have 1000x the features etc.

 

Regards

Lasse


  • 0

#468 Lasse Roedtnes

Lasse Roedtnes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Electrician

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:07 PM

Oh I see now what you meant for the sound.

 

Actually, recording of sound depends too of the film running speed, since the magnetic stripe is on it. So if there was erratic running of the film, it would have impacted on sound, like when you play back a record at a lower or higher speed.

 

This is true (that playback speed would change with fps) however that the film would move slightly sideways for example wouldnt be noticeable since it would be a very slow motion compared to what your ear can hear - also the filtration on the playback device together with automatic gain control would eliminate this.

 

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)  :)

 

Regards

/Lasse


  • 0

#469 Friedemann Wachsmuth

Friedemann Wachsmuth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Other
  • Hamburg, Germany

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:31 PM

Tom,

 

what was that with reading more thoroughly? Did you also read page 2? 

 

"However, I would certainly not recommend any general modification of camera gates. It happens to work on the Elmo because this camera has a fairly powerful motor and a claw drive that is robust enough to take the increased load, but I cannot imagine that the drive in a lightweight silent camera (such as the Mini 3, which has a very small compact motor) would stand it. So please be cautious, and don't start wrecking good cameras!"

 

In addition to that, and you should know most of that by now,

- film is thicker today than Kodachrome was (by about 15%), so has more friction

- modern reversal film no longer has remjet and thus does not glide as well

- reversal films cut from slide film widerolls is often more sturdy, doesnt like U-Turns  an has thus more friction in the cartridge

- Most camera motors today haven't been lubricated for 20-40 years, so they don't like extra load very much

 

Furthermore, the author has exposed sound film. This film came in special cartridges and the corresponding cameras had a capstan drive to eliminate the intermittent film movement. The capstan drive also helped with film transport -- similar to a sprocket gear. Sound Cartridges no longer exist.

 

 

But Hey, file down your gates and/or use the framemaster plate and get lucky. Some people gotta make their own experiences. :)


  • 0

#470 Friedemann Wachsmuth

Friedemann Wachsmuth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Other
  • Hamburg, Germany

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:32 PM

Florian has finished translation of my Logmar Article now.

You can now read 50% more contents than yesterday:

 

http://www.filmkorn....a-from-denmark/

 

Have fun!


  • 0

#471 Tom Chabbat

Tom Chabbat
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:36 PM

Lasse,

 

I all agree with you, some people sometimes buy on a feeling, on an impression. But "some", not "all". If you look at the specialized literature of the time, like "Popular Photography" or "Movie Maker", you can see that nonetheless they tested the cameras, and wrote articles about picture quality, because a lot of people cared as much as us today for picture quality. They compared models. Even serious cinematographers of the time used sometime Super 8, be it for personal use or even work.

 

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.


Edited by Tom Chabbat, 26 November 2013 - 05:40 PM.

  • 0

#472 Friedemann Wachsmuth

Friedemann Wachsmuth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Other
  • Hamburg, Germany

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:11 PM

Read carefully, Tom, once again. Read carefully! There are two people behind this camera. One of them is an enthusiastic filmer. He does the mechanics. The other one is into electronics -- he makes the mechanics work together well. 

 

What you call "critical thinking" I would call major ignorance and total, pathetic reluctance to accept simple facts from reality. So can you please once do a little research yourself to find out how often the most enthusiastic filmers have been begging for a S8 camera with pressure plate, sprocket feeding and pin in the past 30 years, since th Super 8 system has so many drawbacks?

Yes, the filmer's magazines of the 70, 80s and 90s are full of that. Easy to find. Go for it!

 

Boy, it again smells so incredibly troll-ish here. 


  • 0

#473 Erkan Umut

Erkan Umut
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Istanbul

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:42 PM

Dear Lasse,

 

I was busy with my toys including several camera gates with various heat treatments and finishing quality, also one of them adjustable lateral guides (you mentioned as side stabilizer), as well as a 60X magnifier. :)

 

You mention:

 

A ) It was a cost adder hence less money in their pockets

B ) They didn't think the consumer's had the brains to figure it out (loading is no longer trivial)

C ) Perhaps they didn't have the skills to engineer it in the first place

 

Probably, you are not serious, or angry for some reason. Anyway,

 

"Eastman Kodak's head designer team: Jasper S. Chandler, the father of the system and the 1974 presented 200-foot sound film cartridge; Evan E. Edwards and Lloyd Sugden, the two fathers of the cartridge.

Evan A. Edwards and Lloyd Sugden had the responsibility for cartridge design.

Edwards was a specialist in molded parts, having worked on the Instamatic 126 cartridge (1963), the Pocket Instamatic 110 cartridge (1972), and held numerous patents on injection molding, molded products, and injection molding machines.

Another major consideration in designing the new cartridge was to achieve absolutely smooth transit of the entire 50-foot length of film through the cartridge, essential for steadiness of the film image. To study the dynamics of the film transit, Edward’s group constructed a “dynamometer camera.” This ingenious device continuously measured and recorded the force required to move each frame through the film gate. The pull-down claw, just a quarter-inch thick, was equipped with a strain gauge. Thus force/displacement graphs could be plotted over a wide range of temperatures and humidity levels.

The final cartridge design was an assembly of six injection-molded parts, each of different composition depending on their function, and one phosphor bronze spring, bearing on the pressure plate, all manufactured to extremely close tolerances. To avoid the film plane positioning inaccuracies to which previous magazine designs were subject, the new cartridge had a spring-loaded pressure plate behind the film. When the cartridge was inserted in the camera, that plate pushed the film into the camera’s film gate where three locator studs arrested the pressure plate and film in precise position relative to the optical system.

Large scale testing of the cameras and cartridges was considered imperative. While cartridges were tested at Kodak Park, the Apparatus Division made over 100 trial cameras that were given to employees to test on weekends. Over 300,000 cartridges and 15 million feet of film were tested before the system was released to the public".

1) Single-8's pressure plate was designed for more rewinding possibility, not for steadiness!
2) Super 8 design killed the Regular 8 having the metal pressure plates!

Note: Dr. Arthur Cox, the father of Photographic Optics Science (his successor is Sidney F. Ray nowadays), was the head of designing of the optical components of the Bell & Howell Super 8 cameras.

 

Do you believe your A, B and C?

 

Thank you for your time and patience!

 

Best,

 

Erkan


Edited by Erkan Umut, 26 November 2013 - 06:43 PM.

  • 1

#474 Tom Chabbat

Tom Chabbat
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:44 PM

Friedmann,

 

Your insults are not a way to prove your point.

 

I'm aware that I lack some informations, that I don't know everything, but who can really claim it ? I'm not ashamed of it, I'm just asking questions, because, apart from Jean Louis and Erkan, nobody seems able to provide actual proofs of what they're saying. Again, I want to see some critical test results, some serious articles. I'm not all new to this world, but as we experienced with Jean Louis' article, vintage super 8 documentation is hard to find nowadays.

 

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 whole point is that I find it difficult to believe that Super 8 is this flawed, with so many talented people having working on it, be it on the manufacturer or user side.

 

Friedmann, I understand your point about newer film stocks not being the same, but do you think the Super 8 cartridge was only made for Kodachrome ? I thought that from the start they used different stocks, with a black and white emulsion too.

 

Please, do not insult me this way, there's an actual person behind those word. Filming, being Super 8 or any other format, has always been my passion, and being curious by nature, I tend to ask questions. This is not by sounding condescending that you'll prove to me you actually know what you're talking about. You'll just seem rude.

 

So again, sorry to ask questions, sorry for sometimes being wrong, but I feel I help this way other people to better understand what's going on. Without my "pathetic reluctance to accept simple fact", we won't have seen Jean Louis' article or Erkan's specs they had. Don't you think it's good sometimes not to blindly accept everything as true ? To try to know how things really work ?


  • 0

#475 Erkan Umut

Erkan Umut
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Istanbul

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:51 PM

Dear Lasse,

 

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.


  • 0

#476 Erkan Umut

Erkan Umut
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Istanbul

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:58 PM

Read carefully, Tom, once again. Read carefully! There are two people behind this camera.

 

...

 

Boy, it again smells so incredibly troll-ish here. 

 

Dear Friedemann,

 

Please don't throw these words.

 

People may think that "It also smells that you are the third person or guaranteed a free camera"...


  • 0

#477 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1763 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 26 November 2013 - 09:29 PM

Friedmann,

 

Your insults are not a way to prove your point.

 

I'm aware that I lack some informations, that I don't know everything, but who can really claim it ? I'm not ashamed of it, I'm just asking questions, because, apart from Jean Louis and Erkan, nobody seems able to provide actual proofs of what they're saying. Again, I want to see some critical test results, some serious articles. I'm not all new to this world, but as we experienced with Jean Louis' article, vintage super 8 documentation is hard to find nowadays.

 

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 whole point is that I find it difficult to believe that Super 8 is this flawed, with so many talented people having working on it, be it on the manufacturer or user side.

 

Friedmann, I understand your point about newer film stocks not being the same, but do you think the Super 8 cartridge was only made for Kodachrome ? I thought that from the start they used different stocks, with a black and white emulsion too.

 

Please, do not insult me this way, there's an actual person behind those word. Filming, being Super 8 or any other format, has always been my passion, and being curious by nature, I tend to ask questions. This is not by sounding condescending that you'll prove to me you actually know what you're talking about. You'll just seem rude.

 

So again, sorry to ask questions, sorry for sometimes being wrong, but I feel I help this way other people to better understand what's going on. Without my "pathetic reluctance to accept simple fact", we won't have seen Jean Louis' article or Erkan's specs they had. Don't you think it's good sometimes not to blindly accept everything as true ? To try to know how things really work ?

Tom, your concern and constant questioning to help "other people to better understand what's going on', is very much noted and has been heard by all. Thank you for your efforts. But what really is going on? Nothing scandalous, I can tell you that. Your arguments or statements, however altruistic, do seem a touch hostile. Just the way I see it. These guys aren't out to rip us  off. They are one of us. Their product makes you feel uncomfortable?? Really? I am sure you are very skilled and accomplished at what you do, but I think that most S8 shooter would agree that there is room for improvement. Bravo for Logmar! This website can get a bit touchy and sometimes people forget the community aspect. Just like a lot of the film versus digital bash that went on, let it go, we are all here to help and SUPPORT one another. If you don't buy into Logmar, no problem, you made yourself heard. Just cool the uncovering of a scandal rhetoric for a bit. Film needs all the help it can get. If you truly love film don't fight this.

 

Lasse and company, please know that there are many people watching and reading who are 1000 percent with you, please don't be discouraged by the kick back. You are the rock stars of small gauge. My birthday is in April and I now know what to ask for.


  • 2

#478 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1054 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:04 PM

 

Friedmann, I understand your point about newer film stocks not being the same, but do you think the Super 8 cartridge was only made for Kodachrome ? I thought that from the start they used different stocks, with a black and white emulsion too.

 

 

No, actually.  The original cameras were only marketed for/with Kodakchrome II.  

 

An exceprt from http://www.kodak.com...1960_1979.shtml

 

1965 - Kodak developed the super 8 format and launched super 8 movies with new cartridge-loading KODACHROME II Film. 


  • 1

#479 Lasse Roedtnes

Lasse Roedtnes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Electrician

Posted 27 November 2013 - 06:10 AM

Hi Guys,

 

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). :D

 

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 :blink:

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.

 

 

Dear Lasse,

 

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 :D

 

 

Dear Friedemann,

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 :D

 

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.

 

Best regards

Lasse

 

 


  • 6

#480 Avery Dark

Avery Dark

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 November 2013 - 08:02 AM

...
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.
...
I have a dream that one day my daughter 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.
...

 

Hey Lasse,

 

I'll take a red one and where do I pre-order? However the project turns out, realize that you are a very lucky man and cherish the very experience you're living right now.

 

Best wishes to you and yours,

Avery


  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Tai Audio