Jump to content


Photo

shooting dialog scenes with loud silent cameras

loud cameras dialog makeshift video tap

  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#61 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:09 AM

Thanks for the information (re: Logmar rollers). Yes: I knew that Logmar production stopped because of lack of interest. This might change in the near future. I hope for the best (Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge though relying on friction alone and with plastic pressure plates from inside the cartridge - you won't get a steady picture and focus AND aiming just at people who don't care is not the greatest idea in my book).

 

The design of the non-functional Kodak Super8/Max8 prototype is (IMHO) really too much" "70s future retro combined with Lego blocks). It looks disposable. The Logmar looks exactly like what it is: a fine, precision handcrafted, precious camera. The new design doesn't provide the buyer with any sense of class or feel of "cinema". It looks cheap, feather light and disposable. I miss the feel of "heft" and "value" here.

 

I think (not defending anyone who can defend themselves!!!!): "bloke in a garage" was purely referring to the exterior design.

 

Anyway, these are just my personal opinions, I don't belong to any kind of "group" neither "digital or analog film", "Super8 or 16mm". I just try to apply common sense, my humble knowledge and try to achieve the best possible within my taste and budget.

 

1) I am all for Super 8mm - I just go for Super 16mm because it is a larger format and I happen to like it a lot.

 

2) I really want Kodak to make it and help make film once again the gold standard for the movies and for the finest an image can look.

 

3) I simply don't like the design of the new Kodak camera. It's an ugly shiny plastic brick with a tiny lens and it has a toy look and feel to it. It looks cheap and doesn't fit anywhere (it doesn't look modern, it doesn't look like a film camera and it doesn't look vintage). You won't get the old film buffs and you won't get a new target market - not for USD 1000,00 or more plus film and turnaround in bits of 2 1/2 minutes in a quality that  simply doesn't cut it (please let's be honest here - I'm NOT an elitist, this is a matter of being dead honest, otherwise the Logmar system with pressure plate and pin registration wouldn't even exist - it exists because there IS a problem with the Kodak Super 8 cartridge: a huge problem to be addressed in any new Super 8mm camera!). Not every potential buyer goes for nostalgic retro - you will lose a ton of customers if you only have one choice: accept blindly how the footage turned out without any true control nor immediate feedback. Not in 2016. Someone really got it wrong. Look at, say the classic Beaulieu 4008. That looks like pure precision vintage class, because it is! That kind of design, even simplified, would be the way to go! And again: Kodak: do something about that old cartridge - don't blow this gig, please!!!!

 

Christian

 

That's MY opinion.


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 11 March 2016 - 09:14 AM.

  • 0

#62 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2812 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:17 AM

The shortcomings of the Super-8 cartridge have been discussed for decades. If they didn't see fit to improve it thirty years ago, Kodak isn't going to change it for the tiny market that now exists.


  • 0

#63 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 11 March 2016 - 11:31 AM

The shortcomings of the Super-8 cartridge have been discussed for decades. If they didn't see fit to improve it thirty years ago, Kodak isn't going to change it for the tiny market that now exists.

Yep. Makes sense. Never tried it, but perhaps the GK-Film pressure plate helps stabilize the film inside the cartridge. Problem: if Kodak sells it or even talks about it, it will cause confusion - besides it being admitting that the Kodak cartridge is a flawed design (and always was) and the source of a lot of troubles with Super 8mm. Single 8 and Double Super 8mm - all perform(ed) much better. I watched a Super 8mm film (black and white) at a Super 8mm film festival back in 1981. It looked fantastic, rock steady and sharp - I had to turn around and verify that it was indeed the Bauer T 610 Super 8mm projector the light beam was coming from. I asked the filmmaker after the festival: it was done in double Super 8mm (Canon). The result on screen was very close to 16mm. Huge difference!

 

Christian


  • 0

#64 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 11 March 2016 - 03:04 PM

From what I've heard, they are doing subtitles digitally and ALL of the 70mm screenings are subbed, not dubbed.

Quentin has set the stage for others to follow suit. Batman V Superman will be distributed in 70mm as well and rumors are that a few more big tent pole films will also be distributed in 70 this year as well. As long as the equipment is being used, as long as projectionists are busy showing films, we'll be in good shape.

I'll say this much, Panavision and Arri have long-term rentals on their 70mm cameras right now and Fotokem is more busy with 70mm then they have been in quite sometime. So there are MULTIPLE shoots working in large format, from Nolan's "Dunkirk" to PT Anderson's next film which is shrouded in secrecy.

70mm is clearly making a comeback.

Thanks again for the information. That is fantastic news! Even if the movie was originally filmed in digital (or heavily tweaked and with lots of CGI, which I am not against - only if it looks bad or overdone) the prints are still in good old 70mm 5 perf vertical.

I remember seeing the exact same print (I remember where the scratches were - some vertically running others clearly rubs on the emulsion side - green an yellow = magenta is the top layer, yellow the bottom one, very likely from bad loops) twice during the '70s: Kubrick's "2001" (so we are talking early '70s print stock or earlier!). It was simply breathtaking - and all those slow, lingering shots make much more sense - you can look around and discover details and textures everywhere! I also saw quite a few blow up prints, including "Aliens" (re-run early '90s) which was rather grainy (originally filmed on spherical 35mm as you all know - and Cameron complains about the grainy 35mm film stock available at the time on the DVD director's comment track) but still great and certainly better than any 35mm print from that time. I remember seeing one freeze frame (for fade and titles, near the end - obviously good, clean optical printer work) and the 35mm film grain stopped, remained rock steady and no secondary grain swarming around it. That's how much resolution the 70mm print had! Yep: if the intermediate has enough resolution: 5 perf vertical 70mm is absolutely stunning: it is beyond pin sharp, transparent, yet has that film look (it is not eye piercing but silky without being soft or grainy, gorgeous and invites you to look at it instead of "hitting you in the face"). That is brilliant news: 70mm means lots of film stock being sold (and made) for just one print. Now clean and grease those machines and fire up those xenon lamps!

Unfortunately all traditional movie houses here in Lisbon, Portugal that had 70mm projectors installed, are long since closed (multiplexes took over for good somewhere in the late '90s). Will look out for the right movie to watch in the near future on this great format and get my plane ticket :-)

 

Christian


  • 0

#65 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4296 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 March 2016 - 04:49 PM

Thanks for the information (re: Logmar rollers). Yes: I knew that Logmar production stopped because of lack of interest.


$5000 + shipping and tax, for a black box with no viewfinder, that makes quite a racket when running, shoots only 2 1/2 minutes at a time and looks like it was made in someone's garage shop. It's missing ALL of the critical things that a modern, small, light-weight motion picture camera NEEDS and has electronic features that aren't worth the money.

The developers of the logmar and Kodak camera, don't understand that on-board audio isn't as critical as a viewfinder. If you can't see what you're shooting properly, the camera is worthless. A low-resolution LCD display isn't a viewfinder. In fact, standard def digital cameras with small LCD's are beyond worthless as well. If they had any experience with developing cameras, they'd know this.

If the Logmar and Kodak cameras had actual optical viewfinders, were dead silent and dumped all the ancillary electronic crap that were the crux of the cost, the cameras may have sold better due to the lower price. So it's a real catch 22 and it's why I consider the Logmar made by a "bloke in a garage" because any real camera designer wouldn't have made those silly mistakes. It's not a film camera, it's some hodgepodge thrown together half digital, half analog nonsense which doesn't really have a place.

This might change in the near future. I hope for the best (Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge though relying on friction alone and with plastic pressure plates from inside the cartridge - you won't get a steady picture and focus AND aiming just at people who don't care is not the greatest idea in my book).


Which is kind of my beef. They're aiming for an audience who doesn't really care about quality. The Logmar looks fine, no real problems. But so far it doesn't look like the kodak will have that mechanic block. I personally haven't seen a perfect focused Super 8 image outside of something shot on a Logmar.

1) I am all for Super 8mm - I just go for Super 16mm because it is a larger format and I happen to like it a lot.


Double the resolution of super 8, no registration problems, no backplate focus problems, longer film length (400ft loads), silent camera availability, standard optical viewfinders, most sync sound cameras have rails and accept larger/standard professional lenses as well. You can get a real decent Super 16 package with lenses for LESS THAN a Logmar. Plus the cost to shoot Super 16 isn't much more then super 8.

3) I simply don't like the design of the new Kodak camera. It's an ugly shiny plastic brick with a tiny lens and it has a toy look and feel to it. It looks cheap and doesn't fit anywhere (it doesn't look modern, it doesn't look like a film camera and it doesn't look vintage).


Yep, they're trying to attract the "retro" owners and ya know what, I think they will! Their package here in the states is very attractive, from low camera price to flat rate stock, processing and transfer. This is what the retro people want and ya know what, Kodak isn't dumb about it. Will it push more people to shoot film who don't already shoot film? Maybe a few... and I do think it's a fad that will come and go. Still, it's a smart marketing decision for Kodak and it makes them relevant again.

Ya know, people with money, sometimes they don't want to buy used stuff. They don't want to deal with it, so they only buy new and that's kind of the market Kodak is going after. They aren't marketing it to people who already shooting film, who already have cameras.
  • 0

#66 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 05:43 PM

$5000 + shipping and tax, for a black box with no viewfinder, that makes quite a racket when running, shoots only 2 1/2 minutes at a time and looks like it was made in someone's garage shop. It's missing ALL of the critical things that a modern, small, light-weight motion picture camera NEEDS and has electronic features that aren't worth the money.

 

 

The camera is what it cost.

 

Making things below cost can be an effective strategy when you have some longer term strategy, or some wider strategy, that can recoup that cost elsewhere. For example, I'll work for a month, for "free", on something, if I can make good on a bet that otherwise recoups that cost elsewhere.

 

And who the fcuk cares what a camera looks like! So many self conscious filmmakers out there, scared shitless they'll look silly working with a camera that isn't also the latest fashion accessory.

 

Myself, I find the Logmar looks just fine. It certainly doesn't look like it was made by this mythical "bloke in a garage". It's incredibly well machined. But even if we were to agree with such a quip about blokes and garages, as long as it's ergonomic and can get the job done, who cares. There's an important method in industrial design called "form follows function" and it's a very economical method, with it's own particular aesthetic that can be appreciated. The Logmar is very much along these lines.

 

Of course, the market place doesn't necessarily agree with such. Doesn't mean they are right - just means their needs are louder and one can make more of a living satisfying such.

 

The Kodak camera (and Tyler prefers it over the Logmar) is all about addressing this wider market, who don't necessarily need those extras engineered into the Logmar.

 

I'm not sure on what side of the equation Tyler is operating - buyer or creator. As a buyer he seems to prefer a better viewfinder over a better gate system. I assume that's so he can use his brain, instead of the film, as the encoding medium.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 11 March 2016 - 05:51 PM.

  • 0

#67 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:10 PM

Just my 2C: I am not addressing anyone in particular!

 

Well I do care what my camera looks like. I am a musician and I care about what my keyboard looks like, because it inspires me if it looks the way I like - and a lot of my colleagues are with me. There's a reason software emulations have a certain look and design as their user interface. It's inspiring if well done.

 

Any guitarist (for example) cares a LOT about how their guitar looks. Not for the audience, but for themselves. I love stuff that looks sturdy and cinematic in one way or another (for me). Heck I even like that light chemical scent of unexposed film stock. It's all part of the experience.

 

I admire young folks who shoot short films on a DSLR camera, mainly built for stills photography (basically still looking exactly like the classic Nikon F4). But the inspiration of actually working with a beauties like the classic 1960s Arriflex or Mitchell models is out of the equation. I am NOT getting nostalgia mixed up with what inspires me. I'll gladly accept an Arriflex SR3 or 416 - or an Aaton A Minima. :-D

 

I do care how a camera looks. For myself because I'd like a camera that is both good and looks great for me. It has to scream: "film, movies!" (for me that is). I don't care what others think about my camera.

 

Just my humble 2C and my opinion.

 

Christian

 

P.S. just found this footage on Vimeo. Wow!!!!!!!! That's (so the uploader claims) an Eclair NPR ("Woodstock" 1970 - anyone?) expertly converted to Super 16. I'd buy that in a split second (if I could). Check the image quality (that's what I'm talking about!):


  • 0

#68 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:43 PM

The reality is that, despite what Tyler might think, the Logmar was a success.

 

There was a particular market for the Logmar, at it's particular price point, and this market consisted (as far as we can tell) of buyers for 50 cameras worldwide. They were pre-ordered by individuals and by Pro8 for resale.

 

The cameras were made and everyone who bought into that (one assumes) is happy.

 

What on Earth is there to complain about ?

 

The only complaint I've heard, is that some who wanted to eventually get a Logmar feel they have missed out on such, because Logmar decided to wind up production. But there are still a few remaining cameras available:

 

http://www.pro8mm.co...super-8-camera/

 

 

C


  • 0

#69 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 07:06 PM

Well I do care what my camera looks like. I am a musician and I care about what my keyboard looks like, because it inspires me if it looks the way I like - and a lot of my colleagues are with me. There's a reason software emulations have a certain look and design as their user interface. It's inspiring if well done.

 

Inspiration is to be found anywhere, and if that includes one's tools that's fine. Where ever you can get it.

 

I like the look of the Logmar because it looks like what it is: a very well designed camera. But if it didn't look like a well designed camera, yet was still well designed, then I'd still like the camera.

 

The stuff I machine in my garage is well designed, but doesn't always look well designed. However I'm the client for such, so I don't have to convince myself, through the look and feel of the parts, as to whether it's well designed.

 

Carl


Edited by Carl Looper, 11 March 2016 - 07:07 PM.

  • 0

#70 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:27 PM

P.S. just found this footage on Vimeo. Wow!!!!!!!! That's (so the uploader claims) an Eclair NPR ("Woodstock" 1970 - anyone?) expertly converted to Super 16. I'd buy that in a split second (if I could). Check the image quality (that's what I'm talking about!):

 

This film isn't my cup of tea. A bit too ambient and dreamy for my taste. To be blunt I want to be sick watching it, but that's just me. I couldn't watch it to the end. Give me Tyler's rough and bleak work, shot on an old video camera, than this film.

 

But leaving that all aside, and appreciating simply the image quality of this work (which is very good), would you buy the camera that was used to shoot this film, if the camera looked like it was built by a "bloke in a garage" (even if it wasn't) - and assuming all else being equal (price, ergonomics, etc).

 

Many people I know do in fact buy cameras for their look - camera collectors, who appreciate  the look and feel aspect of such - or even the technological aspect of such for that matter. Vintage cameras will provide a connection to history as much through their creative look and feel as their technical aspect. Normally such cameras tend to become display items, but as such they can nevertheless provide much inspiration. Or indeed be used to make a film. I would not want to deny any of that.

 

But reciprically I would not use any of that "commodity fetishism" (for want of a better term) to deny the usefulness of some more mundane, or even ad hoc, yet perfectly functional camera. I have heaps of ad hoc equipment I've acquired or built myself that yields exactly what I'm after. It's the film on the screen that matters most to me. I'm quite happy to jerry rig anything if it gets a particular result I'm after.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 11 March 2016 - 08:32 PM.

  • 0

#71 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4296 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:54 PM

I'm not sure on what side of the equation Tyler is operating - buyer or creator. As a buyer he seems to prefer a better viewfinder over a better gate system. I assume that's so he can use his brain, instead of the film, as the encoding medium.


Yes, viewfinders are everything Carl. Using a standard definition low-resolution video camera as your ONLY VIEWING DEVICE on a "film" camera, is ridiculous. It would have been cheaper for Logmar to buy a GoPro and make a HD viewfinder system, then what they wound up with. The whole idea of LCD display menu's on a film camera to access basic functions, is scary.

I wouldn't consider making 50 units of something "successful". They made 50 prototypes and perfected the design which they appear to be selling a modified version to Kodak. Plus, most of the people who shoot super 8 are looking for "retro", not modern. When they go out and shoot super 8, the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output. Plus, the pricing of the camera is insane for "retro" people, who are the bulk of the Super 8 users. It's like selling a laser reading record player. People who play records, don't want lasers and electronics, they want analog... that's the whole point. So Logmar's grand scheme of making an electronic based camera that shoots a "retro" format, is in essence, going against what would sell. So... no, the Logmar was a complete failure in the grand scheme of things. The 50 cameras they made, many of them not sold, will disappear into the cabinets of those who purchased them and most likely forgotten. You and maybe 3 other people, will most likely shoot stuff with theirs. However, it's just a toy in the long run. Another "cool gadget" for the equipment locker. As I've said many times, when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up.

What matters to filmmakers like myself, is the usability on set, more then anything else.
  • 0

#72 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:08 PM

Well I would never buy a camera just for the looks alone. I have the exact same mind set: I want my camera to work well for me and never become just a display or collector's item, but It ends with a shiny plastic box looking like I got it from Toys-R-Us. It's not about fetish - it's about how it makes me feel. I tend to lean towards classic film camera design of all sorts - but this is personal.

 

It is hard to put in into few words: I am not extreme in any kind. But "just getting the job done" also involves a mental process, a state of mind. So using ad hoc stuff that gets the job done (for other than budget reasons!!!) might also be an "I want to be different and against the mainstream at all costs, just to make a statement" attitude. Which has its merit as well. It's just not my personal approach. Same as "go with the flow" is not my approach.

 

I don't just love the results, I love the entire process. I don't just love, say, Mozart's Symphony Nr. 40, I also love seeing it performed by a great orchestra - even if pink and green violins with old bumper stickers on them would sound better and dress code doesn't really matter - I prefer seeing the traditional shades of wood finish and some decent dresses/tuxedos- the eyes are part of it. The "how it's done" does matter because different approaches lead to different results. Always.

 

There is a reason many a silhouette representing "film" or even "video" looks a lot like an old Mitchell. It evokes: film.

 

The Eclair NPR is not exactly a beautiful camera (IMHO), but it's a true classic film camera. It is a personal thing. I definitely don't dismiss functional forms (the NPR was basically more functional form than beautiful design).

 

About the footage where I posted the link: sure it's boring as hell - I just love the image quality.

 

Christian

 

P.S. I talk as a serious amateur who might make a nice short film one day (I attempted dozens back in the day). If I was a pro filmmaker, things would change, because other people (especially clients) come into play.


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 11 March 2016 - 09:14 PM.

  • 0

#73 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:25 PM

Yes, viewfinders are everything Carl. Using a standard definition low-resolution video camera as your ONLY VIEWING DEVICE on a "film" camera, is ridiculous. It would have been cheaper for Logmar to buy a GoPro and make a HD viewfinder system, then what they wound up with. The whole idea of LCD display menu's on a film camera to access basic functions, is scary.

I wouldn't consider making 50 units of something "successful". They made 50 prototypes and perfected the design which they appear to be selling a modified version to Kodak. Plus, most of the people who shoot super 8 are looking for "retro", not modern. When they go out and shoot super 8, the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output. Plus, the pricing of the camera is insane for "retro" people, who are the bulk of the Super 8 users. It's like selling a laser reading record player. People who play records, don't want lasers and electronics, they want analog... that's the whole point. So Logmar's grand scheme of making an electronic based camera that shoots a "retro" format, is in essence, going against what would sell. So... no, the Logmar was a complete failure in the grand scheme of things. The 50 cameras they made, many of them not sold, will disappear into the cabinets of those who purchased them and most likely forgotten. You and maybe 3 other people, will most likely shoot stuff with theirs. However, it's just a toy in the long run. Another "cool gadget" for the equipment locker. As I've said many times, when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up.

What matters to filmmakers like myself, is the usability on set, more then anything else.

 

50 is better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick - to use an Aussie expression.

 

Tyler says Logmar made "50 prototypes" and then sold a "perfected" version of this to Kodak.

 

This is simply not true. He just makes this rubbish up and recycles it as if it were true. I've spoken to the real life, living and breathing people behind the Logmar, and I can tell you this just aint so. But Tyler thinks opinion is somehow more relevant than what is actually so.

 

He also says "many were not sold". Well, the only ones not sold are the couple still available from Pro8. I don't know how many that is. I was told it was only a few. But perhaps Tyler can enlighten us.

 

The Logmar's that were built were not prototypes. A protoype was built prior to the 50 that were made. And this went on tour, and field tested and on the basis of such, 50 release versions were built. Or we could call them "release candidates" because if anything needed changing down the track, in subsequent runs, these 50 would be changed.

 

But nothing needed changing. And so the 50 became the release version. The only thing that needed any change was the firmware - which can be downloaded over the internet.

 

Secondly the Kodak camera is a completely new design. This is from the horses mouth. I've spoken directly to the "bloke in the garage" about this. It's a completely new design. The main difference is that it doesn't employ a separate gate. Most of the way in which the Logmar differs from a conventional Super8 camera, is around the custom gate and it's pin registration.

 

Tyler's criticism of the Logmar is completely stupid. He says "when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up."

 

But for the Kodak camera, he has no such requirement.

 

"When they go out and shoot super 8", he says "the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output."

 

Tyler is an idiot. But I can't stop reading his material. He's just far too funny to ignore.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 11 March 2016 - 09:33 PM.

  • 0

#74 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:33 PM

Sorry if I chime in. I really don't have the knowledge to support any statement made in the latest comments.

 

Just applying common sense:

 

1) Why isn't there footage showing the Logmar shot with a Logmar? Phil of Pro8mm at least has some of his footage explaing Max8

   and the scanning/grading/cropping on actual Super 8mm.

 

2) why is there only one (!) Logmar film (test with lens issues, such as vignetting and asymmetrical aberration, among others) on

    YouTube?

 

...just asking. Don't shoot me ;-)

 

Christian


  • 0

#75 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:02 PM

Sorry if I chime in. I really don't have the knowledge to support any statement made in the latest comments.

 

Just applying common sense:

 

1) Why isn't there footage showing the Logmar shot with a Logmar? Phil of Pro8mm at least has some of his footage explaing Max8

   and the scanning/grading/cropping on actual Super 8mm.

 

2) why is there only one (!) Logmar film (test with lens issues, such as vignetting and asymmetrical aberration, among others) on

    YouTube?

 

...just asking. Don't shoot me ;-)

 

Christian

 

Ha ha. I won't shoot you.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I've been very slow to shoot anything on the Logmar. My films, these days, take a long time to gestate. And I had been working on a 16mm film that took up most of my time last year (amongst many other things). It was going to be shot on the Logmar but delays in the arrival of the camera had me investing in 16mm for the project.

 

In terms of the Logmar itself there were issues around the software in the initial stage, and in my case the battery proved a dud (was a third party battery, nothing to do with Logmar) - which was eventually replaced. I also had issues burning new software onto the SD card - again, not Logmar's fault - just my computer at the time. The only other issue was the experience some were having in loading the film. It requires one to follow a particular proceedure, which if you don't do it correctly, can result in misloaded film - just like you might encounter with a 16mm camera, if you are not practiced. That put me off for a little while. Tyler will no doubt jump in here and have a go at the Logmar for not being a "Super8 camera" in this respect. To which I'd just say well, okay, it's not a Super8 camera. So what? Nor is it a hamburger. How does that change the price of fish in China?

 

In any case, I'm locked into shooting some film on the Logmar this coming weekend. Stock has been purchased. The lab is primed. It's all set to go.

 

However you won't see any of this on youtube or vimeo etc. because the neg will be taken through an optical blowup to 16mm, and screened in that way.

 

C


  • 0

#76 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:21 PM

Tyler isn't really an idiot. He just gets carried away by outrageous things from time to time. No different from me in that regard.


  • 0

#77 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4296 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 March 2016 - 11:36 PM

50 is better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick - to use an Aussie expression.


If Arriflex sold 50 SR's, they would have shelved the project, discontinued the camera and blamed the people in their company for it not being a success. If you make 50 of something by hand in your garage and sell them all, you're most likely going to consider that a success no matter what. So what Logmar did was right in the middle... for a camera manufacturer they were a failure. For a hand-made, one-off product, I guess you could consider them successful. I consider it a failure because I assume their eventual goal was to propitiate the format of Super 8 AND eventually make money off the huge investment required to make them, non of which happened with only 50 examples ever made. Plus, in the world of engineering and design, ANY hand-made product is a prototype. Only in mass production does your product loose that status. This is because in manufacturing, you will fine tune the design to the point of it being easier to make, less costly to make and be able to sell them for less money in the long run. Lets face it, had the Logmar been a $999 retail price camera, it would have put Pro 8's refurbishing program out of business AND they would have sold MANY more units.

My point and only reason I responded is because I consider it a complete utter failure, where Kodak's $499 entry Super 8 camera is an entirely different market.
 

Secondly the Kodak camera is a completely new design. This is from the horses mouth. I've spoken directly to the "bloke in the garage" about this. It's a completely new design. The main difference is that it doesn't employ a separate gate. Most of the way in which the Logmar differs from a conventional Super8 camera, is around the custom gate and it's pin registration.


Yes, it's the next generation Logmar. It has many of the same features, but they made it for mass production, they removed the prototype design look and feel, making it A LOT cheaper to manufacture. Again, pricing is $499 - $999 depending on the features. That's a HUGE price difference to the Logmar.
 

Tyler's criticism of the Logmar is completely stupid. He says "when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up." But for the Kodak camera, he has no such requirement.


Right, because the Kodak camera falls into an acceptable price range and it's not some hand-made prototype, it's mass produced. The Kodak is like buying a Blackmagic Pocket Camera. It low-cost, entry level capturing to the lowest acceptable quality resolution. The Logmar does virtually the same thing as the Kodak, minus some bells and whistles, captures to the lowest resolution film format, yet its 5 times more money. The assumption there is that anyone buying a Logmar, must need it's features for some crazy big project like a feature film, where the camera would stand out amongst it's peers. Otherwise, why would ANYONE by one?
 

"When they go out and shoot super 8", he says "the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output."


Yes, in regards to the vast majority of people who shoot super 8, this is the case. I mean, I do live in Hollywood, the home of the filmmaking "hipsters". I know many of them personally and they dress up in fancy retro clothing, go out around los angeles and make their little super 8 movies. They choose their cameras on ebay, based on the looks, which one is more retro then the other. How do I know this? Because I have a bunch of super 8 cameras and when I lend people cameras, they always pick the same one. It's the most "retro" looking of the bunch. These guys don't care if it's out of focus, if it's got gate weave, if the colors aren't perfect or it's grainy. The reason they shoot super 8, is to get that look in the first place. As you well know, I've been working on a feature film that we're shooting an entire section in super 8 to match older material shot in the 80's. We just did our first big shoot and it looks great, but he choose the worst of my cameras because he wanted to look cool on location with it. I keep saying, I'll buy a better camera and the results we keep getting back are exactly what he wants, so we're not changing anything.

Honestly, I just dislike the logmar because they tried to mix old with new and it just doesn't work, nobody wants that. Yes carl, I've gone to Pro 8 and worked with the camera. I went to the open house few years ago when it first came out and spent quite a bit of time with it. I was tremendously unimpressed and dismayed. They had the opportunity to make something wonderful and in my opinion, they blew it. Now they want to make 16mm and 35mm cameras? Give me a break. When I can go out and buy an Aaton LTR or XTR for a few grand, why would anything they offer the public be any better? Heck, I just sold my beautiful Moviecam 35mm camera for 3 grand! Do you think Logmar's camera will be anywhere near that price OR produce less than 20db when running, which is kinda what's required for shooting sound these days. Good luck with that!

See, I care about film too much Carl. I want it to be LOW COST, not high cost. The only way to solve that problem is to get more people shooting. If you charge them tens of thousands for cameras, they simply won't shoot. If you charge them a few hundred dollars, they may bite and that's why USED cameras AND the Kodak camera, are steps in the right direction and why the Logmar is a complete, total, utter failure in the grand scheme of things.
  • 0

#78 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 12 March 2016 - 03:09 AM

 

However you won't see any of this on youtube or vimeo etc. because the neg will be taken through an optical blowup to 16mm, and screened in that way.

Sounds great! BTW: yep: gotta get your film loading procedure down on any film camera or it's bad loop and/or jamming!

So you will have it blown up to a 16mm print to be projected? That limits you to the standard 1.37:1 ratio unless you mask off a little top and bottom in the 16mm frame. Nice to know that there are still labs doing optical step printing! Been around back in the day when we still used 16mm projectors back in middle and high school. I always insisted on being the projectionist (had already Super 8mm at home). Ah the good old Siemens 2000 and Bell & Howell TQ series....  How are you going about sound for the 16mm print? Optical is mono and limited in quality. Magnetic track glued onto the film print is unreliable and wears out (if it is available at all still....). I guess the best is still going with a separate, mechanically sync'd 16mm fully coated magnetic soundtrack on a specialized projector - that's the way they aired 16mm (and 35mm, but with a matching 17,5 mm full coat sound track with the exact same sprocket holes) back in the day (1970s until early '80s in my native Germany).

 

Just letting you know that I have actually used and/or seen live all this stuff back in the day. Please let me know. I'm interested in just about everything "film". Love it!

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 12 March 2016 - 03:12 AM.

  • 0

#79 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 12 March 2016 - 07:48 AM

Sounds great! BTW: yep: gotta get your film loading procedure down on any film camera or it's bad loop and/or jamming!

So you will have it blown up to a 16mm print to be projected? That limits you to the standard 1.37:1 ratio unless you mask off a little top and bottom in the 16mm frame. Nice to know that there are still labs doing optical step printing! Been around back in the day when we still used 16mm projectors back in middle and high school. I always insisted on being the projectionist (had already Super 8mm at home). Ah the good old Siemens 2000 and Bell & Howell TQ series....  How are you going about sound for the 16mm print? Optical is mono and limited in quality. Magnetic track glued onto the film print is unreliable and wears out (if it is available at all still....). I guess the best is still going with a separate, mechanically sync'd 16mm fully coated magnetic soundtrack on a specialized projector - that's the way they aired 16mm (and 35mm, but with a matching 17,5 mm full coat sound track with the exact same sprocket holes) back in the day (1970s until early '80s in my native Germany).

 

Just letting you know that I have actually used and/or seen live all this stuff back in the day. Please let me know. I'm interested in just about everything "film". Love it!

 

Christian

 

Yeah I'm right into it. The optical printer is one I've built myself from various components, including 3D printed parts. It's fully programmable using software I've written myself, with programmable motion control over the lens and camera.

 

The sound track I did for my last work (on 16mm) was done using double system sound in which the soundtrack plays on a separate sound system while the film runs through a projector. A digital sync system maintains sync between sound and film. This simply allows for a more complex sound track than that provided by an optical sound track, and it can be any number of tracks, but I just did it as a stereo track for the last film. However a friend has a large number of huge speakers that don't see much action these days - so we're thinking of making a film where we have a large number of speakers for the screening - and therefore a more complex sound track to be prepared for such. That would be awesome.

 

Regarding aspect ...

 

If the blow up makes the width of the source fit the width of the target, the result on 16mm will have black bars top and bottom.

But if one blows it up where the height of the source fits the height of the target, there won't be any black bars - one just loses the sides of the source.

 

Will probably just use 4:3, no black bars.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 12 March 2016 - 07:54 AM.

  • 0

#80 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 12 March 2016 - 08:43 AM

 

Will probably just use 4:3, no black bars.

 

 

Yep: since the Logmar is very stable you can have a very tight fit and don't lose any height to speak of (unless your gate isn't 100% clean), then you only lose a little on the sides and make the best use of both formats.

 

I thought about it loooong ago. I would print some kind of frame code into the print (can use the sound track) and have the sound coming from a hard drive. Just hook up a computer with a professional DAW (Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar, Digital Performer, Logic) and let the external interface do all the syncing. The sound editing should be done in the DAW (then mixed down to desired format: stereo, 5.1 etc). just using a small quicktime or Avi ect. file as long as the frame rate matches up (the way I work for tv commercials). And you're good to go: vintage 16mm projector with the optical sound system reading your code, sending it to a custom interface that communicates with a laptop computer (10+ year old ones will do just fine), then fire wire cable connection and D/A converters and you will have top notch killer sound way better than CD quality. This should work (just need to figure out how to print the correct frame code onto the optical sound track (to avoid modification on the 16mm projector). There are old 16mm cameras that record sound - so this should be do-able, just a matter of figuring it out. Here is an example of a 16mm camera recording optical sound (can be before or after printing the image):

 

The Auricon for example: instead of soundwaves, you can generate any kind of signal with a virtual synthesizer inside one of the DAWs - like clicks or beeps or shapes generated by oscillators - anything that triggers and contains information.

 

I already did that kind of stuff for visual cues (Hammond organ Leslie speed change to the pre-recorded dry signal etc. - yep: I also do a lot of DYI stuff on a pro level in my field):

 

 

Thought about all this loooong ago.

 

 

Just my thoughts and ideas thrown in,

Christian


  • 0


Visual Products

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

The Slider

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

CineLab