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

#41 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:30 AM

Here's a short doco on the behind the scenes work at my local cinema, in preparation for a screening of the Hateful Eight:

 

 

Great!!! Love the cast of "The Hateful Eight" and I'm a huge Tarantino fan. Kurt Russell in an ensemble cast, Ennio Morricone, exciting "one of us is not what they seem to be"-story, etc. ...... yep, more than just a huge nod to Carpenter's "The Thing" - a classic! Tarantino really knows what he is doing. He doesn't play it safe. He delivers. Need to catch this on BluRay as soon as it comes out. It's already out of my local multiplexes. "Carol" is now everywhere here. Fine with me: shows that Super 16mm still (and with the new Kodak Vision 3 film stocks and latest scanning technology - more than ever) is a very serious camera format for the big screen.

 

Christian


  • 0

#42 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4281 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:30 PM

Anyway: good to hear (which I was unable to clearly get out of any article) these are true 1:1.25x anamorphic 70mm prints with the correct lenses supplied and in the original language (subtitles probably not even printed-in because of logistics). Great to know those old 70mm projectors are being fired up again all over the globe! Love Tarantino's "take no prisoners" - "I make it happen: big time!" approach. He does make it all happen: Morricone and true Ultra Panavision camera 65. Way to go!


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.
  • 0

#43 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4281 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:36 PM

"Carol" is now everywhere here. Fine with me: shows that Super 16mm still (and with the new Kodak Vision 3 film stocks and latest scanning technology - more than ever) is a very serious camera format for the big screen.


Super 16 has made a HUGE comeback. Mostly because camera prices have dropped substantially and people like myself can pickup complete packages for a few grand and shoot. This is the first time in the history of 16mm where professional cameras are SO affordable, only because people are so taken by digital technology.

I've always said, if you remove film from the equation, there will be an eventual backlash and I think we're seeing that right now. More and more younger filmmakers are shooting on film exclusively and there is a movement to force theaters to project on film. Once there is some infrastructure built back up again, I can see more and more 35mm screenings as well, it's just right now, the popcorn operator struggles to run a film projector. So some theaters will need outside assistance. It will take a popular movie to be released only in 35mm, for things to change. I have a feeling Nolan's new movie maybe just that film as he's hinted about making 5/70, 15/70, and 4/35 prints ONLY. We'll see if Warner Brothers is OK with THAT decision.
  • 0

#44 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:17 PM

Super 16 has made a HUGE comeback. Mostly because camera prices have dropped substantially and people like myself can pickup complete packages for a few grand and shoot. This is the first time in the history of 16mm where professional cameras are SO affordable, only because people are so taken by digital technology.

I've always said, if you remove film from the equation, there will be an eventual backlash and I think we're seeing that right now. More and more younger filmmakers are shooting on film exclusively and there is a movement to force theaters to project on film. Once there is some infrastructure built back up again, I can see more and more 35mm screenings as well, it's just right now, the popcorn operator struggles to run a film projector. So some theaters will need outside assistance. It will take a popular movie to be released only in 35mm, for things to change. I have a feeling Nolan's new movie maybe just that film as he's hinted about making 5/70, 15/70, and 4/35 prints ONLY. We'll see if Warner Brothers is OK with THAT decision.

That is great news! Well the lower costs (Super 16mm camera(s) and gear - either purchase or rental) and availability - don't apply here in Europe as much as they do in the US. BUT it's over there where everything starts. I firmly believe that Nolan will do something like this (35mm prints only) - since the time is just right, after Tarantino he is (to my knowledge) the next director to exclusively use film (mostly Panavision and IMAX with a natural look - Batman trilogy, Inception... -  as far as I know) and after Tarantino paving the way for a whole new generation, it is very likely. Next to follow (hopefully) please: Martin Scorsese :-)

 

P.S. The very best theatrical screening of a 35mm print I ever watched was "Master and Commander", back in 2003 in "The Grove", L.A. I was blown away by the image and sound quality. Here in Europe at the time many film projectors simply weren't bright enough (probably to save money) and often had poor lenses (distracting chromatic aberration on the sides and corners) and even unattended projections drifting out of focus (I remember a few (!) times running out of a multiplex screening complaining - politely - to an employee - it took them forever to follow me, look at the screen and finally admit that this was in fact completely out of focus - while I had to explain: "Are you aware that as we speak I don't see the movie I paid for?" - The answer was a fake polite: "You may go back, I will send someone" (who came and re-focused after I had lost about 15 minutes or more). I didn't demand my money back because it would have probably taken hours to find the manager. I wasn't angry about the underpaid guy I was talking to - nor the manager who only makes money from the popcorn and soda drinks and cuts corners everywhere. I was furious at a well attended screening, completely out of focus - without anyone complaining but me: I had nothing to lose, I didn't watch the movie anyway, just a blur (audience members probably were too lazy to do something about it). Welcome to Europe! :-/

 

Thanks for the insight,

That's really great news - now (film companies!!!): let's make sure some of the old, skilled projectionists teach the young folks how these machines work and how the prints must be treated! At least in countries where people actually care.

 

Christian


  • 0

#45 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4281 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 March 2016 - 03:43 PM

Film projection hit it's peak in the late 90's. I remember seeing some amazing film projection in my youth and when I moved to california, the projection here has been stellar as well. Unfortunately, we've been digital here for quite sometime, around 10 years or so. Theaters had a little logo "digital" for those particular presentations and they ran film for all the other one's. So I'd always go to the film presentations. Here in the states, 35mm film prints died because the person who owned BOTH the big labs, was looking at the numbers and saw that film wasn't making him much profit, so he decided to close the doors on all of it. In fact, only 17% of Deluxe's business was film prints. Technicolor was the other big film printing company and they stopped because they didn't want to renew the lease on their property. So they pulled the plug and the printing equipment was destroyed, ripped apart by machines and thrown into dumpsters. So 35mm projection in the US died in December 2013 when those labs went belly up. That was pretty much the last time I saw a standard released 35mm film as well.

Without those high speed duplicating machines, there is no way of doing a mass release of 35mm prints anymore. The financial burden of striking thousands of prints, now rests on the theaters, who have to spend millions updating/servicing digital projectors. This is why movies cost more then they ever have and why cinema as a whole is dying.
  • 0

#46 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 04:22 PM

Thanks again for the great insight!

Last movie I watched on a 35mm print was (oh the irony!) "Super 8" back in summer 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany, where I grew up. It was one last farewell to the projectionist as I turned back and watched through the window (as usual) to see someone carefully threading film into a machine (only possible in small and medium sized movie theaters of course).

 

Did they really physically destroy all those continuous contact printers to strike the release prints? Darn!

 

History repeating itself! They did the same with vinyl records in the late 1980s to push the audio CD (looong obsolete - vinyl is not and slowly coming back - in fact I am in a band project and we plan to release our album on vinyl only - who makes money with CD's? No one. It's all online - we put the album on all platforms we can think of. So at least people can listen to it for free without breaking the law!).

The CD (especially in jazz and pop music) was "pimped" (please allow me to use that word - just making a point) in two ways:

 

1) re-heated, thin, wobbly contaminated vinyl (dust, air trapped, trace amounts of paper labels etc). and stamps which were long worn out beyond the recommended number of copies. Making it all too easy for the digital pushers to point out the supposed bad quality. A win-win situation for the record companies at the time.

 

2) The CD was sold upon facts that have been long since proven to be 100% false and misleading (I refer to articles in top notch music sound engineering mags such as "EQ"). Compatability problems (many CD's won't play on certain players), no RAM buffer, very sensitive to scratches and damage in certain places (won't play) - and most of all: the resolution (44.1 Khz, 16 bit - the "pixels" of sound, a standard established as early as 1978!) is simply too low (not even talking about early CD players that simply dropped data through a micro chip deciding which is the least sigificant bit and another one deciding which is the most significant (LSB and MSB micro chips - get the idea?) or just had 15 bit converters - no one talked about that at the time!) - that's why pop music sounds so crunchy and over compressed these days: imitating analog and trying to squeeze-in as much information as possible. Mp3 (the "Jpeg" of sound) is even worse.....

 

At least a lot of old vinyl record cutting machines have been rescued from warehouses and are being rebuilt with the latest technology by the old master craftsmen and by young apprentices. Vinyl is also the most durable (when not played) storage format - much more so than digital data and analog tape, the latter will eventually de-magnetize and fall apart. As we speak all existing vinyl pressing companies (that I know of) are unable to cope with demand and still waiting for the market to stabilize before they further expand. Fingers crossed!

 

Back to film: Hopefully someone will come up with the idea of building some kind of "reverse scanner" so no print neg is needed to strike 35mm prints. Perhaps like camera units from the old days of optical step printing (as used also for rendering of first generation CGI). Get your sweet 35mm Fries Mitchell cameras, Mr. Nolan!!!! That would be good for a limited number of prints. For higher number some sort of continuous high speed printing must be used. Sure some sort of "reverse scanner" would be the solution to ensure speed and no print negs being needed. Just me thinking aloud (not claiming to be an expert!!!).... Tons of research and studying throughout all my life - but not a full "hands on" expert by a long shot. Music and sound in general is my gig!

 

Yes: I am of the exact same opinion: cinema as a whole is dying (like music as a whole, for many of the exact same reasons).

 

We are also kind of cornered regarding the choice of film stock. Kodak's reversal stocks are gone, Fuji: gone. Well, let's see how it goes.

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 10 March 2016 - 04:37 PM.

  • 0

#47 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 10 March 2016 - 04:29 PM

 

 

Back to film: Hopefully someone will come up with the idea of building some kind of "reverse scanner" so no original neg is needed to strike 35mm prints. Perhaps like camera units from the old days of optical step printing (as used also for rendering of first generation CGI). Get your sweet 35mm Fries Mitchell cameras, Mr. Nolan!!!! That would be good for a limited number of prints. For higher number some sort of continuous high speed printing must be used. Sure some sort of "reverse scanner" would be the solution to ensure speed and no print negs being needed. Just me thinking aloud.... Tons of research and studying through all my life - but not a "hands on" expert by a long shot. Music and sound in general is my gig!

 

 

 

 

Lucky for your hopes, these exist. Arrilaser, Cinevator, and Lasergraphics Producer all do exactly this. 


  • 0

#48 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 04:42 PM

 

 

Lucky for your hopes, these exist. Arrilaser, Cinevator, and Lasergraphics Producer all do exactly this. 

Thanks for the input. Yep, I knew I was onto something.

 

Thanks again,

Christian


  • 0

#49 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 05:58 PM

Well I know we are getting off topic, but I like the conversation a lot. Thanks for all the great information.

 

Now this might be against "house rules" so please if it does: it is 100% unintended and I highly appreciate bringing it to my attention as opposed to receiving warning points :-)

 

I came across this offer on Ebay, but I can't see any images. I contacted the seller and received a reply, but it seemed rather evasive, just referring to the photos I am unable to see. I do NOT wish to discredit the valuable reputation of anyone. I simply see a lot of red flags. Not sure if it's on daylight spools, not sure if it's single perf. Exp date? Seller's history.

 

My purpose posting this here is not only for myself. It is also for fellow film enthusiasts who might have come across the same Ebay item for sale.

 

Here is the offer (the sought after Kodak Ektachrome 100D in 16mm):

 

http://www.ebay.com/...FYAAOSwqYBWncbb

 

If anyone wishes to contact me directly for an honest opinion (to avoid putting anyone's reputation into question - in public):

 

c_schonberger@yahoo.com

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 10 March 2016 - 06:02 PM.

  • 0

#50 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4281 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:08 PM

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things.

Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.
  • 0

#51 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:28 PM

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things.

Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.

Sounding great! My idea of a "reverse scanner" never was literally "printing" anything on film. It was always using a photochemical process and something like a continuous printer (since the continuous contact printers - with perf pitch compensation and all - seem to be gone) actually exposing light onto continuously running 35mm film. Much the same as continuous 16mm to Super 8mm optical printers employed for very high quality Super 8mm full length features (by companies such as Derann in the UK, which still exist) since aspect ratio  of the 16mm master print negs and one perf per frame are identical to both formats.

 35mm to (standard 1:1,37 or projector 1:1,34)16mm had to be step printed to produce either interpositives or print negs - because of modern widescreen (1,166:1 = European and 1,185:1 = American). But of course I'm preaching to the choir - you all know that better than I do (really!). Thanks again.

 

Christian


  • 0

#52 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4166 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:30 PM

 

Just to get this 100% clear: I'm not a purist or elitist or a snob. Not at all. I just do what every single serious film enthusiast (including Super 8mm) does: trying to get the best out of an existing format and minimizing undesired artifacts. Super 8mm vertical jitter is unpredictable because of the Cartridge design. Many people do something about it (or at least try). These are not purists or elitists, but hands-on people who actually do something about issues.

Vinyl collectors don't collect vinyl because of the crackles and pops or surface noise. They collect it because it's vinyl, because of the equipment, the look and feel - and the unique silky sound - and most collectors prefer high quality editions in mint condition.

As soon as anything "retro" comes into the equation, it will be a passing trend, because eventually people will get tired of it. I like some light image floating and grain on certain older movies but frankly: the vertical jitter and focus pumping on a lot of Super 8mm scans (or projection) simply are too much and distracting. Super 8mm enthusiasts wouldn't talk about it and do something about it all the time if they loved it.

 

Christian

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote Christian. I wasn't saying anything about Super 8 enthusiasts loving the jitter at all. I think you are right that a lot of them dislike the jitter. I was just saying that some of the 20 year olds who are used to video might like the jitter and that it might not have the same negative associations for them that it has for you. Just like a lot of the faults of anamorphic lenses are now somewhat prized but back in the day there was much effort to avoid them.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about doing something about the vertical jitter in Super 8 because as you yourself suggest, it is a function of the cartridge design. I think the easiest way of avoiding it is to just shoot in 16mm to start with instead! There is the Logmar too I suppose....


Edited by Freya Black, 10 March 2016 - 06:35 PM.

  • 0

#53 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:52 PM

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote Christian. I wasn't saying anything about Super 8 enthusiasts loving the jitter at all. I think you are right that a lot of them dislike the jitter. I was just saying that some of the 20 year olds who are used to video might like the jitter and that it might not have the same negative associations for them that it has for you. Just like a lot of the faults of anamorphic lenses are now somewhat prized but back in the day there was much effort to avoid them.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about doing something about the vertical jitter in Super 8 because as you yourself suggest, it is a function of the cartridge design. I think the easiest way of avoiding it is to just shoot in 16mm to start with instead! There is the Logmar too I suppose....

Everything is fine :-) We are talking about the same thing. Just wanted to clear it up to avoid misunderstandings: I always kep an open mind.

Well with Max8mm you have, as everyone knows, vertical headroom, so a lot of the jitter can be stabilized by dedicated software (Pro8mm does that already with great results). I wish the Logmar project would have been further developed. To my knowledge it stopped and is still basically a prototype, not fully matured. The results I have seen (at least with Kodak Vision 3 50D and open frame scan - no final cropping) look exellent and more than perfect for the film enthusiast who can't afford 16mm film stock (I basically can't myself at the moment, that's why I do lots of research and advance in baby steps).

 

Good point regarding the Panaflex anamorphic lenses. Some movies definitely have too shallow a depth of field, focus issues and lens aberrations (or artifacts) which still add to the charm and feel are much more obvious now (after many years of non anamorphic Super 35mm being used for 1,235:1 widescreen like, say "Se7en" or "Titanic") than they were back in the day. I remember films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977 - a paradise for film camera buffs BTW!!!!), "Alien" (1979), "Die Hard" (1988) and many in between using the 2x anamorphic 35mm process.

 

All the best,

Christian


  • 0

#54 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 07:21 PM

Typing error correction: the aspect ratio of Panavision type anamorphic widescreen (and equivalent with spherical lens processes such as Techniscope and Super 35mm as the camera film stock) is of course 2,35:1.

 

C.


  • 0

#55 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1168 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 10 March 2016 - 10:20 PM

Well I know we are getting off topic, but I like the conversation a lot. Thanks for all the great information.

 

Now this might be against "house rules" so please if it does: it is 100% unintended and I highly appreciate bringing it to my attention as opposed to receiving warning points :-)

 

I came across this offer on Ebay, but I can't see any images. I contacted the seller and received a reply, but it seemed rather evasive, just referring to the photos I am unable to see. I do NOT wish to discredit the valuable reputation of anyone. I simply see a lot of red flags. Not sure if it's on daylight spools, not sure if it's single perf. Exp date? Seller's history.

 

My purpose posting this here is not only for myself. It is also for fellow film enthusiasts who might have come across the same Ebay item for sale.

 

Here is the offer (the sought after Kodak Ektachrome 100D in 16mm):

 

http://www.ebay.com/...FYAAOSwqYBWncbb

 

If anyone wishes to contact me directly for an honest opinion (to avoid putting anyone's reputation into question - in public):

 

c_schonberger@yahoo.com

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Christian

 

I can't see photos either. seems to be quite expensive, especially with shipping. you can get two rolls of fresh wittnerchrome at that price and don't have to pay customs.

without photos, very few purchases and zero seller reputation and no other items on sale, looks a lot of like a scam.

I mean, come on, even I have lots of feedback on my eBay account without never even selling anything, just buying stuff  :blink:   

 

eBay sellers tend to list the amount of items if they have more than one on sale so that you can buy more than one at a time and they don't have to relist all the time.

if he can't send you photos or add them to the listing I would advise against buying those although you will probably get your money back after a while with buyer protection if it's a scam  :mellow:

Just don't wait more than 25 days for it to arrive, even with that slow 'Global Shipping' option which goes via multiple carriers and is difficult to track because it changes tracking codes multiple times...

 

I would not be worried about the seller's reputation, one can get that kind of feedback in 5 minutes so not a problem for him to create a new account if necessary  ;)


  • 0

#56 Carl Looper

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 10:35 PM

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things.

Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.

 

A technique I've designed (but not implemented) is for a quasi-analog green screen setup for film, using a hybrid digital/analog system. The camera original material (so called "plates") are analog acquired, and analog printed, without any digital intermediate. In other words the image content, from acquisition to projection, is entirely anlog. But the compositing mattes employed during the printing process are from a digital intermediate printed to film. The result is that it is only the seams in the projected result that are digital. The image content is otherwise fully analog.

 

The technically interesting part of the process is printing the digitally generated mattes on film, because they need to (obviously) exactly match the analog image physically on the film. Solving this problem was the difficult part.

 

All I have to do now is just implement it in reality.

 

C


  • 0

#57 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 10 March 2016 - 10:53 PM

 

I can't see photos either. seems to be quite expensive, especially with shipping. you can get two rolls of fresh wittnerchrome at that price and don't have to pay customs.

without photos, very few purchases and zero seller reputation and no other items on sale, looks a lot of like a scam.

I mean, come on, even I have lots of feedback on my eBay account without never even selling anything, just buying stuff  :blink:   

Yep, thought so right from the start. An entire "forest" of red flags popped up.

I guess fresh Wittner with just the right color grading, to make it pop a little more, can look great (seen some very nice footage) and still silky and "film-like". Much better and consistent than picking up overly expensive (seen one closed 100 ft box single perf from 2009 (no exp. date though) with three sharp photos for much more than that! - about USD 150+! - this morning) and unpredictable expired Ektachrome 100D (E-6) from various "sellers". Can get W.C. 200D from Wittner Germany diectly, no customs, in a matter of days. Just a little worried about the estar base. Let's see....

 

Thanks for the input,

Christian


  • 0

#58 Carl Looper

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

Posted 11 March 2016 - 12:55 AM

Everything is fine :-) We are talking about the same thing. Just wanted to clear it up to avoid misunderstandings: I always kep an open mind.

Well with Max8mm you have, as everyone knows, vertical headroom, so a lot of the jitter can be stabilized by dedicated software (Pro8mm does that already with great results). I wish the Logmar project would have been further developed. To my knowledge it stopped and is still basically a prototype, not fully matured. The results I have seen (at least with Kodak Vision 3 50D and open frame scan - no final cropping) look exellent and more than perfect for the film enthusiast who can't afford 16mm film stock (I basically can't myself at the moment, that's why I do lots of research and advance in baby steps).

 

Good point regarding the Panaflex anamorphic lenses. Some movies definitely have too shallow a depth of field, focus issues and lens aberrations (or artifacts) which still add to the charm and feel are much more obvious now (after many years of non anamorphic Super 35mm being used for 1,235:1 widescreen like, say "Se7en" or "Titanic") than they were back in the day. I remember films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977 - a paradise for film camera buffs BTW!!!!), "Alien" (1979), "Die Hard" (1988) and many in between using the 2x anamorphic 35mm process.

 

All the best,

Christian

 

Max8 doesn't have any more vertical headroom over the traditional Super8 frame. The Max8 frame expands the frame sideways (into what was originally the sound track area). However if targeting 16:9 delivery there will be some unused headroom area. But then if targeting 16:9 the traditional Super8 frame would have even more unused head room.

 

I have a Logmar. It's not a prototype. The cameras were sold as part of a beta program, but were all complete in terms of hardware. It was only ever the firmware that was a beta version. And the firmware has been undergoing updates over time. Indeed with most software these days such can be treated as in an indefinite beta state. In other words, there never is any final version. There's only ever the latest version.
 

The Logmar's registration is perfect. A double exposure registration test was done by Friedemann Wachsmuth in which the same cross hairs were exposed in two passes, and there was no jitter whatsoever between the two exposures. Registration issues occur in scanning because many scanners don't yet respect the same registration architecture that Super8 cameras use. One day we can assume that will change. But in the mean time, various software registration workarounds can be used. Either way the Logmar delivers a really sharp result because there's no breathing of the film during exposure.

 

Super8 is not actually that much cheaper than 16mm. It's benefits are more in terms of convenience than anything else.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 11 March 2016 - 01:07 AM.

  • 0

#59 Christian Schonberger

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

Posted 11 March 2016 - 05:01 AM

 

Max8 doesn't have any more vertical headroom over the traditional Super8 frame. The Max8 frame expands the frame sideways (into what was originally the sound track area). However if targeting 16:9 delivery there will be some unused headroom area. But then if targeting 16:9 the traditional Super8 frame would have even more unused head room.

 

I have a Logmar. It's not a prototype. The cameras were sold as part of a beta program, but were all complete in terms of hardware. It was only ever the firmware that was a beta version. And the firmware has been undergoing updates over time. Indeed with most software these days such can be treated as in an indefinite beta state. In other words, there never is any final version. There's only ever the latest version.
 

The Logmar's registration is perfect. A double exposure registration test was done by Friedemann Wachsmuth in which the same cross hairs were exposed in two passes, and there was no jitter whatsoever between the two exposures. Registration issues occur in scanning because many scanners don't yet respect the same registration architecture that Super8 cameras use. One day we can assume that will change. But in the mean time, various software registration workarounds can be used. Either way the Logmar delivers a really sharp result because there's no breathing of the film during exposure.

 

Super8 is not actually that much cheaper than 16mm. It's benefits are more in terms of convenience than anything else.

 

C

Yep, I know about the exact aspect ratio of Standard Super 8mm and Max8 (originally: Super-Duper-8). Obviously, when referring to vertical headroom I was talking about Max 8 and its practical uses: 16:9 (1.78:1) HDTV/BluRay etc. or 1.85:1 American non anamorphic cinema widescreen. I am not a fan of open perf scans or any scan that isn't cropped to100% sharp edges compatible with existing standards (1.33:1 and Academy 1.37:1 included - both can and should be seen in the "pillar box" style aspect ratio on widescreen HDTV and BluRay), because without sharp edged crops it looks unfinished and "archival material" or "test footage" - because it is (that is the way I see it - other opinions highly respected). I see no point in using 1.58:1 (the full Max 8 frame) unless cropped to 16:9 - the format it is intended for and Phil Vigeant (whom I greatly admire) makes that 100% clear in his Pro8mm video (I hope it's O.K. to post a hot link to a YouTube video here):

 

 

I read an article about the Logmar (I really don't recall where). There it states exactly that it turned out in some cases that the Logmar only preforms 100% well at 24 fps and that there are issues with the rollers that hold in the Kodak cartgridge pressure plate to get out the loop into the precision camera mechanics (which I find a genius idea BTW!). I also read in several articles that the Logmar was a limited run and that the project has been stopped for good: no further development. Of course without such a new, innovative construction going through extensive field tests (long term reliability etc). I considered it basically "beta testing". The word "prototype" meant: "Not 100% thoroughly field tested and re-tweaked for a final, reliable version as the inventors had in mind". That is not to take away from that great camera as it is right now! I really love everything about it: it resolves all issues I ever had with Super 8 (I used this format in its standard framing from 1975 through 1981 extensively - starting with a Agfa Movexoom and stepping up until a Beaulieu 6008 S with the Schneider zoom lens recording sound with the camera (which was excellent at the time). The remaining issues (I personally have) can all be brought down to the lack of "real estate". We both are 100% on the exact same page. I am just not into film 100% professionally but I came "that" close - and never lost my passion (I got in back again a few years ago after thinking there would be no more hope).

 

Here is the (now famous) Logmar footage which blew me away. (not cropped and the film gate is rather dirty - but it shows that this is a whole new ball game (even with the fine grain Kodak Vision 3 50D - which never looked that great on Super 8mm):

 

 

Best regards - and congratulations on your Logmar: I know this camera is a rare precision tool, bringing Super 8mm to a whole new level.

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 11 March 2016 - 05:08 AM.

  • 0

#60 Carl Looper

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

Posted 11 March 2016 - 06:49 AM

I read an article about the Logmar (I really don't recall where). There it states exactly that it turned out in some cases that the Logmar only preforms 100% well at 24 fps and that there are issues with the rollers that hold in the Kodak cartgridge pressure plate to get out the loop into the precision camera mechanics (which I find a genius idea BTW!). I also read in several articles that the Logmar was a limited run and that the project has been stopped for good: no further development.

 

I'm not aware of any issues with the rollers, or with non 24 fps shooting. Everyone with a Logmar is on a private facebook group where we discuss the camera, and these issues haven't ever come up. Logmar did do a tour with their original prototype, prior to the 50 that went into production, and with which Freidemann did the first public test roll. Perhaps it was the prototype that had such problems.

 

But yes, production ceased after the first 50, but only because there wasn't any more orders - not because there was anything wrong with the camera. It's a solid camera.

 

Since then, Logmar partnered with Kodak and they cooked up the new Kodak camera, which Phil from Pro8 calls the "Logmar Mini". However it's an entirely new design aimed at your traditional Super8 user. Logmar were mentioned in the original Kodak PR and Logmar confirmed their involvement. But with people like Tyler thinking Logmar is some "bloke in a garage" I suspect Logmar are keeping their involvement more circumspect. God forbid the Kodak brand be associated with some bloke in a garage. Ha ha. Of course, Tyler himself is a bloke in a garage, but Tyler is proof himself that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a bloke in a garage.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 11 March 2016 - 07:02 AM.

  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineLab

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Glidecam

CineTape

The Slider

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio