Jump to content


Photo

"New" super-8 camera to market


  • Please log in to reply
594 replies to this topic

#501 Marc Marti

Marc Marti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 November 2013 - 12:37 PM

Anthony,

 

Switar 16mm primes (the AR models, not the RX ones) work like a charm in super-8.

I use to travel only with a 10mm Switar in the Fujica and the quality is outstanding. Besides, they are small, light and not very expensive.

 

Carl,

 

That's the point. Quality standards are not the same now as in the 70's, and this camera puts super-8 directly in this century.

Designed as an amateur format, its flaws were "acceptable" when it was created, but not these days, where everybody is used to HD images and can shoot a high quality picture for very little money. 

I remember a test from José Luís Villar where he confronted images from an HDSLR with the Vision stocks shot with a Beaulieu. Sharpness was almost the same, but the filmic image looked much more richer. That's the way to follow...

And of course, if anyone wants the old "home-movie look" always can purchase an old Sankyo on ebay for a few bucks. As simple as that.


  • 5

#502 Friedemann Wachsmuth

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 03:42 PM

I would not recommend to use CCTV C-Mount lenses. They are rather bad if compared to real cine lenses -- much bigger Circle of Confusion, more Distortion, weaker glass, 3-blade triangular aperture or even just "scissor aperture", worse coating... they are made for surveillance, not for filming.

I am currently trying my Kern Primes and the Optivaron 6-66, which has an image circle big enough (not sure yet about sharpness in the edges, subject to be tested). The H8RX-Primes don't fit -- image circle is too small (good enough for DS8, but not for this Max-8 widened gate) plus their Flange focal distance is too short.


Edited by Friedemann Wachsmuth, 28 November 2013 - 03:42 PM.

  • 2

#503 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 28 November 2013 - 03:56 PM

Friedemann,

 

we really need to see some nice Switar+Logmar+Vision3/Velvia footage so don't keep us waiting! ;)


  • 1

#504 Friedemann Wachsmuth

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 05:22 PM

It's too dark vor 50 ASA most of these days... Anyway, I plan to shoot some cartridges on the weekend (all three kinds of Vision), then send them to Andec and afterwards to Scanning. Stay tuned. 

 

(I so wish I had José Luis' Indi&Cold Models here...)


  • 3

#505 Carl Looper

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 05:39 PM

Carl,

 

That's the point. Quality standards are not the same now as in the 70's, and this camera puts super-8 directly in this century.

Designed as an amateur format, its flaws were "acceptable" when it was created, but not these days, where everybody is used to HD images and can shoot a high quality picture for very little money. 

I remember a test from José Luís Villar where he confronted images from an HDSLR with the Vision stocks shot with a Beaulieu. Sharpness was almost the same, but the filmic image looked much more richer. That's the way to follow...

And of course, if anyone wants the old "home-movie look" always can purchase an old Sankyo on ebay for a few bucks. As simple as that.

 

Hi Marc - yes - that was exactly the point I was making.


Edited by Carl Looper, 28 November 2013 - 05:41 PM.

  • 0

#506 Erkan Umut

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 05:49 PM

It's too dark vor 50 ASA most of these days... Anyway, I plan to shoot some cartridges on the weekend (all three kinds of Vision), then send them to Andec and afterwards to Scanning. Stay tuned. 

 

(I so wish I had José Luis' Indi&Cold Models here...)

 

Come to Istanbul we gonna have clear days following. I'll show you the best viewpoints... :) Otherwise I'll use my Nikon :) :)


Edited by Erkan Umut, 28 November 2013 - 05:51 PM.

  • 2

#507 Erkan Umut

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 06:32 PM

computar CCTV lens, made in Japan - C-mount - f/1:1.2-16 plus Closed, F=12.5-75mm (very reasonable priced, Cons for filmaking: a little smoother aperture friction than I used to)

 

I had used it on a FUJICA ZC1000 New once, the results were not bad...

 

kh95.jpg

 

qoy5.jpg

 

o3wy.jpg


  • 1

#508 Carl Looper

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 06:41 PM

In addition to what a better Super8 camera facilitates, and what the new film stocks provide, there is also today, over and above what was barely conceivable in the seventies, the state of the art in film transfers, and post processing - that anyone using a cheap laptop, and appropriate software, can employ.

 

The work of José Luís Villar is ample proof that we're not living in the seventies anymore - or perhaps proof we're living in the seventies that was supposed to occur rather than the one that did.

 

One of the things that pin registration provides which digital registration (on it's own) can't, is ellimination of the small vertical motion blur that a non-registered camera might otherwise encounter. You would otherwise have to use some inverse motion blur filters in post - calibrated according to a computed estimate of the motion distance - not something that easy to compute (but at least it is computable). When all is said and done the pin registration provides a primary solution.

 

For anarchial film-makers there might be an argument that one is tampering with the image through registration - but this would be incorrect (I'd argue). A cinema image is not in any given frame - but in the interval between the frames (in space and time) - in the movement that takes place between one frame and the next (at the very least). Despite commentary to the contrary this movement is 'real' by which is meant it is something visible (or potentially so) as distinct from something which is not. What is arguably illusory is the concept that there is nothing between the frames (no movement etc). A concept that has attached itself to the brains of those looking at a filmstrip in their hands as distinct from in a projector (or a Moviola). When looking at a filmstrip in one's hands one is looking at a film that is still partly in an encoded state. The movement hasn't been decoded. One see photographic images rather than a cinematographic image. For the latter you have to put the film in a projector - that is what the projector does - it decodes the information otherwise encoded in the filmstrip. The filmstrip is only one part of the overall mechanism.

 

The small random movements that otherwise occur without registration interfere with the cinematic interval between the frames - they interfere with a decoding of the cinema-image. They interfere with the movement. While technically and experimentally interesting they are not in any way some required aspect of a cinema-image. They are optional. But without a registration strategy the option to elliminate it is not there.

 

C


  • 0

#509 Carl Looper

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

Posted 28 November 2013 - 07:16 PM

I should add that one can't just ignore the limitations of a particular medium. One still has to make those limitations work. And this will be the case whether the camera is old or new. There is still plenty of work that can be done on a cheap Sankyo off ebay - and not just works after a home movie look. My main argument is that the limitations of any system (old or new) are not some sort of "natural" attribute that needs to be glorified. One can make a camera (etc) work despite the limitations, rather than as a function of the limitations. Sometimes one does enhance the limitations. It is one way of making a film work. But it's not the only way. That's the main point. Photography/cinematography is able to make use of the world beyond the camera (beyond the limitations of the system). It is this world which can also be used to make an otherwise limited system work.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 28 November 2013 - 07:17 PM.

  • 0

#510 Friedemann Wachsmuth

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

Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:41 AM

Very good write-up, Carl. It is this space and time that people too often ignore.

Pointing to the Phi-Phenomenon often helps explaining.

 

I too wrote an article about this interesting topic a while ago, unfortunately I have it in German only...


  • 0

#511 Carl Looper

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

Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:02 AM

Very good write-up, Carl. It is this space and time that people too often ignore.

Pointing to the Phi-Phenomenon often helps explaining.

 

I too wrote an article about this interesting topic a while ago, unfortunately I have it in German only...

 

Great article Friedmann  - I don't read German but a google translation seems to have done a pretty good job:

 

http://translate.goo...wir-film-sehen/


  • 0

#512 Carl Looper

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

Posted 29 November 2013 - 09:05 AM

Yes the phi-phenomenon is a good starting point - however it maintains (as can be seen in the Wikipedia entry) the traditional concept of the individual frames as "real" and the motion as an "illusion". What I try to do in my writing is to actually reverse this: to suggest that what is real is the motion (in the cinematographic image), and that what is an illusion (in terms of motion) are the individual frames.

 

Now by "real" I don't mean anything outside the image as such. I don't mean some hidden reality outside of perception. Rather, what I mean is just anything which is observable, as distinct from that which is not. So by this definition dreams would also be real since they are observable. Now movement is observable (we can see it) so it is an image, and by the definition of reality just made, I would therefore call it real.

 

But in a still frame we can't see any movement - so by the same definition, it would not be real - well at least in terms of movement. It would remain real in terms of space. Now this doesn't mean one can't suggest movement in a still frame, for example, using motion blur. Or by having figures in some dynamic pose that suggests movement. There are many photographs (and paintings) that suggest movement. This is what I mean by a single frame being an illusion - an illusion of movement - because the movement isn't actually visible. It can only be suggested. The movement is thinkable (intelligable) but it's not visible (not sensual). But in the cinematographic image movement is visible.

 

Philosophically this way of writing (or theorising) is called "reversing Plato".

 

Carl


  • 0

#513 Avery Dark

Avery Dark

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 November 2013 - 09:38 AM

computar CCTV lens, made in Japan - C-mount - f/1:1.2-16 plus Closed, F=12.5-75mm (very reasonable priced, Cons for filmaking: a little smoother aperture friction than I used to)

 

I had used it on a FUJICA ZC1000 New once, the results were not bad...

 

Thank you for bringing this one up Erkan, I had been contemplating it for some time. Seems they are still available new from one source. I can live with a twiddly smooth aperture but when you say the results were "not bad", how do you mean it specifically? Not bad in comparison to other TV lenses? or compared to the Fujinon 1.8 / 7.5-75mm? or to other cine specific C mounts generally? If I'm reading it to mean not bad in your experience, it would be a good bet, but asking just making sure... :)


  • 0

#514 Friedemann Wachsmuth

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

Posted 29 November 2013 - 10:37 AM

Try to find out the Circle of Confusion Diameter. Most CCTV lenses are made for PAL or NTSC output, so theirs is much bigger than what a good cine prime provides. Might be that Erkan's lens is the exception, I don't know that one.


  • 0

#515 Erkan Umut

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

Posted 29 November 2013 - 11:27 AM

 

Thank you for bringing this one up Erkan, I had been contemplating it for some time. Seems they are still available new from one source. I can live with a twiddly smooth aperture but when you say the results were "not bad", how do you mean it specifically? Not bad in comparison to other TV lenses? or compared to the Fujinon 1.8 / 7.5-75mm? or to other cine specific C mounts generally? If I'm reading it to mean not bad in your experience, it would be a good bet, but asking just making sure... :)

 

You are welcome by all means!

 

I should check the film I've shot again just to be more specific and correct, but I have no Telecine possibility at home to share with you unfortunately, and I do not want to transfer it to digital using my projector thou my ELMO is one of the good models.

 

In any case, it may be not correct to compare it with the TV Zooms. I never try to compare it with Kern lenses, etc. of course. But its OK for its price, and available as brand new. Also, its made in Japan from a good company at least. Worth to try...

 

Certainly, keep away from the lenses Friedemann told before. But this lens and similar are different than those. Let me check my literature as I have almost all the documentation form serious manufacturers.

 

What I know exactly is I've tested several times for the back focus on the eclair ACL II and FUJICA ZC1000 C-mounts for its clearance to the mirrors. Everything is proper and perfect. Good built quality.

 

Hope this helps for now.


  • 1

#516 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1063 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 29 November 2013 - 04:33 PM

If the AR primes work, that would be good. It's just too bad that I got rid of mine when i sold my non-reflex H16 5 years ago, and they're not cheap. I think I would want to start with 1 standard, 1 wide angle prime, and a C-mount zoom from the S8 Beaulieu Angenieux or Schnieder lens.


  • 0

#517 Pavan Deep

Pavan Deep
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • UK

Posted 30 November 2013 - 04:39 AM

I was told to stay away from CCTV lenses, but I have used many c mount CCTV lenses for both Super 8 and 16mm, some I found terrible as they were either difficult to work with, or don’t allow manual aperture control [many CCTV lenses lack manual controls] and others tend to produce softer images.

 

In my opinion there are a few that are very good for film use like the one mentioned the Computar 12.5 - 75 TV zoom, I have this lens, it's available new and it’s a very fast lens and does produce sharp images, I have used it for 16mm and Super 16 not Super 8, the non zoom Cosmicar/Pentax 16mm and 25mm lenses are also very good for both Super 8 and Super 16. The best CCTV zoom lens for Super 8 I found is the Pentax 8-48 which is also available new.

 

Pav


  • 1

#518 Erkan Umut

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

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:41 AM

In my opinion there are a few that are very good for film use like the one mentioned the Computar 12.5 - 75 TV zoom, I have this lens, it's available new and it’s a very fast lens and does produce sharp images, I have used it for 16mm and Super 16 not Super 8, the non zoom Cosmicar/Pentax 16mm and 25mm lenses are also very good for both Super 8 and Super 16. The best CCTV zoom lens for Super 8 I found is the Pentax 8-48 which is also available new.

 

By the way, I am the admin of the popular ECLAIR 16MM COMMUNITY @ http://eclair16.com.

 

We have been discussed these lenses among the followers a lot of time. They have got good results when the correct lenses are used.

 

Yes, PENTAX and Cosmicar offer good manual lenses as far as I know. I don't like the new manual lenses with the locking mechanisms on the lens barrels...


Edited by Erkan Umut, 30 November 2013 - 05:42 AM.

  • 0

#519 Friedemann Wachsmuth

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

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:44 AM

8 or 12mm are still pretty long for the wide angle part on Super 8. The Schneider Optivaron 6-66/1.8 can often be found for <100$ and is really good. Also, with the UWL-III attached, you get down to 3.9mm (the UWL was actually made for this lens!)

I prefer primes though, but that is just me. :)
  • 1

#520 Jose luis villar

Jose luis villar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • SPAIN

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:53 AM

The Schneider Optivaron 6-66/1.8 is the lens that I have on my Beaulieu, is very sharp, a fantastic lens.


  • 3


FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS