Jump to content




Photo

Test rolls are back

4008ZM Kodak Vision 3 500T

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Mickey Dale

Mickey Dale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Other
  • West Yorkshire

Posted 04 February 2015 - 03:19 AM

I shot two rolls of 500T in December while my band were on tour. I wanted to see if a) the camera that I picked up for £79.00 worked well, and B) how well 500T worked in often dreadful lighting conditions.

 

The frame seems very stable, which makes me wonder if Widescreen Centre used any image stabilising software. More noticeable is that the focus is softer than I expected, so I think the viewfinder was not focussed optimally, leading me to think it was sharp when in fact it wasn't!

 

Overall, I am pleased wit these test rolls. However, please feel free to chime in with comments. It's 30 years since I used a Super 8 camera, but I want to get into this! It's fun.

 

http://youtu.be/_b7vzo6MoBY

 

Kind regards,

 

Mickey 


  • 0




#2 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1516 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 09 February 2015 - 09:18 PM

If frame stabilization software was used, it might cause some softening of the image.
  • 0

#3 Mickey Dale

Mickey Dale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Other
  • West Yorkshire

Posted 10 February 2015 - 01:02 PM

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for the reply. I asked Widescreen Centre if they used anything during the telecine process. Here is the reply:

 

The answer in regards to your question
about stabilizing software, we can assure you that no such software was
used, this was all due to the very steady and calm hand of the telecine
operator. Hope to hear from you again soon!

 

So it sounds as if the quality of my camera plays no part in a stable image!  :D

 

Regards,

 

Mickey 


  • 0

#4 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 10 February 2015 - 01:11 PM

That answer makes no sense at all. The steadiness of a transfer doesn't have anything to to with the operator, assuming that the equipment is properly adjusted.

On the contrary, the steadiness of your camera is almost  the only thing determining the steadiness of the transfer, assuming the cartridge is OK.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 10 February 2015 - 01:14 PM.

  • 0

#5 Mickey Dale

Mickey Dale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Other
  • West Yorkshire

Posted 10 February 2015 - 01:18 PM

It's not the first time I've had an odd reply from WSC, to be honest, Mark! 

 

Anyway, while I like my footage, I think the filters in the camera could use a good clean. I'll get it off to Bjorn at some point soon. And on my 4008, the grub screw on the diopter doesn't lock the focus in place, so I think my view finder may be the cause of the slightly soft focus.


  • 0

#6 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 10 February 2015 - 02:48 PM

That answer makes no sense at all. The steadiness of a transfer doesn't have anything to to with the operator, assuming that the equipment is properly adjusted.

On the contrary, the steadiness of your camera is almost  the only thing determining the steadiness of the transfer, assuming the cartridge is OK.

 

Actually, with Super 8 there's also the issue of Kodak's sloppy perforations, which cause lateral movement on pin registered scanners or digital stabilization done using the perfs as reference points, if the camera used is either pin-registered or exceptionally stable. That's totally independent of both camera and scanner, and is squarely (heh, get it? square -- like perfs?) on Kodak's shoulders.

 

It's annoying, to say the least.


  • 0

#7 Andries Molenaar

Andries Molenaar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Amsterdam

Posted 10 February 2015 - 05:29 PM

That answer makes no sense at all. The steadiness of a transfer doesn't have anything to to with the operator, assuming that the equipment is properly adjusted.

On the contrary, the steadiness of your camera is almost  the only thing determining the steadiness of the transfer, assuming the cartridge is OK.

Not for sure but likely it is an attempt at humour. Unfortunetaly too often these days such attempts go lost in electronic communications.


  • 0

#8 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1516 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 10 February 2015 - 05:46 PM

It's not the first time I've had an odd reply from WSC, to be honest, Mark! 

 

Anyway, while I like my footage, I think the filters in the camera could use a good clean. I'll get it off to Bjorn at some point soon. And on my 4008, the grub screw on the diopter doesn't lock the focus in place, so I think my view finder may be the cause of the slightly soft focus.

Don't bother cleaning the filters in the camera, just disengage them and use an external filter if at all. The internal ones are a cause of degraded images and are not worth saving.


  • 0

#9 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 10 February 2015 - 05:47 PM

Not for sure but likely it is an attempt at humour. Unfortunetaly too often these days such attempts go lost in electronic communications.

 

Even if it is, it doesn't belong in a professional response from any kind of business.  If I ask a valid question about my film, I expect a valid answer.  Save the humor for after you've answered the question.


  • 0

#10 Mickey Dale

Mickey Dale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Other
  • West Yorkshire

Posted 10 February 2015 - 05:56 PM

If I get the filters removed (which do look very grubby!), then I read somewhere that the camera needs collimation to ensure that the distance from lens to film is accurate, which is why I was hoping to send the camera to Bjorn. 

 

Re WSC, from their reply, I still think they may have (or may have not!) applied some stabilising software. Mainly because the image seems very stable… but then again, 30 years ago when I shot Super 8, I used cheapo cameras and cheapo film, and watched it on cheapo projectors… hence the image being all over the shop. The 4008 camera seems rock solid, apart from the first few frames, then it settles very well. I just wish I had nailed the focus! 


  • 0

#11 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 11 February 2015 - 07:41 AM

Removing the filter would shift the image plane but I don't know if it's significant with a gel, rather than a glass, filter. You could replace it yourself with a piece of Wratten 85 cut to size. There are still plenty on ebay.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 11 February 2015 - 07:42 AM.

  • 0

#12 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1516 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 11 February 2015 - 03:26 PM

Just make sure that it is out of the way. No need to have it removed. I actually think that all super 8 carts today have a notch that pushes the filter out of the way. Or that is to say no notch. I don't know of any cart that leaves the filter engaged.
  • 0

#13 Mickey Dale

Mickey Dale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Other
  • West Yorkshire

Posted 11 February 2015 - 03:35 PM

The thing with the 4008ZM2 is that if you get the 85 filter out of the way, it's automatically replaced by another filter (UV, I think) so that the lens to film conditions are kept the same. The removal of these two filters will require some adjustment within the camera to maintain accurate focus. I'm told that Bjorn can either replace the filters, or remove and recalibrate the camera. Plus, he can give the thing a good service too as he bought all the spares from the Beaulieu factory when it shut down. 

 

Cheers,

 

Mickey 


  • 0

#14 Andries Molenaar

Andries Molenaar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Amsterdam

Posted 11 February 2015 - 06:25 PM

That little bit of maintenance will cost you over Euro 400. Ex parts.

 

If you can't blow them clean removing the filters isn't that difficult. If milling off this hair of depth on the c-mount make s difference is to be doubted considering all roughness and play in the Super-8 design. The film is not really pressed against the gate. It coasts and floats in an air channel formed by the interlocked back-plate of the cartridge and the gate with notches of the camera. Only real thick film will be kept tight in the channel. But then the camera will start to get hick-ups :(


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 4008ZM, Kodak Vision 3 500T

Pro 8mm

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Glidecam

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Zylight

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Zylight

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine