Jump to content




Photo

Not my best Super 8 footage yet.

4K UHD Super 8 HD

  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#1 Moises Perez

Moises Perez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 August 2015 - 02:51 PM

Film stock kodak 7203 50D. Processed and scanned to a 4K Log by Pro8mm. This film has been downres to 1080p for Vimeo purposes. It has not been edited or processed in any form other than the color change to B&W, the sound is the wild production track with no processing. This sound test was performed in a single take using double system, the Logmar Super 8 film camera and the Sennheiser MKH 416 directional shotgun microphone. The audio was recorded with the Tascam DR-70 Linear PCM recorder.

 

https://vimeo.com/136780122

 

Enjoy,

 

MOY


  • 0




#2 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:24 PM

Looks good, but the bit rate limit on Vimeo's end kills the grain and it ends up looking kinda chunky. So, why the conversion to b/w? Especially if it's just a sound test. And what's the deal with that scratch in the middle?


  • 0

#3 Friedemann Wachsmuth

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

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:40 PM

I love it. And see no scratch..?


  • 0

#4 David Cunningham

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

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:43 PM

Looks great. Damn Kodak weave is a pisser and they are not going to even try to fix it, which is sad. But oh well.
  • 0

#5 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:57 PM

There's a fairly prominent vertical line weaving around the middle of frame from about 1:10-1:45


Edited by Josh Gladstone, 20 August 2015 - 04:57 PM.

  • 0

#6 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1524 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:58 PM

Hey Moises, I don't know S8 well.  It looks like a lot of information is there on that tiny frame.  About the same as 16mm with earlier film stocks and no electronic stabilization.

 

What is the objective with the sound test?  Problems in recording the sound are the same as with 16mm or 35mm,  true?


  • 0

#7 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2268 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 20 August 2015 - 05:00 PM

Looks good, but the bit rate limit on Vimeo's end kills the grain and it ends up looking kinda chunky. So, why the conversion to b/w?

 

Looks good to me.  Didn't seem overly-grainy at all.


  • 0

#8 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 August 2015 - 05:32 PM

How many feet away from the actor was the camera? I am not hearing any camera noise, which is a surprise. 

 

I would very much like to see the original color.

 

Scratch comes in after a minute and is pretty obvious. 

 

AND!... 

 

 

You really need to do a video on this.


Edited by Matt Stevens, 20 August 2015 - 05:37 PM.

  • 0

#9 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 20 August 2015 - 07:19 PM

Hey Moises, I don't know S8 well.  It looks like a lot of information is there on that tiny frame.  About the same as 16mm with earlier film stocks and no electronic stabilization.

 

What is the objective with the sound test?  Problems in recording the sound are the same as with 16mm or 35mm,  true?

 

This camera is still in beta testing and this particular test is actually the first public test of the crystal sync motor.

 

So it demonstrates, if nothing else, that this particular camera runs at crystal sync speed - ie. that there is no drift between sound and image.

 

 

C


  • 0

#10 Lasse Roedtnes

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

Posted 21 August 2015 - 01:18 AM

Hi David,

I'm guessing the weave is a scanner artifact that wouldn't show up on a projector.

We've seen this many times where film that looks immaculate in projection weaves and jitters on a scan since the scanners are typically *NOT* designed to the same specifications as Super8 cameras.

The scratch must have been caused by debris in the gate as it appears and then dissapears again.

Perhaps Moy can elaborate if he has a projector he can run it through.

All the best
Lasse
Logmar Camera Solutions

Edited by Lasse Roedtnes, 21 August 2015 - 01:19 AM.

  • 0

#11 Andries Molenaar

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

Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:12 AM

The video looks nice. What is the problem to mind the background? Even with test runs. The moving traffic is good for the test but the black seam and with sign in the back spoil the image.

 

@Lasse.  All nice and good but who uses projectors these days? There is barely projectable film left. Only Fomapan R100 and Tri-X. And we can only hope Ferrania comes through soon. \

Studios (the typical Logmar prospect) shoot color neg on every occasion.


Edited by Andries Molenaar, 21 August 2015 - 04:13 AM.

  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11234 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:27 AM

Honestly it's difficult to avoid the reality that it would look better with a bit of noise reduction to take the grain out, at least to some extent, before it went up on Vimeo. That's not a decision aimed at making it look any less like super-8 - I think it's always going to have that appearance - but simply a pragmatic response to a technical issue.

 

The weave in those sprockets, though. Sheesh.

 

P


  • 0

#13 Lasse Roedtnes

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

Posted 21 August 2015 - 05:09 AM

Hi Andries,

 

The video looks nice. What is the problem to mind the background? Even with test runs. The moving traffic is good for the test but the black seam and with sign in the back spoil the image.

 

@Lasse.  All nice and good but who uses projectors these days? There is barely projectable film left. Only Fomapan R100 and Tri-X. And we can only hope Ferrania comes through soon. \

Studios (the typical Logmar prospect) shoot color neg on every occasion.

 

You need to take up your concern with the scanner manufactures and get them to adhere to the SMPTE specifications then you'll get rid of the weave.

As long as they keep "doing their own thing" you'll never combat this issue and just for the record KODAK and the other film manufactures are not to blame for this either as they follow the specifications as well so all this "moaning" about weave and jitter should really be aimed towards the source of the problem which is the scanners that are not designed to the specifications of the medium they are supposed to capture and not the cameras nor film material.

 

We could have designed our S8 camera so that it would work with modern scanners by changing the way we register the frame and guide the film however if we did that we would break the SMPTE spec and the people who wants to project would complain that the footage was jittery and full of weave.

 

So why not follow an industry standard when it exists instead of doing things "your own way".

 

All the best

Lasse


  • 0

#14 Perry Paolantonio

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

Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:01 AM

 

So why not follow an industry standard when it exists instead of doing things "your own way".

 

I really don't think this is a fair characterization of what's going on here, and I don't think blaming others (besides Kodak) is constructive. The scanner - in this case a ScanStation, the same machine we use at Gamma Ray Digital, is using both the perforation and the edges of the film to stabilize the image during the scan. It uses the perf for vertical stabilization and it uses the edges of the film for horizontal. The latter is a new feature added a month or so ago, and it works quite nicely. Previously, the perforation would be in a fixed vertical/horizontal position and the edges of the frame would weave back and forth in a pattern corresponding to the perforation's position relative to the edge of the film.

 

Kodak's perfs are to the SMPTE spec (which I presume they wrote), but precision on the order of 16mm or 35mm pin registered film probably never even crossed the original engineer's minds back in the 1960s. Super 8 was conceived of as a consumer format, not a pro format. In 2015, we're pushing it in directions Kodak never imagined - Logmar included!

 

The latest versions of the ScanStation software added the film-edge stabilization as an option for film in which this problem occurs. This is effectively the same as the edge-guides in the Logmar camera. Now, the film held laterally stable while only the vertical edges of the perfs are used to stabilize on that axis. In our experience (having one of the first installed ScanStations), only very stable high end cameras exhibit this problem, either because they use edge guiding or because they have really solid film paths. Canons, Nikons, Leicinas, Logmars, and a few others show this problem. We've seen it with film going back to the 1960s, so it's always been there, it just hasn't been exposed until the advent of pin registered Super 8 scanning.

 

As for all the complaints about the weave - remember that overscan like this is not typically how the film will be displayed. The weave is *really* obvious when you can see the perfs, but perfs are not normally seen. Once you crop the film edges and perf out, it's damn-near rock solid. And that's pretty impressive for a format that was never meant to do what we're doing with it. 

 

One other thing - there is a scratch in this film. I don't believe that was caused by the scanner, simply because the only part of the scanner that ever touches the center of the film is the capstan roller, and because it's a capstan, driving the film forward, it doesn't slip over the frame and couldn't cause a scratch like this. The film path through the gate itself is a V-groove, so the only part of the film that's touching the gate itself are the edges - the upper points of the V.

 

My guess is that the scratch is from the cartridge, camera, or in processing (or possibly in breakdown/setup of the film before/after processing).

 

-perry


Edited by Perry Paolantonio, 21 August 2015 - 08:08 AM.

  • 0

#15 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 August 2015 - 09:46 AM

LaserGraphics have created a fix for the weaving perf.

 

That weaving perf occurs during film manufacture. The perf weaves with respect to the edge of the film.

 

To ask of a camera that it's design follow this weaving perf (rather than the edge of the film) would not only go against SMPTE standards, it would also go against the design of every Super8 camera and projector made since the 1960s. The odd one out in all of this has always been the scanner manufacturers.

 

But ultimately it's up us - we who are the industry - to decide on what the standards are. Its up to us to argue what the best design should be, to our mutual benefit, and formalise that in a standard.

 

In terms of this particular issue - of a weaving perf - the appropriate standard (the one I'd argue for) is the SMPTE one - ie. where the edge of the film is used for horizontal registration - precisely because such a solution allows for weaving in the perf, ie. is unaffected by it. And in Super8, because it is so small, any variation in manufacturing tolerances are magnified, so you want a fault tolerant standard such as this one.

 

The alternative would be far more expensive: building a camera to follow a weaving perf ? It would be madness, or even impossible, - it would require moving the film left and right during transport!!

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 21 August 2015 - 09:57 AM.

  • 0

#16 Perry Paolantonio

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

Posted 21 August 2015 - 09:51 AM

In terms of this particular issue - of a weaving perf - the appropriate standard (the one I'd argue for) is the SMPTE one - ie. where the edge of the film is used for registration - precisely because such a solution  would allow for weaving in the perf.

 

That's *precisely* what the recent software update for the ScanStation does. In fact, you could argue that, much like optical pin registration, the way it's being done in this scanner is actually more accurate than if it were done mechanically.

 

-perry


  • 0

#17 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11234 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 August 2015 - 10:35 AM

I should probably clarify, my objection to the weaving perf was not particularly intended to be a criticism of any of the technologies or techniques applied to the production of the demo clip, because I don't know which one(s) of them caused the problem. It was just an expression of horror at how bad it was, however it's caused. It's hardly good, is it!

 

P


  • 0

#18 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 August 2015 - 10:52 AM

 

That's *precisely* what the recent software update for the ScanStation does. In fact, you could argue that, much like optical pin registration, the way it's being done in this scanner is actually more accurate than if it were done mechanically.

 

-perry

 

Yes, as mentioned, scanner manufacturer's have implemented the required fix.

 

Or to put it another, they have caught up with what cameras and projectors have been doing since the invention of film. I wouldn't agree that an optical solution is better than a mechanical one. The optical one is limited by the resolution of the scanner. The mechanical one is limited by the resolution of the atoms making up the side of the film and the guide plate.

 

C


  • 0

#19 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 August 2015 - 11:01 AM

I should probably clarify, my objection to the weaving perf was not particularly intended to be a criticism of any of the technologies or techniques applied to the production of the demo clip, because I don't know which one(s) of them caused the problem. It was just an expression of horror at how bad it was, however it's caused. It's hardly good, is it!

 

P

 

The weaving perf is not a problem in the first place. Literally.

 

The design of mechanical cameras and projectors is such that it doesn't matter whether film is manufactured with a weaving perf or not.

 

That is the genuis of mechanical camera/projector designs - they don't depend on the horizontal position of the perf at all. They completely ignore it. And this means film manufacturing (slitting/perfing) is easier (cheaper) to do. It's a good system. Simple and efficient.

 

It is scanners that are late to the party here. Enamoured with their own cleverness in terms of machine vision techniques (optical registration) they've completely overlooked how the mechanical systems actually worked.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 21 August 2015 - 11:16 AM.

  • 0

#20 Perry Paolantonio

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

Posted 21 August 2015 - 11:13 AM

Or to put it another, they have caught up with what cameras and projectors have been doing since the invention of film. I wouldn't agree that an optical solution is better than a mechanical one. The optical one is limited by the resolution of the scanner. The mechanical one is limited by the resolution of the atoms making up the side of the film and the guide plate.

 

 

This argument best applies to newly shot film.

 

One of the reasons we chose the ScanStation was because it does all of this optically and can easily scan the most screwed up, shrunken film you can imagine. We ran some film through the scanner last week that the client had been told was unscannable. I wasn't even sure we could do it, because the film was so badly shrunken and cupped. But you know what? the only reels we couldn't deal with were the ones that had fused into a solid block of acetate. All of the rest of the film went through the scanner, and despite the extreme shrinkage, we were able to get really nice 4k scans of what was left on it. 

 

Mechanical edge guides would have been useless in this case, because the film was so warped, a spring loaded guide would have pushed the high edge up higher. If one existed, I wouldn't use a pressure plate with that film, because it likely would have caused further damage to the film. 

 

 

In terms of the pin registration, you can't put shrunken film into a mechanical pin-registration system without risk of damage (or without using specially modified pins, which are by design narrower and less precise). So in terms of pin reg, optical is always more accurate when you're talking about scanners of this resolution. 

 

-perry


  • 0



CineTape

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Glidecam

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Zylight

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

Pro 8mm

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

CineTape

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products