Jump to content




Photo

2-perf Super8 Anamorphic


  • Please log in to reply
305 replies to this topic

#1 Lasse Roedtnes

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 07:33 AM

Hi,

I'm wondering what the interest (if any) there would be for a 2-perf anamorphic super8 camera which accepted the normal Super8 cassette but didn't require threading etc.

Price is unknown but it would be higher than 2500$ for sure.

Best regards
Lasse
  • 0




#2 Joel Rakowski

Joel Rakowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other
  • United States

Posted 16 November 2015 - 09:14 AM

Sounds cool Lasse,

 

I'd be interested but probably shy away from using it in a real project unless we could use some 200ft mags with it. I know you guys had mentioned the Logmar S-8 is adaptable to an unreleased larger magazine as well. Would be nice to have something available that works with both.

 

What kind of glass are you thinking? There isn't a whole lot of anamorphic options for c-mount that I've seen other than adaptors. Also, would using 2 perf of the super 8 frame and then an anamorphic adaptor kind of defeat itself for wide screen? You would be un-squeezing a pretty tall image back into a more standard ratio? Maybe I'm not really understanding what you mean.

 

Otherwise you guys have my interest if accessories can be interchangeable. 


  • 0

#3 Nicholas Kovats

Nicholas Kovats
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

Posted 16 November 2015 - 09:54 AM

Definitely interested, Lasse! 
 
But can you please clarify the 2-perf design? Do you mean to say shoot the entire 16mm width of Double Super 8 film stock which technically is 2-perf as per the Bolex UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 camera? i.e. 
 
UP8 3.1 (Double Super 8) AR = 1:3.1, FRAME = 13.00mm x 4.22mm; AREA = 54.86 square mm
 
The Russians had designed something similar with Double Super 8 film but with the classic Cinemascope aspect ratio (AR = 2:55:1). The Zenit link is dead but I could arrange a working link or documents from a Turkish/Russian contact, i.e 
 
 
"Surprisingly enough the Russians tried it first, i.e.
 
a.) Quarz 10:
 
Format frames: 4.22 x5.69 mm (Super), or 4.22 x 10.8 mm (wide)
Focal length: 15 mm
Viewfinder: parallaksny
Drive: Springs
The frequency of shooting: 8, 18, 32 fps
 
b.) Quarz 2x8S-W (Wide):
 
Format frames: 4.22 x5.69 mm (Super), or 4.22 x10.8 mm (wide) 
Focal length: 15 mm
Office diaphragm: automatic and manual
Viewfinder: parallaksny
Drive: spring (5 m)
The frequency of shooting: 9, 18, 24, 36 fps
Dimensions: 197x104x60 mm
Weight: 1.2 kg" 
 
The adapted Russin DS8 cameras were similar to this specimen, i.e. http://tinyurl.com/negp9hh
 
Or are you referring to halving the height of the Super 8 frame from 4.22mm to 2.11mm? Therefore the proposed aspect ratio (AR) of 2.68:1 with frame dimensions of 2.11mm x 5.69mm.? You would in essence double the run time of a standard 50ft S8 cart from 2'30" to 5'00" at 24fps. But as the image height is decreased the total imaging area available is less than the standard Super 8 frame or proposed full width Double Super 8 Cinemascope design. Hence, a decrease in resolution. 
 
Exciting times!   

Edited by Nicholas Kovats, 16 November 2015 - 09:54 AM.

  • 0

#4 Mark Dunn

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 10:43 AM

He wants to use the Super-8 cartridge, so I assumed he means Vistavision-style, so 3:1 with a 2x squeeze.


  • 0

#5 Jay Young

Jay Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lexington KY

Posted 16 November 2015 - 11:03 AM

Interesting notion.

 

I would be interested in seeing a horizontal pull 8mm cartridge camera, however at 2 perf they'll only last 80 seconds or so...


  • 0

#6 Lasse Roedtnes

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 11:08 AM

Exactly Mark

3:1 aspect ratio with standard Super8 cartridge and horizontal pull claw
  • 0

#7 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1921 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 16 November 2015 - 11:37 AM

I would be interested in seeing a horizontal pull 8mm cartridge camera, however at 2 perf they'll only last 80 seconds or so...

That would be more than my 60 second Eyemo loads.  :)

 

Not as much film real estate as 16mm though. Guess the advantage would be a compact camera and easy loading. But the film costs would be the same as 16mm for the same time...possibly more for processing.


  • 0

#8 Jay Young

Jay Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lexington KY

Posted 16 November 2015 - 11:41 AM

That would be more than my 60 second Eyemo loads.  :)

 

Not as much film real estate as 16mm though. Guess the advantage would be a compact camera and easy loading. But the film costs would be the same as 16mm for the same time...possibly more for processing.

 

Yes, and who/what would scan it?


  • 0

#9 Mark Dunn

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 11:50 AM

 

Yes, and who/what would scan it?

Stretching the VV analogy, I'm hoping for a flat optical extraction to 35mm. silent aperture and 'Scope projection.

Perhaps Quentin would be interested.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 16 November 2015 - 11:52 AM.

  • 0

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2352 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 November 2015 - 02:07 PM

Yea, I can't see much advantage to 2 perf super 8 with anamorphic lenses. Purchasing appropriate anamorphic lenses can get expensive and shooting costs have doubled, making the whole purpose of shooting Super 8 (low cost) not matter.

By contrast super 16mm would be a similar image size. Since 16mm has lots of other advantages, I don't really see the need for a super 8 camera that mimics something that already exists.
  • 0

#11 Nicholas Kovats

Nicholas Kovats
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

Posted 16 November 2015 - 02:09 PM

Talk about not thinking "laterally" on my part! I am evidently biased towards the vertical axis. :) Fantastic idea! VistaVision Super 8! 

 

The proposed horizontal 2 perf  frame dimensions = 5.69mm (h) x 8.44mm  (w) w/ AR =  1.48:1 which would be it's flat aperture but with a 2x anamorphic expands laterally to 3:1. The run time is fine. Can't please everyone. 


  • 0

#12 Nicholas Kovats

Nicholas Kovats
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

Posted 16 November 2015 - 02:10 PM

 

Yes, and who/what would scan it?

Anyone with a sprocketless scanner. Then rotate the frames ninety degrees in post. 


  • 0

#13 Perry Paolantonio

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 02:44 PM

Anyone with a sprocketless scanner. Then rotate the frames ninety degrees in post. 

 

It's not that simple. You're talking about scanning a frame that spans 2 frames. Firmware/software in the scanner would need to be modified so that the count of frames uses ever other perf instead of every perf, and gates would need to be widened to accommodate a wider frame. Some scanners may not be capable of this at all, depending on their design and the coverage area of the sensor/lens. 

Theoretically, the ScanStation should be able to do it, and I'm sure the Xena and FlashTransfer machines could probably also be modified, but it's not trivial, and frankly, I think it'd be a tough sell to the makers of these scanners. There's serious engineering time that has to go into that kind of a design change, and you're talking about a one-camera format that may or may not have legs. 

 

It's a neat idea, though I'm not sure it even make sense unless it also involves a 200' mag, since you're halving the duration of the film by doubling the number of perfs per frame. 

 

-perry


  • 0

#14 Nicholas Kovats

Nicholas Kovats
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

Posted 16 November 2015 - 03:24 PM

Great to hear your real-world scanner input, Perry. Much appreciated. Isn't Carl Lopper in Australia working on a implementation whereby the perfs are NOT utilized as part of the registration and/or frame count? Using the edges? Would be great if the interdependency between frame and perf were optional. 


  • 0

#15 Perry Paolantonio

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 04:03 PM

Great to hear your real-world scanner input, Perry. Much appreciated. Isn't Carl Lopper in Australia working on a implementation whereby the perfs are NOT utilized as part of the registration and/or frame count? Using the edges? Would be great if the interdependency between frame and perf were optional. 

 

That's essentially impossible - you need some way to know where you are, and perfs are the obvious choice. I'm not sure what Carl is working on exactly, but the frame edges are not a good way to either count frames or register the film, since it's entirely possible for the edges to disappear in to the area outside the frame boundary. That is, on a positive image, a dark frame will have no apparent frame edge because it blends in with the unexposed film around the frame. 

 

 

 

Perfs are the only logical choice for knowing where you are in the film.


  • 0

#16 Lasse Roedtnes

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 04:57 PM

Hi Perry

We could impose a crosshair between each sprocket for scanner registration.

Granted we havent really thought it through yet it's just an idea we are kicking about at the moment.

Regards
Lasse
  • 0

#17 Nicholas Kovats

Nicholas Kovats
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

Posted 16 November 2015 - 05:12 PM

Hi Perry

We could impose a crosshair between each sprocket for scanner registration.

Granted we havent really thought it through yet it's just an idea we are kicking about at the moment.

Regards
Lasse

 

How would you "impose" a crosshair, Lasse? With a tiny backlit aperture or a laser? 


  • 0

#18 Chris Burke

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 05:14 PM

Rather see an "affordable" 2 perf 35mm camera


  • 1

#19 Lasse Roedtnes

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 05:15 PM

Most likely backlit and not laser to avoid a lawsuit from someone looking into the lens mount and going purposely blind to get a "pay day"
  • 0

#20 David Cunningham

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

Posted 16 November 2015 - 05:30 PM

Ditto on the 2 perf 35 mm
  • 1


Visual Products

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Pro 8mm

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Zylight

Pro 8mm

Abel Cine

CineTape

The Slider

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS