At last, A SOLUTION TO JITTERINESS

[reflex]

I think Mike is just trying to say, "it isn't that simple."

I'm certain that clutch problems are common these days (we're trying to use 30-40 year old equipment, often without proper service), but there are a lot of other things that could cause S8 jitter.

The cart molds are getting pretty old and have a finite lifespan. I suspect quality control isn't what it once was. The original engineers have long since retired, and Kodak's corporate memory has faded. And - as far as cameras go - A lack of proper lubrication and aging film claw motors & solenoids is bound to cause film advance difficulties.

[super8man]

Oh not grumpy...just hoping people stay to participate long term. After all, if the new user hits the jackpot on his first post, it can only go downhill. Me? I am still trying to come up with one good post some 3000 posts later!

No worries folks, it's all good. Keep up the super cool posts of fixes and mods.

[tlmester]

I should have mentioned that higher Film Speeds can result in jitteriness. If you've had jitteriness with a specific Film Brand at 24f/s, try it at 18f/s to see if it is still jittery. The Super8 Cartridge was originally designed in 1965 for 18f/s. 24f/s is fully 33.3% faster than 18f/s which translates into 33.3% more friction per second. Since the strength of the Camera's Motor is not increased, you are more likely to suffer double-exposed Film Frames or an incomplete advance of an individual Frame when using 24f/s. The four 90 Degree Corners to overcome in the Super8 Cartridge are tougher than in a 16mm or 35mm Camera. Additionally, how does the Film Speed change work in an individual Camera? Does it change a set of Gears, or does it use a variable resistor to change the speed of the Motor? If it uses Gears, this may not alter the speed of the Cartridge Clutch which could mean it is turning too slowly at the 24f/s Speed. This would be a problem during the first 10 to 20 feet or so of the Cartridge.

There are some manufacturing defects which could also cause problems. If the Cartridge was assembled in a humid room, this moisture could make the Film sticky. Also, if they took the master roll of Film out of a Fridge and didn't let it warm up in an air-tight package before assembling the Cartridges, condensation would form on the Film making it sticky. If the Film wasn't precisely cut to a width of 8mm, this inconsistent width would also cause stability problems. These problems would be the fault of shoddy manufacturing, and are not inherent in the Super8 Cartridge design.


I want to thank everyone for your comments and contributions. You may wish to save the HTTP Weblink for this Thread on your Computer in order to post it in future Threads from users enquiring about the problem of jitteriness. This information will need to be spread one Super8 user at a time. I'll soon post a Thread on how to safely open up a Camera to check and modify the Clutch.

[super8man]

No offense but I call BS on this:

There are some manufacturing defects which could also cause problems. If the Cartridge was assembled in a humid room, this moisture could make the Film sticky. Also, if they took the master roll of Film out of a Fridge and didn't let it warm up in an air-tight package before assembling the Cartridges, condensation would form on the Film making it sticky.

OK, now, are we talking about humid Toronto or never-been humid California? I assume Germany is 100% humid. And what about when you OPEN the cart and keep it around for a while, then go swimming (like with a Nautica) and load the camera while on the dive boat in Fiji? How about loading a cart into your camera on a rainy day in Vancouver, Canada?

Hmmm....

[Mitch Perkins]

I'll soon post a Thread on how to safely open up a Camera to check and modify the Clutch.

The cameras are all different in design...

While I salute your enthusiasm in tackling this problem, your theory doesn't explain why ~all~ the 64T carts I shot last year for weddings jammed, and ~none~ of the 64T carts I've shot this year jammed (and also exhibit no jitter). Same camera both years, same type of brand new batteries...

Also, I'm not sure how a slip clutch would become ~less~ slippy over time - one would expect the opposite.

Also, spinning the drive wheels of an automobile may create more heat/friction, but said wheels actually ~break free~ of the surface they are on and the motion is smooth, as in drifting, so that film advancing quicker through the camera (24fps) should be ~less~ affected by friction. My money is on wobble of the spooled film in the feed side at higher frame rates. In fact, I can hear it and feel it!

On top of all this, we transfer many thousands of feet of S8 from the 70's, (when the cameras were new), much of which exhibits the same darn jumpy registration as the modern stuff.

Finally, I mentioned the clutch issue here probably a year ago.....?

Mitch

[paul]

I am going to shoot some film in august with a Nikon R10. Does anyone had jitter problems with this cam as well? Or wasn't it the exception to the rule?

Thanks,

Paul

[Mitch Perkins]

I am going to shoot some film in august with a Nikon R10. Does anyone had jitter problems with this cam as well? Or wasn't it the exception to the rule?

Thanks,

Paul

I regret very much to report some of the jerkiest footage I ever shot was w/Nikon R10 - like shooting from a truck w/wooden wheels on washboard backroad. This was w/PlusX, about 8 years ago. OTOH, some of the footage was fine; it's a tough call, this jitter thing.

Shoot a test roll - your camera might be a champ.

Mitch

[aj]

I am going to shoot some film in august with a Nikon R10. Does anyone had jitter problems with this cam as well? Or wasn't it the exception to the rule?

Thanks,

Paul

I have shot K40, TriX, PlusX, Svema and Foma with R10s and had zero trouble.

The famous extra stop-pin should help a bit against over-strength winding clutches as it forms a treshold for the pull. Maybe that is why it is there after-all

Best is to shoot some a test roll indeed. Don't let people talk you into doubt about this camera. It is the best.

[paul]

I shot the middle part of a test roll with the Nikon for exposure rating. It all looked nice and stable (with 100D). The beginning of the roll I shot with a Nizo 6080. It looked stable then, but got some very jittery results with the 6080 later with vision 200. Hope the Nikon will do well (this time with tri x)!

Paul

[MovieStuff]

Shoot a test roll - your camera might be a champ.

Mitch

Or it might only work really great on that one test roll. ;)

As you noted previously, one year's worth of 64T was worthless and another year's worth was fine. That's why I have always maintained that the central problem is in the contemporary carts and that, while worn cameras only make the problem worse, they are not the common denominator to the issue. A good camera should always work if there is no inconsistency in the cart production.

And, to me, this is the real bitch about the situation, especially now that super 8 is really just about as expensive as 16mm to shoot. The degree of commonplace cart problems/failure that we just now sigh-and-take-for-granted because we love the format, warts-and-all, would have been impossible to pass off to the buying public as a reliable home movie tool back in the 60s and 70s. I'm sorry but I've shot thousands and thousands of feet of rock steady super 8 during the 60s, 70s and 80s and there is no one's argument that is going to change my mind about this so, for those that might try, don't.

While we also see the occasional jumpy footage when doing telecine from 70s super 8, my personal observation is that it is an either/or situation. The footage from the 70s is either rock steady or it jumps radically. But contemporary footage that doesn't show outright jumpiness -while totally usable- is very often still not that steady, compared to footage from the 70s. Thus, what many new super 8 shooters refer to as "looks fine" would be considered very unsteady and unacceptable by 70s standards because these new shooters really have no real frame of reference for what super 8 used to look like when everything worked as it should.

Again, there are those on this forum like Christoph and S8 Booster that have seen large scale projections of original 70's super 8 that was logic defying in its steadiness and I have yet to see anything shot in the last 18 years or so that comes close. My position is that quality control on cart production and loading is just not what it used to be. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

Roger

[reflex]

My position is that quality control on cart production and loading is just not what it used to be. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

This is the simplest explanation. Nothing else explains the seemingly random nature of the problems we've all experienced. I wish we lived in an alternate universe where Kodak had settled on a Single-8-like cartridge design instead.

[super8man]

Single 8 rocks...and lets not forget regular 8. I have pretty much given up on super 8 as a reversal project pathway to happiness. So, I know pretty much shoot only Regular 8. It's a perfected format.

Cheers,
Mike

[etimh]

The degree of commonplace cart problems/failure that we just now sigh-and-take-for-granted because we love the format, warts-and-all, would have been impossible to pass off to the buying public as a reliable home movie tool back in the 60s and 70s.

I know your position on this subject very well, but interesting points continue to pop up, this one included. Made me think.

Carts today + aging cameras = current results we get. Simple as that.

Tim

[MovieStuff]

Carts today + aging cameras = current results we get. Simple as that.

Tim

Aging cameras certainly can make the problem worse but the problem occurs on cameras that have been completely refurbished, as well. So it's "simple as that" only if you presume that top of the line techs like Bjorn aren't doing their job correctly, which is highly unlikely.

Roger

[Scotness]

Don't forget too Kodak admitted they had a manufacturing problem which caused that big batch of jitter back in 2001 or thereabouts.

Scot