Is the super duper 8 or max 8 a scam?

[carllooper]

I just bought a Bolex D8L 8mm camera on ebay, and I found some online pics of the shutter and the gate of this camera,

http://cinetinker.blogspot.be/2013/01/s ... x-d8l.html

It looks like it doesn't have much space to enlarge the exposing area :roll:

I wouldn't worry about enlarging the gate. You're not going to get much more than what it already provides. And the vagaries of digital transfer being what they are mean you probably would be hard pressed to appreciate the difference anyway. And if you were to spend money on a transfer, that could actually reveal the difference, you will have become correspondingly obsessed enough, or insane enough, to find the larger formats (such as UP8) correspondingly just as easier to have used in the first place.

On the other hand, small cameras have a unique appeal and getting the most out of them, whether in modding them, or spending money on specialist transfers, is something I've personally found next to impossible to ignore.

It's a cute camera.

C

[kontrabass888]

I wouldn't worry about enlarging the gate. You're not going to get much more than what it already provides. And the vagaries of digital transfer being what they are mean you probably would be hard pressed to appreciate the difference anyway. And if you were to spend money on a transfer, that could actually reveal the difference, you will have become correspondingly obsessed enough, or insane enough, to find the larger formats (such as UP8) correspondingly just as easier to have used in the first place.

On the other hand, small cameras have a unique appeal and getting the most out of them, whether in modding them, or spending money on specialist transfers, is something I've personally found next to impossible to ignore.

It's a cute camera.

C

Carl, Thanks for the information about the camera gate, so I will sent it to get the gate to be enlarged right after I receive it.

Yes it is a cute camera, and I think I can carry it easily to go every where and without battery.(it will be perfect if the pan cinor lens could be folded ) To me the UP8 is too big to carry and traveling around.and it is still not cheap for amateurs. Well, if we were on the year 2003, I will definitely go for UP8 with DS8 system, but today the digital cameras are developing so fast, that my DSLR can do almost every thing what Super 16mm does, but with "0 "cost...so ... in the future... maybe the smallest will last longer :lol:

There is a video which I shot with DSLR this spring, I think it would cost more than 300 EUR if I shot with 16mm film and scan it. However, the latitude of DSLR still can't bid the negative films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbmx7etWE6U

[kontrabass888]

I wouldn't worry about enlarging the gate. You're not going to get much more than what it already provides. And the vagaries of digital transfer being what they are mean you probably would be hard pressed to appreciate the difference anyway. And if you were to spend money on a transfer, that could actually reveal the difference, you will have become correspondingly obsessed enough, or insane enough, to find the larger formats (such as UP8) correspondingly just as easier to have used in the first place.

On the other hand, small cameras have a unique appeal and getting the most out of them, whether in modding them, or spending money on specialist transfers, is something I've personally found next to impossible to ignore.

It's a cute camera.

C

I got the camera today, it looks like I must cut off the edge of the shutter to enlarge the gate...
So, any suggestions?

[carllooper]

I wouldn't worry about enlarging the gate. You're not going to get much more than what it already provides. And the vagaries of digital transfer being what they are mean you probably would be hard pressed to appreciate the difference anyway. And if you were to spend money on a transfer, that could actually reveal the difference, you will have become correspondingly obsessed enough, or insane enough, to find the larger formats (such as UP8) correspondingly just as easier to have used in the first place.

On the other hand, small cameras have a unique appeal and getting the most out of them, whether in modding them, or spending money on specialist transfers, is something I've personally found next to impossible to ignore.

It's a cute camera.

C

I got the camera today, it looks like I must cut off the edge of the shutter to enlarge the gate...
So, any suggestions?

I was suggesting not to enlarge the gate.

But that in-between the sprocket hole panorama version is certainly an interesting one. I wouldn't know how you'd go about that. A file? You'll need to know how to take the camera apart, and more importantly, put it back together again. Watch out for screws jumping and leaping onto the floor, as they'll never be found again. And then there is the lens problem. The lens won't be centered on your frame

C

[kontrabass888]

I was suggesting not to enlarge the gate.

But that in-between the sprocket hole panorama version is certainly an interesting one. I wouldn't know how you'd go about that. A file? You'll need to know how to take the camera apart, and more importantly, put it back together again. Watch out for screws jumping and leaping onto the floor, as they'll never be found again. And then there is the lens problem. The lens won't be centered on your frame

C

I just opened and lubricated this camera by following the guide on Youtube. Now it runs very smoothly, except the internal bell, it had only singed once for me.

After I took out the presser plate, I measured the gate from inside, it is about 4.1mm x 6mm, almost same as super8, the super 8's gate is about 7mm wide, but the perforate holes is just on the border, so we can't count it as 7mm.

I couldn't go further to get into the section of shutter fans, it is too difficult for a beginner... :roll:

Why super 8 looks much better result than Standard 8 on most online video if they are in almost same size?

Is there risk to effect the accuracy of the shutter, if I cut off a part of the shutter?

I think maybe a c mount pan cinor lens will works, on non metered models(the the forehead of light meter is too big to let c mount lens mounted on the camera), but it will probably leave some shadow on the border of the picture taken by the enlarged gate, due to the small D mount.

[carllooper]

Why super 8 looks much better result than Standard 8 on most online video if they are in almost same size?

Standard8 = 3.68 x 4.88mm = 17.9584 mm^2
Super8 = 4.22 x 5.63mm = 23.7586 mm^2

In other words Super8 has 1.32 times the area of Standard8, ie. it is 132% bigger.

Based on this, all else being equal, we could say that Super8 looks 132% better than Standard8.

By way of comparison, that's the difference between someone who is 6 feet tall and someone who is 8 feet tall. Would we say they are "almost the same size"?

If we were to otherwise say that Super8 looks, say, 150% better, or 200% better, from where would we pluck such numbers? What measuring stick would be using?

The answer is that if we say they are "almost the same size", then we should, by rights, be saying that Super8 is "almost no better" than Standard8.

Otherwise we shouldn't be saying they are "almost the same size".

Carl

[kontrabass888]

Why super 8 looks much better result than Standard 8 on most online video if they are in almost same size?

Standard8 = 3.68 x 4.88mm = 17.9584 mm^2
Super8 = 4.22 x 5.63mm = 23.7586 mm^2

In other words Super8 has 1.32 times the area of Standard8, ie. it is 132% bigger.

Based on this, all else being equal, we could say that Super8 looks 132% better than Standard8.

If we were to otherwise say that Super8 looks, say, 150% better, or 200% better, from where would we pluck such numbers? What measuring stick would be using?

The answer is that they are not "almost the same size".

Or if they are then we could also say that Super8 is "almost no better" than Standard8.

Carl

First, please allow me to correct your calculation,
according to your dimensions, the super 8 is 32% bigger not 132%,
And these dimensions are just same as my projector's gate, but the camera gates are larger.
I don't have standard 8 film right now, so I can't compare the real expose area on the film side by side.
Do you have any example ,such as flat scanned film stock?

[carllooper]

Well,these dimensions you gave above, are just same as my projector's gate, but the camera gates are larger.
I don't have standard 8 film right now, so I can't compare the real expose area on the film side by side.
Do you have any example ,such as flat scanned film stock?

Those numbers are from here - I'm not sure how reliable they are:

http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

The point I was making, is that if something looks better, then you can use that information to assign a meaning to a number such as 132%

That number is the difference between someone 6 feet tall and someone 8 feet tall. Is it correct to say they are "almost the same size"?

I guess I should say Super8 is 132% times that of Standard8 rather than "132% bigger"

C

[kontrabass888]

Well,these dimensions you gave above, are just same as my projector's gate, but the camera gates are larger.
I don't have standard 8 film right now, so I can't compare the real expose area on the film side by side.
Do you have any example ,such as flat scanned film stock?

Those numbers are from here - I'm not sure how reliable they are:

http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

The point I was making, is that if something looks better, then you can use that information to assign a meaning to a number such as 132%

That number is the difference between someone 6 feet tall and someone 8 feet tall. Is it correct to say they are "almost the same size"?

Super8 is 132% bigger. 132% means 132/100 which means 1.32

Super8 is 1.32 times bigger than Standard8.

What is 100% of 1 foot?

It is 1 foot.

C

So super 8 is 132% of standard 8 and super 8 is 32%times bigger than standard 8.
A is 132% of B means B x 1.32=A;
A is 132% bigger than B means B x (1+1.32)=A
They are different.

Of cause, I believe standard is smaller, but I just want to find the way to use lager area on it, because the super 8 camera are too big and less flexibility about film speed , exposure, interchangeable lens...

[carllooper]

So super 8 is 132% of standard 8 and super 8 is 32%times bigger than standard 8.
I am not native English speaker, but at least, it doesn't mean the same that A is 132% of B and A is 132% bigger than B.

Super8 is 132% times that of Standard8

We could say it is 32% bigger. A + A * 30%

But 32% times bigger?

Look it's my fault. You are right. I was using the word "bigger" as a substitute for the word "times".

Bigger should be used for addition and the other for multiplication. Percentages are used for multiplication

So one should say an 8 foot person is 2 feet bigger than a 6 foot person (addition) , and 8 foot is 132% times the 6 foot person (multiplication).

C

[kontrabass888]

So super 8 is 132% of standard 8 and super 8 is 32%times bigger than standard 8.
I am not native English speaker, but at least, it doesn't mean the same that A is 132% of B and A is 132% bigger than B.

Super8 is 132% times that of Standard8

We could say it is 32% bigger. But not 32% times bigger, because then it wouldn't be bigger at all but smaller!

Look it's my fault. You are right. I was using the word "bigger" as a substitute for the word "times".

But bigger should be used for addition and the other multiplication.

So one would say an 8 foot person is 2 feet bigger than a 6 foot person, but 132% times the 6 foot person.

C

Well it is not the topic, actually,
Let's come back to the original question now.
I have seen some scanned pic of standard 8 online , that the expose area in fact covered until half of the perforate holes,
So I just want to discover now,(I don't have lens, so can't shot right now) that what would be the maximum wideness that standard 8 can reach, without expend the gate?
Do you have any idea about it?
http://www.cintrexav.com/film-transfer-faq.aspx

[carllooper]

Well it is not the topic, actually,
Let's come back to the original question now.
I have seen some scanned pic of standard 8 online , that the expose area in fact covered until half of the perforate holes,
So I just want to discover now,(I don't have lens, so can't shot right now) that what would be the maximum wideness that standard 8 can reach, without expend the gate?
Do you have any idea about it?
http://www.cintrexav.com/film-transfer-faq.aspx

You can work it out from here: http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

The SMPTE standard on the right hand side of that page has film width (A), sprocket width (C) and sprocket to edge width (E)

Maximum image area, without crossing into sprockets, would be: A - (C+ D)



C

[kontrabass888]

Well it is not the topic, actually,
Let's come back to the original question now.
I have seen some scanned pic of standard 8 online , that the expose area in fact covered until half of the perforate holes,
So I just want to discover now,(I don't have lens, so can't shot right now) that what would be the maximum wideness that standard 8 can reach, without expend the gate?
Do you have any idea about it?
http://www.cintrexav.com/film-transfer-faq.aspx

You can work it out from here: http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

The SMPTE standard on the right hand side of that page has film width (A), sprocket width (C) and sprocket to edge width (E)

Maximum image area, without crossing into sprockets, becomes: A - (C+ D)

C

[kontrabass888]

Well it is not the topic, actually,
Let's come back to the original question now.
I have seen some scanned pic of standard 8 online , that the expose area in fact covered until half of the perforate holes,
So I just want to discover now,(I don't have lens, so can't shot right now) that what would be the maximum wideness that standard 8 can reach, without expend the gate?
Do you have any idea about it?
http://www.cintrexav.com/film-transfer-faq.aspx

You can work it out from here: http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

The SMPTE standard on the right hand side of that page has film width (A), sprocket width (C) and sprocket to edge width (E)

Maximum image area, without crossing into sprockets, becomes: A - (C+ D)

C

But, If I count the area with crossing the sprockets,and making a HD crop, what could be the maximum wideness?

[carllooper]

Well it is not the topic, actually,
Let's come back to the original question now.
I have seen some scanned pic of standard 8 online , that the expose area in fact covered until half of the perforate holes,
So I just want to discover now,(I don't have lens, so can't shot right now) that what would be the maximum wideness that standard 8 can reach, without expend the gate?
Do you have any idea about it?
http://www.cintrexav.com/film-transfer-faq.aspx

You can work it out from here: http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

The SMPTE standard on the right hand side of that page has film width (A), sprocket width (C) and sprocket to edge width (E)

Maximum image area, without crossing into sprockets, becomes: A - (C+ D)

C

But, If I count the area with crossing the sprockets,and making a HD crop, what could be the maximum wideness?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm sure you can work out what you are after from the diagram.