Logmar, Kovats and Hingsberg

[carllooper]

Nicholas Kovats and Dennis Hingsberg have been testing the new Logmar.



Blog article here:

http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2015 ... lm-camera/

[aj]

If the beta program is still running the users are not supposed to report, for good or for worse, to others than Logmar or Pro8mm isn't it? And lending out one's camera to facilitate such reports seems even worse.

[carllooper]

I'm part of the beta program and yes, we're not to talk about the beta program - except amongst ourselves (those in the beta program) - but this blog article is fairly benign - more PR, with nice pictures, than anything technical. There's nothing there that isn't already in the public domain. More about expressing excitement around the camera - something I'm sure Logmar won't mind at all.

Nicholas is part of the beta program and was working directly with Dennis - the camera wasn't lent out to Dennis. The full beta testing report that emerged from this particular exercise remains internal to the beta program. It's quite an extensive report (full points to Nicholas) and it remains only known to us on the program.

I haven't yet received my Logmar (but it will be here in the next few days - clearing customs). I'll be posting stuff myself, but not anything that isn't already in the public domain.

I'll just say the beta program is going really well. Lots of cool things happening. This camera is a killer camera.

cheers
Carl

[dsl15746]

Hi André,

If the beta program is still running the users are not supposed to report, for good or for worse, to others than Logmar or Pro8mm isn't it? And lending out one's camera to facilitate such reports seems even worse.

We do not prohibit our users rights to free speech. All we ask is that they "complain" to us first, so that we have a chance to address an issues if it comes up before it turns ugly in a public forum. In our opinion the blog post with Kovats and Hingsberg is a good and constructive one and we have no problems with it.

So far we've taken a lot of positive and some negative feedback that we are working on addressing actively.

In our opinion the BETA program has been and is still a success and it helps up to take the camera to new heights.

Best regards
Lasse Rødtnes
Logmar Camera Solutions IVS

[MovieStuff]

...All we ask is that they "complain" to us first, so that we have a chance to address an issues if it comes up before it turns ugly in a public forum.

I agree with this totally. In fact, over the years I have several times seriously considered making it a mandatory condition of my warranty. I try to keep my business small to keep prices as low as possible and make myself readily available to solve problems for all my customers worldwide. It is very frustrating when a customer has a problem and feels compelled to post on a forum or blog first before giving me a chance to address their issues. This can affect sales volume and that, in turn, can mean higher prices. So while such a customer benefits from the initial lower purchase price, their impatience ends up jeopardizing good deals for future customers. So I agree that problems should be addressed privately first to give the vendor the opportunity to solve any issues. It also builds a better relationship with the company that you depend on to help you in the future.

Roger

[carllooper]

I read the Logmar approach as drawing on an approach to manufacturing where the user (so called) becomes part of the manufacturing pipeline, rather than situated at the end (as the so called end user).

It was something the manufacturers of the RED camera adopted, and the versioning this introduces has it's origin in software development. And that itself can be traced back to the Apollo moon program (Apollo 1, Apollo 2, ... Apollo 11) where it was first formalised (in it's modern form), specifically for that program.

Basically you can't know, ahead of time, what bugs (so called) you might have introduced in some process, because otherwise you would not have introduced them. Nor can you know what new features would have been good to include, because otherwise you would have already included them. So you create the next best thing to a crystal ball: you make the assumption, prior to a version, and without any evidence at all, that bugs/missing features will exist in such. You give it a version number for this reason.

And then on completion of any version (which always seek to prove the assumption incorrect) you then test the assumption. The more involved in that, the merrier. After many iterations (build/test cycle) one reaches what is called a release candidate. Can it be released to the general public (the end user)? If so, it becomes a release version.

Now, no release version can be a perfect version because you would have to keep the build/test cycle going to the end of time to iterate a perfect version (or show me otherwise how this can not be the case). Rather, what is required by end users (even if they themselves don't understand this), is that particular version which can be used in the present; that particular version which does not require they wait until the heat death of the universe, before it can be used. So a release version will never be a perfect version. It will instead be a useful version. This is because it is impossible, (by definition), for it to be both (as much we might prefer to fantasise otherwise). However, because of the process, it will always be the next best thing to such: a perfectly useful version. Or rather (adjusting one's philosophy): better than perfect!

By involving the user in the process, the cycle converges on such a better-than-perfect version. Users become (legal definitions aside) part author of the work, if only a small part. A good artist (as they say) never blames their tools, and the more an artist is involved in the creation of their tools (in whatever position they occupy: end user, consumer, beta tester, evangelist, producer, manufacturer, etc) the more they understand the meaning of this old wisdom. The more they become an artist.

I'm currently on a Windows 10 (light version) beta program (for embedded systems) where we give the system a good flogging to see if it can't be improved in some way. While this obviously serves the Windows team it also serves me insofar as I become aware, ahead of the general public, how I might exploit the same system (when released), for what I need of it.

A "win/win" situation as they call it.

C

this post itself has undergone a number of iterations - reading and re-reading it, editing it until I'm happy enough to let it go (or the timeout on edits expires).

[doug]

Well put Carl
I think both the Logmar and the Ferrania projects, prove that there is a groundswell of support from people who appreciate chemical film. They want it to continue as an art form. Not just the users, but also the countless people who love watching movies originated on film. I've just seen the new Thomas Hardy film 'Far from the Madding Crowd' that was shot near my home. Done with Arri on Super 35 Vision 3, it was beautiful. The makers could have easily done it digitally but wisely resisted. As the crowds emerged from my local cinema, you could see and hear that they appreciated this fact, even though 99% were totally unaware of it. OK they admired the actors' performances too, but you could say that another important character was the stunning Wessex landscape and atmosphere. I could be wrong but I think it wouldn't have looked as good with Alexa, and neither would the faces of the humans.
So I'm sure that people generally if they only knew support any well-meaning project that provides new analogue film or hardware, and protects the ones we already have.It is wonderful we have folks like Lasse and the Ferrania team who realise film's importance and are willing to risk a little for the future. Not forgetting also that new mobile Alpha movie lab currently working I believe on the latest Bond film here in the UK. (35mm...The previous one was digital)
As for this Logmar trying-out period, it's exciting. And I do hope the information gained will spur on Lasse's plans to provide us all with 35 and 16mm versions
We the movie-going public love film.

[S8 Booster]

No offending but I do not quite get this?

A $$$ camera to shoot €0.002 quality film? Not producing better images than a 70ś camera?

Imagery software (post) development seem to be by far outgunning the potential of this camera.

I say Hype and

I say doom like international issue of the "SmallFormat" Magazine.

Sorry but I see no point.

Ever improving transfer machinery and software is candy but from what I have seen of test footage of this camera (even tweaked) offer no improvement over 70Å› machinery.


Shoot 8 or 16 anyway.... (Ever heard of Krasnogorsk?)

[nikonr10]

Is not jittery footage part of the charm of super 8 film making . That it's hand held and you can film on the fly ?
That's what I like about my canon 310XL , Great little small bag camera , And easy to use .

Any way good luck to Logmar for bring out a new camera , Take's alot of spirit in this AGE , And I really wish them the best , As it's not being a easy task ,
I am sure if I when to the bank manger told him /her" That I want to take out a loan to make a new super 8 camera there just laugh at me "

There had funded this on there own < That to me is what make it speical . So well Done .

[carllooper]

Is not jittery footage part of the charm of super 8 film making . That it's hand held and you can film on the fly ?

As strange as this might sound:

The Logmar camera isn't for "super8 film making".

Although with additional effort, one could use it for such.

Rather, the Logmar camera is designed (I'd argue) for making a different kind of film, although what kind remains to be seen.

Certainly films made with this camera will be shot on Super8 (after all it is a Super8 camera), but that's about all one can say at this stage. I certainly have a few ideas about the kind of films I'll be making with this camera and it certainly won't be "super8 filmmaking". It will be firstly a film, but saying that doesn't mean, having been shot on Super8, such won't play an important role. Indeed it will. It just won't be what is otherwise meant by "super8 film making".

Nor should that automatically imply that it would be the type of film making one might otherwise pursue with 16mm, or 35 mm, or digital - a false conclusion to which many might inadvertently jump.

No, the camera is a particular type of technology, exploiting Super8 film, in a particular type of way, with it's own particular type of potential that artists will leverage in whatever way is appropriate, given such a camera.

Film, regardless of gauge, encodes an image in a very different way from the way a digital camera encodes an image. And if used for subsequent transfer to digital, it produces a very different type of image from the direct-to-digital path that a digital camera employs. Whether the result is considered better or worse than digital is ultimately beside the point. For what is important is that the result is different. Very different.

Exploiting this difference is the key.

But without a film camera (such as the Logmar, as much as any other film camera), this is impossible.

But what of the Logmar compared to another Super8 camera (as distinct from comparison to a digital camera)? Well, If you use the same lens on a Logmar, that you otherwise use on another Super8 camera, you'll get the same result, in terms of what the lens does, on both cameras. The Logmar, however, allows the use of new lenses, which only a few traditional Super8 cameras would allow. And unlike any other Super8 camera it has a fine adjust on the flange distance. Normally this shouldn't be adjusted (at all) but in those cases where it might be the only practical solution - there it is. The other thing is the way the Logmar facilitates sync sound. For a particular type of film making this is an improvement on older Super8 cameras. The crystal sync speed being the main one. But also the ability to save sound on an SD card in the camera (for a quasi-single system sound setup) - which no Super8 camera can now do because there is no longer any sound film. This is good for on the fly, one person shooting, that traditional Super8 sound facilitated. But perhaps the most important feature is the camera's pin-registration. This is the jewel in the crown. Not only do traditional Super8 cameras not have this but many 16mm cameras don't have it. And as much as one might enjoy jittery films there is plenty of room for enjoyment of non-jittery films as well. When blowing up to 35mm or digital, for screening on a big screen, this is really important, I find. A particular aspect of film (to do with time) becomes far more visible when the image isn't jumping around in space (as fun as that might be in a music video, title sequence, or nostalgia dribble).

I also think there's going to be a bit of a surprise for many as 4K transfers of Super8 become the norm. If traditional wisdoms on how many pixels Super8 needs in a transfer haven't already been proved rubbish, they will be.

C

[MovieStuff]

I think anyone that has the balls to produce a new Super 8 camera while the smell of death hangs in the air over film should be rewarded with due respect. It's a masterpiece of ingenuity and the tests look just great. That said, there is no getting around the hefty price tag. I'm not saying that the price is too high for such a camera; I'm sure it is numbingly expensive to produce. In fact, I'm surprised they can offer it at the price they do. I am simply pointing out the obvious that very few people could afford such a luxury. I mean, the ability to change lenses is great and the ability to capture sound is convenient. But there's nothing wrong with the lenses on a Canon 1014E or an Elmo 1012XLS or a Bauer or a Bolex or Nikon R10 or any other host of used cameras that are still viable, cheap and plentiful. And, frankly, most people don't know how to shoot really useful sound correctly, even with the right equipment.

So the real prize of the Logmar - and let's be clear that it is a HUGE achievement - is that you have a dependable way to shoot Super 8 and not have to worry about jitter from badly manufactured Super 8 carts. So while the Logmar is a marvel of engineering, it's just a damned shame that such a camera even had to be produced in the first place. Honestly, having shot a ton of film in the 60's, 70's and early 80's, I can tell you that everything I shot on CKC's (Classic Kodak Carts) was always rock solid. Always. Anyone new to this conversation can search the archives of this and Mike Brantley's old 8mm forum for the sordid history of bad manufacturing, denials and admissions by Kodak regarding the demise of their otherwise dependable CKC's. I swear, if someone could type in dates for complaints in the various forums and run an appropriate sorting algorithm, I think we could even pinpoint the birth of the very first BKC (Bad Kodak Cart). Sadly, the very tests by Logmar bear out the fact that nothing much has changed in the realm of BKC's. While the Logmar camera has terrific registration, it was undone by crappy perfs by Kodak which, ironically, required software stabilization to fix.

I guess that's life in the post CKC world we now live in. It now takes a $5000 camera to dependably shoot a cart that used to cost $3.50 to buy and $1.50 to process. Not Logmar's fault, but, wow.

Roger

[nikonr10]

Is not jittery footage part of the charm of super 8 film making . That it's hand held and you can film on the fly ?

As strange as this might sound:

The Logmar camera isn't for "super8 film making".

Although with additional effort, one could use it for such.

Rather, the Logmar camera is designed (I'd argue) for making a different kind of film, although what kind remains to be seen.

Certainly films made with this camera will be shot on Super8 (after all it is a Super8 camera), but that's about all one can say at this stage. I certainly have a few ideas about the kind of films I'll be making with this camera and it certainly won't be "super8 filmmaking". It will be firstly a film, but saying that doesn't mean, having been shot on Super8, such won't play an important role. Indeed it will. It just won't be what is otherwise meant by "super8 film making".

Nor should that automatically imply that it would be the type of film making one might otherwise pursue with 16mm, or 35 mm, or digital - a false conclusion to which many might inadvertently jump.

No, the camera is a particular type of technology, exploiting Super8 film, in a particular type of way, with it's own particular type of potential that artists will leverage in whatever way is appropriate, given such a camera.

Film, regardless of gauge, encodes an image in a very different way from the way a digital camera encodes an image. And if used for subsequent transfer to digital, it produces a very different type of image from the direct-to-digital path that a digital camera employs. Whether the result is considered better or worse than digital is ultimately beside the point. For what is important is that the result is different. Very different.

Exploiting this difference is the key.

But without a film camera (such as the Logmar, as much as any other film camera), this is impossible.

But what of the Logmar compared to another Super8 camera (as distinct from comparison to a digital camera)? Well, If you use the same lens on a Logmar, that you otherwise use on another Super8 camera, you'll get the same result, in terms of what the lens does, on both cameras. The Logmar, however, allows the use of new lenses, which only a few traditional Super8 cameras would allow. And unlike any other Super8 camera it has a fine adjust on the flange distance. Normally this shouldn't be adjusted (at all) but in those cases where it might be the only practical solution - there it is. The other thing is the way the Logmar facilitates sync sound. For a particular type of film making this is an improvement on older Super8 cameras. The crystal sync speed being the main one. But also the ability to save sound on an SD card in the camera (for a quasi-single system sound setup) - which no Super8 camera can now do because there is no longer any sound film. This is good for on the fly, one person shooting, that traditional Super8 sound facilitated. But perhaps the most important feature is the camera's pin-registration. This is the jewel in the crown. Not only do traditional Super8 cameras not have this but many 16mm cameras don't have it. And as much as one might enjoy jittery films there is plenty of room for enjoyment of non-jittery films as well. When blowing up to 35mm or digital, for screening on a big screen, this is really important, I find. A particular aspect of film (to do with time) becomes far more visible when the image isn't jumping around in space (as fun as that might be in a music video, title sequence, or nostalgia dribble).

I also think there's going to be a bit of a surprise for many as 4K transfers of Super8 become the norm. If traditional wisdoms on how many pixels Super8 needs in a transfer haven't already been proved rubbish, they will be.

C

Carl" When I take my son to the play area/ I tell him to watch out for the bigger boys " As there can get rough , And can be not so kind to the younger one's .
All Image's carry nostalgia in some form ? as we are looking at the past, Be it film / Photo's , etc.

The Logmar open's up alot of new door's , Still it's a super 8 camera which use's film from that 1965 format ? ,

I can really understand the windows it opens up for a new way to work with Light and Shadow be it film in this Age . INK and Paint .

[Will2]

A "win/win" situation as they call it.

Except that you are using Windows.

[Will2]

While the Logmar camera has terrific registration, it was undone by crappy perfs by Kodak which, ironically, required software stabilization to fix.

That's kind of my problem with the camera; it's Super 8. It has some great features and am VERY HAPPY they are building it, but for me, I'd rather shoot with my well-tuned Beaulieu 4008 (thanks to Bjorn) for significantly less and use my Zoom audio recorder if I need sound. The format itself just doesn't lend itself to "perfection" and what I like about it is the imperfections.

However, I'd jump on a Super 16mm version of the same camera with the same features at a similar price pont in a heartbeat because I believe the quality of construction and advanced features would give me a camera I could use in a professional setting and for soccer games. But it kinda already exists...the A-Minima.

[MovieStuff]

While the Logmar camera has terrific registration, it was undone by crappy perfs by Kodak which, ironically, required software stabilization to fix.

That's kind of my problem with the camera; it's Super 8. It has some great features and am VERY HAPPY they are building it, but for me, I'd rather shoot with my well-tuned Beaulieu 4008 (thanks to Bjorn) for significantly less and use my Zoom audio recorder if I need sound. The format itself just doesn't lend itself to "perfection" and what I like about it is the imperfections.

Well, that's the thing. Even if you have a perfectly tuned Beaulieu, you are likely to get registration issues because of contemporary BKC's. If the film transport of the Logmar were the same as any other Super 8 camera, it would still be subject to random jitter. So the real value of the Logmar isn't the electronics but the isolated film transport that dependably creates stable images from BKC's. If removing the electronic wizardry would lower the cost of the Logmar without sacrificing the superior transport, my guess is it would sell much better because what most Super 8 shooters want is simply a dependable camera. But I know that the most expensive part of producing that camera is the machining; not the circuitry and electronics. So, in many ways, the electronics help sweeten the deal by adding capabilities that make the $5000 price tag less painful.

Roger