Workprinters, Scratches, Jitters, Pressure Plates et al

[Guest]

So I got back some reels transfered to miniDV for the short I'm working on (in Plus-X and bits of K40) and noticed a few things that told me a lot (maybe).

First,

Roger's Workprinter combined with a broadcast camera is superb. Frankly, I see no reason to get a Rank transfer of this material as the purposes of the transfer to video are for initial edit and then to generate VHS copies for submissions to film festivals. The prints I'll be sending to festivals I'm accepted in will be 16mm optical blow-ups from an editted super 8 master.

Second,

I got this first half of the short transfered at Forever on DVD in Ottawa and Shawn, the guy who owns it, is incredibly helpful and a perfectionist. He uses an excellent Panasonic broadcast camera. As a result, I got far more useful footage than I thought. And when he noticed something slightly out of adjustment on his set up, he emailed me and offered to retransfer for free! Get this -- I can only deduce by the timing that he was reviewing my footage AFTER he had mailed my copy back to me. I frankly have yet to notice what he was talking about, but this is the kind of person and service I'd recommend to anybody.

Third,

It is surprising what a difference a camera makes with regards to super 8 film stability. I used four different cameras in compiling the footage: Canon 814 Autozoom, Canon 814 Electronic, Nizo S 800, and Nizo 3056. The first three all had about the same characteristic (using plus-X): on and off stability of the images. Sometimes excellent, sometimes jitters. The odd bit of focus breathing. I was exchanging cartridges between the various cameras, so it was never a question of one cartridge being a bad one and another not. But what provided the best footage was the 3056. Rock steady, super sharp from edge to edge, no focus breathing. It truly does look like 16mm. And this was from taking carts that were showing jitter/focus breathing in the other cams and popping them in. So it is the camera.

Fourth,

Maybe the way the cartridge fits into the 3056 has something to do with it? When you put a cart in there it is really snapped hard into place and it's not going anywhere. However, I have no visible way of telling if it's forcing more pressure on the cart's own pressure plate than the S 800 does. But something is happening that's different. But this leads me to

Fifth,

Along with the superb footage, came a tiny scratch running about a third of the way from the left of the frame on a fair amount of the 3056 footage. I cleaned it regularly to prevent this kind of thing. However, isn't the emulsion facing the inside of the cart? I'll have to check. None of the other cameras did this.

Sixth,

I realize that if somebody's going to be doing some longer form and expensive work (ie feature) that requires more dependablility because of the inability to recreate shots, this Andec Pressure Plate can only prove to be a very, very cheap form of insurance. Seeing as Kodak isn't going to do the right thing with a simple pressure plate refinement at this stage of the game it seems. I know I won't embark on anything more ambitious without purchasing one and testing it out myself.

Lastly,

Not that it's a big difference, but the S 800 has a slightly better picture than the 814E (not much, but it should have some edge considering it cost more than twice as much when new), and is noticeably better than the 814 Autozoom. A number of the elements in the glass were redesigned they say, 814 AZ to 814E, and they've got their new spectra-coating on it. One can almost see the Canon engineers rising to the task of trying to compete with the higher-end cameras at a lower cost (executives jumping out of windows in disgrace and all that stuff). I wish I had more money and I'd pick up an 814/1014 xls because I'm sure it would be even that much better. What was surprising was the picture of the 3056: the best of the bunch. However, I think that some of that must be attributed to (apparently?) flatter film with more pressure on it.

Does anybody else have similair experiences with these sound Nizos?

[Santo]

this was me, not that it matters, I guess, but I am recommending a service I had experience with, so I thought I'd put my name to it.

So to speak.

[David M. Leugers]

Interesting. First, the emulsion is always out facing the lens when it passes the film gate. So any scratches were probably camera induced, but not necessarily.

I have often wondered about the thirty year old S-8 cameras now in use having some if not all of the responsibility in the jitter issue. Kodak has been making S-8mm film cartridges for almost 40 years now and I do not remember this ever being a problem until recently. I still do not like the design and feel that a 100ft roll of S-8mm film would have been preferable, but this format is aimed at the lowest common denominator of film making - the point and shoot crowd. If the pressure plate works or even just helps the situation, then it is worth it. Otherwise, hard work and money is wasted with unuseable footage due to jitters.

David M. Leugers

[Forever on DVD]

Roger's Workprinter combined with a broadcast camera is superb. Frankly, I see no reason to get a Rank transfer of this material as the purposes of the transfer to video are for initial edit and then to generate VHS copies for submissions to film festivals. The prints I'll be sending to festivals I'm accepted in will be 16mm optical blow-ups from an editted super 8 master.

Second,

I got this first half of the short transfered at Forever on DVD in Ottawa and Shawn, the guy who owns it, is incredibly helpful and a perfectionist. He uses an excellent Panasonic broadcast camera. As a result, I got far more useful footage than I thought. And when he noticed something slightly out of adjustment on his set up, he emailed me and offered to retransfer for free! Get this -- I can only deduce by the timing that he was reviewing my footage AFTER he had mailed my copy back to me. I frankly have yet to notice what he was talking about, but this is the kind of person and service I'd recommend to anybody.

Thanks for the great comments Santo! My wife thinks I'm nuts spending so much time trying to make things perfect. She'll come into the studio and I'll ask her to tell me which version of something or other she thinks is better while I adjust some settings. The blank stare usually follows, after which comes the shoulder shrug and then finally the I can't see the difference comment - and she's a Radiologist.

Kindest regards,

Shawn


*************************************
Shawn Kimmel
shawn@foreverondvd.com
http://www.foreverondvd.com
Forever on DVD
4125 Wolfe Point Way
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1V 1P4
(613) 822-9930
Toll free: 1-8mm-onto-dvd (1-866-668-6383)
Ultra-high quality digital film transfers
Video and film archiving - DVD Productions
*************************************

[Lunar07]

................................
I still do not like the design [of a cartridge], and feel that a 100ft roll of S-8mm film would have been preferable, but this format is aimed at the lowest common denominator of film making - the point and shoot crowd.

It is ok to make something for the point and shoot crowd. What is not ok is to do what Kodak did - cheapen the field of Super8 film making. Not only with the cartridge system but with the nonsensical notches that represented ASA's. The roll could have been easily integrated into a cassette type system (like the audio cassette) instead of the cartridge, leaving it to camera makers to integrate a pressure plate into the camera itself. I just can not comprehend why camera makers like Nizo, Bauer etc... supported the ASA notch system. They just put many of these products into a blind alley. What Kodak did was nothing short of criminal where film makers are involved. They just took the Regular 8mm format and instead of evolving it into a higher level, they devolve it into a silly creation. Have it been easier to buy and develoop Single8 film, I personally would have made the jump long ago into a Fujica Single8 camera.

[S8 Booster]

Originally there was a consortium of among others: Kodak, Fuji and Agfa trying to etstablish a common standard for a 8mm cartridge movie system (early 60s). After quite some wrestling Kodak pulled out and went for their Super8 cartridge and later Fuji launched their Single8 with identical perfs but owen film material. Agfa went for the KODAK cart system but seemed to design ther own cart and definately film.

Intentions good - results less promising. Fuji made the far superior system but when did the best systmever become market winners; VHS vs 2000 vs Betamax. Mac vs PCs - just continue for me please....


R

[MovieStuff]

After quite some wrestling Kodak pulled out and went for their Super8 cartridge and later Fuji launched their Single8 with identical perfs but owen film material.

Hmm. I could be wrong but I believe it's the other way around. I *think* that Fuji had their single 8 first. I know they offered the design royalty free to Kodak but Kodak didn't want Fuji getting access to the US market of home movie makers and Kodak knew if they used a different cart design then Fuji film could not be used in any US camera.

Roger

[S8 Booster]

Comparing results:

Personally I disergard anything but projected comparisations.

Tranferred stuff won´t make it here.

With projection it is down to about 3 IFs. I have to beare over with that but I never allow more than 1 for important stuff. (S8 is not that important though)

Projector variables of importance:
Projector design/quality
Projector wear/maintenance.
Projector lens quality.
Far too many still.

Transfers will add different variables - all of them will basically reduce the image quality comapred to projection - K40 considered. So what is right? Is Right, Right or... no it is bever right.


For the cam/result issue:
The Canons mentioned may be 10 years older than the Nizo.
Wear?
Who knows the history/use/handling/maintenance of the various cams - even of identical make. Remember that they are they are 20-30 years old. Individual variations will occour even between identical cams.


My 1014 XL-S have always shot rock steady K40 with no port wobble - at least up to now.
This cam has shot grizzly many cartridges and may now need some lube.
My 310XL shoots rock steady carts out of teh box like new. (Apparently hardly ever used).


R

[S8 Booster]

After quite some wrestling Kodak pulled out and went for their Super8 cartridge and later Fuji launched their Single8 with identical perfs but own film material.

Hmm. I could be wrong but I believe it's the other way around. I *think* that Fuji had their single 8 first. I know they offered the design royalty free to Kodak but Kodak didn't want Fuji getting access to the US market of home movie makers and Kodak knew if they used a different cart design then Fuji film could not be used in any US camera.

Roger

You may well be right.
I found this info on a German Web site ong ago so it is from my memory.
I will try to verify it.

Anyway - history remains unchanged ;-)

R

[S8 Booster]

Well, I found it: (I know nothing more than what is written here though)
The whole page is very interesting. You may use Alta VIsta translation to translate the whole page - not very good but understandable.
Site: http://www.super8.de/news.htm#8%20Millimeter
(Scroll down somewhat)
Translation: http://babelfish.altavista.com/ (Page alt text)


An Altavista translation of part of it:

1959 are formed with FUJIFILM a narrow film research group. At this time film two per cent of the urban population in Japan, often with American devices. First Normal-8-Kameras is built with FUJI. Starting from 1962 FUJI with CANON, YASHICA and KONICA forms a working group, in order to replace the pedantic open filmspulen by a cartridge. BELL & HOWELL, AGFA and KODAK are asked 1963 to go through in order to sketch a uniform filmkassette. At the beginning of of 1964 leaves KODAK this working group. 13 Japanese companies and the German AGFA decide however to bring to the Tokyoter Olympiad "rapidly 8" on the market: a cartridge for Normal-8-Film. But the introduction is shifted, because KODAK announces a new film format with larger image field, in August 1964 unexpectedly Super-8. Very fast FUJI on the basis of polyester (PET) develops a format-same, but film thinner around a third, which fits into the planned own cartridge development. AGFA has however difficulties with polyester, gets the perforation holes not cleanly in-punched. Therefore AGFA takes the same material as the American competitor KODAK: Acetate. But only 10 meters fit now into the together compiled cartridge instead of the 15 meters with FUJI. Therefore the first movie cameras have a red point the 10 impressed by FUJI at the meter speedometer with. Who used AG company film, then thus, aetsch, for you is now conclusion knew. But someone really ever turned with AGFA? Or is the only received AGFA-Single-8-Film only one sample? Probably. Because AGFA turned to Super-8, manufactured cameras and films for this format. And the red point disappeared from the speedometer of later Single-8-Filmkameras...

R

[johnmeyer]

A solution that I use that gets rid of gate jitter completely (in most instances) is to use Steadyhand (http://www.dynapel.com/products/steadyh ... view.shtml). This is motion stabilization software designed to correct hand-held footage. If you adjust the settings to about 25% of their "Normal" value, and set the "Zoom" setting to zero, you get rid of the gate jitter without affecting the rest of motion. To be most effective, you should do this prior to pulldown (i.e., on the raw Workprinter capture), and set the Steadyhand settings to "progressive" since there is no motion between fields and therefore the footage is the same as progressive.

[MovieStuff]

A solution that I use that gets rid of gate jitter completely (in most instances) is to use Steadyhand (http://www.dynapel.com/products/steadyh ... view.shtml).

Hi, John!

Dynapel makes some really terrific software. I particularly like the Motion Perfect slow mo software that you turned me onto. Cool stuff. People should try it.

Roger

[johnmeyer]

Roger,

As I remember, when we last talked about MotionPerfect and Steadyhand, one of the things you were interested in was using them to create "tween" frames for stop motion animation. I still haven't come up with anything better than MotionPerfect that is also in somewhat the same price range. However, for Steadyhand, there is an intriguing program called SteadyMove. Adobe licensed this and, as a result, it only seems to work with Adobe related products. It does the same thing as Steadyhand (steadies shaky footage), but based on the demo clips at their site, the quality may be better than Steadyhand -- perhaps MUCH better. If you, or anyone else is interested, check it out at:

http://www.2d3.com/steadymove/index.shtml

I haven't used it myself, since I'm strictly a Sony Vegas devotee when it comes to video editing.

[marc]

It was previously mentioned that the older cameras might be responsible for the image jitter. I have to disagree with this because the first problems that I had with the cartridges occured when using a camera that was in mint condition and showed very little sign of usage. I would be suprised if more than five rolls were shot in it by the time that I got it. The first roll that I shot with this camera was the new Ekatachrome 125 and the image was perfectly steady and the cartridge ran very quietly through the camera. This was in 1999. In 2001 I shot some K40 and the cartidges ran very loud through the camera when filmming ( like a grinding noise) and the steadiness of the image was GOD AWFUL!