Yes, I shot couple tests during Spring 2002 with really cheap camera (Lomo Aurora 219 (fixed focus, only speed is 18 fps), costed me one Euro (0.9 USD) at local flea market), which I converted to 16:9 by filing the film gate.
Here is the first mpg-file (over 7 Mb), I transfer first with WP-3 at 16:9 format and then transfer to mpg1-format (4:3, so material is letterboxed, but all you see is also in the normal 16:9 frame):
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen.mpg
Here are also two frames in jpg-format with their original resolution (1024x576, PAL 16:9):
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen.jpg
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen2.jpg
As you might notice there are some little vertical scratches, meaning the gate wasn't 100% properly finnished. At the end of film there aren't any scratches, so during shooting the film has polished the surface of film gate.
So, I'm very satisfied for my result of this test and I'll start to filing also my other cameras in the future and perhaps do totally one new 2.66:1 film gate for one of them (perhaps for Bauer 709/715) to test also that Hyper-8 mm thing.
Note: you can still use that same camera also for normal 4:3 shots, even you filed the gate!
My first super8 widescreen test
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
My first super8 widescreen test
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
Looks great!
Hey jukkasil
The movie looks great!
I didn't understand your message.
did you shoot 16:9 or just transfered it later that way?
anyway, it reealy looks good...
maybe i'll ask you how to do it later when i'll have the camera.
Mattan.
The movie looks great!
I didn't understand your message.
did you shoot 16:9 or just transfered it later that way?
anyway, it reealy looks good...
maybe i'll ask you how to do it later when i'll have the camera.
Mattan.
"I didn't understand your message.
did you shoot 16:9 or just transfered it later that way?
anyway, it reealy looks good...
maybe i'll ask you how to do it later when i'll have the camera"
Yes, I did both!
So at the first I modified my camera so, that you can shoot with (almost) at 16:9 enlarging the film gate (= taking away that part of it, where you normally put your first magnetic sound track).
Then I transfered film with my Workprinter (you can do it, cause WP has enlarged gate, so you can see the whole widescreen image through it) at 16:9 mode by cropping the image to that mode (very little of information will be lost using that method: enlarged camera gate and transfering 16:9).
As you might notice this camera isn't good at all, but it has its own feel!
I modified just at the first this kind of cheap camera to see what I'll get and now I have to agree: it really works!
BTW. Have anyone else tried it? I haven't seen any other video-clip of it before, so let us know!
I really think to try also that 8x3 mm frame (2.66:1) in the future. Or maybe 8x4.5mm (16:9) with much bigger resolution, almost 16 mm!
did you shoot 16:9 or just transfered it later that way?
anyway, it reealy looks good...
maybe i'll ask you how to do it later when i'll have the camera"
Yes, I did both!
So at the first I modified my camera so, that you can shoot with (almost) at 16:9 enlarging the film gate (= taking away that part of it, where you normally put your first magnetic sound track).
Then I transfered film with my Workprinter (you can do it, cause WP has enlarged gate, so you can see the whole widescreen image through it) at 16:9 mode by cropping the image to that mode (very little of information will be lost using that method: enlarged camera gate and transfering 16:9).
As you might notice this camera isn't good at all, but it has its own feel!
I modified just at the first this kind of cheap camera to see what I'll get and now I have to agree: it really works!
BTW. Have anyone else tried it? I haven't seen any other video-clip of it before, so let us know!
I really think to try also that 8x3 mm frame (2.66:1) in the future. Or maybe 8x4.5mm (16:9) with much bigger resolution, almost 16 mm!
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
-
Guest
Hi, Jukka!
Looks great! Two things:
1) I noticed a couple of jump frames. Was that a glitch in the transfer or were there some problem frames in the film? Or were there some damaged sprocket holes that caused the jump? Normally the WorkPrinters have dead-nuts registration, as evident in all your other samples you posted. Just curious.
2) Was your camera aligned dead on during the transfer? The overall illumination seems to be slightly uneven. Again, all your other samples except for this wide screen test have perfectly even illumination (and perfect registration), which is how it should be on the WorkPrinter so I was wondering what accounted for the difference.
3) How much of the top and bottom image was masked off? I would like to see some full frame, uncropped JPGs that shows the entire image all the way out past the frame line and sprocket holes to see the true aspect ratio. I love the idea of the wider image. I opened the JPEGs you posted but they are too big to see entirely via my browser. I will open them in Photoshop later. Perhaps you've already posted the full frame versions.
Anyway, looks great! Keep it up!
Roger
Looks great! Two things:
1) I noticed a couple of jump frames. Was that a glitch in the transfer or were there some problem frames in the film? Or were there some damaged sprocket holes that caused the jump? Normally the WorkPrinters have dead-nuts registration, as evident in all your other samples you posted. Just curious.
2) Was your camera aligned dead on during the transfer? The overall illumination seems to be slightly uneven. Again, all your other samples except for this wide screen test have perfectly even illumination (and perfect registration), which is how it should be on the WorkPrinter so I was wondering what accounted for the difference.
3) How much of the top and bottom image was masked off? I would like to see some full frame, uncropped JPGs that shows the entire image all the way out past the frame line and sprocket holes to see the true aspect ratio. I love the idea of the wider image. I opened the JPEGs you posted but they are too big to see entirely via my browser. I will open them in Photoshop later. Perhaps you've already posted the full frame versions.
Anyway, looks great! Keep it up!
Roger
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Hi Roger!
1.) These jump frames existing just because of that bad camera. I think its automatic exposure meter etc. have some kind problems. When I look these single jump frames, they are overexposured but other frames are normal, so that russian camera was just piece of junk! I'll use it only as a spareparts, if I'll find better Aurora cheap somewhere.
2.) Yes. That K40 roll was one of these bad ones + bad camera, that's it, perfect combination!
During Spring 2002 I noticed I have bought couple these bad casettes and decided to use them as a camera test rolls like this one.
3.) Not much. I'll make one uncropped jpg (with sprocket holes etc.) soon, you'd check it out.
Now, I have to eat something!
1.) These jump frames existing just because of that bad camera. I think its automatic exposure meter etc. have some kind problems. When I look these single jump frames, they are overexposured but other frames are normal, so that russian camera was just piece of junk! I'll use it only as a spareparts, if I'll find better Aurora cheap somewhere.
2.) Yes. That K40 roll was one of these bad ones + bad camera, that's it, perfect combination!
During Spring 2002 I noticed I have bought couple these bad casettes and decided to use them as a camera test rolls like this one.
3.) Not much. I'll make one uncropped jpg (with sprocket holes etc.) soon, you'd check it out.
Now, I have to eat something!
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
OK, here is the whole frame with guide lines and without them.
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe1.jpg
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe2.jpg
The true aspect ratio is about 1.51:1 against 1.77:1 (16:9).
What about possible 8x3 mm film gate in Hyper 8mm idea, is WP suitable to show that whole image, what do you think Roger?
I think, WP cannot do it, 8 mm is too wide, maybe 7 mm x 2.63 mm?
I have to check it out and I let you know.
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe1.jpg
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe2.jpg
The true aspect ratio is about 1.51:1 against 1.77:1 (16:9).
What about possible 8x3 mm film gate in Hyper 8mm idea, is WP suitable to show that whole image, what do you think Roger?
I think, WP cannot do it, 8 mm is too wide, maybe 7 mm x 2.63 mm?
I have to check it out and I let you know.
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
Here is a drawing about formats with dimensions: regular 8, super 8 and this "super 8 widescreen" idea, I used to shot this test clip.
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/8mmformats.jpg
http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/8mmformats.jpg
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
I contemplated doing something like this but never got around to it.
there are also a couple of problems I can see with it.
looking at the scraps of film I have around here it seems that the image already extends to the edge of the sprocket holes so you can only extend the gate out in the other direction, this may result in the image in the viewfinder being off center slightly with the resulting "widescreen" image. I noticed that in your pictures the gate extends into the area of the sprocket holes which isnt much use unless you want the sprocket hole visable.
The viewfinder is a big issue, how much do most viewfinders show? I would assume that they would not show this extend area which would make framing for widescreen hard. does anyone know if most viewfinders show the whole frame area, the standard projection area, or what? This is something that probably depends somewhat on the camera, and some testing probably needs to be done, has anyone done any. does anyone know what would be required to adjust the viewfinder to show the whole widened frame? (of course it will vary form camera to camera)
Another big problem is the fact that you are now using for image area is used for transport purposes both in the camera, the projector, and possibly processing. If you look at the gate on your camera or projector there is a raised area oposite the claw as well as one above and below it. this raised area is used to support the film frame without rubbing the image area, now that you have extended the image area it rubs on this area and can cause scratches, etc... the wear may be low enough to allow for shooting and then transfering, but you would certainly not want to project the film, or run it through the transfer machine many times.
~Jess
there are also a couple of problems I can see with it.
looking at the scraps of film I have around here it seems that the image already extends to the edge of the sprocket holes so you can only extend the gate out in the other direction, this may result in the image in the viewfinder being off center slightly with the resulting "widescreen" image. I noticed that in your pictures the gate extends into the area of the sprocket holes which isnt much use unless you want the sprocket hole visable.
The viewfinder is a big issue, how much do most viewfinders show? I would assume that they would not show this extend area which would make framing for widescreen hard. does anyone know if most viewfinders show the whole frame area, the standard projection area, or what? This is something that probably depends somewhat on the camera, and some testing probably needs to be done, has anyone done any. does anyone know what would be required to adjust the viewfinder to show the whole widened frame? (of course it will vary form camera to camera)
Another big problem is the fact that you are now using for image area is used for transport purposes both in the camera, the projector, and possibly processing. If you look at the gate on your camera or projector there is a raised area oposite the claw as well as one above and below it. this raised area is used to support the film frame without rubbing the image area, now that you have extended the image area it rubs on this area and can cause scratches, etc... the wear may be low enough to allow for shooting and then transfering, but you would certainly not want to project the film, or run it through the transfer machine many times.
~Jess
-
Cheezy
Widescreen gate
Could you please detail the procedure ? How did you phisically enlarge the gate ? Most Super8 gates are made out of metal so I don't get the trick... Any tips ?
