Ikonoskop S16 camera latest -cont. "Ebayer Smoking Crac

Post by **Mr_Floppy** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:01 pm

My humble opinion is that it is a non sense. You can get a new K-3 FROM EBAY at 150 USD. For 325USD you can add a S-16 gate, if you are handy enough, you can do it yourself for next to nothing. A Tobin Crystal motor runs for another 800USD. You can even get a 200USD blimp for it at custom upholstery products, and it is enough for feature filmmaking (Donut Hole, by Shommer bros - donutholethemovie.com)

So you get a 100' spools, crystal sync, super16 camera that is smaller than the a-minima, have true ground glass, mirror shuter reflex system, and all that for 1500USD. And it uses a mount that ensure a still photo lens to cover full frame

You can get a 2nd hand super 16 bolex electrical (crystal) with 400' load capacity for under that price.

So, what's the use?. I cannot consider a non-reflex camera usable for real professional use, so will have to get 'reflex and videoassist' upgrade, and this will add another 3000 to the price.

For that money I can get an used super16 eclair npr with a bunch of extras, crystal synch and 400ft load. Or a new Bolex Super16 EBM.

Just my two cents,

Mr. Floppy

Post by **CHAS** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:34 pm

A friend of mine works for a company that distributes the A-Minima. I showed him the website and jokingly said that these guys would drive the A-Minima out of business. I don't think he knew I was joking and here is what he said about this Swedish S16 camera:

<<Don't be fooled by cheap imitations. Remember, you get
what you pay for. I'll stand behind the A-Minima any
day. Let's see what these guys can do with their
camera. Super 16 ? Maybe, Timecode ? I think not.
Interchangable mounts ? Hmmm.... don't think so.
C-Mount.. There's a reason it died 30+ years ago. No
resoution. Where are you suppose to go with low
resoution images from Kinoptic 9mm ? No where! Lot's
of headaches gettting service ? You bet and how !
Will these folks be around 5.... 10 years from now ?
Hmmm. Remember when the dot com was going to
re-energize and redefine our economy ?

This camera reminds me of when a Russian camera
company was making Bolex clones. you don't see these
cameras anymore.>>

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:53 pm

Your friend should remember that even Aaton was once Eclair, a small company in Arri's shaddow. It went bust and came back to life, now strong.

Even the mighty Arri, the kings of motion picture cameras, were once two men, Arnold and Richter, who started a company, much as our Swedish friends are.

I am defensive, in part, because I sent the Swedish makers the link to this thread, and hate to think they might become demoralised by posts on this forum just as they are nearing completion of their first camera. The last post would hit me hard if I was making this camera. I think they are doing the right thing in making a simple first camera and working their way up.

I am waiting for the b-cam, which I am hoping will be the same as the a-cam but with SLR viewfinder and really, really quiet. Everything else on the Aaton I can do without. An Arri Bayonet mount would be cool too.

Lucas

Post by **Scotness** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 10:44 pm

You've got to remember too: by and large you get what you pay for - how much do you expect for $3000?

Scot

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 9:04 pm

I for one applaud anyone with the intestinal fortitude to start out into the great unknown of public favour with their own creation. I find the camera a very interesting piece that looks to be built with quality. It is a purpose-built camera and thus has limited usage. It is not trying to be an all purpose camera. No since complaining it's not a Arri or Aaton clone. And for a new S-16mm camera for less than a high-end DV consumer video camera? I think it will find some users out there. It may be the ultimate hand held S-16mm camera. This nonsense about no TTL viewing being a major flaw. I'm with Roger, there is a lot to be said in certain instances for a nice bright non-reflex viewfinder. I see this camera not really needing a reflex veiwfinder since it will almost always be used with a wide angle lens (focusing is no problem) and hand held. It also keeps the cost down. I'm sure others disagree, but I like it. Good luck to the builders and I wish them success. I'd like to see them make a nice S-8mm camera for production use! 8)

David M. Leugers

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:06 am

Perhaps they might consider making a Super8 camera - like a beaulieu 4008 but silent (the French have always loved their guilotines!) Ahhh, heaven. Even that could be improved upon:

How about a silent, crystal multispeed Super8 camera which takes the film from the cart, puts it through it's own polished metal gate, and back into the cart - then we could really see some smooth, jitter free pictures. It would be possible to make an unsurpassed Super8 camera in this way.

Regarding the Ikonoskop, it looks really nicely made - what I'd expect from the Swedes, so I think they could make the best ever Super8 camera, but it might cost them even more to develop and make than the Ikonoskop, so I think it would be expensive. If they could make some crystal conversions to rival The Film Group's monopoly, this would surely only be a good thing for all (except the film group, of course).

Lucas

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:07 am

Perhaps they might consider making a Super8 camera - like a beaulieu 4008 but silent (the French have always loved their guilotines!) Ahhh, heaven. Even that could be improved upon:

How about a silent, crystal multispeed Super8 camera which takes the film from the cart, puts it through it's own polished metal gate, and back into the cart - then we could really see some smooth, jitter free pictures. It would be possible to make an unsurpassed Super8 camera in this way.

Regarding the Ikonoskop, it looks really nicely made - what I'd expect from the Swedes, so I think they could make the best ever Super8 camera, but it might cost them even more to develop and make than the Ikonoskop, so I think it would be expensive. If they could make some crystal conversions to rival The Film Group's monopoly, this would surely only be a good thing for all (except the film group, of course).

Lucas

YouTube · Post by **wahiba** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:52 pm

It is an interesting product. By the looks of the film speeds I think it aimed more at the technical market. Set it up pointing at the building site, come back in 6 months and there is a film of the building going up.

Let us be honest, a cine camera is a relatively simple technical device. This camera concentrates on the controlling of such a device. The LCD display shows it intends to provide the user with plenty of feed back.

Good luck to them.

Post by **Nick** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:45 pm

Lucas,

Just a thought. You should contact those guys and ask them if you could borrow a camera for testing when and if it is manufactured. This way you could send feedback to the group. They might be willing to send one to a pro who is affiliated with a decent size user group. It could generate good press for them (among potential clients) and increase sales. They might have some way to secure return of the original.

I suppose the worst they could say is no.

Cheers,
Nick

Post by **Cranium** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:26 am

FYI- They've updated the site a little bit.

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:55 am

Obviously, the pictured camera doesn't have the parallel mounted viewfinder fitted yet, I presume because they're still developing it.

Nick, I'd love to road test the camera. I think it'll work beautifully with the 9mm kinoptic lens - minimal paralex.

Hi Old Uncle Barry 8O ,I think that where it says "shutter speeds 1-50fps", that means it will run from 1 - 50 frames per second, shutter speed meaning "frame rate." It will also, as you say, do extensive time lapse photography.

Lucas

Yemi · Post by **Yemi** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:24 am

I want to take my hat off to these guys for actually trying to make a relatively affordable modern super16 camera within the reach of many filmmakers. Give credit where it is due. This lightweight compact crystal sync camera costs $3300. We don't all need timecode and although I've never used a non-reflex camera I could can think of several applications where the wide angle prime lens alone would be sufficient. Think about action sports and documentary work. The A-minina is in a another class but these boys are obviously targeting a different market and I think the demand is there.
Isn't it about time Bolex came out with a NEW camera design? This
'modern camera' technology is hardly on the cutting edge of science.

About the K3? Best described as a 'diamond in the (very) rough'. This camera has a ton of potential but the stock machine is unreliable at best. Take note of this when you see them on sale for $150.
Best to get Reel Trading to upgrade the beast before you start shelling out $$$ on filmstock.

------
Yemi

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:18 am

available in colors?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:42 pm

I bet those two Swedes could alter the camera a bit and make a good double 8 camera. I wonder if it would be easier to alter the camera to make a double 8 rather than try and make one to accept super 8 cartridges. It would have a solid pressure plate this way.

I'm just dreaming of course. Also I do think the camera will probably be much better quality than the krasnogorsks. The Swedes usually don't make cheap crappy imitations, at least not to my knowledge.

I also thought about a handle that could be easily mounted, perhaps like the wooden kind found on some Aatons or Eclairs? Maybe Roger could build one???

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:30 am

Another thing about parallax viewfinders -- will it use objective lenses?

The Auricon and some old R8 cameras used parallax viewfinders, and the only way to compensate for a different focal length lens was -- get this -- putting a mask in the viewfinder to cut the viewfinder down to a little hole in the center that approximates the field of view of a longer lens. So the longer lens you use, the tinier the image you can see in the viewfinder.

Filmo's, Eyemo's, Kodak Cine Specials and some magazine cartridge cameras used a different system -- interchangeable screw-in objective viewfinder lenses. With these, it changed the magnification of the eyepiece but didn't change the size of the image. It's an immensely superior system, as long as you have an objective lens to match the focal length of each prime lens you're using. A zoom objective lens would minimize that.

Of course, the longer the lens goes, the more the parallax error creeps in.

Again, somebody has got to tell them -- without a reflex viewfinder, this camera is D.O.A. If their big resistance to a reflex viewfinder is that it'll add 3cm to the size of the camera -- PUHLEEZE! It's the best 3CM they will ever spend!!