John Pytlak-What will Kodak do about the jittery carts?

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Kent wrote:

I don´t know if my explanations have made any sense though, if not I´ll give it another go. Just let me know.

Made perfect sense to me! I think we're on the same wavelength- nice to have company ;-)

Mark

OK! Cool!

[MovieStuff]

If the camera claw is really 3 frames above the "registration frame" or whatever we call it, it really would give us a headache. The WP does not (if I remember correctly, I don´t have one here right now) register the frame being registered 3 frames above the frame.

Actually, I just double checked and the WorkPrinter DOES have the three sprocket hole differential. I also just compared it to a Bell and Howell and an Elmo projector and they all have the same exact 3 sprocket hole claw advance position.

Why do you say this? if the spacing varied regularly 1/100th mm every few frames (I don't know how many perfs are perfed at once) and you happened to pull down on the wrong perf, the picture would appear unsteady by 1/100th mm, when really it wasn't- the film perfing was innacurate.

Well first off, all sprocket holes are unevenly spaced to a certain degree and, even if they were perfect before shooting, the film stretches considerably during the processing stage. Thus, it doesn't matter how far it gets off every foot or so because the cameras and projectors re-start the registration process on every frame so it is self correcting to a large degree. That's the purpose of sprocket holes.

Now, you are correct that, theoretically, the same sprocket hole should be used to register in the projector as in the camera....

-However-

I just checked my Canon Scoopic Double Super 8 camera and it actually has the advance claw three or four frames AFTER the gate, not before it like regular super 8 cameras. Yet that DS8 footage transfers and projects perfectly steady on every projector I have used, from Elmos to Eumigs to Beauileaus even though there is, clearly, a 6+ frame difference between the original "registration hole" of the camera and the sprocket hole used by any given projector.

[Sparky]

Roger wrote:

Well first off, all sprocket holes are unevenly spaced to a certain degree

Quite- and hence the importance of the claw positions. But as you say the WP conforms to the standard, its obviously not the issue here!

-However-

I just checked my Canon Scoopic Double Super 8 ....

Interesting. Is the claw on the taken frame side or the other? This would only be an issue anyway if the perfs were innacurate. So either you were always lucky with the film you got, or its a total a non-issue ;-)
Perhaps there is an issue with the perfing machine for super8 at Kodak at the moment? The slight wobbly frame lines on the film Kent transferred for me are not an issue when I project so I can only deduce from that that they vary in thickness because of perfing innacuracies.

Just out of interest, here's a quote from a Movie Maker review of a Hanimex P300 super8 projector from 1968:

The claw is set at the +2 position, that is, starting the pull-down two frames below the centre of the gate mask. This is five frames away from the recommended position at minus 3 frames, and picture steadiness is thus dependent on the accuracy of the perforations in the film

Mark

[Tom Ballard]

I've been shooting Super 8 a while and frankly, I don't understand the point of this discussion. Most here know there is and has been a problem with jitter, yet some have relied upon it to capture important footage. IMHO, that's like getting into an auto that has brakes known to be suspect then going 90mph down a steep hill- hoping it'll stop when you get to the bottom and then bitching when it doesn't.

At one point, I considered shooting a feature on Super 8 for television (direct to video) broadcast. I wanted the film look and the only way (at present) one's going to get it, is by shooting film. But after shooting a lot of Super 8, doing considerable research, learning of the jitter, the blue lines, etc., etc., concluded that relying upon Super 8 for what I wanted wasn't realistic.

Super 8 is fun. It is what it is and it's like any other product, film related or not, you get what you pay for. K40 carts - $10.83US per cart. Processing - $4.88 at Walmart or $9.00 direct from Dwayne's. Add a dollar for shipping and you're at $16.00 + or - for 2.5 mins of footage. Try shooting a larger gauge with a reliable camera (Super 16 or 35mm) for that price. It's not going to happen.

Don't want jitter? Shoot 35mm and stop whining. Otherwise, expect to get what you pay for. Believing Kodak should spend what may be a small fortune to correct a problem in a product that is most likely their least profitable is delusional, at best. It simply doesn't make good business sense. And in spite of our passion for Super 8, Kodak is about doing business. They don't deliberately sabotage Super 8 cartridges because they don't like those who shoot it. Because of video, Kodak is being forced to layoff 25,000 employees around the globe. Doesn't anyone here understand that Super 8 film doesn't and isn't about to keep Kodak in business when video has taken over the consumer market?

Super 8 is to the film industry what a one-chip camcorder is to video. Yes, there have been a couple of films shot on low-end video that have amounted to something. Same goes for Super 8 films. But the fact that this board is frequented by Super 8 hobbyists doesn't make the film any more than it is. And that is an inexpensive, hobbyist medium. Accept it for what it is and move on or reach into your pockets and spend some money for a camera and film that's what you want it to be.

Tom Ballard

[MovieStuff]

Interesting. Is the claw (on the Scoopic DS8) on the taken frame side or the other?

The claw is on the same side as the exposed frame but the claw is waaayyy below the gate area. I did not do an exact count but it is easily 3-4 frames below the gate. That would make a differential of about 6 or more frames.

While I think that sprocket hole accuracy is imporant, I think we are getting away from the larger issue of wholesale jitter. Again, the swelling and contracting of frame lines is a clear indication that something is going on inside the camera independent of any display system.

More importantly, if the sprocket holes were inaccurate enough to cause jitter in the camera during the shoot, then the sprocket hole inaccuracy will be even worse due to the slight stretching of the film naturally caused by processing. The fact that you can see the jittery image on footage running smoothly through any projector without it losing its loop only verifies that it is not a sprocket hole accuracy issue. In short, if the sprocket holes were bad enough to cause jitter in the camera, they will cause the same problem, or worse, in the projector when viewing that same footage.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Super 8 is fun.

It used to be more fun.

It is what it is

But not what it used to be.

and it's like any other product, film related or not, you get what you pay for.

Actually, you get less. Super 8 used to cost less and be better. It now costs more and is worse.

Roger

[Alex]

I've been shooting Super 8 a while and frankly, I don't understand the point of this discussion. Most here know there is and has been a problem with jitter, yet some have relied upon it to capture important footage.

I disagree with that sentiment.

At one point, I considered shooting a feature on Super 8 for television (direct to video) broadcast. I wanted the film look and the only way (at present) one's going to get it, is by shooting film. But after shooting a lot of Super 8, doing considerable research, learning of the jitter, the blue lines, etc., etc., concluded that relying upon Super 8 for what I wanted wasn't realistic.

These statements clash when I read them. It sounds like you are mixing some of your own experience with what you have read. If that is the case, please don't blur the line between what you've read and what you've experienced.

Super 8 is to the film industry what a one-chip camcorder is to video.
Tom Ballard

Nope, more like Super-8 is to the film industry what the Panasonic DVX-100 and the Canon-XL1 is to the HI-DEF industry, a gateway for tens of thousands of shooters.

It's essential that the Super-8 format deliver to a certain specification or it will drive film users to video.

[Tom Ballard]

Super 8 is fun.

It used to be more fun.

It is what it is

But not what it used to be.

and it's like any other product, film related or not, you get what you pay for.

Actually, you get less. Super 8 used to cost less and be better. It now costs more and is worse.

Roger

Roger- Your points are well taken. But I still find shooting Super 8 fun, not many things are what they used to be and while it used to cost less and be better, so did most everything else I can think of.

Tom Ballard

[Sparky]

Again, the swelling and contracting of frame lines is a clear indication that something is going on inside the camera independent of any display system.

If the projected image was jumping up and down then yes that would indicate that the film had indeed jittered around in the gate, but in this case it is the frames top and bottom of the projected frame that dance whilst the projected frame is pretty steady. This can surely only be down to innacuracies in the perforating? I can't think of any other explanation.

Mark

[etimh]

I've been shooting Super 8 a while and frankly, I don't understand the point of this discussion.

Super 8 is fun. It is what it is and it's like any other product, film related or not, you get what you pay for.

Don't want jitter? Shoot 35mm and stop whining. Believing Kodak should spend what may be a small fortune to correct a problem in a product that is most likely their least profitable is delusional, at best.

Accept it for what it is and move on or reach into your pockets and spend some money for a camera and film that's what you want it to be.

See, all of this makes sense to me. I'm with you Tom.

Tim

[etimh]

Super 8 is fun.

It used to be more fun.

It is what it is

But not what it used to be.

and it's like any other product, film related or not, you get what you pay for.

Actually, you get less. Super 8 used to cost less and be better. It now costs more and is worse.

Roger

While THIS sounds like a desperate but naive desire to return to some idealized past. Wasn't there, don't know what the film was like, so I live in the present and make defective art out of defective materials.

And so it goes.

Tim

[MovieStuff]

Again, the swelling and contracting of frame lines is a clear indication that something is going on inside the camera independent of any display system.

If the projected image was jumping up and down then yes that would indicate that the film had indeed jittered around in the gate, but in this case it is the frames top and bottom of the projected frame that dance whilst the projected frame is pretty steady. This can surely only be down to innacuracies in the perforating? I can't think of any other explanation.

I think we are probably getting into the subtle differences between "pretty steady", which is the best we can currently hope for if the cart doesn't actually all-out jitter and "rock steady", which is how many people have witnessed super 8 to be in the past. As I said, the idea of the sprocket holes not being even is interesting but, regarding jitter, if uneven sprocket hole pitch was bad enough to cause jitter in the camera, the same footage would jitter even worse in the projector so there is something else going in addition to possible pitch issues. But I can certainly see how uneven pitch could cause frame line swelling even if the image seemed fairly stable. It's all about tolerances in manufacturer (or lack thereof).

Roger

[MovieStuff]

While THIS sounds like a desperate but naive desire to return to some idealized past. Wasn't there, don't know what the film was like,

Well THAT makes your input very useful on this topic, Tim. Thanks so much.

so I live in the present and make defective art out of defective materials.

That's funny. I would have sworn you were the loudest to bitch about the bluish E64 tint compared to the discontinued K40. So much for living in the present, eh? ;)

If you personally don't mind paying good money for a defective product, that's your business but, really, we're trying to solve a problem. Do you have anything useful to offer here other than a critique of other people's critiques?

Roger

[Sparky]

But my point is that the image is steady whilst the neighbouring frames are not- really not! Now if I were to have projected my film with a projector that didn't have the recommended claw position, it would be my projected image that was dancing around wildly! And I would be cursing Kodak for making a crap product, which I'm not! I think this is a real issue but undoubtedly there are others perhaps more serious, but I haven't come accross them yet (touch wood)

Mark

[Tom Ballard]

I've been shooting Super 8 a while and frankly, I don't understand the point of this discussion. Most here know there is and has been a problem with jitter, yet some have relied upon it to capture important footage.

I disagree with that sentiment.

You disagree that most know there's been a problem with jitter or that some have relied upon Super 8 to capture important footage?

At one point, I considered shooting a feature on Super 8 for television (direct to video) broadcast. I wanted the film look and the only way (at present) one's going to get it, is by shooting film. But after shooting a lot of Super 8, doing considerable research, learning of the jitter, the blue lines, etc., etc., concluded that relying upon Super 8 for what I wanted wasn't realistic.

These statements clash when I read them. It sounds like you are mixing some of your own experience with what you have read. If that is the case, please don't blur the line between what you've read and what you've experienced.

I'm not mixing anything. I've experienced the blue lines and the jitter... Research allowed me to discover others were having the same problem, which reinforced my belief there was a problem with the filmstock/cartridge.

Super 8 is to the film industry what a one-chip camcorder is to video.
Tom Ballard

Nope, more like Super-8 is to the film industry what the Panasonic DVX-100 and the Canon-XL1 is to the HI-DEF industry, a gateway for tens of thousands of shooters.

The DVX and XL are both consumer, or if you prefer, "prosumer" (a marketing term for those simple enough to fall for it) cameras, just as Super 8 was in its day.

It's essential that the Super-8 format deliver to a certain specification or it will drive film users to video.

It's essential to Kodak to stay in business. Hence, my point. They're not going to spend a fortune on a segment of their business that brings in little revenues when compared to other avenues I'm sure they're exploring.

Keep in mind that many people buying cameras today for recording moving images have never heard of Super 8 and when they see the hairs, scratches, etc., that are frequently found on Super 8, they're thinking "Man! That looks horrible compared to my DVX!". On top of that, most that shoot video, while they won't admit it, are afraid to shoot film. They have neither the experience nor the confidence to pull the trigger without looking into an LED so they can see what they're shooting.

I'm not anti-Super 8. Not by a long shot. I'd like to see grain-free and jitter-free cartridges. But common sense should tell anyone that Super 8 is neither the saviour nor the future for Kodak. In spite of all its flaws, I enjoyed K40. I'm sorry it's been discontinued. But I'm happy to have the E64T. At least I can still shoot Super 8 and enjoy it for what it is.

Tom Ballard