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

[Rick Palidwor]

I have had numerous jittery carts in my time and it seems to be a random occurence: some are okay, some are not, and I can't predict. All with the same camera, so it's not the camera. You can often tell it's a bad cart as soon as you pull the trigger: it just doesn't sound right. But sometimes you don't know until you get the film back, so it's not practical to take that to the retailer and have them send the cart to Kodak for inspection. It seems to happen way more often with b&W carts., so much so that I have stopped using b&w to test cameras because a bad cart nullifies the test. So I end up shooting more expensive colour tests.

I shot a project recently on plus-x and I had a lot of problems with film breathing in the gate, causing intermittent focus problems. It was with my 814XLS, which has always performed well, so I don't think it was the camera. I think it was the carts.

The most common reason I have encountered as to why professionals stay away from super 8 is the unreliability of the carts.

I would think this should be a fairly easy fix on Kodak's part.

Rick

[John_Pytlak]

Why can't Kodak just shoot some film, develop it and look at it? Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be disrespectful and I do appreciate your input here but the problem is already well documented. I don't see the point in making customers spend time and money to prove to Kodak what is common knowledge.

Roger

Kodak DOES exactly that, and has not found the problem with current production. That's why samples that show the problem are needed, along with film from batches you suspect also have the problem.

[filmo]

Out of twenty or so carts that I recently shot for a personal travelogue, I had two "breathers."

I usually see this problem near the end of a cart--sometimes at the beginning of a shot, but the last two were right in the middle of the shot (and they spoiled two nicely framed shots, I might add).

When I was shooting a lot back in '90-92 I noticed the same problem at about the same frequency--I'd say one out of ten.

Is it that Kodak has simply relaxed the standards for quality control?

I'm not sure how the cartridge is made--maybe some sort of injection molding process. Maybe Kodak doesn't even make them in-house any more. It could be that they just don't care about quality control for their super 8 customers.

Nevertheless, in my copy of Lenny Lipton's Lipton on Filmaking, copyright 1980, he mentions breathing frames in super 8 cartridges. He even goes as far as to say that he observed the problem more often in expensive cameras than cheapies.

So you never know.

[filmo]

Out of twenty or so carts that I recently shot for a personal travelogue, I had two "breathers."

I usually see this problem near the end of a cart--sometimes at the beginning of a shot, but the last two were right in the middle of the shot (and they spoiled two nicely framed shots, I might add).

When I was shooting a lot back in '90-92 I noticed the same problem at about the same frequency--I'd say one out of ten.

Is it that Kodak has simply relaxed the standards for quality control?

I'm not sure how the cartridge is made--maybe some sort of injection molding process. Maybe Kodak doesn't even make them in-house any more. It could be that they just don't care about quality control for their super 8 customers.

Nevertheless, in my copy of Lenny Lipton's Lipton on Filmaking, copyright 1980, he mentions breathing frames in super 8 cartridges. He even goes as far as to say that he observed the problem more often in expensive cameras than cheapies.

So you never know.

[John_Pytlak]

Nevertheless, in my copy of Lenny Lipton's Lipton on Filmaking, copyright 1980, he mentions breathing frames in super 8 cartridges. He even goes as far as to say that he observed the problem more often in expensive cameras than cheapies.

So you never know.

Seeing the problem in 1980 supports the point that small formats are more sensitive to certain issues like unsteadiness and focus shift. Especially Super-8, whick was originally designed for low-cost amateur moviemaking.

[Daniel]

Hello,

In our technical short-feature (currently in post-production), we shot on vision2 200T and 500T Eastman Kodak cartridges and also with Pro8/12, Pro/05 from Pro8.

Both footage (Kodak and Pro8 super8 finishing) appeared to be unsteady.

A Classic Pro8 camera (quite "new" + technical service from Super8sound company just before production) was used for shooting.

A Ursa Diamond Telecine for offline and a Spirit Datacine for scanning were used, and this personal commentary is based to those specific image chain parameters and workflow.

Kodak 7217 and 7218 finishing super8 footage appeared to be more steady than the Pro8's in our production.

Of course I am not considering the first 10-15 seconds and the last 10-15 seconds of the cartridge. I am referencing to the middle part of the cartridge footage.

... Anyway I do beleive that steadyness is one limit of current 2nd generation (1964-1965) of film format based on 8mm gauge... I also support the idea that a 3G format on 8mm should consider a system of optical track at the camera/scanner stage...

... then in post-production one would apply a track/stabilize process...

In our technical research project, we did apply track/stabilize (through eQ) in almost all the footage ... using (when functional) the perf as reference (as the 2k scan included the perf) or some camera-gate corner (if functional) or some usable element in the image (when available)... but in some cases, it wasn't possible to stabilize as the there was no functional element that was allowing proper track/stab.

As the negative footage was scanned as 2048x1556, after track/stab crop and 1.85:1 (film-out) and 1.78:1 (HD master) crop, the final image is now at 1920x1080 RGB (10 bit log DPX)
So there is some logic in scanning the super8 at 2k in order to ensure a 1 to 1 pixel final HD-RGB image.

Regards,
Daniel

[MovieStuff]

Kodak DOES exactly that, and has not found the problem with current production.

Are you serious? The new E64 sample recently posted had jitter and that is a brand new emulsion in a brand new cart! Aside from the discontinuation of K40, jitter is the number one concern talked about within the super 8 constituency. I believe your sincerity but I find it virtually impossible to believe that Kodak has never encountered faulty carts enough to warrant in investigation into this problem. Statistically the odds are way against it, just based on the number of people that complain about jitter here and the number of jittery carts I have seen shot on refurbished/rebuilt cameras.

Roger

[reflex]

If Kodak reallllllly wants to see more people shoot film, specifically super 8, then they need to definatively solve the jitter issue and repackage super 8 in new boxes that clearly state "JITTER FREE!". If Kodak did that, I am guessing their Super 8 sales would double because people would buy with confidence.

But the film cart is only one link in the chain. The carts might be perfect, but my unmaintained, 40 year-old gummed-up Nizo film claw could botch everything up. And I'd blame Kodak, rather than admit what a gomer I was for shooting with such a dismal camera. ;)

[S8 Booster]

i can firmly confirm Rogers statement about old vs new carts image stability but at first i think we should divide the issue into 3 categories:

1) Jittery carts - a bad production batch from 1999-2002 approx?
this jitter problem was severe and some carts even blocked/stuck totally - some could be knocked loose - some worked and some blocked again after the treatment. usually had a bad grinding nose.
according to "sources" this problem was originated by a bad washer inside and use of (or no use of) of a new film lube that did not work with the s8 carts.
to me they appeared non-lubed dry as only non lubed film can be.

2) carts with no real "jitter" but delivering unstable images/individual carts with occational jumps - registration of improved carts - 2002-2005 + carts made 1980-1999 aprox.
Kodak mended the worst problems. however, some reports occational image jumps with some carts within batches but it is nothing like the bad carts mentioned under (1)

however the image registration is far from perfect or even good with the "new carts based on experiences on a huge variety of cams used some harddly used but properly storaged since new bought some time around 1989 - compared to the 70s carts .

if anyone bothered about evaluating the image registration quality - just shoot white letters on a totally black bakground and project or transfer it. youll get a nasty surprise. framelines can be used for other motifs but small or not to big white letters on a black backgroound it simple and good.

you do not need no fancy charts to evaluate this.

carts made from 1980 to 1999 seems much better than 2002+ carts but:

3) films shot in the 70s = PERFECT as Rogers points out.
some time ago i watched some *fetaure* films made in the 70s shot with various cams within each *feature* and luckily the framelines (various positions - various cams) were visible. films were projected and the framelines was totally bolt-on steady unlike anything i have seen from the 80+.

the image stability was total like projected slides.

possibly i will ask the owner of the film to borrow it n send it to Andreas for a WP transfer n post it here to prove my n Rogers point.

so, kodak did something right in the 70s that they do not manage today.


as for cam wear n stuff.

no, you cant blame cam wear n lack of lube serv for all this because there are variations within each cart batch - some carts even has some "jitter" others not. this is not a cam isue but at best - lack of production quality management for s8 carts at Kodak.

as for the cart registration problems of today: i am totally convinced that the cart registration probems originates from the suspension system in the carts. i can guarantee that i can improve it to perfection within 1 day easily matching in cam pp solutions. cart remains unchanged, pp possibly minor modded only using a different suspension system - still fitting all s8 cams with a within spec gate. minor or none price rise.

last but not least: take up the slack befor eyou insert the cart in the cam. esp the VNF7240 carts seems to have a lot of slack when i receive them.


from old posts - registration test charts avail for everyone but i still recommend white letters on a black background:

Excellent test for registration is shooting white letters on a black back or even better:
http://www.sinepatterns.com/images/Sector%20Star.gif
If you can put this to rest with any non DV cam you are pretty good

Try to drag it a little here n there on ur screen.

click thumbnail for full size:


if you can put this thing to rest your pretty good - even with a 16 or 35mm.

s

Why not just shoot on a registration chart like this...



..then rewind the film, aim 10-30 mm below and to the right of the original image, then shoot again? You will not only see registration but also breathing at the center of the film.
 

s(hoot)

[Rick Palidwor]

But the film cart is only one link in the chain. The carts might be perfect, but my unmaintained, 40 year-old gummed-up Nizo film claw could botch everything up. And I'd blame Kodak, rather than admit what a gomer I was for shooting with such a dismal camera. ;)

I would then expect that gummed up camera to perform poorly on every cart, in which case you'd be a gomer for continuing with it, like you say, but a lot of these problems we are reporting an intermittent and the only consistent link in the chain is the physical cart. And the suspect is a known offender and the cart is always at the scene of the crime...(okay, maybe I'm going too far with my CSI investigation, but you get my point).

Rick

[Rick Palidwor]

double post

[Alex]

I certainly forward discussion of any problems reported here back to the manufacturing folks.

Um, okay, but surely Kodak was aware of this problem long before the start of this thread?

But the best way is to have the dealer send back the "jittery" film to Kodak for analysis, along with any unopened film from the same batch.

Respectfully, John, that sounds like the best way to make a local film supplier not want to stock super 8 film. Why can't Kodak just shoot some film, develop it and look at it? Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be disrespectful and I do appreciate your input here but the problem is already well documented. I don't see the point in making customers spend time and money to prove to Kodak what is common knowledge.

Roger

I suggested a year or two ago that Kodak Rochestor put on a Super-8 film festival for their own Kodak employees. It would keep them acquainted with the format and in the process they would be doing quality control.

I'd still like to see Kodak do something along those lines. If their own employees don't shoot the stuff, it's not good for the future of the format.

[Patrick]

I certainly can't complain about the majority of footage from my Canon 1014E. Regardless of what cart I put in it, most of the footage is very steady, including 54fps.

However, if someone was intending to do a serious film based project and with their limited budget, could only afford super 8, one might want to consider filming in double super 8 to be absolutely safe from 'jittery' carts. Otherwise, the risk just isnt worth it for such a project.

[Angus]

I've only had one really jittery cartridge, at the time I put it down to the majority of the footage being timelapse with a camera then new to me...but subsequent footage with the same camera suggest it was the cart. Sadly it was for a project that ultimately turned out to be pretty important. This was July 2004 BTW, after the problem was supposed to have been solved.

I do however find that material shot with my Beaulieu 1008XL is always rock steady, whereas my preferred Elmo Super 110 occasionally exhibits very slight jitter...but I put this down to camera and not cartridge.

[christoph]

3) films shot in the 70s = PERFECT as Rogers points out.
some time ago i watched some *fetaure* films made in the 70s shot with various cams within each *feature* and luckily the framelines (various positions - various cams) were visible. films were projected and the framelines was totally bolt-on steady unlike anything i have seen from the 80+.
the image stability was total like projected slides.

i probably would be sceptical about this statement if other people than roger or s8booster had made them, i mean, super8 is bound to be jittery with the small size.
but matter of fact i just seen a 16mm blowup of Nanni Morettis "IO SONO UN AUTARCHICO" the other day. this is a 95min feature shot in 1976 on super8 and while i was knew before that this is supposed to be super8, i just didn't believe it when i sat there watching the screen. it was really fine grain with good shadow detail (the print was faded though) but the most amazing thing was that the registration was up to any film i've shot on 16mm or s16 so far.

i'm serious. as said, i wouldn't believe this to be technical possible if i hadn't seen it. i was convinced that it must have been shot on double super8, but from what i know about nanni moretti i doubt it.
anybody knows more about what camera and stock was used? (maybe i should open a new thread for that).

i've seen countless unsteady super8 charts on several high end cameras, including a leicina special and a freshly serviced beaulieu 5008. in fact, none of my cameras is capable of something nearly as steady, and it's unlikely that they all need servicing.
oh, and i agree the b/w stocks seems to be more prone and it seems 64T would fall into the same category... shame really cos b/w is what i like most.

so i'll just have to deal with using a special pressure plate and stabilizing in post where possible until kodak adresses the problem (if ever).

++ christoph ++