A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by MovieStuff »

carllooper wrote:There is digital registration being used in the transfer which is introducing the rocking.

The digital registration is required because the Logmar, as per SMPTE standard, registers the current frame by a sprocket hole offset from such by two frames, whereas the transfer system used doesn't. Normally the transfer system that Friedemann uses, uses the sprocket hole of the current frame. But as can be seen, the sprocket hole against the current frame has some vertical variation, due entirely to variations in the sprocket pitch of the film stock rather than anything to do with pin-registration.
I think the problem isn't the pitch but, rather, the film was perfed with a kind of saw tooth angle on the sprocket holes. The Lasergraphics station uses the sprocket hole edges for lateral registration and, if the sprocket holes are at an angle, then you can get an unsteady image. The pitch, which is the distance between the sprocket holes, I imagine is fine. And the sprocket hole offset isn't as important as is thought, presuming that the film is perfed correctly. Ideally you should use the same sprocket hole to register during transfer as you do when shooting but there have been many tests done long ago that showed it made no visible difference. But, again, this presumes the film is perfed correctly.

Roger
carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by carllooper »

MovieStuff wrote:
carllooper wrote:There is digital registration being used in the transfer which is introducing the rocking.

The digital registration is required because the Logmar, as per SMPTE standard, registers the current frame by a sprocket hole offset from such by two frames, whereas the transfer system used doesn't. Normally the transfer system that Friedemann uses, uses the sprocket hole of the current frame. But as can be seen, the sprocket hole against the current frame has some vertical variation, due entirely to variations in the sprocket pitch of the film stock rather than anything to do with pin-registration.
I think the problem isn't the pitch but, rather, the film was perfed with a kind of saw tooth angle on the sprocket holes. The Lasergraphics station uses the sprocket hole edges for lateral registration and, if the sprocket holes are at an angle, then you can get an unsteady image. The pitch, which is the distance between the sprocket holes, I imagine is fine. And the sprocket hole offset isn't as important as is thought, presuming that the film is perfed correctly. Ideally you should use the same sprocket hole to register during transfer as you do when shooting but there have been many tests done long ago that showed it made no visible difference. But, again, this presumes the film is perfed correctly.

Roger
Yes, Friedemann mentioned the same thing. The sprocket is at a slight angle, and with such an error, any horizontal weave, otherwise allowed by the standard, will then affect it's vertical pitch. And it's only really the top/bottom of the sprocket that should be used for reference. The edge of the film itself should be used for horizontal registration (whichever edge is used as the 'hard' edge in the camera).

So yes, ideally a transfer system should use the +2 offset sprocket for registration, either mechanically, opto-electronically or digitally. In this case sprockets were not used at all.

Friedemann mentioned he ended up using trackers on the frame line to do the stabilisation. Looks like he didn't constrain that to XY translation - and so the occasional slight rocking.

So it still remains to be demonstrated whether the camera's pin-registration is actually working. Basically it needs to be partnered with a matching transfer system. So far the pin-registration is not being exploited in any way. That said, pin-registration does also ensure the film is not moving in any way during exposure. So if nothing else it will be improving the sharpness in that way. Freidemann did mention that when running through a projector it was very stable.

Registration clearly matters as the sprocket jiggle demonstrates, but whether that's actually resolved by pin-registration (in both camera and transfer), or must eventually involve digital means, has yet to be explored.

Carl
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/
doug
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:19 pm
Real name: Doug Palmer
Location: Bridport UK
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by doug »

carllooper wrote:
Registration clearly matters as the sprocket jiggle demonstrates, but whether that's actually resolved by pin-registration (in both camera and transfer), or must eventually involve digital means, has yet to be explored.

Carl
Has your Logmar cleared customs yet, Carl ? Look forward to hearing your thoughts and especially how results are on a traditional projector.
Doug
www.filmisfine.co
cineandy
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 9:00 pm
Location: U.K
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by cineandy »

Would it be possible to upload/show the footage without the stabilisation or any grain/noise reduction?
carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by carllooper »

doug wrote:Has your Logmar cleared customs yet, Carl ? Look forward to hearing your thoughts and especially how results are on a traditional projector.
Hi Doug,

yes it arrived yesterday afternoon. I have a roll of Plus-X I've been saving for use on it. Still need to do some testing before I expose that roll. Its a valuable roll because Plus X isn't manufactured any more. So need to do something special with it.

C
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/
carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by carllooper »

cineandy wrote:Would it be possible to upload/show the footage without the stabilisation or any grain/noise reduction?
Friedemann will have some examples of such. I guess he hasn't yet visited here of late. I'll post him and see if there are any frames he can post.

You can also download the 2K mov here (rather than trying to watch a less than optimal version over the internet)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9PJ3K ... dNaVk/view

C
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/
PyrodsTechnology
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:45 pm
Real name: Roberto Pirodda
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by PyrodsTechnology »

So digital registration , eh ? At that point even a Beaulieu ZM with the same Optivaron lens should deliver the same (or at least very close) stunning quality. I remember very well that old Kodachrome recently digitized show super steady perforations. It appairs that now Kodak has improved filmstock but lowered perforator gears.
Roberto
carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by carllooper »

PyrodsTechnology wrote:So digital registration , eh ? At that point even a Beaulieu ZM with the same Optivaron lens should deliver the same (or at least very close) stunning quality. I remember very well that old Kodachrome recently digitized show super steady perforations. It appairs that now Kodak has improved filmstock but lowered perforator gears.
Roberto

Yes, that's exactly right. In the example posted, the pin-registration isn't being exploited at all. That said, the pin-rego, in conjunction with the custom plate, may be providing for a sharper image than that obtainable with a plastic pressure plate. I imagine.

But yes, the 70s lens, the 21st century filmstock and scanner, are that which are doing most of the work here.

And of course, most importantly, Friedemann's cinematography. Without which the rest would be irrelevant.

I was fortunate enough to find the same Optivaron Schneider off ebay a while back. Had previously spent months looking for an M to C mount adapter so I could use the ones I already had (for the Leicina). But to no avail. Had to get a third one, with the C mount thread.

C
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/
doug
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:19 pm
Real name: Doug Palmer
Location: Bridport UK
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by doug »

I wonder if temperature or climatic conditions has an effect on cartridge steadiness. You folks are saying the old 70's carts were better than now. But I took plenty of footage in India late 70s on Kodachrome and Agfa, and the jitter was there then, although somewhat less I think with the sound cartridges. Camera was Beaulieu 5008ms with the nice zoom and otherwise looked very crisp, and sound was superb. But the jitter evident in landscape-type shots was one of the reasons I went to 16mm.
Some of the stuff in UK looked steadier though.
Doug
www.filmisfine.co
PyrodsTechnology
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:45 pm
Real name: Roberto Pirodda
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by PyrodsTechnology »

Carl you are right about plastic pressure plate. I think that Schneider Optivaron zoom isn' t the best S8 lens though. I have gotten my best S8 shoot ever with a Bolex DS8 camera with Switar lenses. Unfortunately those Switars can't be fitted on a Logmar due to different focal plane
carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by carllooper »

PyrodsTechnology wrote:Carl you are right about plastic pressure plate. I think that Schneider Optivaron zoom isn' t the best S8 lens though. I have gotten my best S8 shoot ever with a Bolex DS8 camera with Switar lenses. Unfortunately those Switars can't be fitted on a Logmar due to different focal plane
I haven't used Switars for the Bolex DS8 - not sure if they are the same as those for the Bolex 16mm, but the one's I have for that are Switar RX ones, and designed to compensate for the Bolex prism, so they wouldn't work on the Logmar. I have an 18-86mm Switar which would work at the telephoto end ok. The 10mm prime wouldn't work. However the Logmar does have an adjustable flange depth which might conceivably allow the 10mm to find focus where it otherwise wouldn't. I also have a wide-angle adapter for the 10mm, to get a 5.5mm angle of view. Really nice adapter - very sharp lines and no distortion. On 16mm there is some slight vignetting, but there wouldn't be on the Logmar.

C
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/
carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper
Contact:

Re: A new Logmar shot film, by Friedemann Wachsmuth

Post by carllooper »

doug wrote:I wonder if temperature or climatic conditions has an effect on cartridge steadiness. You folks are saying the old 70's carts were better than now. But I took plenty of footage in India late 70s on Kodachrome and Agfa, and the jitter was there then, although somewhat less I think with the sound cartridges. Camera was Beaulieu 5008ms with the nice zoom and otherwise looked very crisp, and sound was superb. But the jitter evident in landscape-type shots was one of the reasons I went to 16mm.
Some of the stuff in UK looked steadier though.
Yes, apparently at some unique moment in time, carts suddenly became more jittery, but before that happened I had already moved on to 16mm and then to video, to digital, to animation, to software development ... arriving back today where I started: at Super8.

Of course, today it's no longer a question of adopting one technology to the exclusion of others. I work across all of them. :)

My understanding is that Kodak stopped using lubricant on the film (or changed their supplier?) which had some sort of effect on various tensions. The advice I was given was to give carts a really good shake before use, banging them around as much as possible, to loosen up the film a bit. Don't know if it's that's still true, or was ever true, but certainly doesn't hurt.

C
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/
Post Reply