does pro8mm.com really off set the lens on MAX 8?

[Mitch Perkins]

you widen the gate and offset the viewfinder and go film,

Nice. Have you seen any test footage yet?

I've modded only a couple of Beaulieaus [gate only] so far, and noticed a possible obstruction in the form of a black metal plate just inside the aperture. I'd like to know if this plate is an issue.


Mitch

[aj]

you widen the gate and offset the viewfinder and go film,

Nice. Have you seen any test footage yet?

I hope you are not expecting a reply from OP

[Mitch Perkins]

you widen the gate and offset the viewfinder and go film,

Nice. Have you seen any test footage yet?

I hope you are not expecting a reply from OP

I expect only to trip and hurt my face; in this way it has not yet happened.

Accurate information regarding the degree to which the edge of the above-mentioned black metal plate encroaches upon the extra image area gained through widening the gate is welcomed from any source.

Well, maybe not from Satan.

Mitch

[richard p. t.]

I can see how moving the viewfinder is a viable solution to one of the issues with the SD8 modification: it would show in the viewfinder most of the frame, and the image seen there would be 'centred' not to one side.
I think this mod is a great idea and I will do it some time to my 4008. I cant see how it can be the whole story with the Max8 modified cameras, however. I don't see how moving the viewfinder would overcome the problem with the lens not being centred with relation to the film plane. Sure the viewfinder is, and that is very useful. But surely with the Max8 cameras, when you zoom in for instance, you zoom towards the very centre of the SD8 image. With this mod, you would inevitably be zooming towards the centre of the unmodified normal super 8 image. Not that I am fussed about zooming.

[low grade moron]

No. I just widened the gate and ran a couple of tests. Funny, on my 814, I seem to have almost the entire zoom range (10mm-max) while on my 1014, I'm much more limited (20mm-max). All I did was recut the gates on both. I'm thinking my 814 will be my main camera from now forward.

In my recent research in the past month to get down to the truth about this gate filing nonsense, I had been unable to find any person who was willing to post the true useful focal length limits of the modification. ie. tested before vignetting renders the image useless. The people claiming to invent this concept (actually "invented" not by them, but way back in the 1970's- 80's) do not ever reveal this in any posts I have been able to locate. Thank you for not ducking this as I have read in so many posts by others in the course of my research.

A 20mm limit on the 1014 makes the modification virtually pointless. 20mm is a close-up focal length in super 8. The user is therefore restricted to close-ups and telephoto settings. And subject to not only the severe restrictions imposed in indoor shooting options, but must suffer the lack of visual depth in his images which such long focal lengths impose.

10mm for the 814 is a little more reasonable as it is, at least, a super 8 normal lens focal length (based on universal standards). However, you are then left with a camera not able to provide wide angle capability.

One can see that the wide-angle adaptor might prove worthwhile with the 814, bring it down to a reasonable wide lens focal length, while the 1014 will remain impractical.

Though all such modifications for Max 8 seem pointless as they result in scratching of the emulsion unless a complete job is done as Pro 8 does, which involves a new gate (among all the other modifications).

He said that on top of that, very few lenses of less than 8mm focal length will work on the Max-8 cameras ...

Obviously, any C-mount lens designed for 16mm will work, as the frame is much wider (and taller) than Max 8.

[MovieStuff]

In my recent research in the past month to get down to the truth about this gate filing nonsense, I had been unable to find any person who was willing to post the true useful focal length limits of the modification. ie. tested before vignetting renders the image useless. The people claiming to invent this concept (actually "invented" not by them, but way back in the 1970's- 80's) do not ever reveal this in any posts I have been able to locate. Thank you for not ducking this as I have read in so many posts by others in the course of my research.

I have never seen anyone that has filed open their gate "duck" the question about what focal lengths work with the wider aspect ratio. It is common knowledge that vignetting occurs on one side and everyone that has experimented with the wider gate has made that perfectly clear with no attempt to hide such information about vignetting. In fact, it is such common knowledge that it is apparent you already knew it before you posted this message, so I'm not sure what your beef here is all about. Instead of barging in with an accusational tone, which rarely gets anyone's respect nor generates an air of generosity in those you need information from, why not simply ask those experienced with the wider gate what focal lengths work and which ones don't? I'm sure they'd be happy to answer if they know. Considering that this is only your fourth post on this forum and the other three posts asked nothing about focal lengths related to Max-8, I can't see that your beef about people dodging your questions is really valid.

More to the point, why not just experiment with a cheap camera and see for yourself what the results are? ;)

Just a friendly suggestion.......

Roger

[low grade moron]

I have never seen anyone that has filed open their gate "duck" the question about what focal lengths work with the wider aspect ratio. It is common knowledge that vignetting occurs on one side and everyone that has experimented with the wider gate has made that perfectly clear with no attempt to hide such information about vignetting.

...


More to the point, why not just experiment with a cheap camera and see for yourself what the results are? ;)

Just a friendly suggestion.......

Examining your statement, you once again demonstrate a lack of clear thinking and logical deduction. Can you not read that the Canon 1014 and the Canon 814 have different results as a result of this modification? Why in the world would any thinking person, based on this, therefore experiment on a "cheap camera"? Except to do all their filming on a "cheap camera" in the event it pans out? What if they want to use a good camera? Obviously results are not "transferable" camera design to different camera design. Your post makes as little sense as the last post of yours I commented on. Please, for all concerned, begin thinking these things through using basic thinking and reasoning skills before posting them. All around you will benefit, especially you.

With respect to your other assertions, perhaps I have missed the answer to this focal length question in my month of searching? It is obviously important to the crucial most common use (other than sporting events or telephoto photography) of the cameras after they are modified with intent to use this non-standard format. Correct?

If I have missed this answer and it has been clearly stated, please, for everyone's benefit, especially those who are considering "fixing" a vital part of their camera which might induce disasterous effects if modified, where exactly this information was relayed? Just one post of the useable wide angle focal length limit would make your case.

Please, the validity of your reply depends on your producing an example of somebody else who has done this modification and promotes it telling us what the limits of its focal length on the wide end (ie. the useable end of indoor shooting) is.

All that can be determined so far from this thread (and others I have seen), without butchering a good camera and shooting a bunch of film and developing it, is that the modification is pointless on a Canon 1014 for practical filmmaking, and only barely useful on an 814 -- though even then virtually negated by scratches in the emulsion which are "likely" to occur (according to many posts including one above).

Which leaves any thinking person to conclude that the only solution is to purchase a conversion from Pro 8 if you want to try the Max 8 psuedo-format! There is no other possible conclusion.

[MovieStuff]

Examining your statement, you once again demonstrate a lack of clear thinking and logical deduction. ..... Your post makes as little sense as the last post of yours I commented on..

Whatever. I'm not looking for an argument so you're wasting your insults on the wrong person.. Experimenting with a cheap camera was just a friendly suggestion to familiarize yourself with the modification process. As cheap as Super 8 cameras are, you could do it to a variety of cameras and not have to rely on information from others. Then you could post your various results for forum members to benefit from, thus showing those you feel are not forthcoming with information the proper way to share data on a forum.

Roger

[mattias]

the proper way to share data on a forum.

i agree with trevor (it's lame to use an alias for an alias, isn't it?) that people on the internet, this board included, tend to enjoy spreading rumors, guesses and even misinformation much more than actually quoting real sources or trying things out and sharing their experiences. this said there's nothing in your post as far as i can tell that claims that experimenting with cheap cameras will teach you anything about any other cameras. i guess "people" are even worse at reading properly than at sharing data. ;-)

/matt

[aj]

Considering testing lenses and cameras for SD8. Wouldn't it be practical to put a S8 c/mount lens on a 16mm camera and see how 'big' its image circle is? Thus knowing what usability it has. Then put a 16mm lens on a S8 c-mount camera and check there what shadows are produced by the camera innerworks...

[MovieStuff]

it's lame to use an alias for an alias, isn't it?...

And tiring.... :roll:

...people on the internet, this board included, tend to enjoy spreading rumors, guesses and even misinformation much more than actually quoting real sources or trying things out and sharing their experiences....

Agreed. I see it all the time. I also see new members that demand information on topics they themselves are too lazy to experiment with, no matter how simple. How many times are we asked "I've never shot film before but am starting on my first feature. How will Kodachrome look when shot at night?" or other such nonsense.....

this said there's nothing in your post as far as i can tell that claims that experimenting with cheap cameras will teach you anything about any other cameras. i guess "people" are even worse at reading properly than at sharing data. ;-)

Seems that way sometimes. And it isn't quite like suggesting someone buy a Panavision camera and rip it apart. You can always learn something from experience, even if it isn't the experience you intended it to be. Sometimes you just have to try things for yourself, especially if you've already made up your mind not to trust information from those that have already tried it, in which case bitching about the lack of information they provide seems kind of pointless, at least to me. It's like the old Woody Allen joke about the two old ladies in the cafeteria line:

Old Lady #1: Oy, the food here is just terrible.

Old Lady #2: Yeah, and in such small portions, too.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Considering testing lenses and cameras for SD8. Wouldn't it be practical to put a S8 c/mount lens on a 16mm camera and see how 'big' its image circle is? Thus knowing what usability it has. Then put a 16mm lens on a S8 c-mount camera and check there what shadows are produced by the camera innerworks...

Don't ask me. I obviously suffer from a lack of clear thinking and logical deduction. How I can manage the brainpower to operate this keyboard is beyond me, as most things are....

Roger

[aj]

Considering testing lenses and cameras for SD8. Wouldn't it be practical to put a S8 c/mount lens on a 16mm camera and see how 'big' its image circle is? Thus knowing what usability it has. Then put a 16mm lens on a S8 c-mount camera and check there what shadows are produced by the camera innerworks...

Don't ask me. I obviously suffer from a lack of clear thinking and logical deduction. How I can manage the brainpower to operate this keyboard is beyond me, as most things are....

Roger

I just thought to chip in an idea for a testing procedure for people with c-mount gear. I don't have a 16mm camera or c-mount lens.

I never doubted your brainpower, all (euh, most?) of the regulars never did.

Is mattias having access to the IP-numbers of the posters? Or their cookies or something. How does one guess who is who through a double cloak layer? Something ancient basic like text usage style?

[Scotness]

I'd suggest getting a Leicina Special and experimenting on them since theyr'e the bigest piece of crap around when it comes to S8 cameras

Scot

[wado1942]

I DID talk to the guy who invented the S-D-8 technique and he said what others said here. Some cameras vingette severely at lower focal lengths and some loose very little if any range. He mentioned he used several cameras because Nizos, though quieter, have rather crappy lenses that vengette in much of their range while Canons tend to have wider ranges in the new format. As for scratching of the side, if you're careful about how you cut the gate and round the edges, there's no scratching. He said all cameras are different and you just have to experiment. That's why you keep getting different answeres about how they behave.