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

[Scotness]

I know this is waay OT, but for those of us who've just landed on this planet, what does "fair dinkum" mean?

"fair dinkum" is an Australian term for genuine/real/undeniable etc.

I hope I got that right

That's right - I was trying to distinguish between the slight movment some people were describing and the fair dinkum ridgey-didge utter heart breaking crap I experienced

Scot

[Angus]

Part of the problem here may well be that some of us are able to accept a greater level of jitter or other distortion more than others.

For example, those of us who project film generally do so on an amateur basis for very small audiences. Minor jittor might not be noticed by all of us....whereas somebody using super 8 professionally definately would be affected by it!

[VideoFred]

This is a very old problem...
The problem is build in in the Super-8 system, I'm afraid.
The film makes a very strange loop in the cartridge.
This is asking for troubles, if you go for mass production.
Everything must be very fine adjusted.

Clive Tobin could be right, you know... If the emulsion or the pressure plate is to smooth, the film could move a little bit between two frames. Remember 'a little bit' means 1/10mm, not much, hug?

Me and my father started filming on Super-8 in 1967.
We used Agfa, Perutz, Kodak etc..
We tried everything that was available.

Some cartridges where good, some where bad, no matter the manifacturer. Some even did not run at all!

I still have all these films, you still see where we took the damn cartridge out, to advance the film a little, then putting it back in the camera, hoping it would run again.

This was the reason why we switched to Fuji Single-8 in 1972.
We never had any problem any more, and sharpness was better, too.

But I have lots of seventies Kodak reels from others, here.
And yes, it looks like in those days the cardridges where better.
Contrast was 'softer' too, What type of film was this actualy?

Fred.

[Sparky]

-

Mark

[John_Pytlak]

Part of the problem here may well be that some of us are able to accept a greater level of jitter or other distortion more than others.

For example, those of us who project film generally do so on an amateur basis for very small audiences. Minor jittor might not be noticed by all of us....whereas somebody using super 8 professionally definately would be affected by it!

Again, the Super-8 format was originally developed for amateur home moviemaking, not professional production. It was designed to be a mass-produced consumer product affordable to home movie enthusiasts. Although it has found some professional applications, those professionals that use it recognize its limitations, and often choose to use the format just because it it the best way to reproduce the "home movie look".

If there is an abnormal problem with the film or cartridges, Kodak will address the problem. Samples are needed to fully investigate any problem. But internal testing shows the current films to perform as expected.

This is a very old problem...
The problem is build in in the Super-8 system, I'm afraid.
The film makes a very strange loop in the cartridge.
This is asking for troubles, if you go for mass production.
Everything must be very fine adjusted.

[super8man]

I think that sounds about right...I do not think I have knowingly experienced the problem and only heard about it on this board way back when...

Have I seen jitter in transfers from the 70's? You betcha...but I can guarantee the footage I witnessed was shot on a cheaper than cheap movie camera (probably a Kodak - no offense, just truth) and it shutter BECAUSE the guy was running with the camera...

Anywho, I got 4 fresh rolls of K40 back from wallymarty and they are perfect...shot on a Zeiss GS8 and a Eumig Nautica...

Last time I checked, when people on this board were asked how much film they shot. most hinted an under 10 rolls per year - if that....seems to me we have a lot of armchair quarterbacks.

[MovieStuff]

Again, the Super-8 format was originally developed for amateur home moviemaking, not professional production. It was designed to be a mass-produced consumer product affordable to home movie enthusiasts.

John, you are on a Super 8 forum. No need for bold print. You think we don't know what super 8 was originally meant for?

Look, regardless of it's intended purpose, Super 8 used to be dependable and steady. Now it is a crap shoot and risky to work with. To suggest that we are being unreasonable in our expectations would mean having to ignore clear evidence that the carts used to be better than they currently are, even if Kodak is satisfied with the QC on them. If that is Kodak's position, then they should come right out and tell us we are wasting our time.

Although it has found some professional applications, those professionals that use it recognize its limitations, and often choose to use the format just because it it the best way to reproduce the "home movie look".

"Recognize its limitations"????? You mean recognize its current limitations, don't you? You are actually suggesting that the jitter we complain about should just be accepted as part of the "home movie look"? I am stunned. No home movies from our family ever had the kind of image displacement I routinely see from modern carts. More to the point, Kodak could have never marketed Super 8 successfully in the 60s and 70s with the kind of jitter we are talking about. You are side stepping the issue with a quick company line and, frankly, it's a bit insulting. Please do not do this.

If there is an abnormal problem with the film or cartridges, Kodak will address the problem. Samples are needed to fully investigate any problem.

How much of this R&D are we supposed to finance for Kodak, John? I'm not being a wise ass but, really, you talk as if Kodak can not afford to buy a handful of ebay cameras and spend a day shooting a buttload of tests.

But internal testing shows the current films to perform as expected.

I guess Kodak's definition of "as expected" is different than ours. Why doesn't Kodak simply call us liars and get on with it. I mean, with the broad sampling that Kodak is using to address this jitter issue, it is obvious that we are all just making this up.

John, does Kodak want us to buy Super 8 film? It sure doesn't feel like it....

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Last time I checked, when people on this board were asked how much film they shot. most hinted an under 10 rolls per year - if that

I think people would buy more readily if jitter were not lurking in the shadows to ruin a big project. But if people ARE only shooting about 10 carts a year and getting jitter on a regular basis, that only drives home the point about how pervasive the jitter problem really is. I mean, if people shot hundreds of rolls and got jitter on only one or two, then that would be one thing. But to shoot only 10 rolls a year and get jitter on any of them is significant.

....seems to me we have a lot of armchair quarterbacks.

Again, we see contemporary footage with frame line swelling all the time. Like Scotts 40+ rolls of jittery K40, all this footage was shot on a freshly serviced camera. I'm glad your footage came out good but it is the unpredictabilty of the jitter that is the problem and a wider sampling would bear that out. Otherwise, why would we see it so often and why would so many people complain about it? The new E64 samples had obvious image displacement, for crying out loud. That's as new a Super 8 cart as we're going to get and the problem is still present.

Roger

[Scotness]

Again, the Super-8 format was originally developed for amateur home moviemaking, not professional production. It was designed to be a mass-produced consumer product affordable to home movie enthusiasts. Although it has found some professional applications, those professionals that use it recognize its limitations, and often choose to use the format just because it it the best way to reproduce the "home movie look".

If there is an abnormal problem with the film or cartridges, Kodak will address the problem. Samples are needed to fully investigate any problem. But internal testing shows the current films to perform as expected.

John your response is very disheartening - you're the only person here from Kodak who talks to us - and basically you're telling us you or Kodak don't care enough to fix the problem properly.

Let me say it once and for all quite clearly: samples have been sent in, Kodak have admitted that the problem is theirs - and yet we still have the problem - what more do you want from us?

I think behind all the great PR from Kodak about still supporting for the format and introducing new stocks there's a very real amount of apathy towards Super 8.

John I want to shoot a low budget feature next year - and I can only afford Super 8 or miniDV - and with this kind of support from Kodak why should I bother with Super 8?

Could you please answer this directly?

Thanks

Scot

[Juno]

John, does Kodak want us to buy Super 8 film? It sure doesn't feel like it....

Roger

Maybe that is part of Kodak's M.O. It would make their job easier to just have the format gradually fade out of popularity due to people just giving up on it. That way they don't have to bluntly face the public and say that they don't want to support it anymore. I hope that I am wrong about this and if I am then I ask you John, please, just get it fixed!!!

[S8 Booster]

feel tempted to say that we (read: this community) have every resource in hand (cams(gear/capacity/scripts/ideas++++) to make full bore feature films in s8 - but kodak carts - which is a shame by any measure.

just think about all those refurbishing their expensive cams for max performance spending $$$ and still get stuck with the weak link: the carts.

bad

s

[Angus]

OK here's one idea.

John Pytlack correctly points out that as a format designed for home movies perfection was never intended.

Roger and others are saying that the jitter problem is worse today than it was in the 70's and early 80's...am I correct?

Now...those of us who have frozen carts of older dates could shoot them now and examine the results closely compared to new carts and see if there is a difference.

What I need from Roger is some idea of the timescale here. When does Roger think (roughly) the problem starts to get worse? I have a few sound carts dated 1983 that I will be shooting in the coming months...are sound carts affected too?

I could dig out the results of some carts from the late 70's that I shot a couple of years ago and look at the frame lines...but I don't recall at the time that they were any steadier.

I'm still wondering if this is something that us amateurs don't notice, or if it's to do with old camears.

[thebrowniecameraguy]

But you wont get results comparable to a 2002/3/4/5 K40 or E125T cart, correct?

I also have a shooting idea, I still have some unused sealed KII carts that I can shoot in a 'newish' camera. My best option would be the Elmo 1012SXL.

I have shot an Ektachrome sound cart in it and the jitter issue was non-existent. The K40 carts however have had some slit jitter problems.

Although, 1 roll I have I shot in an Elmo C-300 and it jitters like nuts a certain points.

I have had a Plus X cartridge become so stressed that the film snapped while shooting a Sign Language(no need for sound when you can't hear anyway((My professor, not me))) movie and luckily I had shot each scene first with a video camera and then watched my results before filming. But again, I lost the other half of the movie when the cartidge locked and the film snapped. Unfortunatley I had no idea this had happened until I unloaded the first finished cartridge. By that time of day it was too dark to continue and my classroom partner had to leave.

I reiterate that I am glad for Regular 8's continued existence and support, but I just cant put down some of my Super 8 cameras, and now I am moving to a residential university to continue my hobby of teaching 8mm to the unenlightened.

Ohhh right, back to the bitchin'. Well, I think a test is the perfect measure for this post. Good idea Angus!

Jordan

[etimh]

Again, the Super-8 format was originally developed for amateur home moviemaking, not professional production. It was designed to be a mass-produced consumer product affordable to home movie enthusiasts.

John, you are on a Super 8 forum. No need for bold print. You think we don't know what super 8 was originally meant for?

I don't know, with the high expectations from all the "pros" around here, it seems like many have forgotten about super 8's origins.

Look, regardless of it's intended purpose, Super 8 used to be dependable and steady. Now it is a crap shoot and risky to work with.

Hey, I don't know about the "good old days," all I have to deal with is the medium at hand. The arbitrary results from the current carts, whether it is focus breathing or jitter, IS AN INHERENT IDIOSYNCRASY OF THE MEDIUM as it exists TODAY. How is this any different than all you guys who keep saying we should stop our complaining about K40's demise and get to work with the (crappy) new film? Hey, I say deal with the imperfect images and integrate it into your work, or leave super 8 and go to 16mm.

You are side stepping the issue with a quick company line and, frankly, it's a bit insulting. Please do not do this.

YOU are going to drive this guy away. From everything I've read, John is doing his best to simultaneously present Kodak's official position on things while also giving us his personal thoughts and observations. All between deflecting the barrage of cry-baby assaults being flung at him in this thread. Give the guy break, he's just an employee who has done us the favor of stopping by to give us some feedback. He's not the official representative of Kodak here nor is he some manifestation of the Kodak corporate entity in all its facets.

John I want to shoot a low budget feature next year - and I can only afford Super 8 or miniDV - and with this kind of support from Kodak why should I bother with Super 8?

You shouldn't, if you're striving for a highly conventionsalized "professional" look to your film. Just look to another artform, painting, for instance, for a parallel example. If I choose to make a painting using traditional oil paints, one of the inherent qualities of the medium is its slow drying time. This must be taken into consideration during the planning, execution, and even the exhibition of the work. Some consider it a drawback but reconcile the fact in terms of its perceived advantages.

Same with the inherent qualities of the current super 8 format. It is, what it is, and the outcomes can be viewed as a positive characteristic or, depending on the requirements of the project, an unacceptable negative. But no nostalgic hand-wringing for the "carts of old" are going to change them today. And considering Kodak's actions of the past year, I think it is naive and an absurd waste of time to think that Kodak will instigate any of the quality control revamps that you guys are crying out for.

John, does Kodak want us to buy Super 8 film? It sure doesn't feel like it....

Roger

Maybe that is part of Kodak's M.O. It would make their job easier to just have the format gradually fade out of popularity due to people just giving up on it. That way they don't have to bluntly face the public and say that they don't want to support it anymore. I hope that I am wrong about this and if I am then I ask you John, please, just get it fixed!!!

On the other hand, the conspiracy theorist in me sees this as entirely possible. Don't get me wrong, I have no love for Kodak when they reveal themselves as the insensitive and incompetent corporation we know they can be. And I appreciate the frustration expressed here. But just like my slow painful acceptance of the K40 tragedy, I'm just being realistic about what Kodak can be expected to do, considering the current state of things. Instead, I have chosen to adopt the medium as an expressive tool that I realize has many built-in difficulties, and what some may deem to be "flaws." I've simply tried to take these unique elements and adapt them and integrate them into the film work I do--I kind of like it when my image "breathes" and loses focus. Its a metaphor for the whole damned experience!

Tim

[Patrick]

Scott, realistically, I don't visualise seeing Kodak correcting this problem anytime soon, if ever. I don't know what their reasoning is but it's almost like they have something to hide as usual. Though by all means, everybody send in samples of old or new films as Angus suggested.

If you are considering shooting another feature film in Super 8, I seriously think that Double Super 8 may be your only safe option. Besides the greater stability and much reduced chance of film breathing, DS8 seems well suited to feature film work. I can't recall if reels of film come in 100 or 200ft film but regardless, the total running time beats the hell out of those 2 and a 1/2 minute standard cartridges we are used to using. And remember, with purchase and developing, you are only paying for half of the length of the finished reel of film...certainly economical. Incidentally, I was reading that back in the 70s, DS8 cameras were used for semi professional use in filming long events with the 8mm format.

And sure, getting film for DS8 can certainly be a hassle but since you would be buying in bulk for a feature, such inconveniences wouldnt really be an issue.