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

[Juno]

But the Super 8 carts are still jittery, several years after the problem was admitted to by Kodak France. :roll:

Respectuflly, John, while I admire Kodak's determination to "stay the course", regarding commercial film production, what about the needs of the little guy that would simply like to shoot his super 8 film with confidence? How many of these people can Kodak afford to lose to miniDV, simply out of frustration with the unpredictability of the Super 8 medium? Blowing your budget on a ton of jittery film leaves a very, very bad taste in your mouth. I don't see these people as going back to film once they move up to larger budgets. Quality and performance isn't just a concern for the pros of today. It is a concern for the pros of tomorrow that are currently trying to shoot Super 8, if Kodak wants them to maintain the "film habit".

Roger

[MovieStuff]

While I appreciate the sentiment (and the idea that I am quote-worthy), I think this thread should be retitled "What is Kodak going to do about jittery carts" out of respect for John. It is unfair to make an association to a problem he has no influence over.

Roger

[Nigel]

You know...I think this "Jittery Cart" is a camera fuck up more than a Kodak fuck up. Granted the carts might be a bit off but your hunk of junk Canon 310 that hasn't been serviced in 30 years has something to do with it too.

Good Luck

[super8man]

Hence my point that nothing good can come of corporations actively participating in internet forums...

[Nigel]

I agree with the title change also.

Good Luck

[teadub]

You know...I think this "Jittery Cart" is a camera fuck up more than a Kodak fuck up. Granted the carts might be a bit off but your hunk of junk Canon 310 that hasn't been serviced in 30 years has something to do with it too.

I agree. I don't deny that there is a jitter problem in existance. All I'm saying is it has not effected my shooting with a properly serviced camera. Also it would explain why older footage has better registration. The footage was shot closer to the manufacture date. Theoretically, the newer camera is less likely in need of a service.

[MovieStuff]

You know...I think this "Jittery Cart" is a camera fuck up more than a Kodak fuck up. Granted the carts might be a bit off but your hunk of junk Canon 310 that hasn't been serviced in 30 years has something to do with it too.

Tell that to Scottness that had a freshly refurbished Beaulieu maul its way through 40 rolls of jittery cart. I have said this many times and I will say it again: We telecine a LOT of films from the 60s and 70s that are absolutely rock steady. We get in contemporary films shot on refurbished/rebuilt to factory spec Nizos, Beaulieus, etc and the films are simply not as steady as the films shot on junk Minolta Auto Paks back in the 70s. I have repaired many, many cameras in my life and, from a mechanical point of view, if a camera has a malfuntion that affects one cart, it won't be a random event that suddenly "skips" a cart leaving some unaffected and it certainly won't be an identical problem across many cameras and many different shooters. I mean, what are the odds that so many different people on this forum would have the exact same camera malfunction, regardless of camera make and model?

The only thing common to super 8 cameras, refurbished or not, are the super 8 carts. They are just not the same as they used to be and Kodak France admitted to the problem when Scottness confronted them with it. So the querstion isn't whether there was a real problem with the carts; there was. The question is whether or not the problem has really been solved. From where I stand, I say it is the same problem as it was four years ago because we see it all the time.

Roger

[Juno]

While I appreciate the sentiment (and the idea that I am quote-worthy), I think this thread should be retitled "What is Kodak going to do about jittery carts"

You are correct. That was an error that I made in haste.

It is unfair to make an association to a problem he has no influence over.

While he appears to be the Kodak spokesperson for super 8, or one of them at least, I would hazard to guess that he has more influence than us complaining filmmakers as he comes here to hear our gripes. So the association may be incorrect with respect to the fact that he does not have direct decision making power, I would assume that it is a given that his input holds a lot of weight.


For those that contend that it is a camera issue, I cannot disagree in certain cases. A camera that functions below par cannot be expected to give satisfactory results. However, I feel that this just exacerbates(sp?) the Jittery cart issue. And I have seen the results of cameras that were in top notch condition that yeilded a jittery image from bad carts.

Title has been changed!

[Nigel]

I think Scottness has jitter along with a whole lotta issues with his film but that is neither here nor there.

What I will say is that some of the blame lands on Kodak's lap for sure.

However.

Close tolerances are close tolerances. If the carts is off slightly and the camera is on then there may be problems. If the camera is off and the cart is on then there may be problems. If they are both off there may be problems. If they are both on there may still be problems.

To say that all the jitter can be blamed on Kodak may not be the right way to go. If a plane crashes we can't just say it was terrorists. That is not to open a can of worms just to illustrate cause and effect.

I have yet to get a Jittery cart. I am waiting for one. In the last two weeks I have shot more S8 that I have in the last year and yet everything seems to be trouble free.

All of my S8 has been as steady as S8 can be. I have never seen drifting frame lines or jump/jitter in any way. I did get some breathing once but that was due to my projector.

Good Luck

[John_Pytlak]

I certainly forward discussion of any problems reported here back to the manufacturing folks. 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. As others have said, unsteadiness can be related to the film (e.g. perforating), the cartridge, the camera, the projector, or the transfer. Things like relative humidity can even have an effect, as very damp conditions can make the gelatin emulsion more sticky. And the small size of a Super-8 frame makes the slightest mispostioning by the camera claw much more visible than on a larger format, especially one that uses a pin-registered camera.

[downix]

That's one of the reasons I want to make a pin-registered Super8 camera. I know, what's the point, but the thought is nice.

[MovieStuff]

I have yet to get a Jittery cart. I am waiting for one. In the last two weeks I have shot more S8 that I have in the last year and yet everything seems to be trouble free. All of my S8 has been as steady as S8 can be.

Well, the funny thing is that I had a relatively new super 8 shooter send us some film and he was talking about how impressed he was with the stability of super 8. We finally looked at his film and, while it wasn't exactly jittery, it wasn't what I would call "stable" relative to the footage from the 70s that we routinely get. I am not suggesting that you have less standards regarding super 8 footage but I do feel many that shoot super 8 today see footage without obvious jitter and assume that is as stable as it can be. Relative to the quality of today's carts, I would say that is probably correct and some footage comes out just fine. But it used to be consistantly better and, at the very least, more predictable. If only unrefurbished cameras had jitter or stability issues, then I would say it was a camera issue but too many people with serviced cameras have random registration issues. Again, Kodak France admitted there was a manufacturing issue with the carts so this isn't a myth.

Roger

[Nigel]

Roger--

The only reason why I didn't say that my S8 is "Rock Solid" is because a while back you jumped all over me for saying that...

Like I said--I think that Kodak is a factor(a huge one) but not the only one.

I just saw 20+ carts of V2 200T shot with 4 cameras and no a single jump/twitch/jitter in the whole lot. I will see another 20+ in the next week or so and my guess is that it will be of the same quality.

Good Luck

[MovieStuff]

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

[MovieStuff]

John, I will take this a step further and make the very same suggestion I made to the two nice Kodak ladies I had a teleconference with a couple of years ago. 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. Anyone with jitter would know it was their camera and repair shops would be back in business. Right now, Super 8 is dying on the vine for a variety of reasons and solving the jitter issue would be a huge, welcomed step in the right direction if Kodak wants to maintain its customer base at the super 8 level.

Roger