Logmar Super 8 camera frame specs

[Nicholas Kovats]

Tommy Madsen of Logmar camera has sent me the exact Super 8 frame dimensions for the Logmar camera. I wish to compliment this camera with appropriate anamorphic systems to output both classic Cinemascope 2.40:1 and 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratios. The Super 8 frame spec is from http://www.gcmstudio.com/filmspecs/filmspecs.html

Super-8 frame dimensions
1. Camera aperture size (H x W): 4.22 x 5.63mm
2. Frame area: 23.76sq. mm
3. Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Logmar Super-8 frame dimensions:
1. Camera aperture size (H x W): 4.20 x 6.30mm
2. Frame area: 26.46sq. mm
3. Aspect ratio: 1.5:1

The Logmar camera gate represents approximately an 11 % increase in imaging area over the standard Super 8 1.33:1 frame. It's slightly more rectangular 1.5:1 frame approaches the classic aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1). I have applied various anamorphic compression ratios as listed on this great Super 8 anamorphic adapter/lens page which provides a comprehensive listing of commonly available adapter/optics, i.e. http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Anamorphic_Lenses. This 1.5:1 frame spec will result in the following non-standard anamorphic widescreen aspect ratios, i.e.

1. Logmar 1.5:1 x 1.33x compression = 2.00:1
2. Logmar 1.5:1 x 1.42x compression = 2.13:1
3. Logmar 1.5:1 x 1.5x compression = 2.25:1
4. Logmar 1.5:1 x 1.75x compression = 2.63:1
5. Logmar 1.5:1 x 1.77x compression = 2.66:1
6. Logmar 1.5:1 x 1.9x compression = 2.85:1
7. Logmar 1.5:1 x 2.0x compression = 3.00:1

What is interesting to me is that the classic 1.75x and 2.0x compression ratios may intercut with my two larger UltraPan8 formats. i.e.

1. UltraPan8 2.8 R8: frame dimensions = 3.75 x 10.54mm (frame area = 39.53sq. mm) w/ aspect ratio = 2.8:1
2. UltraPan8 3.1 DS8: frame dimensions = 4.22 x 13.00mm (frame area = 54.86sq.mm) w/ aspect ratio = 3.1:1

I am looking forward to exploring the impact of the Logmar's Latham loop, digital motors and pin registered gate relative to the Bolex's pressure pad.

[slashmaster]

Wonder why they don't have it as high as a regular super 8? Even if it means you're not using all of it for 16:9 you still have more choice when framing it. I don't even like it when there is a tiny black line between frames, I like to file my gates so the frames overlap just slightly, that way if a piece of dirt or hair gets in it , it goes into the overlapping area which isn't used anyway, rather than adding to unusable area.

[Will2]

What is interesting to me is that the classic 1.75x and 2.0x compression ratios may intercut with my two larger UltraPan8 formats. i.e.

When you say intercut, do you mean blowing up from Super 8 to UltraPan8 and making a print from that or are you talking after scanning? After scanning I would think it doesn't really matter; just shoot Super 8 with the crop in mind...

[carllooper]

An undocumented feature is that the camera will be shipping with an accelerometer, the idea being that one can level the camera from a digital readout on the screen.

I'm currently building a Super8 to 16mm optical printer to use with material shot on the Logmar. I love the idea of shooting Super8 and projecting on 16mm. Am working on printing longitudinal timecode to the 16mm optical track - the idea being to feed the timecode directly from the projector's audio out (phono jack) to a laptop's microphone in. The laptop plays the actual film soundtrack using the film's timecode to stay in sync. Am going to print the timecode onto the optical sound track area of the 16mm film by digitally generating the timecode on a computer screen, and photographing it frame-by-frame with a Super16 camera.

Last year I built a mechanical sync sound system which just fed sync pulses from the projector to the computer. It worked 3 times out of 5. The first mishap was a misbehaving USB port. Using another port fixed that problem. The second mishap was the shaft reader becoming loose after the projector had flown from one end of Australia to the other. Tests prior to a screening (following the ill fated flight) failed to identify it had become loose. But in any case the annoying thing, even when it was working flawlessly, was ensuring the film was on the right frame for starting the projector.

With the timecode system, the projector can be stopped, started, rewound, have missing frames, and the sound will always stay in sync.

C

[Nicholas Kovats]

Slashmaster,

I am not sure why you are objecting to an 0.02 mm difference in frame height between the SMPTE spec and Logmar camera. Very thin framelines can be problematic regarding stability from a transport perspective as per our experiences with the UltraPan8 formats.

Logmar: 4.20 x 6.30mm
SMPTE: 4.22 x 5.63mm

[Nicholas Kovats]

Will,

Non to optical blowups although Carl Loopr's post is intriguing. I am not really interested in cropping the tiny Super 8 frame in the field. Technically, anamorphic compression of a frame is an increase in resolution. I would then tweak or fine tune the respective native S8 and UP8 frames in post.

What is interesting to me is that the classic 1.75x and 2.0x compression ratios may intercut with my two larger UltraPan8 formats. i.e.

When you say intercut, do you mean blowing up from Super 8 to UltraPan8 and making a print from that or are you talking after scanning? After scanning I would think it doesn't really matter; just shoot Super 8 with the crop in mind...

[Nicholas Kovats]

Carl,

Once again, I am blown away. I love this idea. My obsession with photo-optical based tc metadata is on record. Could you possibly initiate this as a separate thread?

An undocumented feature is that the camera will be shipping with an accelerometer, the idea being that one can level the camera from a digital readout on the screen.

I'm currently building a Super8 to 16mm optical printer to use with material shot on the Logmar. I love the idea of shooting Super8 and projecting on 16mm. Am working on printing longitudinal timecode to the 16mm optical track - the idea being to feed the timecode directly from the projector's audio out (phono jack) to a laptop's microphone in. The laptop plays the actual film soundtrack using the film's timecode to stay in sync. Am going to print the timecode onto the optical sound track area of the 16mm film by digitally generating the timecode on a computer screen, and photographing it frame-by-frame with a Super16 camera.

Last year I built a mechanical sync sound system which just fed sync pulses from the projector to the computer. It worked 3 times out of 5. The first mishap was a misbehaving USB port. Using another port fixed that problem. The second mishap was the shaft reader becoming loose after the projector had flown from one end of Australia to the other. Tests prior to a screening (following the ill fated flight) failed to identify it had become loose. But in any case the annoying thing, even when it was working flawlessly, was ensuring the film was on the right frame for starting the projector.

With the timecode system, the projector can be stopped, started, rewound, have missing frames, and the sound will always stay in sync.

C

[slashmaster]

Slashmaster,

I am not sure why you are objecting to an 0.02 mm difference in frame height between the SMPTE spec and Logmar camera. Very thin framelines can be problematic regarding stability from a transport perspective as per our experiences with the UltraPan8 formats.

Logmar: 4.20 x 6.30mm
SMPTE: 4.22 x 5.63mm

A thin frame line is a problem for stability? How? Do you mean when they are digitizing it and using that software which helps stabilize because it needs a reference point?

[Nicholas Kovats]

Slashmaster,

I am referring to mechanical camera transports not scanner registration techniques relative to camera perf.

[/quote]A thin frame line is a problem for stability? How? Do you mean when they are digitizing it and using that software which helps stabilize because it needs a reference point?[/quote]

[slashmaster]

Slashmaster,

I am referring to mechanical camera transports not scanner registration techniques relative to camera perf.

A thin frame line is a problem for stability? How? Do you mean when they are digitizing it and using that software which helps stabilize because it needs a reference point?[/quote][/quote]

Alright, if the film is only transported mechanically I don't see how a thin frame line hurts registration. Not sure what you mean? I do see how you can use the frame line to check how good your camera or projectors registration is though. Is that what you mean?