Waiting on my "Flectron" camera :)

[MovieStuff]

Here's the link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... =4691&rd=1

I have never heard of this camera but, there it was on ebay and I just had to have it. All metal, with speeds of 18, 24 and (what I've been looking for) 32fps!

Sometime back on Mike's forum, I posted about some client footage we transferred that had originally been shot with a pseudo-slo-mo of about 32fps. We transferred it and viewed it without the 3:2 pulldown to convert to 24fps. It looked just awesome. Still looked like film, but with more information and a definate resolution increase of about 20% or so, I'd say.

I've worked on quite a few 16mm and 35mm commercials in the past where they shot at 30fps and it looked better but the already high res frames of the larger formats didn't really yield a noticable difference in resolution; only better motion. However, on super 8, it is quite apparent that pushing the frame rate up to around 30fps makes a noticable difference in picture quality as well as smoother motion without the video look.

As such, I've been looking for a camera with 32fps slo mo on it. My bet is that it is no where near 32fps but, rather, around 30fps. Even if it was at 32fps, transferring one to one on the Sniper and running at 30fps should look just great, based on what I've seen from my client's film.

Now, about this funky camera: What's the deal with the name "Flectron"? Frankly, I have no idea. I supposed it could have originally been "Electron" and the bottom of the "E" got rubbed off or perhaps it is some funky Japanese interpretation of Electron and they just goofed. Anyway, it appears to be permanently stamped into the body of the damned thing, though I won't really know until I get it. Looks great though. Should be lot's of fun.

I highly recommend trying some carts at 30fps or there abouts if you have the ability. You really won't see the improvement unless you run it at 30fps or transfer to NTSC at 30fps but it really does look just terrific. Really sparkles.

Roger

[marc]

Roger,
I have two questions. 1) would'nt it be just as effective to get a camera with a variable shutter to get a sharper picture? and 2) Would'nt 30 or 32 frames per second have a different look even though it is not video?
Marc

[marc]

Is there any generally accepted standard for films shown at 30 or 32 frames per second in theaters? If so, you could shoot on an H-8 at 16 fps with the variable shutter used to eliminate between 1/4 and 1/2 of the shutter opening and blow it up to a larger format with the process of stretch printing (2 times each frame) and project it as such. I bet that would not look half bad!

[Corey Doyle]

Yeah, I saw this camera awhile back and thought about bidding because it looks great and it had 24fps, but decided not to because I've never heard of Flectron. When I get my Nizo 6080, I'm going to try a few seconds at 54fps and transfer and playback at that speed too. Should be interesting.

Corey Doyle

[MovieStuff]

Roger,
I have two questions. 1) would'nt it be just as effective to get a camera with a variable shutter to get a sharper picture?
and 2) Would'nt 30 or 32 frames per second have a different look even though it is not video?
Marc

Well, the look is different but in a good way. Think of it this way: People that shoot at 25fps and transfer to PAL have a great advantage as there is no pulldown required to change the speed of the film to match the video frame rate. Therefore, the motion characteristics of 25fps film footage transferred to PAL are very, very smooth, with no "hiccups" in the middle of pans or fast action, as can sometimes happen with 24fps transferred to NTSC due to the 3:2 pulldown. So, shooting film at 30fps and then transferring frame accurately to NTSC at 30fps means that each video frame contains a discrete film frame. There are never any interpolated frames or repeated frames that occur due to pulldown. This means that the motion will be smooth but will still look like film since the audience is still watching motion carried by 30 discrete images per second as opposed to 60 interlaced images per second.

Secondly film, unlike video, benefits from accumulative resolution. That is to say if you had a line on an eye chart that was unreadable on a single frame of motion picture film, it will probably be more legible if the film were running at speed of 10fps. At 18fps, you will be able to pick up even more detail in the line. At 24fps, you might even be able to see the next line down that was unreadable at 10fps, etc.

Therefore, at 30fps, you are pretty much maxing out the accumulative resolution of the format, as it relates to video, because the detail is now spread across the maximum number of film frames possible per video second in NTSC. The random grain pattern of the film means that, if you spread the image across a greater volume of film, then you have a gain in resolution, but ONLY at running speed, since persistance of vision overlaps the random grain to form a complete picture, with all the detail of each individual frame compiling on top of each other.

An individual frame of film shot at 30fps would not really contain any more information than a frame of film shot at 1fps, assuming that the camera were stationary during exposure of both frame rates. The increase in resolution will only be noticable at the higher frame rates. Again, it is really quite stunning and looks, for all the world, like 16mm to me due to the increase in resolution. Just beautiful. I can't wait to try some.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Is there any generally accepted standard for films shown at 30 or 32 frames per second in theaters?

Actually, I believe some films from the 50s and 60s were shot and displayed that way. The musical "Oklahoma" was shot at 32fps, I think, and was projected that way. I believe the idea was also to have smoother movement, greater resolution AND better sound as the faster frame rate meant better fidelity audio. I believe that the video transfers for Oklahoma and other films of that rate were done at 30fps and the audio pitch altered accordingly. I might rent that and take a look at the frames to see.

If so, you could shoot on an H-8 at 16 fps with the variable shutter used to eliminate between 1/4 and 1/2 of the shutter opening and blow it up to a larger format with the process of stretch printing (2 times each frame) and project it as such. I bet that would not look half bad!

Actually, it would end up looking like film shot at 16fps! The whole idea behind actually shooting at 32fps isn't to get a sharper frame but, rather, to spread the image across a greater volume of film for higher resolution and smoother motion characteristics. If you double each frame, then you have simply re-established the original 16fps frame rate since each frame is now held in place for the same duration it was originally shot at.

Roger

[marc]

Since we have established that, in terms of projection, that film shot at varying frame rates (16,18, 24) look virtually identical ( as opposed to film of varying frame rates transfered to video) Would it not be at least a little easier to pull the wool over the audiences eyes? Something about that rotating shutter seems to smooth out the action unlike video where the frame duplication is more evident. Lenny Lipton made this argument in his book on Super 8. And since the frame rate is increased to 30-32 frames per second, you avoid the flicker problem evident at the lower frame rates. Another advantage is that because each frame is projected an equal number of times, you do not have the " video hiccup syndrome" that would also occur if you tried to stretch out 16 frames to 24 frames on a blow-up. Granted, you would not get the change in grain that can be achieved at a higher frame rate because of frame duplication but I think that this would be and interesting experiment and a lot of people might be surprised at the results. It may not give you the same smoothness in action that you would get from 30-32 frames per second but it might be surprisingly passable

[David M. Leugers]

Very interesting Roger. I read a forum of cinematographers who argued over the look achieved with 16mm and 35mm shot at 30fps and many stated that they did not care for it! Kinda hard to believe, but they preferred the look of film transferred and shot at 24fps. This of course does not mean that S-8mm could not benefit from the increased speed, I think it would. Would be interesting to see a comparison of the exact same scene shot with the exact same camera at both 24fps and 32fps and transferred accordingly. The 32fps setting is very common on Sankyo cameras especially the non-sound models. This could give new life to those cameras that didn't have a 24fps setting, but could shoot at 32fps!

David M. Leugers

[marc]

Any other oppinions on this? I would be interested in hearing input from other members. I think that it might be an interesting experiment; at least for a short segment to test out the theory. It definitely would not look the same as 32 original frames, but might be passable.

[marc]

Roger,
Did you get your camera yet?

[MovieStuff]

Nope.

[marc]

Roger,
If we could have Eric's posts be no longer than the average of what he usually writes and the length of your last reply I think that his might be significantly shorter!

[MovieStuff]

Well, I thought of just saying "no" but I felt like rambling a bit and didn't want to be accused of being terse. ;)

[marc]

As long as it's all good I do not mind.

[MovieStuff]

Well, I was judicious in my choice of words, uh, I mean word. I considered "No", "uh-uh", "not-a-chance" and the ever popular "Nah" before finally settling on "nope". However, I was careful to employ proper grammar. Note the capatilized "N" and the period after the sentence, er, I mean word. In all, a literary treat for those with short attention spans.

Roger