[Frameworks] test footage of negative vs reversal s-8mm film stock

Wed Nov 6 14:00:45 UTC 2013

Hello Nicholas,

(I prefer to cc frameworks rather than not, hoping that this
discussion is interesting to everybody).

Indeed the best way to use the Leicina seems to be to have two lenses,
the Optivaron zoom and the Cinegon. I have looked for quite a while
for a 6 to 7mm prime lens that could be mounted onto the Leicina,
because it uses the Leitz C-mount which means that it can, in theory,
receive any Leitz lens. The problem was invariably the focal length.
One would need a super-wide angle lens for SLR photography, to have a
normal field of vision for Super-8mm. This means, in theory, lots of
aberrations, but the fact is that to my knowledge no such lens exists.

Thanks for your explanations. All clear now. I think that one of the
beauties of your UP8 3.1 DS8 specification is that it runs through
Bolex cameras, which are so reliable and small as we know. So the
“ratio” so to speak between the format and your camera's weight is
pretty amazing. In my memory the Arri ST is quite bigger than the
Bolex H16, and the Krasnogorsk, which I've handled but never owned,
isn't probably as versatile as the Bolex.

By the way, on another thread, have you read that Bolex is preparing
to launch a Digital Bolex camera, the D16, produced with two
developers from L.A.? I am not ideologically opposed to digital, I am
just waiting to see footage that I fall in love with. This hasn't
happened yet... but the material I've seen online (Vimeo and youtube)
is pretty good, with a deep colour space. The camera produces a 2K
image in “S-16mm” mode, at 12 bit 4:4:4 colour depth, in Adobe
CinemaDNG mode.

Very best,
Marco

On 5 November 2013 18:26, Nicholas Kovats <nkovats at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> My pleasure.
>
> I agree. The 10mm Leitz-Schneider Cinegon focusing barrel does not
> have the smoothest transition from macro to infinity. It is an
> ambitious design with a very wide focal range, And technically it
> might be better to segment both functions with two separate dedicated
> lenses, i.e. macro + wide/normal/telephoto.
>
> The UP8 3.1 DS8 gate is larger by 39% then the the UP8 2.8 R8 gate.
> The UP8 3.1 DS8 frame width is greater than Super 16. :) Here are the
> detailed specs, i.e.
> http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=57048
>
> Yes, the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 or Regular 8 film is
> exposed with either the classic Super 8 or Regular 8 pulldown. Note
> that the Regular 8 pulldown is exactly half the pulldown height of
> Standard 16mm.
>
> NO standard Regular 8 slitting of the film, please! It would slice
> your ultrawide images exactly in half. These are standard Bolex single
> claw pulldowns which rely on the Bolex pressure plate for stability.
> Double pulldown claws are quite rare in 16mm cameras with the
> exception of  exotic high speed instrumentation cameras such as the
> Photo-Sonics Actionmaster 500fps camera, i.e double pulldown claws in
> conjunction with two perf 16mm film stock (now rare) and two
> registration pins at the film gate in the resting position. I have
> this camera and I did consider converting the 16mm pulldown to regular
> 8. But it would have been prohibitively expensive.
>
> This conversion would work as 2 perf R8 and 16mm share identical
> perforation dimensions. Which is another key UltraPan8 2.8 concept. It
> was key knowledge gained when I discovered that both Bolex H16 and H8
> camera systems shared similar transports, optcs, mechanics, etc. I
> plan to run Regular 8 film in this camera to prove my point.
>
> In fact 2 perf Regular 8 IS technically 16mm film! But with 160
> perforations per foot compared to 16mm's 80 perforations per foot.
> Regular/Standard/Normal 8mm and Standard 16mm film are very beautiful
> interchangeable and intimate twins. :)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nicholas
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Marco Poloni <mar.poloni at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Nicolas,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your footage. I have never tried the Cinegon lens
>> because as sharp as I read it is, there's something odd to it for me.
>> Firstly because it's a 10mm, i.e. a quite narrower field than the 7 to
>> 8 mm that would correspond to the “normal” field of vision for S-8mm.
>> It is, in my view, a bit too narrow for landscape work. Secondly
>> because the focus dial basically does not transition very
>> progressively from macro positions, e.g. 1 foot distance to infinity,
>> so I had issues about its use for portrait work. This being said, a
>> friend of mine has one, I am keen to test it.
>>
>> I find your UltraPan8 3.1 footage really sharp, sharper than on the
>> two other films. Wow. To be sure I understand you properly: when you
>> say “It utilizes the full width of Double Super 8 film” you mean that
>> you are exposing a width of 16mm (minus the two rows of sprocket
>> holes), leaving the film unhalved during development? And is your
>> camera pulling the film with two claws for increased stability?
>>
>> Very best,
>> Marco
>>
>> On 4 November 2013 19:42, Nicholas Kovats <nkovats at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Marco,
>>>
>>> Interesting results and I slightly prefer the more muted V3 50D color
>>> negative. But the reversal really "pops". I miss shooting with my
>>> Leicina Special but I have the 10mm optic and not the zoom. Very sharp
>>> Super 8 transport and optics. Here is a sample of my more experimental
>>> work shot with my Leicina setup using very outdated Kodachrome 40
>>> stock from 1981, i.e http://vimeo.com/38891161
>>>
>>> Here is a sample of my ultrawide film format called UltraPan8 3.1. It
>>> is my current film based obsession. It utilizes the full width of
>>> Double Super 8 film. Modified hybrid Bolex H16/DS8 camera. Ektachrome
>>> 100D,  i.e. http://vimeo.com/45620380
>>>
>>> Here is another test I did with my other variation of this format
>>> called UltraPan8 2.8. It utilizes the full width of Regular 8 film.
>>> Modified hybrid Bolex H16/H8 camera It is a spherical hybrid format as
>>> there is no anamorphic compression lens used. Standard 16mm optics,
>>> i.e the optical center. The best part of the lens. Film is V3 50D
>>> color negative, i.e. http://vimeo.com/55498777
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Nicholas Kovats
>>> Toronto, Canada
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Marco Poloni <mar.poloni at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello Frameworkers,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to share some materials with you. I just uploaded on
>>>> Vimeo two rolls of Super-8mm test footage.
>>>>
>>>> I made those to challenge some assumptions and ideas about the format.
>>>> My own, but also some I read on emails in this community, as of May
>>>> 2013 if I well remember, about scanning S-8mm negative film stock.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to verify things for myself before starting a large project
>>>> in S-8mm, and to understand what could be done with the medium in a
>>>> digital workflow. As a friend appropriately said, the nice thing today
>>>> is that with a good and well-calibrated digital projector, one can
>>>> project 8mm footage in large, theatrical formats, and get amazing
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the links:
>>>> https://vimeo.com/78479511
>>>> https://vimeo.com/78479510
>>>>
>>>> Before reading further please be aware that I am writing from a
>>>> European perspective. Hence the work with labs and facilities that are
>>>> not too far away.
>>>>
>>>> Don't look at the footage for aesthetic quality. It's a purely
>>>> technical test. One roll is Kodak Vision 3 50D, the other Fuji Velvia
>>>> 50D. I used a Leicina special with a Schneider Optivaron 6-66mm/1.8 at
>>>> about 10mm focal length. As many of you know, it's one of the best
>>>> lenses ever built for this film format.
>>>> Exposure was measured with a lightmeter.
>>>> The footage was developed at AndecFilm in Berlin and scanned at
>>>> Ochoypico in Madrid in AppleProRes @ 10bit 4:2:2 with a bit of noise
>>>> reduction in post-scanning.
>>>> Of course the Vimeo files are quite compressed.
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty happy with the results with the negative film. The image
>>>> has a very good dynamical range and is sharp. The only issue are some
>>>> tiny flashes, the size of dust specks. I have not yet figured out what
>>>> they are.
>>>> In my view the footage could only get better with a prime lens. I
>>>> projected the footage five meters wide in a film theater equipped with
>>>> a good Panasonic projector, and was surprised how well the image held.
>>>> Conversely, the reversal film suffers from the comparison. Limited
>>>> dynamical range, much contrast, lack of information in dark areas.
>>>> Also, there is more mechanical movement because I did not use a
>>>> pressure plate.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, in my limited experience, post-processing facilities seem
>>>> to be good either in scanning negative or reversal film, but not both.
>>>> I have had terrible results with negative film from a lab which is
>>>> excellent with reversal. Conversely, Ochoypico, in my view, excels in
>>>> scanning negatives.
>>>>
>>>> I will be happy to read your reactions and critiques.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Marco
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> “A brave flat world.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> marco poloni
>>>> usedomer strasse 8
>>>> d – 13355 berlin
>>>> gsm de +49.163.6294080
>>>> gsm ch +41.78.6322028
>>>> skype marcopoloni
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> “A brave flat world.”
>>
>>
>> marco poloni
>> usedomer strasse 8
>> d – 13355 berlin
>> gsm de +49.163.6294080
>> gsm ch +41.78.6322028
>> skype marcopoloni

-- 

“A brave flat world.”

marco poloni
usedomer strasse 8
d – 13355 berlin
gsm de +49.163.6294080
gsm ch +41.78.6322028
skype marcopoloni