A totally new 8mm camera?

[MovieStuff]

Okay, I am going to mention an idea. But before I do, no slobbering or drooling, okay?

Promise?

Alright, here's the deal. Long ago, I used to build optical printers. Now, it may come as no small surprise to many of you that a camera and a projector are really the same mechanism. The light goes one direction on a camera and the light goes another direction on a projector. Therefore, believe it or not, you can use any camera as a projector.

For those with still cameras like Nikons, try taping a slide across the gate with the back open or off. Then shine a bright light though the slide with the aperature and shutter open. Bingo! You will get a projected image, just like a slide projector. In fact, if you project though the very lens you shot it with, you can not GET a better projection than that.

Anyway, I digress and I think some of you are racing ahead of my idea, here, anyway.

Projectors can be used a cameras, as well.

In fact, I started thinking about the whole "wide screen" idea and, while modifying existing cameras would be way too complicated, modifying certain projectors INTO a camera would be a breeze, since the parts are all spread out and are designed for easy access and removal.

Soooooo...

I'm SERIOUSLY thinking about making a prototype camera that would have a wide screen gate and 400 foot capacity and would take regular M42 screw mount lenses. I know this sounds like fantasy land, but I've done this before in 16mm for an effects camera that had to both project film and copy artwork. Works fine.

Now, I am interested in the groups' opinion about something. I could either make the camera oriented normally, where you have a widened gate with the center offset so that you get the "Ultra8mm" frame between the sprocket holes for letter boxing -OR- I could turn the thing on its side and go for a "Vista-8" that takes up two frames for a JUMBO frame. Either way is butt simple to do, really. Of course, the Vista-8 would use twice as much film, which wouldn't make it as expensive as 16mm, necessarily, but would certainly sacrifice some economy.

Here's the comparison on frame sizes:



As you can see, the Vista 8 is the hands down winner in frame size. However, it is almost TOO big to be practical and could never be projected at speed unless you had a projector designed for that purpose. The WorkPrinter could be set up for video transfer, though, so it would work really well for editing on video. The Ultra 8 size is more economical, but if I am going to go to this much trouble, why not go for the bigger frame?

Decisions, decisions....

Anyway, the unit I envision would have beam splitter viewing and totally manual everything. No bells and whistles. It would use M42 screw mount lenses like Takumars, which are razor sharp and would work with Russian lenses like the wonderful 8mm Peleng. So, you could actually have a whole set of really cheap and sharp prime lenses. It would also be VERY quite, as I could isolate the chasis with rubber mounts when building the housing. It would not be particulary small; about the size of a good 16mm camera.

Okay, I've thrown the ball out on the field. What do you guys think? Is it worth pursuing? If so, which format? Ultra 8mm, Vista-8?

Either is do-able. Give me some feedback. Is the super 8 world ready for a totally new 8mm camera?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[dogstarman]

OK...but...

What do we use for film? I mean, 400 feet is nice, but where and how? Sounds interesting, though. What projectors. The GAFs?

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

I told you guys Roger is the Tesla of Super 8!
Roger, I am all for it, in principal at least.
However, I will toss out some of my concerns, (playing the devils advocate to a point) just for brainstorming purposes.

1. 400 foot S8 film where? (And at Vista8, how many minutes would that give us?)

2. Just how quiet is "quiet"? This is a relative term, and before I know what your definition of it is, I want to know that you've heard a Nizo 6080 lately, because that's my benchmark, and it's a high benchmark.
You cannot hear a Nizo 6080 5 feet away, in an absolute dead quiet living room, with nobody talking, nothing. That's really quiet.

3. Would the stock really be cheaper per minute than 16mm? Again, cheaper than 16mm, a relative term. I mean cheaper than short ends & re-cans cheap?

The stock cost is my bigest concern about the Vista 8 idea.
As you know, I had tossed this out on a post many months ago, because I was trying to figure out how to modify my Nikon Super 8 cam for Vista8, but it was over my head.
And also, I did a little sloppy math & figured it didn't really save any money in stock over 16mm (the same way buying Pro8mm stock from Super 8 Sound is the same price as buying 16mm film).

It would be outrageous to be able to use those lenses though. Very cool idea.

Do you really think you could do this for not too much more money as used top S8 cameras, and still make money? (Because you know if you do this, some whiners are going to say "It's more than a Beaulieu? Why?")
Not to say you should cater to the whiners, but I don't think you'll be able to get $2K or anywhere near that for one.
Let's hear more.

I'd love to see Super 8 revolutionized, but the bottom line is, it just has to end up being cheaper than 16mm stock, for it to make sense.
(It would be cool if you could figure out an orientable viewfinder though.... (sound of drool hitting the floor)).

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

P.S.
Just a thought.
If you're thinking of tooling up for 400 foot film, maybe consider reverse engineering those 200 foot cartridges they used to make.
That way, you wouldn't be re-inventing the wheel totally.
I'm sure there are some 200 footers out there somewhere, that a guy could take a mold off of & re-create them.
Then maybe work out a deal with Kodak to buy some of their stock in super-long lengths before they cut them for S8 cartridges, & load your own!
It's a stretch, but it would be worth a try, and you would have the added bonus of being able to sell 200 foot cartridges to all the people out there who already have S8 cams that can shoot 200 foot rolls, but don't want to buy your new camera for whatever reason, but it would work in your new camera too!

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Dominic3]

Wow Roger - you are quite an innovator. I got all excited reading your post.

My response:

1) I would prefer Ultra 8.

2) Alluminium body?

3)Ground glass focussing?

4) Agree with Matt P. regarding quietness of function.

5) Love the interchangable lens idea.

What kind of exposure metering system do you have in mind? Or is that to be manual?

Have you done any preliminary sketches?



[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited November 11, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

I'll try to quickly address everyone's comments:

No sketches, yet.

Any film can be ordered from Kodak directly in virtually any length. (Cost effective? Don't know.)

The camera should be dead quiet.

Ground glass focusing, of course.

Aluminum body, no problem.

Incorporating the existing 200 foot loads impractical and negates the whole advantage of modifying a projector, which will give you a real pressure plate and larger reel-reel operation.

Vista-8 may not be cost effective.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Dominic3]

Hi Roger thanks for your reply.

I neglected to add the folowing to my previous list:

1) Manual fade?

2) Manual back wind facility?

------------------

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominic3:
Hi Roger thanks for your reply.

I neglected to add the folowing to my previous list:

1) Manual fade?

2) Manual back wind facility?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and yes. In fact, the whole idea behind using the transport off a projector is the ability to have a real loop, real pressure plate, reel to reel advantages such as longer runs and unlimited backwind. The use of M42 lenses would mean a ton of room between the lens and the film plane, which means I could insert an internal bloop frame for slating the beginning and end of each take. Crystal synching would certainly be possible but I would probably not add it unless someone wanted to pay more, although I would include a 1f synch switch and a common start/stop socket for external recorders. Just having the bloop frames at the head and tail would go a long way toward making synch sound more convenient.

Also, exposure would be totally manual. In all, I think it would be a tight, precise camera suitable for serious production efforts.

At this point, I am leaning toward the "Ultra-8mm" since that would use no more film and would be compatible with the WorkPrinter 100% as-is.

I'll keep you guys informed....

Thanks for the input!

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Cranium]

Just a thought...
How about double double regular 8?
As in, using the 16mm wide gauge, but with the frame height unchanged.
Figured I'd throw it out there, since the stock already exists, is easily accesible, and it doesn't seem like it'd be THAT much more monumental of an undertaking that what's been proposed.
Probably start with a modified K-3? Or and H8. The economy over 16mm could still be achieved, and you'd have a WIIIDE image.

Run it at 20fps, and you get 6 minutes outta that 100 foot roll.

------------------
Mikel Z

[This message has been edited by Cranium (edited November 11, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:
[B]"Any film can be ordered from Kodak directly in virtually any length."

Roger, even in Super 8???

Matt Pacini

------------------