-
Over the last year, we have transferred hundreds of rolls of both contemporary super 8 as well as home movies shot back in the 70s and 80s. The registration on the DV8 is such that we can easily see what films have jitter and which ones do not. We can even pull the camera back to expose the sprocket holes which lets us see the swelling and contraction of the frame lines in relationship to the perforations. One thing has remained consistant:
Transfers from the 70s and 80s K40 are absolutely rock solid, even off el cheapo home movies cameras, compared to transfers off of the new, supposedly "jitter free" era of Kodak carts, even when shot with Nizos and other high end cameras. I have held back my observations until we had a solid year of transfers behind us but the simple fact is that I do not believe the new carts are "fixed" by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, to be fair, I do believe that Kodak France made a good faith effort and replaced the internal washer thingy that was supposedly the problem. What I seriously doubt is that they bothered to actually shoot some film on a known camera and then project it for comparison with older 80s vintage footage. I doubt Kodak France even has a super 8 projector in their entire plant. Ironic, eh? Sort of like a vineyard without a corkscrew.
Anyway, just curious what experiences others have had. I hear people all the time say that the carts are fixed and that things are just as good as they used to me but, frankly, I just don't see it from where I sit. We did a transfer just last week for someone that was shooting on a refurbished Nizo with the "new" carts and the image was dancing all over the place. Just awful. Not as bad as the "bad carts" were but hardly like the good old days when a bad roll was the exception and not the rule.
Sigh.
Roger
-
I just shot a mess o'Tri-X, both old and new carts, and I've noticed jitter right at the beginning but 99% of the footage seems fine. I haven't had a chance to CineMate the footage yet (you know why, Roger), but as soon as I can (which hopefully will be soon), I'll definitely take a second look at my footage and report my findings to the group.
Tom
--depressed
-
Concerned, Moviestuff wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Transfers from the 70s and 80s K40 are absolutely rock solid, even off el cheapo home movies cameras, compared to transfers off of the new, supposedly "jitter free" era of Kodak carts, even when shot with Nizos and other high end cameras.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just out of curiousity, how can you tell if footage was shot on a high-quality Nizo or a K-Mart cam with fixed focus, fixed 18-fps, and completely automatic exposure?
$20 says someone's going to try and use this thread to pitch the Bildenstand.
Tom
-
Are your sure that the films you have seen problems with last year were from the "good" new carts series?
Shot a few carts last year and they were all just as good as the old ones. It is easy for me to verify this because I have a problem with my Bauer T610 since my little daughter ran into the wire cord and pulled it down from a table. Thus the frameline is always visible, well at least until I get time to repair it.
The visual frameline makes it easy to compare. All new carts have been perfect.
Rearding the tests Kodak may have done.
Pedro seemed to have close contact with some that did verification of the jitter problem for Kodak in Germany. This information was posted on Andreas?s old board so it is not available to re-print here.
Some selected pros did the evaluation job, possibly in Germany and maybe in France or other places as well. I got the impression from Pedro?s information that the tests in Germany were conducted by Bavarian Film in Munich but there might have been others.
Correct me if I am wrong Pedro.
What Pedro did post on Shoot8 and which is available for re-print is at least this:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[quote="Pedro"]Hi Andreas,
I had several expieriences with K40 mechanical problems. I am not saying only "jitter", as there had been wrong much more. Furthermore, I was lucky to get very direct informations from the Bavaria studios in Munich, which are in close relationship with Kodak Germany.
My expieriences:Summer 2000: 1 cardrige out of 15 blocked totally, run only after beating it very heavyly and pulling the first centimeters of film manually. The output footage was extremly jittery anyway. The other cardriges showed an abnormal heavy "breathing".
Spring 2001: Another cardrige blocked totally, same as above. Two others showed extreme jitter, wasting all what had been filmed. (short docu with 4 cardriges in total)
Summer 2001: 15 cardriges showed tolerable breathing, but stronger as usual.
Winter 2001: every second cardrige showed heavy jitter, Kodak replaced 7 exposed rolls of film. Totally shot: 12 rolls. The rest was tolerable, but not good. Interesting: No jitter during double exposure or lap dissolves.
My informations:
Changes at Kodak France in 2000:
(all cardriges are manufactured in France and filled with film only there)
The washer disc inside the cardrige had been supplyed by a new source of inferior quality, caused the first mechanical problem: total blocking of some carts.
Changes at Kodak Rochester in 2000/2001:
(all films are manufactured in Rochester and shipped to France afterwards)
One production line for Kodakchrome had been discontinued - no more K25. All silicon finishing of all movie films had been adjusted in some new and comon way.
Jitter effect:The different silicon finishing is the main reason for jitter. However, there may occure a mixture of the effect from the washer disk and the effect from the silicon finishing. When the washer disk is o.k., there only may be jitter, an without any special noise.
Changes at Kodak France in spring 2002:The cardrige since there is manufactured of another plastic composition, giving it a very smooth surface. A batch of 10 cardriges had been tested in cameras and the result was excellent again. Plus less camera noise.
So the situation is resolved.
Batch numbers and Exp. dates:
Exp. dates up to 2003 contain "old" cardriges for shure.
Exp. dates from 2004 on, MAY contain some rests of old cardriges, but still is the actual exp. date for the new production.
Exp. dates and batch numbers only refer to the film itself and not to the cardrige. So, from outside, the carts cannot be distinguished if they are 2004. But you can distinguish them easyly when touching the bare cardrige, and Kodak is replacing the old ones.
Best regards,
Pedro</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
R
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 18, 2003 02:52 AM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>
-
Yes, I recall the postings by Pedro. However, it doesn't change the fact that virtually all the contemporary footage we've received has not been as stable as the older footage from 20 years ago. No, I don't know for a fact that the new footage is from the "new carts", but my clients say the carts are supposed to be new ones. Again, the new carts seem to be "better" than the really bad carts but just not as stable as the carts from the golden age of super 8, where ALL the carts were just rock solid. After posting above, I dug up some footage I shot all those years ago, just to make sure my memory wasn't in error and, indeed, the older footage looks just perfect in every respect, registration wise.
I just wish Kodak would do the right thing and issue a recall for all the bad carts out there instead of simply waiting for them to get used up. It's amazing, really. They would certainly do that for bad rolls of 16mm or 35mm film. So, while they promote their supposed support of Super 8 by coming out with virtually useless, grainy, high speed negative that takes hundreds of dollars just to look at, the problems in their number one stock used by their largest customer base is ignored. No wonder so many newbies go miniDV. Really aggravating.
Roger
-
Roger,
Could it be that Kodak is trying to kill off the format?
We all know that public cry caused them to keep Kodachrome around, could Kodak be trying to lower our passion for the format? (saying something like this format was never designed for professional use.)
Other case in point, plenty of greats post that Kodak is the only place to send your film for processing...and service that's so slow who can deal with it on a professional level?
Rodger I know you do not deal with the Pro neg stocks, but I wonder if you have run a test roll through your system to see if the registration is miles above what the new Kodachrome and Ektachrome films are offering? Another words is the problems in the manufacturing of the sprockets or in the cart rages?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bossjock-dp:
Could it be that Kodak is trying to kill off the format?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I used to think that but I've had dozens of talks with Kodak over the last year and S8 is still make some money for them. Kodak is pretty brutal when they want to kill a format. Look at the 200 ASA Kodachrome in the professional market. Here one day and gone the next. And that's in the PRO market where people really depend on product for their livelihood. If Kodak really wanted to kill off super 8, it would be pretty quick and not some sneaky plan to let it die on the vine.
That said, however, I had a long, long talk with Tim Knapp at Kodak's California office for motion picture sales. I relayed to him a talk I had with a professor at the University of New York at Binghampton who bought one of my 16mm WorkPrinter units. He's working with Kodak to create a prototype 16mm transfer unit using one of Kodak's progressive scan, high res cameras. I explained to Tim that Kodak is very much concerned that more people aren't shooting as much 16mm as they used to and want to stimulate the use of 16mm (hence the idea of the 16mm scanner).
Anyway, I told Tim that I find it odd for Kodak to be so obtuse regarding the connection between people shooting Super 8 and eventually shooting 16mm. It's my opinion that people who develope a film habit early on will stay with film down the line and that if Kodak wants to stimulate 16mm usage, then they need to take care of the Super 8 market better; i.e. provide a suitable replacement for Kodachrome that makes transfers to video more practical, bring back sound striped film and, of course, REALLY fix the jittery carts that we've been plagued with for the last several years. To that, Tim responded, "What jitter?"
Now, to his credit, Tim struck me as a very intelligent and sincere guy, so his lack of awareness has more to do with the size of Kodak and not so much Tim being uncaring or obtuse. He simply was unaware of the problem because Kodak had not made the jitter issue a "company wide" subject.
This lack of connection between the professional 16mm divisions and the 8mm home movie divisions is the key to the problem, I think. Again, if they had problems with any of their 16mm or 35mm stocks, it would have been dealt with swiftly and efficiently. So, while Kodak makes money on super 8, they don't see its connection to the future of 16mm or even 35mm survival.
Tim promised to get ahold of the main cheeses for the various divisions we think should be involved and get me into a three way conversation about how to sustain the super 8 market and, in doing so, possibly plant the seeds for sustaining the 16mm market share Kodak currently has. Whether anything will come of this, I don't know but Tim seemed passionate about the subject.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bossjock-dp:
We all know that public cry caused them to keep Kodachrome around</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm. I don't think that's really true. Kodak doesn't seem to respond to a public outcry regarding anything, really. Again, all the pros I know screamed like banshees when ASA200 Kodachrome was axed. It's gone, man, and I can assure you it outsold super 8 any day of the week. Basically, Kodak has a love/hate relationship with Kodachrome. It's a very toxic process and complicated to make. However, it's also Kodak's signature product. They're the only one with a dye transfer process. Without Kodachrome, Kodak is basically just another Fuji or Agfa. So, I think that Super 8 Kodachrome survives not due to public outcry but simply because Kodachrome is still a part of the Kodak image. Once Kodak moves beyond the prestige attachment of Kodachrome, K40 S8 will be gone, gone, gone. That's why I keep pushing Kodak to come up with a fine grain, low contrast E6 based replacement; something that ANY lab can process and not just two on the face of the earth. And, while they're at it, they might as well stripe it! [img]wink.gif[/img]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bossjock-dp:
Rodger I know you do not deal with the Pro neg stocks, but I wonder if you have run a test roll through your system to see if the registration is miles above what the new Kodachrome and Ektachrome films are offering? Another words is the problems in the manufacturing of the sprockets or in the cart rages?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
We used to run negative and the pro8mm stock was very steady; just as steady as the original K40 carts from long ago. The problem is definately in the carts and not the film stock. However, we also ran some special Fuji loads that Pro8mm made up and the perfs were just horrible. Bad registration from the word go. I don't think Pro8mm's punch can handle the polyester based film.
Roger
-
Roger,
Thanks for the quick response and keep up the good work!
Have you considered sending a letter or copy theses post and mailing in to the company's CEO, or at least the VP in charge of 16 mm?
Sometimes employees don't like to go against the grain of long held company beliefs and might water down your passion, as they pass the info up the corporate food chain.
-
Yeeks. This is distressing news. I've just ordered a number of cartridges, and now, I'm worried about what I'm going to get. (Worse, I won't know until I get the stuff back, which will be months from now, after I've shot and sent it all away.)
I guess there isn't much one can do but jsut cross ones fingers, eh?
-
<ul type="square">[*]1. Matt may have something there. It just could be the cameras.[*]2. If the problem is the cartridges and not the film would it be possible to re-load the film into the Russian cartridges? That would be a pain and then the Russian carts could be just as bad as the French ones. But it might be a solution until Kodak sells off the bad ones.[/list]
