My first super8 widescreen test

Yes, I shot couple tests during Spring 2002 with really cheap camera (Lomo Aurora 219 (fixed focus, only speed is 18 fps), costed me one Euro (0.9 USD) at local flea market), which I converted to 16:9 by filing the film gate.

Here is the first mpg-file (over 7 Mb), I transfer first with WP-3 at 16:9 format and then transfer to mpg1-format (4:3, so material is letterboxed, but all you see is also in the normal 16:9 frame):

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen.mpg

Tip: Download the file at the first for your harddisk and after that just play it with your viewer software.

Here are also two frames in jpg-format with their original resolution (1024x576, PAL 16:9):

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen.jpg

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen2.jpg

As you might notice there are some little vertical scratches, meaning the gate wasn't 100% properly finnished. At the end of film there aren't any scratches, so during shooting the film has polished the surface of film gate.

So, I'm very satisfied for my result of this test and I'll start to filing also my other cameras in the future and perhaps do totally one new 2.66:1 film gate for one of them (perhaps for Bauer 709/715) to test also that Hyper-8 mm thing.

Note: you can still use that same camera also for normal 4:3 shots, even you have filed the gate!
_________________
Best Regards

Jukka Sillanpaa

www.sorb-i-tol.com

That's a nice clip.
How did you transfer it? It looks great on mpeg.

The lighting looks just perfect with the cat scene. What time of day did you shoot it at?

Good job!

Jeffery

Very nice indeed. That cat had me cracking up out loud as it appears has though the frame rate jumped up a bit at the purrrfect moment - when he (or she) flips over.

So...
Kodachrome?
Transfer method?
etc., etc....

Beautiful lens flare too I thought.

I shot it during April 2002, midday with totally junk super 8 camera (russian Lomo Aurora 219), that's why these jumpping frames and other problems (= these colors, but I like them too!).

The film was K40 (these bad ones, also one reason for some problems I think), the transfer I did with my great Workprinter-3 machine and Sony PC-100 mini-dv videocamera.

As I wrote earlier I modified the film gate of Aurora to try out, what kind of widescreen ratio I'll get (it's 1.51:1) using super 8 format and this method.

Here is more info about the whole test:

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/...fc0346eb45b0f6

here is the whole frame with guide lines and without them.

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe1.jpg

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe2.jpg

The true aspect ratio is about 1.51:1 against 1.77:1 (16:9).

What about possible 8x3 mm film gate in Hyper 8mm idea, is WP suitable to show that whole image, what do you think Roger?

I think, WP cannot do it, 8 mm is too wide, maybe 7 mm x 2.63 mm?
I have to check it out and I let you know.


Here is a drawing about formats with dimensions: regular 8, super 8 and this "super 8 widescreen" idea, I used to shot this test clip.

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/8mmformats.jpg

Here is a question---What about recentering the lens??? When I shoot 1.33 with my S16 camera the lens port needs to be changed. Do you think that under a "proper" S8 camera conversion to this system the lens would need to do the same???

<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 jukkasil:

I think, WP cannot do it, 8 mm is too wide, maybe 7 mm x 2.63 mm?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

It just depends on how much I widen the gate and which gate is used. There are some gates for these units that don't have a lot of metal left over after widening out past the normal super 8 picture area. Others have plenty. I would need to know in advance as the gates are unique to particular chassis, even though these GAFs all look the same to the untrained eye. Also, I think that the "Hyper8" opening out past the edges would be confined to the basic WorkPrinter that transfers at only 1fps, since losing pressure on the edges of the film would leave it susceptible to buckling at higher transfers speeds than 1fps. The slower speed would allow the film to "seat" properly before being copied to the hard drive.

<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 nigel:

What about recentering the lens???</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good question and will probably be different from one camera to the next, depending on the size of the circle of illumination each camera lens generates. The Fuji-ZC100 I have has a fairly large circle of illumination (COI). However, other cameras I've taken apart have a much smaller COI. Also, depending on the design of the lens, the size of the COI will change with the zoom setting. Longer focal lenghts can sometimes increase the size of the COI while wider angle shots will minimize it drastically. On other zooms, the COI stays constant due to internal masking at the back of the lens barrel. Theoretically, ALL lens change the size of the COI when going to telephoto, which is why Super 16 can generally work with standard 16mm telephoto lenses than it can with normal or wide standard 16mm lenses. But, again, some lenses have internal masking at the rear that prevents the light from expanding and bouncing around in the film chamber.

Roger

"Is it just me or is there a faint line where the modification shows on the Super 8 film? When looking at the clip all I can notice is the faint blurred line on the right edge. Is this where the sound stripe starts?"


Not exactly. that's the vertical scratch still existed in some frames cause of filing the gate, but I don't think it's in the right position where sound stripe starts, but very near anyway.


"If so then it doesn't seem like your adding a whole lot to the image through your mod. I don't want to sound like I'm dissing. I think your idea is excellent and if perfected might want to know how to modify my Nizo 6080. I agree with a previous post though, I want to see exactly on film what is being added and why there is that line in the final image???"

That line doesn't exist anymore, it was just little needle at film gate surface, that made these lines.

Have you already check my still images of th whole frame?

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe2.jpg

That frame is shot direct from WP's lens, where you can see the whole frame.

There isn't any film left, I exposed the whole area. Maybe I'd use the space more from left, but then you'd see also little part of sprocket holes in final frame, maybe not at TV-monitor (It would be outside of safety area), but during editing footage with your PC.

Here is that same frame with guide lines showing the area I used in that mpg-file (of course at top and bottom you'll lose little space cause of different aspect ratio 1,51:1 at my test, 1,77:1 at normal 16:9 frame)

I just made one image more, where I put some arrows, do you mean this line?

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/thewholeframe3.jpg

I also think that the image on the right of frame looks a little out of focus. Although this is not a big problem in itself I would be a little reluctant to make that kind of modification on a good camera fo the small amount of extra frame. I would also like to know if I would have to file the gate on my projector?

I'm not sure about that out of focus thing (have to check original material better at home), of course there could be a problem with lens centering when you file gate, but as Roger wrote, every camera has different size of the circle of illumination, so you'd be lucky with camera!

About Lomo Aurora, it hasn't a real lens at all, only piece of transparent plastic (acryl I think) as a "lens", so it's very cheap construction and cause of that there will be these kind of problems much easily.

I think I have to make more tests and now with much better camera, like Bauer, I have both 709 and 715, so I'd modify one gate and I'm still having one normal to share with both cameras.

One tip: Buy a broken camera (same model) as a spareparts and modify its gate to widescreen, then do a test with it, so you can be sure if it work or not and you're still having normal gate.

Anyway you can also use widescreen gate shooting normal 4:3 stuff, so that isn't so big risk at all.

Regards

Jukka Sillanpaa

Interesting. How about TTL Light metering? Will more light fall on the film plane and will a TTL meter adjust automatically or will you have to compensate? Instead of widening the gate could you alternatively narrow it thus avoiding problems with circles of confusion? But I am not sure how you could manufacture a narrow gate. Maybe someone has some ideas.

As I mentioned about modifying the WorkPrinter gate, one of the problems of going to "Ultra-8" is losing pressure on each edge of the film. Ideally, the gate handles the film mostly by the edges with minimal pressure in the center to keep the film flat. In my experiments widening the gate on the WorkPrinter, I found that taking the gate out past the edges of the film worked okay as long as the frame rate was slow; about 1 fps or so. I haven't tried it at the faster WorkPrinter-Pro rate of 6fps but I am fairly certain that shooting at 24fps might make the film buckle on the edges a bit during pulldown as there would be nothing left to keep it from "folding" into the now open gate.

I think that one would need to leave a *tiny* bit of metal guide on the left and right to keep the film from bending during rapid pulldown. That is why I am trying to offset the image vertically on my ZC1000 so that I can put the sprocket holes *between* the frames. That will allow a very wide screen image that still leaves plenty of metal on the gate at each edge to accomodate the super high 30fps rate!

Beyond that, I agree with Jukka. The uneven exposure and soft focus must be from the el-cheapo Aurora plastic lens. Certainly all Jukka's other footage has been quite stunning, with perfectly even illumination and focus corner to corner.

As it should be! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Roger

I got your point Roger!

About "trying to offset the image vertically"-thing, how are you going to make it?

Do you make a totally new gate using normal as a model copying basic dimensions of it and then making a new one, or?

I have thought to make a model of original gate and then using my moulding equipment to mould the final part. That would be very nice way to do new gates, if it works.

I can make little parts like that at home using tin as a moulding metal, but is it too soft metal for this kind of parts, or suitable, I have to find out.

Is it just me or is there a faint line where the modification shows on the Super 8 film? When looking at the clip all I can notice is the faint blurred line on the right edge. Is this where the sound stripe starts? If so then it doesn't seem like your adding a whole lot to the image through your mod. I don't want to sound like I'm dissing. I think your idea is excellent and if perfected might want to know how to modify my Nizo 6080. I agree with a previous post though, I want to see exactly on film what is being added and why there is that line in the final image???