I look through all the videos of the super-duper new cameras with new specs, resolutions, etc. And then I come upon this... and my jaw drops. There is an emotional difference.
Everyone is gaga over the camera and film quality, but what's really extracting every last ounce of image quality is the SCANNER that was used -- which I believe was a Lasergraphics "ScanStation" scanner. Fully loaded-out, that's a $150k scanner, but apparently worth every penny! I've seen and used their scanners before, and they simply do things that no other scanners on the market can do.
TheHorta I'll still take a Rank-Cintel DataMill or Millennium II or DiTTo 4K scanner, or a Filmlight Northlight 1 6K (V1.1) or Northlight 2 8K (V2.0) film scanner, or an Imagica XE Advanced Plus (10K film scanner), a Digital Film Technologies Scanity 4K film scanner, a Grass Valley/Thomson Datacine 4K scanner, a Sony HDVS scanner, or a Digital Vision GoldenEye 4K scanner. LaserGraphics does not have any tri-linear RGB CCD line-array, 3CCD area-scan, or 4PMT flying-spot scanners like the ones mentioned above. Keep in mind all these scanners are from the last decade, and date back to like 2002, with only a few being from this decade, yet they are still some of the best available today.
It's not super 8 ! Try a 50D cartridge and send it i the best lab to scan it and you will not get this result with even a RX4 Bolex DS8 with Macro Switar lenses . S8 is a very small format. You will not get this sharpness with no grains like the demo
GuyBodart Kodak Vision3 50D has an MTF of 100 cycles per mm, which translates to 100 line pairs per mm or 200 lines per mm horizontally and vertically across the 8 mm film. Assuming a 5 mm x 3.75 mm recording area per frame of 8 mm Kodak Vision3 50D 7203 film stock, 1000 horizontal lines and 750 vertical lines are possible, theoretically. I think it can look this sharp, 8 mm, so long as a good lens is paired with it and matches the MTF of the film or exceeds it in resolving power.
Just try it! Take a good camera with a very good lens like a Zeiss Super Speed and you will still the grains. There is no reason that the scanner inside the camera is better than a professional film scanner. I need to see i to believe is. Even 16mm is not as sharp as the demo. The pressure plate assure a steady and sharper picture, but do not make grains go away. www.imdb.com/name/nm0003100/
To the uplaoder: thanks for sharing these beautiful images. Hi everyone, I've shot some Super 8 with Canon cameras and lenses with very similar quality. In my honest opinion this is DEFINITELY not the camera... the lens helps for sure, but not to the extent that you're gonna have definition like this. From having scanned 4k LOG Super 8, I can tell you, that the major difference is film speed. ISO 50 film is going to have loads more definition due to finer grain, than ISO 400 or 800 film. In fact, because Super neg 8 is so incredibly tiny, that at anything close to ISO 400, your grain is so huge, that definition starts disappearing anyway... basically your image becomes made-up of large dots. Even grading blacks are near impossible, because the only blacks, are the spaces between the large dots! Of course, on 16 and 35mm lens quality becomes exponentially more important than film speed/ grain size. Hope this helps anyone out there. If what I'm saying doesn't make much sense, try Googling Super 8 vs 35mm film size. It's a small miracle that images can even be captured on the format at all!
One of the exciting things about this video (and others in 4K), is that it shows that S8 really is worthy of a 2K scan. Sure there is some focusing error and some aberrations from the lens, but when it is in focus, it’s tack sharp. If a four by six millimeter sliver of film contains that amount of detail, that means that a 35mm is (as said many times and distrusted equally many times by people, trying to justify their the cheapness of digital), easily around 80 megapixel.
great video, it just goes to show, a format that was made 50 years ago can still amaze and impress! plus the fact that shooting on film actually makes you think about what you are shooting, as you only have 2 to 3 minutes of film! ha! I tried to explain that to a 18 year old a couple of days ago. very funny. but yeah makes me want to crack out the old cameras! and good to see what Kodak are doing at the moment, i hope it works for them. But yeah good upload
This is just about the most impressive Super 8 footage I have ever seen. The Logmar camera appears to be something quite unique. The only thing about footage from this camera, is that what is seen here, appears to be the only footage available... period. I would very much like to see more footage before I can truly believe the Logmar camera truly delivers such wonderful quality footage. Yes, I understand that the internet will not be flooded with Logmar footage, since there was only 50 such cameras manufactured. But one single film/video over and over again??? Please, let me know if there is more footage available.
+martyn hull Digital video is cold and has that "waxy" unnatural look. Film is organic and natural. Film has greater latitude. Film is archivable. Digital is not. You, sir, are nothing more than a detractor.
Stunning Super 8 will never die it is Rock and Roll a budget ended camera is needed of the Logmar you will have a revolution in film making its comeing !
I reckon it must be a combination of attention to excellent exposure for the film stock used, decent lenses, and the professional scan. I'd love to see the 4k scan, with sections zoomed 150% so we can more clearly see just how sharp/grainy it is on our players.
It is more than that. I have seen stuff professionally scanned and it looks like heck. Also, stay away from that Wittner 200D cr@p, wow that stuff is bad!
ToyKingWonder Depends on what you mean by "a scan". A flatbed scan is not only an amateur hack technique, it often looks like that. Many places will advertize that they're professionals and they still only do off-the-wall transfers. Next step higher up, though only slightly, is if they're using one of those prism or mirror viewers that internally projects the film onto a small back-projection screen, and then they use a video camera to shoot the film off that screen. All that really does is remove the parallax (which is the fact that in off-the-wall transfers, the video camera can only stand beside the projector, so it only captures the film at an angle when looking at the screen). Some places nowadays sell home toy "scanning" or "telecine" units for a few hundred bucks that look like a small projector and have a (analogue or digital) video-out socket. Main advantage to the viewer technique above is that you don't need a separate camera and you really capture the entire image area, and many have reduced hotspot and dark vignetting on the edges. But overall, those toys are so cheap they don't even eliminate flicker that comes from the fact the film/projector and the video camera are not in-synch. Not to mention the fact that home movies will *ALWAYS* require heavy color correction abilities (which these latter toys don't have) for several reasons: a.) the colorspace of video is extremely limited compared to film, so you need heavy manual correction to squeeze the relevant information into the limited video signal, b.) these settings are different for every type of stock, c.) after several decades, many films will begin to fade and show color casts, and d.) amateur camera operators will more often produce mistakes such as over and underexposure, and if you have correction abilities within your unit (*NOT* when the information is already a video signal!), film has plenty of reserves to compensate for that during the scan. It was back during the 80s when first actual professional telecine units for Super8 and Regular8 appeared on the market, made by companies such as Bosch, albeit hardly used compared to off-the-wall transfers. They did have first correction abilities, albeit very crude ones, and often their video output signal was very poor especially by today's standards (even in terms of analogue SD standards of the 1990s) and/or video tapes from that era themselves have begun deteriorating. The best units on the market nowadays are MWA Flashscan units (provided you don't want a resolution beyond 2K). Crystal sharp, professional analogue and digital video out, film runs 100% in-synch with the internal shutter (so no flicker!), does both reversal and negative, they can also read mag-stripe sound, and, most of all, fully-flexible, manual correction of color, contrast, and gamma in highlights, mids, and shadows for every single shot. And yeah, Wittnerchrome200D is crap. It's a grainy color reversal film from Belgian Agfa-Gaevert, put into carts by Wittner Cinetec. No comparison to the earlier Wittnerchrome100D, which was Ektachrome100D. Most people nowadays shoot negative in Super8 if they want color. But Retro8 in Japan has a small quantity of custom-made Fuji Provia in Super8. It's even sharper and more fine-grained than legendary K40, but its saturation is very low, so it looks a lot like video. Or at least it does so on cloudy days, haven't seen sunny Super8 footage on it so far. Oh, and some of us are still holding out for the old-new company FILM Ferrania from Italy. They're really Super8 fans who've bought the old analogue part of the Ferrania factory.
Excellent information, and thank you. I have been watching Ferrania as well. They look serious. I hope it is not a several year hot and cold effort like Impossible Film. I am also crossing my fingers that SOMEONE takes up the peel-apart Polaroid effort, I love shooting that stuff. I am so past any "place" that talks about "scanning your memories" and, like you said, is probably doing off the wall. I have done off the wall myself, I have a modified 16mm projector, two modified Super 8mm projectors and a regular 8mm. Results are fair but nothing to get excited about. As much as a "grew up" on and was always enjoying working with reversal (and always being on a budget) I have abandoned that and just going with negative film and scanning. BTW, I don't know what it is about that 200D that is so lousy. I have seen higher speed films less grainy. In the meantime, I am planning projects in Black and White Regular 8mm on my Nikon Nikkorex. What a cool little camera!
ToyKingWonder Oh, 200D was never meant for such a tiny format to begin with, only for aerial photography on medium and large format sheets. That's why it's so grainy and blurry and all that. But it does have one remotely redeeming feature to it, the colors in Super8 look like a re-born version of Agfa Moviechrome. And in 16mm as a larger format, it looks absolutely georgeous, especially on sunny days.
I would very much like to see what this camera can do with Tri-X, as well as Kodak's 200T and 500T stocks. There is far too much emphases on 50D and its low grain.
It is real. Modern technology is again finally proving that film is and always will be better than digital!! The comments that can't believe that make me laugh.
Ano, odhaduji že ten rámeček je vytvořený elektronicky - právě proto, že v kameře je propojený pohyb okeničky a perforace. Ovšem hloubka ostrosti, to je bezpochyby filmový materiál. To sebelepší elektronika nenahradí....
I have to agree, I’ve viewed a lot of Super 8 footage and this is absolutely the best I have ever seen. Is it the camera, the film, the transfer or all three? It’s very beautiful and makes me want to get a Logmar camera and film something. Well done!
+scott spears What I wonder is that you look at a 2K digitized analogue footage... It looks sharp yes...but wouldn't you see the same as it is filmed on a 2 k cam ?
@Andre: Nope, you wouldn't see the same on a 2K video originating on a digital format, namely regarding gradation (how many different shades and details in the lights and shadows, rather than just one black blurb or burned-out hi-lites) and range of colors. That's the main advantages film has over the mere pixel count of video.
I have to agree with Phil below. This is top Super 8mm. I don't think I have shot anything this good. But I also give credit to technique. Framing, the use of a tripod, the composition, and most of all, the exposure. All are quite good. Quite frankly, I thought I had stumbled onto a 16mm video as my search was "16mm 50d" and this video popped up.
So, Logmar stopped making these cameras because Kodak would come out with a new Super ( camera, and now weve waited years for this camera? Any chance the Logmar team could get back into production?
Absolutely amazing! Well I still can see some hints of Super 8mm "artifacts" such as color fringing around edges (for example tree branches against a blown out bright sky) and the dreaded "ghost/halo" effect around bright objects - but these are extremely few and not distracting. Really clean, sharp and rock steady (considering this is Super 8mm/Max8 gate). I would love to see the image framed for 16:9 (1:1,77) because the vignetting, sprocket hole and dirty gate are really annoying. The look and feel are absolutely amazing! Not sure about the frame rate though. It looks like 24 or 25fps with a jerky look due to the conversion to a different digital frame rate. I was alive when Super8 was still in use and even owned a Beaulieu 6008S back in 1980. The then common Kodachrome 40 with its "toy-like" cartridge never looked this great. Not by a long shot. The lack of pin registration and precision pressure plate renders vintage Super8 cameras basically unusable by today's standards. I myself love that film look, but if it comes at the cost of looking "lo fi" in a distracting and trashy way, Super8/Max8 just doesn't cut it. I truly hope Kodak is going to do something about it. Yep: Kodak Vision 3 50D is awesome. Hopefully something can be done about the coarse grain of higher speed film stock..... Anyway: that film look is absolutely stunning. It looks "finished", cinematic and silky as opposed to digital video, which - no matter how technically superior it might be as we speak, looks "unfinished and glassy" (= HD live television as opposed to cinema) - even if graded and filtered in Final Cut or Premiere to 'kinda' look like film. There is a reason why "007-Skyfall" was made with ARRI Alexa (digital) cameras and with "007-SPECTRE" the film makers went back to 35mm (one example of many). It's like the good old professional Kodachrome 35mm stills photography slides: scan these at top quality and there is no "tweaking" needed. It looks perfect and stunning as is on any computer monitor or printed out. I still shot a roll (Kodak professional "Elite" chrome 100 ISO (NOT Ektachrome) - now discontinued) back in 2007 (as a final farewell to film photography). Simply stunning and gorgeous! Digital is awesome for image processing, editing and file sharing. Those digital camera sensors still have a long way to go..... Thanks for reading.
How difficult would it be to have the option of using an anamorphic lens on the taking lens and having the video on the screen (which is from an internal video tap?) unsqueezed?
am I the only one distracted by the seesaw movement of the image? I don't know if this is due to post processing or the image stabilization of the camera.
@@imabigsandwich1292 this is a crystal controlled motor, sync sound capable setup, and should run like pretty much any other single perf format. I've seen other crystal controlled Super 8 cameras that do not exhibit the seesaw, in fact I don't know of any other example I've seen where poor registration caused that effect. I am aware double perf formats like DS8, 8mm, 35mm, etc generally have much better registration.
I'm not completely chear on whether the footage was stabilized during the transfer/scanning or not? The need for a registration pin the Eclair cameras and esp the Aaton cameras showed, a well-designed pulldown and stabilizing mechanism provides excellent registration. The design of the Super-8 cartrdige, though, obviously needs all the help it can get when comes to registration and 'judder', so in this case, the reg pin is much needed, and helping out! Again though, was stabilization cerated in post as well as help from the registration pin?
Howard Phillips In this example the pin-registration of the camera isn't being exploited, other than to ensure the frame is stationary during exposure (the image sharper than it otherwise might). Rather, registration is being done entirely by digital stabilisation, because while the camera uses a +2 offset perf for pin-registration (as per smpte standard), the scanner doesn't. The scanner uses the adjacent sprocket (non-standard). I'm currently building an optical printer, for blowing up Super8 to 16mm, so will be making sure I exploit the camera's pin-registration, ie. use the +2 offset perf for registration. Note also that the cartridge design of Super8 plays no role in the camera used as the film runs out of the cart and through a separate gate and pressure plate, ie. the camera doesn't use the cart's pressure plate. The cart itself becomes little more than a supply/takeup container: a magazine.
The footage looks like it was put through a digital image stabilization program after scanning. Visible by the floating perf hole on the left as well as by the odd-looking stabilizing movements partly due to the fact the stabilization was done at a framerate different from the one the footage was shot at.
Wundervolle Aufnahme. Wie viel hat die Digitalisierung gekostet? Ich lasse gerade auch mein Kodak V3 50d S8 Film bei Andec entwickeln. Meine Kamera ist eine restaurierte Beaulieu 4008ZM4.
Greetings from LA! I'm currently making a wager with my cinematography friends that I can make s8mm look like s16mm. I'm planning on using Cooke optics and 50d vision 3 stock for best grain but I've never seen any results of s8 that look this good. Please, any hints, tips or tricks would be amazing. What scanner did you use? Optics?
Kodak used to guarantee at least 1,000 horizontal scanlines for K40 in Super8. That guarantee was on their homepage until they discontinued the stock around 2005.
Henry Jones Jr. Kodak Vision3 50D has an MTF of 100 cycles per mm, which translates to 100 line pairs per mm or 200 lines per mm horizontally and vertically across the 8 mm film. Assuming a 5 mm x 3.75 mm recording area per frame of 8 mm Kodak Vision3 50D 7203 film stock, 1000 horizontal lines and 750 vertical lines are possible, theoretically. I think it can look this sharp, 8 mm, so long as a good lens is paired with it and matches the MTF of the film or exceeds it in resolving power.
+Henry Jones Jr. The resolution is above 1080 mate. It's a 2k scan and as you can clearly see, it provides noticeably more detail than stand 1080. Film is better than digital and this finally proves it.
Just like mastering to vinyl- yes, it is possible to achieve greater and greater perfection through mechanical means. The thing is- why? If everyone is marveling that the film nearly looks as good as digital, why not just start with uncompressed digital and bump up the saturation a bit?
Uhhh...you do realize it's rather the other way around, right? Video has tried for about 30 years now to get even just remotely near film in quality. The point of the above scan is to show not that "film is as good as digital" (it's only recently that video is getting "good enough" some people start not caring anymore about the definite advantages of film), but that Super8 can look as good as 16mm.
hi, in the description you say you like to overexpose by one stop. And how does that work, how do you do that? you rate it at 25 and then process normally or you ask the lab to compensate?
@@MORCOPOLO0817 I was honestly thinking about shooting on film, and I looked up the possibility that you could use 5 stops of over exposure before it maxes out. I'm a little bit reluctant, however, to try this on 50D because I heard that it doesn't have as much dynamic range as the other stocks and I don't want to muck up my footage.
Hallo Filmkorn; Es gibt vielleicht die Kamera zu mieten in Deutschland. Ich kann eigentlich gar nicht finden. konntest Du mir vielleicht helfen? Das wäre super. Grüße.
The "holes" in the green sleeves? VERY likely temporal grain reduction where the software borrows information from adjacent frames. It always leads to artifacts in fast movement. This footage is very obviously a top notch scan of top notch footage plus very heavy post production (grain reduction, edge enhancement and saturation cranked up).
+Sheldon Norton If you're talking just about the film? Kodak currently sells their super 8 film online for around $20-25 for 50 ft. That includes the price of getting the negatives developed and the cost of the digital scan. If the description is correct and they used 2 rolls of Kodak film, that's around $50. Oh, and 50 ft shooting at 24 fps I believe gives you around 2 1/2 minutes of film.
What camera and lens do you have? To shoot this film clip one of the sharpest super-8 lenses (Schneider Optivaron) was used. Also, the Logmar has a special film path that requires one to remove the film from the camera. It is less convenient, but the camera pressure plate keeps the film stable, thus also keeping the film in the right place in relation to the lens, resulting in sharper images. So if your camera is some cheaper super-8 camera, no matter what scanner is used your images are going to look softer. As for blandness, make sure you color correct your negative film scans correctly by setting black and white levels and thus increasing the contrast in the film. I'll be happy to answer any further questions!
I sure, along with millions of others, WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THAT TOO! What was used to scan the film in. And how many bucks would that set one back? Seriously!!!
Its interesting how some might compare this great work to 16mm film, as if 16mm film might be the metric by which Super8 was to be measured, and accordingly found wanting. But Super8 is an ALTERNATIVE to 16mm film. It is NOT a SUBSTITUTE and it shouldn't ever be assumed it ever would be, or wanted to be, in the first place. It is an alterative. Super8 (like any gauge) carves out it's OWN NICHE in the art of moving pictures. If it's to be compared to anything it should really be compared to other transfers of Super8. Clearly this work is one of the best transfers of Super8 you'll ever see. At least for the moment. And it's on that basis it should be judged - not in some literally redundant comparison to 16mm. That said, the fact that some nevertheless do find themselves comparing it to 16mm actually speaks volumes. Why is it being compared to such? The reason, I'd argue, that it's not actually a comparison of film gauges that is taking place (which would be redundant) but a comparison of transfers that is taking place. And this Super8 transfer is challenging conventional wisdoms regarding the technical difference between film gauges: not in terms of film, but in terms of the way film transfers to digital. To put it another way, if Super8 can look this good on digital, why is it that 16mm isn't looking twice as good? There are some technical questions to be pursued in this, that are not resolved by deferring to antiquated digital metrics otherwise used to characterise analog film. Clearly.
Bottom line: Modern people simply never knew what Super8 really looks like because they are used to poor, self-made off-the-wall transfers that looked like crap. That's why they're calling it "as good as 16mm" because they know 16mm only from professional telecines.
S8 nemá v základu zvuk. Ten se přidával až později. Při zaznamenávání se to dalo nahrávat na nepropojený magnetofon a posléze nahrát na magnetofonovou stopu, nalepenou na film po průchodu laboratořemi + všemi chemikáliemi...
Dare I say too good for its own good...is that possible to even utter out loud!? I think the control and reliability factors in this camera are highly desirable features for any job...but I just think the footage does lack that "magic" for lack of a better word. I know regular 16mm produces the next step-up in image quality and colour rendition, but still retains it's own "magic" and for me therefore does not replace 16mm no less super 16. I am blown away by the sharpness and colours...its just too good for (my) super 8 purposes. I would love to test and run some stock through this camera and see for myself. Its defiantly a professional usage piece of hardware.
There is no "gain" in color quality with 16mm compared to Super8 *AT ALL*. Color quality or the palette of colors comes mainly with the stock you choose, and in theory, you can have any stock in any format. Another huge hurdle when it comes not only to color quality but overall image quality is whether you care enough to get a decent telecine. Now, *SHARPNESS* is an entirely different issue. That's where there's actually an advantage of 16mm over Super8. But once you're getting a decent telecine, the difference will be far lower than most people expect because when it comes to 8mm footage, they're used to poor, self-made off-the-wall transfers that looked like crap. That's why the difference even in sharpness is much lower than people usually think, at least as long as you're using a stock that has an RMS of 11 or less, which was true for most Super8 stocks there ever were. Kodak's negative Vision2 stocks were pushing it when it comes to RMS and current Agfa Aviphot aka Wittnerchrome200D is so grainy it looks like crap in Super8, but Kodak's current Vision3 stocks look really good when it comes to sharpness and fine grain, especially in 50ASA and still in 200ASA. Vision3 in 500ASA is getting a bit grainier again but far from as much as Aviphot, plus the Vision3 stocks have way better colors and latitude compared to their Vision2 predecessors.
I’m scared this is what Kodak used as a blueprint for their new camera, which if it is then I’ll buy 2. One to utilize and the other to vacuum seal/preserve Forever
So this footage looks unreal for super 8, but its because of the camera Logmar? But how do you get this camera. They only made about 35 of these. They are so hard to obtain. This video helps no one. It just shows us what could have been..
Remember that film does not have resolution. Also, the reason old super8 film looked so bad is a combination of the camera optics, cheap film, and poor use of the camera. As film has improved and the amount of grain in the image has been reduced, the amount of detail which a frame of film can capture has increased.
If it had at least a 200ft mag it may be worth it, but the price is double their original msrp almost $6,000 and lack of any 400ft or 1000ft mags make these camera useless for any real shooting. Digital Bolex also has all kinds of videos self made and user made content to show of its abilities, Logmar has not released even a single short to show off their camera since its release. So if their support is anything like their marketing ability I'd be cautious about buying it.
Joe Doe I agree, they are really hiding something. Maybe it's lacklustre performance. The other aspect that is missing is for me is : how loud is this camera?
John Umina A new video of the Longmar is on Vimeo to demonstrate it's audio sync abilities and it is WAY off lmao you have to watch it haha it's worse than a Godzilla movie. They really need to produce a 16x9 short film to convince me of looking at it more closely, but from what I've seen so far I wouldn't take one for free.
+Joe Doe Yep: agreed. I read Pro8mm and the Logmar team are working on Kodak's new Super 8mm camera - and they are planning on getting the Super 8mm film finally out of the Kodak cartridge and supply longer reels/spools to be used in a professionally designed camera. Still: I wonder about all the silence, including the Logmar. Kodak doesn't reveal any details. The rule is always "show, don't tell!". At the moment it's "neither show nor tell" This is "do or die", not: "well we are still figuring it out, coming soon". Many highly skilled film camera technicians with industry grade tools still out there. They turn even junk into fantastic, fully upgraded and updated film cameras in all formats! There are awesome crystal sync motors out there. Ask the guys who make these! I'm 100% sure any of these Swiss watchmaker precision tech wizards would have come up already with one beast of a Super 8mm camera using 200ft mags (=about 10 minutes at 24fps: perfect!). Also: why not re-introducing the double Super 8mm film with precision camera mechanics? I've seen projected footage long ago: rock steady, great exposure and pin sharp (old classic Kodak Tri-X!) - and: no need to split the film down the middle: just scan both sides in one go in a top notch 16mm film scanner - I have seen it done with regular double 8 - awesome! Some serious test footage please - otherwise it's admitting defeat. I'm absolutely sure this project is NOT in the right hands (clash of interests, very likely incompetence and wrong or half-hearted strategy). Some truly skilled people need to come on board - now - and some people involved need to have the cojones (and good old common sense) to let that happen! I don't know the politics behind all this, but manufacturers of digital cameras have nothing to fear. This will always be a niche market. At least make it a great one!
TOP !!!!! Das Wichtigste: Möglichst mit Stativ filmen, wo es geht und in 24 Bilder / Sekunde. Bei Handkamera dran denken: Das Motiv soll sich bewegen, nicht die Kamera ! Also: Stillgestanden, stillgehalten ! Bei alten Kameras die Entfernung zum Motiv stets korrekt einstellen (Wird im Eifer des Aufnehmens oft vergessen).
Four words: clean the film gate. I guess it's an indication of the organic nature of what we are seeing, but still...ugh. Lint and crap all around the fringes of the frame.
The only post-processing used here is image stabilization (which does look a bit ugly). All the rest is simply what Vision3 50D looks like right out of the can.
Shannon Trainer I've seen many examples of 50D by now, by many different scanning services, and none looks like noise reduction was used. Neither does this one. Where they did obviously cheat with this one was with image stabilization in post. Anyway, if you'd see more decent telecines of well-exposed K40 and Velvia, you'd know well that this is how sharp and fine-grained Super8 can look.
I'd love to see more footage from this Logmar camera somewhere. But this appears to be the only footage available. That, and the super quality of a all new Super 8 camera. Looks like Imax must be looking over their shoulders right now... :-) It's at the very least rivaling 16mm quality.
It's the combination of very fine grained film, sharp lens, good film registration in the camera due to the special film path (pressure plate keeps the film in place), scanner and grain removal software. Here's some shot with Beaulieu 4008 ZM, quite close results: ruclips.net/video/FIxHf-AVy4E/видео.html
Ma che senso ha vedere un girato su pellicola cinematografica senza avere la sensazione di una pellicola cinematografica?!... Non ci sono le rigature tipiche, qualche graffio... Troppo digitalizzato. Non va bene, non ha senso!!!! Il fascino della pellicola è proprio quello: l'emulsione. E poi, i colori sono orrendi e insipidi. Il tempo di otturazione è troppo perfetto per un formato ridotto, anche se fosse stato girato a 24fps... Ma cosa è????...
Best looking Super 8 I've ever seen. Well done!
5500$ super 8 camera
This is insane for 8mm
That is just absolutely stunning, jaw-dropping images. I've never heard of this camera. The quality is phenomenal.
I look through all the videos of the super-duper new cameras with new specs, resolutions, etc.
And then I come upon this... and my jaw drops. There is an emotional difference.
Everyone is gaga over the camera and film quality, but what's really extracting every last ounce of image quality is the SCANNER that was used -- which I believe was a Lasergraphics "ScanStation" scanner. Fully loaded-out, that's a $150k scanner, but apparently worth every penny! I've seen and used their scanners before, and they simply do things that no other scanners on the market can do.
TheHorta I'll still take a Rank-Cintel DataMill or Millennium II or DiTTo 4K scanner, or a Filmlight Northlight 1 6K (V1.1) or Northlight 2 8K (V2.0) film scanner, or an Imagica XE Advanced Plus (10K film scanner), a Digital Film Technologies Scanity 4K film scanner, a Grass Valley/Thomson Datacine 4K scanner, a Sony HDVS scanner, or a Digital Vision GoldenEye 4K scanner. LaserGraphics does not have any tri-linear RGB CCD line-array, 3CCD area-scan, or 4PMT flying-spot scanners like the ones mentioned above. Keep in mind all these scanners are from the last decade, and date back to like 2002, with only a few being from this decade, yet they are still some of the best available today.
Is it 4K doing the magic ?
@@NUCLEARARMAMENT Good luck hitting the moderlode -- a list of all the film scanners made in the last 150 years.
If someone told me this was super16, I might have believe it. Fantastic!!!
That little backhoe at 2:07 has got to be the coolest toy in the history of the entire universe.
Now that is scary sharp...
S8 film stock is not so sharp, even with a good pressure plate and sprocket wheels. K40 projected is not as sharp ,even when we project the originale
so what really happened here? Is it because of the camera with really sharp lens or just some really good digital scanning?
It's not super 8 ! Try a 50D cartridge and send it i the best lab to scan it and you will not get this result with even a RX4 Bolex DS8 with Macro Switar lenses . S8 is a very small format. You will not get this sharpness with no grains like the demo
GuyBodart Kodak Vision3 50D has an MTF of 100 cycles per mm, which translates to 100 line pairs per mm or 200 lines per mm horizontally and vertically across the 8 mm film. Assuming a 5 mm x 3.75 mm recording area per frame of 8 mm Kodak Vision3 50D 7203 film stock, 1000 horizontal lines and 750 vertical lines are possible, theoretically. I think it can look this sharp, 8 mm, so long as a good lens is paired with it and matches the MTF of the film or exceeds it in resolving power.
Just try it! Take a good camera with a very good lens like a Zeiss Super Speed and you will still the grains. There is no reason that the scanner inside the camera is better than a professional film scanner. I need to see i to believe is. Even 16mm is not as sharp as the demo. The pressure plate assure a steady and sharper picture, but do not make grains go away. www.imdb.com/name/nm0003100/
To the uplaoder: thanks for sharing these beautiful images.
Hi everyone, I've shot some Super 8 with Canon cameras and lenses with very similar quality. In my honest opinion this is DEFINITELY not the camera... the lens helps for sure, but not to the extent that you're gonna have definition like this. From having scanned 4k LOG Super 8, I can tell you, that the major difference is film speed. ISO 50 film is going to have loads more definition due to finer grain, than ISO 400 or 800 film. In fact, because Super neg 8 is so incredibly tiny, that at anything close to ISO 400, your grain is so huge, that definition starts disappearing anyway... basically your image becomes made-up of large dots. Even grading blacks are near impossible, because the only blacks, are the spaces between the large dots!
Of course, on 16 and 35mm lens quality becomes exponentially more important than film speed/ grain size. Hope this helps anyone out there. If what I'm saying doesn't make much sense, try Googling Super 8 vs 35mm film size. It's a small miracle that images can even be captured on the format at all!
Wow. This is feature film quality.
Outstanding! I've never seen such a quality image (colors, definition, sharpness, etc. ) with a S8mm film!! It is really mind blowing!
One of the exciting things about this video (and others in 4K), is that it shows that S8 really is worthy of a 2K scan.
Sure there is some focusing error and some aberrations from the lens, but when it is in focus, it’s tack sharp.
If a four by six millimeter sliver of film contains that amount of detail, that means that a 35mm is (as said many times and distrusted equally many times by people, trying to justify their the cheapness of digital), easily around 80 megapixel.
Probably the best quality S8 footage Ive seen lately
great video, it just goes to show, a format that was made 50 years ago can still amaze and impress! plus the fact that shooting on film actually makes you think about what you are shooting, as you only have 2 to 3 minutes of film! ha!
I tried to explain that to a 18 year old a couple of days ago. very funny.
but yeah makes me want to crack out the old cameras! and good to see what Kodak are doing at the moment, i hope it works for them.
But yeah good upload
This is just about the most impressive Super 8 footage I have ever seen. The Logmar camera appears to be something quite unique. The only thing about footage from this camera, is that what is seen here, appears to be the only footage available... period.
I would very much like to see more footage before I can truly believe the Logmar camera truly delivers such wonderful quality footage. Yes, I understand that the internet will not be flooded with Logmar footage, since there was only 50 such cameras manufactured. But one single film/video over and over again???
Please, let me know if there is more footage available.
And this is where the revolution begins
So beautiful! Fantastic! After viewing this footage I wonder how anyone could even consider shooting digital video.
+Ken Horan Sorry Ken we must have different eyes as we clearly see things very much differently.
+martyn hull Digital video is cold and has that "waxy" unnatural look. Film is organic and natural. Film has greater latitude. Film is archivable. Digital is not. You, sir, are nothing more than a detractor.
That is a little extreme.
The Logmar camera's $5,000+ price tag is probably one of the reasons I'm sure.
That is easily the best Super-8 footage I've ever seen. Thank you for sharing!
Looks too good for super8, wow. I almost thought this was 16mm. Nice!
And beautiful cinematography and framing
Stunning Super 8 will never die it is Rock and Roll a budget ended camera is needed of the Logmar you will have a revolution in film making its comeing !
I reckon it must be a combination of attention to excellent exposure for the film stock used, decent lenses, and the professional scan.
I'd love to see the 4k scan, with sections zoomed 150% so we can more clearly see just how sharp/grainy it is on our players.
It's just that most people are used to flickering and blurry, cheap off-the-wall transfers whenever they hear Super8.
It is more than that. I have seen stuff professionally scanned and it looks like heck. Also, stay away from that Wittner 200D cr@p, wow that stuff is bad!
ToyKingWonder
Depends on what you mean by "a scan". A flatbed scan is not only an amateur hack technique, it often looks like that. Many places will advertize that they're professionals and they still only do off-the-wall transfers.
Next step higher up, though only slightly, is if they're using one of those prism or mirror viewers that internally projects the film onto a small back-projection screen, and then they use a video camera to shoot the film off that screen. All that really does is remove the parallax (which is the fact that in off-the-wall transfers, the video camera can only stand beside the projector, so it only captures the film at an angle when looking at the screen).
Some places nowadays sell home toy "scanning" or "telecine" units for a few hundred bucks that look like a small projector and have a (analogue or digital) video-out socket. Main advantage to the viewer technique above is that you don't need a separate camera and you really capture the entire image area, and many have reduced hotspot and dark vignetting on the edges. But overall, those toys are so cheap they don't even eliminate flicker that comes from the fact the film/projector and the video camera are not in-synch.
Not to mention the fact that home movies will *ALWAYS* require heavy color correction abilities (which these latter toys don't have) for several reasons: a.) the colorspace of video is extremely limited compared to film, so you need heavy manual correction to squeeze the relevant information into the limited video signal, b.) these settings are different for every type of stock, c.) after several decades, many films will begin to fade and show color casts, and d.) amateur camera operators will more often produce mistakes such as over and underexposure, and if you have correction abilities within your unit (*NOT* when the information is already a video signal!), film has plenty of reserves to compensate for that during the scan.
It was back during the 80s when first actual professional telecine units for Super8 and Regular8 appeared on the market, made by companies such as Bosch, albeit hardly used compared to off-the-wall transfers. They did have first correction abilities, albeit very crude ones, and often their video output signal was very poor especially by today's standards (even in terms of analogue SD standards of the 1990s) and/or video tapes from that era themselves have begun deteriorating.
The best units on the market nowadays are MWA Flashscan units (provided you don't want a resolution beyond 2K). Crystal sharp, professional analogue and digital video out, film runs 100% in-synch with the internal shutter (so no flicker!), does both reversal and negative, they can also read mag-stripe sound, and, most of all, fully-flexible, manual correction of color, contrast, and gamma in highlights, mids, and shadows for every single shot.
And yeah, Wittnerchrome200D is crap. It's a grainy color reversal film from Belgian Agfa-Gaevert, put into carts by Wittner Cinetec. No comparison to the earlier Wittnerchrome100D, which was Ektachrome100D. Most people nowadays shoot negative in Super8 if they want color. But Retro8 in Japan has a small quantity of custom-made Fuji Provia in Super8. It's even sharper and more fine-grained than legendary K40, but its saturation is very low, so it looks a lot like video. Or at least it does so on cloudy days, haven't seen sunny Super8 footage on it so far.
Oh, and some of us are still holding out for the old-new company FILM Ferrania from Italy. They're really Super8 fans who've bought the old analogue part of the Ferrania factory.
Excellent information, and thank you.
I have been watching Ferrania as well. They look serious. I hope it is not a several year hot and cold effort like Impossible Film. I am also crossing my fingers that SOMEONE takes up the peel-apart Polaroid effort, I love shooting that stuff.
I am so past any "place" that talks about "scanning your memories" and, like you said, is probably doing off the wall. I have done off the wall myself, I have a modified 16mm projector, two modified Super 8mm projectors and a regular 8mm. Results are fair but nothing to get excited about. As much as a "grew up" on and was always enjoying working with reversal (and always being on a budget) I have abandoned that and just going with negative film and scanning.
BTW, I don't know what it is about that 200D that is so lousy. I have seen higher speed films less grainy.
In the meantime, I am planning projects in Black and White Regular 8mm on my Nikon Nikkorex. What a cool little camera!
ToyKingWonder
Oh, 200D was never meant for such a tiny format to begin with, only for aerial photography on medium and large format sheets. That's why it's so grainy and blurry and all that. But it does have one remotely redeeming feature to it, the colors in Super8 look like a re-born version of Agfa Moviechrome. And in 16mm as a larger format, it looks absolutely georgeous, especially on sunny days.
I would very much like to see what this camera can do with Tri-X, as well as Kodak's 200T and 500T stocks. There is far too much emphases on 50D and its low grain.
schaut besser aus, als mancher 16mm Film! Einfach unglaublich!
Stunnig! Looks like Super 16mm! Inmacculate! Please, more sampes with B&W filmstocks like Kodak Tri-X, Fomapan R 100 or Orwo UN54 & N74.
This can't be real. This amount of information on a S8 film? I'm very impressed!!!!!
It is real. Modern technology is again finally proving that film is and always will be better than digital!! The comments that can't believe that make me laugh.
Ano, je to možné.
S8 má neskutečné "rozlišení"....
Note that the image and frame line will always be in lock with each other anyway, regardless of film transport mechanisms.
I noticed that! But if he used a cassette, the pressure plate still bad?!
Ano, odhaduji že ten rámeček je vytvořený elektronicky - právě proto, že v kameře je propojený pohyb okeničky a perforace.
Ovšem hloubka ostrosti, to je bezpochyby filmový materiál.
To sebelepší elektronika nenahradí....
I have to agree, I’ve viewed a lot of Super 8 footage and this is absolutely the best I have ever seen. Is it the camera, the film, the transfer or all three? It’s very beautiful and makes me want to get a Logmar camera and film something. Well done!
Probably all three. :)
I left out one other factor, the camera operator. Clearly this person is very skilled in photography. I still can’t get over this footage!
The celluloid dinosours looking through their loid misted glasses at their best here.
I am stunned by this footage. Amazing Super-8 images.
+scott spears What I wonder is that you look at a 2K digitized analogue footage... It looks sharp yes...but wouldn't you see the same as it is filmed on a 2 k cam ?
+Andre de Lange , yes it would be as sharp or even sharp. I am amazed at the sharpness of the footage from such a small piece of negative.
@Andre: Nope, you wouldn't see the same on a 2K video originating on a digital format, namely regarding gradation (how many different shades and details in the lights and shadows, rather than just one black blurb or burned-out hi-lites) and range of colors. That's the main advantages film has over the mere pixel count of video.
Why the Super 8 cartridge is steady now? No grain and sharp like 16mm!! I do not think the lens will make a so great difference. What do you think??
The Logmar camera has a closed-loop, pin registered movement, so it's not at the mercy of that cheap plastic cart for stability.
I have to agree with Phil below. This is top Super 8mm. I don't think I have shot anything this good. But I also give credit to technique. Framing, the use of a tripod, the composition, and most of all, the exposure. All are quite good.
Quite frankly, I thought I had stumbled onto a 16mm video as my search was "16mm 50d" and this video popped up.
Look at the sparkle at the tips of the child's hair at 1:57. Awesome detail!
Too steady for Super 8.
So, Logmar stopped making these cameras because Kodak would come out with a new Super ( camera, and now weve waited years for this camera? Any chance the Logmar team could get back into production?
8mm sure has come a long way since I used it.
@Giovanni Madrigal If they had invested in the super 8 the scanner would be located in the camera .. In 40 you want to make progress !!
Absolutely amazing! Well I still can see some hints of Super 8mm "artifacts" such as color fringing around edges (for example tree branches against a blown out bright sky) and the dreaded "ghost/halo" effect around bright objects - but these are extremely few and not distracting. Really clean, sharp and rock steady (considering this is Super 8mm/Max8 gate). I would love to see the image framed for 16:9 (1:1,77) because the vignetting, sprocket hole and dirty gate are really annoying. The look and feel are absolutely amazing! Not sure about the frame rate though. It looks like 24 or 25fps with a jerky look due to the conversion to a different digital frame rate.
I was alive when Super8 was still in use and even owned a Beaulieu 6008S back in 1980. The then common Kodachrome 40 with its "toy-like" cartridge never looked this great. Not by a long shot. The lack of pin registration and precision pressure plate renders vintage Super8 cameras basically unusable by today's standards. I myself love that film look, but if it comes at the cost of looking "lo fi" in a distracting and trashy way, Super8/Max8 just doesn't cut it. I truly hope Kodak is going to do something about it. Yep: Kodak Vision 3 50D is awesome. Hopefully something can be done about the coarse grain of higher speed film stock.....
Anyway: that film look is absolutely stunning. It looks "finished", cinematic and silky as opposed to digital video, which - no matter how technically superior it might be as we speak, looks "unfinished and glassy" (= HD live television as opposed to cinema) - even if graded and filtered in Final Cut or Premiere to 'kinda' look like film. There is a reason why "007-Skyfall" was made with ARRI Alexa (digital) cameras and with "007-SPECTRE" the film makers went back to 35mm (one example of many). It's like the good old professional Kodachrome 35mm stills photography slides: scan these at top quality and there is no "tweaking" needed. It looks perfect and stunning as is on any computer monitor or printed out. I still shot a roll (Kodak professional "Elite" chrome 100 ISO (NOT Ektachrome) - now discontinued) back in 2007 (as a final farewell to film photography). Simply stunning and gorgeous! Digital is awesome for image processing, editing and file sharing. Those digital camera sensors still have a long way to go..... Thanks for reading.
How difficult would it be to have the option of using an anamorphic lens on the taking lens and having the video on the screen (which is from an internal video tap?) unsqueezed?
The technology out there to widescreen it & 4K it :-)
CHE MERAVIGLIAAAAAAAA!!!!!SUPER,SUPER,SUPER,SUPER,SUPER,SUPER ..OOOOOTTTTTOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW! Ich bin von der Bildqualität und Schärfe schwer beeindruckt!
am I the only one distracted by the seesaw movement of the image? I don't know if this is due to post processing or the image stabilization of the camera.
It's because of gate weave, super 8 only has one perf on the side and the motors tends not to be the most stable.
@@imabigsandwich1292 this is a crystal controlled motor, sync sound capable setup, and should run like pretty much any other single perf format. I've seen other crystal controlled Super 8 cameras that do not exhibit the seesaw, in fact I don't know of any other example I've seen where poor registration caused that effect. I am aware double perf formats like DS8, 8mm, 35mm, etc generally have much better registration.
@@pangeapiercing hmm maybe it's just weaving from the scanner/telecine?
I'm not completely chear on whether the footage was stabilized during the transfer/scanning or not? The need for a registration pin the Eclair cameras and esp the Aaton cameras showed, a well-designed pulldown and stabilizing mechanism provides excellent registration. The design of the Super-8 cartrdige, though, obviously needs all the help it can get when comes to registration and 'judder', so in this case, the reg pin is much needed, and helping out! Again though, was stabilization cerated in post as well as help from the registration pin?
Howard Phillips In this example the pin-registration of the camera isn't being exploited, other than to ensure the frame is stationary during exposure (the image sharper than it otherwise might). Rather, registration is being done entirely by digital stabilisation, because while the camera uses a +2 offset perf for pin-registration (as per smpte standard), the scanner doesn't. The scanner uses the adjacent sprocket (non-standard). I'm currently building an optical printer, for blowing up Super8 to 16mm, so will be making sure I exploit the camera's pin-registration, ie. use the +2 offset perf for registration. Note also that the cartridge design of Super8 plays no role in the camera used as the film runs out of the cart and through a separate gate and pressure plate, ie. the camera doesn't use the cart's pressure plate. The cart itself becomes little more than a supply/takeup container: a magazine.
The footage looks like it was put through a digital image stabilization program after scanning. Visible by the floating perf hole on the left as well as by the odd-looking stabilizing movements partly due to the fact the stabilization was done at a framerate different from the one the footage was shot at.
Wundervolle Aufnahme. Wie viel hat die Digitalisierung gekostet? Ich lasse gerade auch mein Kodak V3 50d S8 Film bei Andec entwickeln.
Meine Kamera ist eine restaurierte Beaulieu 4008ZM4.
Greetings from LA! I'm currently making a wager with my cinematography friends that I can make s8mm look like s16mm. I'm planning on using Cooke optics and 50d vision 3 stock for best grain but I've never seen any results of s8 that look this good. Please, any hints, tips or tricks would be amazing. What scanner did you use? Optics?
Is there any way to clean the film gate so that we don't see the hairs and dust that show up on the side edges, and on the bottom of the frame.
I used to love to film with a Super 8 camera in the 80s 3 minutes you can put so many things on one three-minute film.
Sehr gut gemacht!
Jesus that detailed. It almost looks like resolution is above 1080p, which is scary considering how small a super 8 frame is.
Kodak used to guarantee at least 1,000 horizontal scanlines for K40 in Super8. That guarantee was on their homepage until they discontinued the stock around 2005.
Henry Jones Jr. Kodak Vision3 50D has an MTF of 100 cycles per mm, which translates to 100 line pairs per mm or 200 lines per mm horizontally and vertically across the 8 mm film. Assuming a 5 mm x 3.75 mm recording area per frame of 8 mm Kodak Vision3 50D 7203 film stock, 1000 horizontal lines and 750 vertical lines are possible, theoretically. I think it can look this sharp, 8 mm, so long as a good lens is paired with it and matches the MTF of the film or exceeds it in resolving power.
+Henry Jones Jr. The resolution is above 1080 mate. It's a 2k scan and as you can clearly see, it provides noticeably more detail than stand 1080. Film is better than digital and this finally proves it.
+Howard Black They're not better than mine mate. 35mm all the way. Digital sucks.
Wow! On my scratched Super8 films I shot 35 years ago I could barely recognise faces...
What frame rate was this shot at? And what conversion method was used?
Holy crap.
I'm at awe.
Very nice film...
Just like mastering to vinyl- yes, it is possible to achieve greater and greater perfection through mechanical means. The thing is- why? If everyone is marveling that the film nearly looks as good as digital, why not just start with uncompressed digital and bump up the saturation a bit?
Uhhh...you do realize it's rather the other way around, right? Video has tried for about 30 years now to get even just remotely near film in quality. The point of the above scan is to show not that "film is as good as digital" (it's only recently that video is getting "good enough" some people start not caring anymore about the definite advantages of film), but that Super8 can look as good as 16mm.
hi, in the description you say you like to overexpose by one stop. And how does that work, how do you do that? you rate it at 25 and then process normally or you ask the lab to compensate?
Yes, that’s how you overexpose by one stop. You rate it at half the speed, and develop normal.
@@pablovi77 ooo thanks
The real secret is in the overexposure. That sharpens the image by reducing the grain.
I didn't know ETTR was a thing for a film stock.
@@beavis8073 Negative film stocks perform better with a 1/2 to full stop overexposure.
@@MORCOPOLO0817 I was honestly thinking about shooting on film, and I looked up the possibility that you could use 5 stops of over exposure before it maxes out. I'm a little bit reluctant, however, to try this on 50D because I heard that it doesn't have as much dynamic range as the other stocks and I don't want to muck up my footage.
@@beavis8073 The negative stocks all have great dynamic range. The reversal Ektacrhome is the one you want to be spot on for exposure.
3:31 BEAUTIFUL!
die bildqualität ist wirklich beeindruckend
awesome...how much does the 2k scan cost?
See the guy with the Canon digital EOS round his neck? I love his expression at 2:55. He is thinking, "what the hell is that camera????"
Mind blown. Need Tylenol now.
Impressive! You could almost think, it's just a fake. Great work!
Is this stabilised to keep the frame still and eliminate any frame shake?
oh my god... How did you get this quality of picture? :O How? because of the camera? Wonderful images!!!
Hallo Filmkorn; Es gibt vielleicht die Kamera zu mieten in Deutschland. Ich kann eigentlich gar nicht finden. konntest Du mir vielleicht helfen? Das wäre super. Grüße.
IMPRESSING !!
strange artifact if you freeze-frame between 1:57 and 1:58 (watch it at 0.25 speed).... I wonder how that occured...?.
The "holes" in the green sleeves? VERY likely temporal grain reduction where the software borrows information from adjacent frames. It always leads to artifacts in fast movement.
This footage is very obviously a top notch scan of top notch footage plus very heavy post production (grain reduction, edge enhancement and saturation cranked up).
WOW !!!! I love Super8mm
Lovely video and amazing for 8mm! How much was the camera???
How much all in did this cost (minus camera of course) and for how many minutes.
Thanks for your time!
+Sheldon Norton If you're talking just about the film? Kodak currently sells their super 8 film online for around $20-25 for 50 ft. That includes the price of getting the negatives developed and the cost of the digital scan. If the description is correct and they used 2 rolls of Kodak film, that's around $50. Oh, and 50 ft shooting at 24 fps I believe gives you around 2 1/2 minutes of film.
How many dime did you use? How can I get this amazing camera too =))
Where did you acquire the camera
How much is that camera and where do you get it?
Where did you find this camera?
holy shit thats sharp for super 8
I have scans of my 50D films in 2k and they look so soft and bland :/ how can one achieve this quality?
in terms of the color i think you just need to color correct or have the person scanning your film do it.
What camera and lens do you have? To shoot this film clip one of the sharpest super-8 lenses (Schneider Optivaron) was used. Also, the Logmar has a special film path that requires one to remove the film from the camera. It is less convenient, but the camera pressure plate keeps the film stable, thus also keeping the film in the right place in relation to the lens, resulting in sharper images.
So if your camera is some cheaper super-8 camera, no matter what scanner is used your images are going to look softer. As for blandness, make sure you color correct your negative film scans correctly by setting black and white levels and thus increasing the contrast in the film.
I'll be happy to answer any further questions!
What did you use to scan the film in ?
I sure, along with millions of others, WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THAT TOO! What was used to scan the film in. And how many bucks would that set one back? Seriously!!!
Daniel Phillips I have no idea, but you can find old school film scanners and film recorders and such on eBay for less than MSRP.
super 8 always has a scary look
Its interesting how some might compare this great work to 16mm film, as if 16mm film might be the metric by which Super8 was to be measured, and accordingly found wanting. But Super8 is an ALTERNATIVE to 16mm film. It is NOT a SUBSTITUTE and it shouldn't ever be assumed it ever would be, or wanted to be, in the first place. It is an alterative. Super8 (like any gauge) carves out it's OWN NICHE in the art of moving pictures. If it's to be compared to anything it should really be compared to other transfers of Super8. Clearly this work is one of the best transfers of Super8 you'll ever see. At least for the moment. And it's on that basis it should be judged - not in some literally redundant comparison to 16mm. That said, the fact that some nevertheless do find themselves comparing it to 16mm actually speaks volumes. Why is it being compared to such? The reason, I'd argue, that it's not actually a comparison of film gauges that is taking place (which would be redundant) but a comparison of transfers that is taking place. And this Super8 transfer is challenging conventional wisdoms regarding the technical difference between film gauges: not in terms of film, but in terms of the way film transfers to digital. To put it another way, if Super8 can look this good on digital, why is it that 16mm isn't looking twice as good? There are some technical questions to be pursued in this, that are not resolved by deferring to antiquated digital metrics otherwise used to characterise analog film. Clearly.
Bottom line: Modern people simply never knew what Super8 really looks like because they are used to poor, self-made off-the-wall transfers that looked like crap. That's why they're calling it "as good as 16mm" because they know 16mm only from professional telecines.
It miss only the direct sound
Это значит фильм без звука?
S8 nemá v základu zvuk.
Ten se přidával až později. Při zaznamenávání se to dalo nahrávat na nepropojený magnetofon a posléze nahrát na magnetofonovou stopu, nalepenou na film po průchodu laboratořemi + všemi chemikáliemi...
amazing
Dare I say too good for its own good...is that possible to even utter out loud!? I think the control and reliability factors in this camera are highly desirable features for any job...but I just think the footage does lack that "magic" for lack of a better word. I know regular 16mm produces the next step-up in image quality and colour rendition, but still retains it's own "magic" and for me therefore does not replace 16mm no less super 16.
I am blown away by the sharpness and colours...its just too good for (my) super 8 purposes. I would love to test and run some stock through this camera and see for myself. Its defiantly a professional usage piece of hardware.
There is no "gain" in color quality with 16mm compared to Super8 *AT ALL*. Color quality or the palette of colors comes mainly with the stock you choose, and in theory, you can have any stock in any format. Another huge hurdle when it comes not only to color quality but overall image quality is whether you care enough to get a decent telecine.
Now, *SHARPNESS* is an entirely different issue. That's where there's actually an advantage of 16mm over Super8. But once you're getting a decent telecine, the difference will be far lower than most people expect because when it comes to 8mm footage, they're used to poor, self-made off-the-wall transfers that looked like crap.
That's why the difference even in sharpness is much lower than people usually think, at least as long as you're using a stock that has an RMS of 11 or less, which was true for most Super8 stocks there ever were. Kodak's negative Vision2 stocks were pushing it when it comes to RMS and current Agfa Aviphot aka Wittnerchrome200D is so grainy it looks like crap in Super8, but Kodak's current Vision3 stocks look really good when it comes to sharpness and fine grain, especially in 50ASA and still in 200ASA. Vision3 in 500ASA is getting a bit grainier again but far from as much as Aviphot, plus the Vision3 stocks have way better colors and latitude compared to their Vision2 predecessors.
I’m scared this is what Kodak used as a blueprint for their new camera, which if it is then I’ll buy 2. One to utilize and the other to vacuum seal/preserve Forever
So this footage looks unreal for super 8, but its because of the camera Logmar? But how do you get this camera. They only made about 35 of these. They are so hard to obtain. This video helps no one. It just shows us what could have been..
Nice film,but please, clean the camera gate. Be careful as it is very delicate.
if only the logmar wasnt so expensive
No way this is Super 8mm. There's just no way.
Remember that film does not have resolution. Also, the reason old super8 film looked so bad is a combination of the camera optics, cheap film, and poor use of the camera. As film has improved and the amount of grain in the image has been reduced, the amount of detail which a frame of film can capture has increased.
And don't forget the major flaw people nowadays associate with Super8 and Regular8: Poor, self-made off-the-wall transfers.
I think it's really funny that you use the term "off the wall" since that's literally what they are.
300MediaProductions
That's the established term since the 80s.
Although the regular 8mm frame is smaller, I have done some work with it and it's not that bad!
That's 16mm quality
If it had at least a 200ft mag it may be worth it, but the price is double their original msrp almost $6,000 and lack of any 400ft or 1000ft mags make these camera useless for any real shooting.
Digital Bolex also has all kinds of videos self made and user made content to show of its abilities, Logmar has not released even a single short to show off their camera since its release. So if their support is anything like their marketing ability I'd be cautious about buying it.
Joe Doe I agree, they are really hiding something. Maybe it's lacklustre performance. The other aspect that is missing is for me is : how loud is this camera?
John Umina A new video of the Longmar is on Vimeo to demonstrate it's audio sync abilities and it is WAY off lmao you have to watch it haha it's worse than a Godzilla movie.
They really need to produce a 16x9 short film to convince me of looking at it more closely, but from what I've seen so far I wouldn't take one for free.
+Joe Doe Yep: agreed. I read Pro8mm and the Logmar team are working on Kodak's new Super 8mm camera - and they are planning on getting the Super 8mm film finally out of the Kodak cartridge and supply longer reels/spools to be used in a professionally designed camera. Still: I wonder about all the silence, including the Logmar. Kodak doesn't reveal any details. The rule is always "show, don't tell!". At the moment it's "neither show nor tell"
This is "do or die", not: "well we are still figuring it out, coming soon".
Many highly skilled film camera technicians with industry grade tools still out there. They turn even junk into fantastic, fully upgraded and updated film cameras in all formats! There are awesome crystal sync motors out there. Ask the guys who make these!
I'm 100% sure any of these Swiss watchmaker precision tech wizards would have come up already with one beast of a Super 8mm camera using 200ft mags (=about 10 minutes at 24fps: perfect!). Also: why not re-introducing the double Super 8mm film with precision camera mechanics? I've seen projected footage long ago: rock steady, great exposure and pin sharp (old classic Kodak Tri-X!) - and: no need to split the film down the middle: just scan both sides in one go in a top notch 16mm film scanner - I have seen it done with regular double 8 - awesome!
Some serious test footage please - otherwise it's admitting defeat. I'm absolutely sure this project is NOT in the right hands (clash of interests, very likely incompetence and wrong or half-hearted strategy). Some truly skilled people need to come on board - now - and some people involved need to have the cojones (and good old common sense) to let that happen!
I don't know the politics behind all this, but manufacturers of digital cameras have nothing to fear. This will always be a niche market. At least make it a great one!
Super!
GREAT
TOP !!!!! Das Wichtigste: Möglichst mit Stativ filmen, wo es geht und in 24 Bilder / Sekunde. Bei Handkamera dran denken: Das Motiv soll sich bewegen, nicht die Kamera ! Also: Stillgestanden, stillgehalten ! Bei alten Kameras die Entfernung zum Motiv stets korrekt einstellen (Wird im Eifer des Aufnehmens oft vergessen).
Four words: clean the film gate. I guess it's an indication of the organic nature of what we are seeing, but still...ugh. Lint and crap all around the fringes of the frame.
Certainly not the most exciting "action" ever committed to film, hmmm?
...nice !...
wow
WTF!!!
doesn't even look like super 8!! lol what is the point
+The Wedge Because it's cheaper than shooting on 35mm!!
looks way better than red camera...almost looks like 35mm
+STROBE TIKKER It's heavily post-processed.
The only post-processing used here is image stabilization (which does look a bit ugly). All the rest is simply what Vision3 50D looks like right out of the can.
Two words: noise reduction.
Shannon Trainer I've seen many examples of 50D by now, by many different scanning services, and none looks like noise reduction was used. Neither does this one. Where they did obviously cheat with this one was with image stabilization in post.
Anyway, if you'd see more decent telecines of well-exposed K40 and Velvia, you'd know well that this is how sharp and fine-grained Super8 can look.
What a ridiculous statement.
Amazing quality totally ruined by dirty film gate
I just don't believe this was shot on Super 8. Don't care how good the lens or scanner is. Way too much definition!m #bullshit
I'd love to see more footage from this Logmar camera somewhere. But this appears to be the only footage available. That, and the super quality of a all new Super 8 camera. Looks like Imax must be looking over their shoulders right now... :-) It's at the very least rivaling 16mm quality.
It's the combination of very fine grained film, sharp lens, good film registration in the camera due to the special film path (pressure plate keeps the film in place), scanner and grain removal software. Here's some shot with Beaulieu 4008 ZM, quite close results: ruclips.net/video/FIxHf-AVy4E/видео.html
Nice fake. At least I enjoyed this video ;-)
Ma che senso ha vedere un girato su pellicola cinematografica senza avere la sensazione di una pellicola cinematografica?!...
Non ci sono le rigature tipiche, qualche graffio...
Troppo digitalizzato.
Non va bene, non ha senso!!!!
Il fascino della pellicola è proprio quello: l'emulsione.
E poi, i colori sono orrendi e insipidi.
Il tempo di otturazione è troppo perfetto per un formato ridotto, anche se fosse stato girato a 24fps...
Ma cosa è????...