Shot with the Logmar super8mm camera today

starcentral

starcentral

Veteran
For those who aren't aware, film is back. :)

Today I shot with a beta version of the Logmar S-8 camera (on a steadicam nonetheless) combined with a Schneider 6-66mm zoom lens and I have to say this is a very impressive super 8mm film camera!

It has a flip out digital screen which is not only used for the video assist, but also to access a full menu of interesting camera features and settings from frame rate, audio, and more. It also displays how many feet of film you have used along with frame count, time and date.

The camera body also has an SD card slot for storing meta data, a USB port, and heck it's even wi-fi capable! A quick access function button next to the REC button lets you quickly select a different set frame rate without having to go deep into the menu, these guys have really thought this animal through quite well.

At around 5lbs equipped with lens, Sony NP-950 battery, and a Kodak super8mm film cartridge this camera was easy to fly on my Steadicam Flyer 24LE and thankfully I never threw out the old stock SD monitor that came with it because the Logmar camera provides a composite 60i output signal via RCA jack usable for monitoring.

I didn't look hard for any "exposure" tools but of course used my trustworthy Sekonic L-508 light meter to set my exposure - same way as I would if shooting digital :thumbsup:

For more information on the Logmar super8mm camera visit the official website http://www.logmar.dk

UPDATED: A more official but informal review of our testing: http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2015/05/logmar-super-8mm-film-camera/

Here's a pic from today;

11206106_10152795864302027_5358392513724754581_n.jpg


As for some footage, well this is a film camera so no quick turn-around in this case! The film is off to the lab and then needs to be digitally scanned. I'll be sure to return with a link to the footage soon.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'd buy a super 8 camera today, but it's great to hear that someone perceives there's enough of a market to start manufacturing one again. That Schneider lens is a classic beauty and performs very well. When I "went video" back in 1981 or so, in my youthful enthusiasm, I sold all my S-8 stuff for a grand total of $400, including a Beaulieu 5008S with the superlative Angenieux 6-80mm T1.4 lens. Many's the time I've wished I had it back since then.

- Greg
 
It wouldn't be my first pick. I'm quite happy with my Sony F55 but I'm being hired to shoot one or possibly several feature films to be shot on super 8mm so I may end up buying one of these if it works out less to buy vs rent.

The registration on this camera is phenomenal, and I'm looking forward to working more with it and getting the scans back on my computer so I can tinker in Resolve.
 
That's because Super 8, inherently, is about SD resolution. Nothing anyone can do about that. Kodak has said that 35mm movie film is about 4K resolution, so ... 24 mm of film resolution can be properly represented when scanned by 4,096 pixels. Meaning the resolving power of film is about 170 pixels per mm of film. Well, Super 8 film is 4.8mm wide, so 4.8 x 170 = 819 pixels worth. That's all there is. A frame of Super 8 film, regardless of how sharp the lens is or any other trickery, is only going to be able to resolve about 819 x 614 worth of detail. Not knocking it, just pointing out -- it is what it is. You'll never get 4K resolution out of 16mm, and you'll never get HD resolution out of 8mm.

That said, starcentral, I'm jealous. I dumped all my S8 stuff years ago, but ... still it calls to me. Not at $5,000 though.

Do you know, is it Super Duper 8 (aka Max 8) capable? That widens up the frame (using the soundtrack area, similar to how Super16 and Super35 increased their frame size by using the soundtrack area)... Super Duper 8 gets you a little closer to HD, in that it gives you 20% more horizontally, so a 16:9 Super Duper 8 frame would hold about 983 x 553 pixels worth of detail, more than could be held in any SD frame but still not near what 720p would deliver.
 
Last edited:
Hi Barry,

No the Logmar super 8 camera is not max 8 (super duper 8) capable from what I know. These guys intended on making a 16mm and 35mm camera first but then in the end decided to go for super 8mm instead. It's kind of neat, kind of expensive, but I always melt over that real look of film.

Interesting about the resolution, I was wondering all that stuff myself.

Our film roll has been developed and getting scanned next week.. will hope to post a video of our test footage then.

Cheers,
 
Barry_Green said:
That's because Super 8, inherently, is about SD resolution. Nothing anyone can do about that. Kodak has said that 35mm movie film is about 4K resolution, so ... 24 mm of film resolution can be properly represented when scanned by 4,096 pixels. Meaning the resolving power of film is about 170 pixels per mm of film. Well, Super 8 film is 4.8mm wide, so 4.8 x 170 = 819 pixels worth. That's all there is. A frame of Super 8 film, regardless of how sharp the lens is or any other trickery, is only going to be able to resolve about 819 x 614 worth of detail. Not knocking it, just pointing out -- it is what it is. You'll never get 4K resolution out of 16mm, and you'll never get HD resolution out of 8mm.

That said, starcentral, I'm jealous. I dumped all my S8 stuff years ago, but ... still it calls to me. Not at $5,000 though

Do you know, is it Super Duper 8 (aka Max 8) capable? That widens up the frame (using the soundtrack area, similar to how Super16 and Super35 increased their frame size by using the soundtrack area)... Super Duper 8 gets you a little closer to HD, in that it gives you 20% more horizontally, so a 16:9 Super Duper 8 frame would hold about 983 x 553 pixels worth of detail, more than could be held in any SD frame but still not near what 720p would deliver.
Click to expand...

Glad your more of a mathematician than me Barry.
 
Logmar footage :

https://vimeo.com/129700087

I see an excess of unsharp mask in this footage, so I think that it may seem like video, also some scenes shows a blur on the left side.
Look at this shot with a Beaulieu of 40 years but reviewed by Björn, in my eyes there is more real detail, the unsharp mask is minimal. Do not look at stability, this handheld shot.
This is not SD, is very close to a true 720 p
https://vimeo.com/126950306
 
I'd love to play with this camera. Price is a bit high for me since it wouldn't see a huge amount of use, but I wonder if any rental houses in the US will have one (doesn't look like any do yet...).
 
The Logmar is definitely fun to play with, the registration is superb but the resolution is like Barry pegged it. Quite low, doesn't matter how high you scan it.

The footage we shot for the test will hopefully be posted by the Logmar owner.

We are scheduled to shot some more rolls soon.
 
I don't need to school any of you but another thing to consider about film in regards to resolution is that film resolution increases temporally- because each frame of film has a randomized grain pattern (could think of them as photosites) when playing any film footage it will appear to have a resolution increase vs a still frame. So while Barry's math sounds correct at 819 x 614 for a still frame of super8mm- the apparent resolution and sharpness might be 1.5x more than that when viewing it temporally (given a low compression video or through projection).

Given Barry's math, I would say you would benefit to scan super 8mm to at least 1280x920- after that you probably won't gain much.
 
I've finally downloaded the DPX 10-bit scans of the little test footage we shot. Well, I can say definitely that there's no way the resolution of what I see looks even close to HD. The registration is really great, my steadicam work is not. But still, it looks super 8mm footage only without the bouncy frames.

What did I think it was going to look like :shocked:
 
Hunter Hampton said:
Ieach frame of film has a randomized grain pattern (could think of them as photosites) when playing any film footage it will appear to have a resolution increase
Click to expand...

Pixel shifting. We didn't appreciate it when Canon and Panasonic did it, and we don't appreciate it now that Kodak is jumping on the bandwagon. Film is dead, Kodak!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top