Leicina Special Test Results, and a Gauntlet Is Thrown...

[Santo]

As per request, here's a small sampling of some footage I just had transfered via workprinter. I warn you, they ain't shot for beauty! I've got two clips here: the first is a short compilation from my Leicina Special test reel with Plus-X:

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/wmv/Leica Spec Plus-X.wmv

While the second one is a short couple of shots from part of a comedy tv series I'm doing as part of a title sequence. It was shot on K40 using the Precision Pressure Plate in a Zeiss Ikon GS8 on one very grey day. The first shot or two is in soft focus as I was caught off guard, but then later shots are done in "snap shot" mode and turned out okay:

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... &Plate.wmv

General impressions from an email I just wrote back to the person who transfered it for me:

I must say that the the stability of the K40 footage was the most solid I've ever gotten out of super 8 while the Plus-X had its usual mixed bag performance. What was really interesting was that with the K40 I was using a Precision Pressure Plate from Germany in an old Zeiss Ikon I used to have (using seriously outdated film). While the Plus-X was shot on a Leicina Special I just acquired and shot mostly without the plate -- which actually was the cause of the slight bit of jitter you mention! When not in the camera, the footage is the most stable I've ever gotten from this always troublesome stock (the black and whites are thinner than K40 or the negatives and have more play in the camera gate). But when I put the plate in, the stability dropped and the slight jitters began. This can really be seen in the same "hypnosis" locked-down shot. The first two clips are without the plate, then there's a "white out" as the cartridge is taken out of the camera and the plate is inserted and the mild bit of jitter can be seen. Exactly the opposite of what happened in other cameras and Plus-X or with K40 -- the plate completely transformed the Zeiss for the better, and did the same with my other cameras except, it seems, the Special, which functioned much better without it with Plus-X. I haven't tested it with other stocks in that camera.

Obviously, I'm not going to post the entire films, but in the plus-X clip I posted here, the first being pretty reasonable stability-wise for Plus-X, the second is the one where I put in the pressure plate, the last one with the "dork and camera" is without the plate again and shows a pretty firm image. The firmest I've ever gotten with Plus-X over some previous 7 cameras now (Canon 814AZ, Canon 814E, Nizo S800, Nizo 3056, Zeiss Ikon GS8, Zeiss Ikon S8, Bauer S715xl, at least half of which were in "brand new time capsule condition"). I am very confident of terrific stability with K40 or negatives in the Special, and will soon be testing those. Seeing as it's already ahead of any of those other cameras with difficult Plus-X even with the pressure plate in use with them!

I would very much recommend the Precision Pressure Plate for use with other cameras -- it made a significant improvement with Plus-X and K40 in all the cameras mentioned except for the Leicina Special (plus-x tested only so far), which had decreased performance. There's no getting around that fact. I'd guess it's because of the famous "narrow film gate" which appears to have different dimensions than other super 8 cameras. I was a little worried when I got an email from the transfer guy that he was concerned about a "slight bit of jitter" on the Plus-X, but it turned out to be the Precision Pressure Plate at fault. While the Pressure Plate alternately can be credited with changing the mediocre registration of the Ikon with K40 into virtually flawless. I challenge any user of double super 8 or single 8 to post footage that can beat it! In fact, I'd even like to see somebody using those formats beat the Leicina Plus-X "dork with camera" clip on a 20 second locked down tripod shot. Go ahead and post one that's more stable.

As I said, I'm going to be doing negative and k40 testing of the Legend some day soon. I expect to be impressed.

edit: shoot, I can't modify the name of the Leica clip so that I can get a proper link to it on here. sorry about that. go to ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/wmv/
and click on the Leica Spec Plus-X icon.

[reedsturtevant]

Interesting - thanks for posting those! Does a small portion of the jitter in the "dork with camera" sample come from the capture process?

When I project film from a camera test I adjust the framing and watch the frame line because jitter of the image relative to the frame line is an in-camera issue while jitter of the frame line relative to the edge of the scene is a projector issue, right?

I wonder how the various telecine and digital capture systems compare to each other, and to projectors, regarding image stability? Excuse my ignorance if this has been discussed before...

[Santo]

I've actually got an enlarged gate version, non speed corrected, that the person doing the transfer did for me of the plus-x and it shows the stability of the transfer projector and the frames themselves as the sprocket holes and frame lines are visible. I'm going to post a short bit of that tomorrow morning when I've got some time. I'm sure it has been discussed before, but actual examples to look at are few. It's very interesting to look at. It seems to indicate that the jitter in the second clip is in camera after the addition of the Precision Pressure Plate. Again, this is only the case with the Special and Plus-X -- with K40 and other cameras, the results with the Pressure Plate are superb.

To Double Super8 and Single8 users: I'm not holding up the short K40 clips or "Dork with Camera" as the most stable footage ever shot in 8mm format (though the K40 stuff has to be right up there), but after all this talk about the stability advantages of those formats, I've seen no evidence of any advantage when compared to a camera equiped with the PPP or the Leicina Special. In fact, what few double super8 bits I've seen shot on Fomapan are less stable than "Dork with Camera" shot on the Special. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Post a 20 second locked down shot in either format and prove it's better. Theory is one thing, practice is another -- and the Legend delivers pretty good results in troublesome Plus-X and the Precision Pressure Plate delivers fantastic results when mixed with K40. I'm going to shoot some more stocks with the Legend and post results on here, too. I predict with K40 and negatives, my smooth running Special will be a big notch above the Plus-X footage and on par with a Plate-equiped super 8 camera. And a match for any double super 8 camera or single 8.

[super8man]

Santo,

I think you should stop eating so many hot dogs and perhaps see the psychiatrist and get some positive healing going on...they've moved offices you know.

Perhaps you should also use the dork with a camera headshot as your new avatar?

Keep up the good work ol' jittery one.

Cheers,
m

[Santo]

I'm almost there, super8man! I've almost got this super 8 registration thing cracked. I don't need any more doctors. no more sessions. no more meds or hypno-therapy.

[Santo]

Interesting - thanks for posting those! Does a small portion of the jitter in the "dork with camera" sample come from the capture process?

When I project film from a camera test I adjust the framing and watch the frame line because jitter of the image relative to the frame line is an in-camera issue while jitter of the frame line relative to the edge of the scene is a projector issue, right?

I wonder how the various telecine and digital capture systems compare to each other, and to projectors, regarding image stability? Excuse my ignorance if this has been discussed before...

You sure got me investigating this one. And the results are not that great for the Workprinter, I'm sorry to say.

Not that it doesn't do a great job with handheld stuff -- it does! -- but when you transfer locked-down tripod shots, the weakness of using a projector-based transfer machine become apparent. Not that it's even necessarily a projector that's the weakness, it is, I think, the kind of projector Roger uses for his Workprinter units. I read on here yesterday that the projectors don't have sprockets! Low-end GAFs I think. Needless to say, how stable can that really be? By using a simple technique this morning, I found that the Workprinter is actually a weak link in my attempts to get to a consistent level of acceptable registration with super 8!

Here's a post. Both with the entire gate of the Workprinter exposed. Dork with camera first, the troublesome scene where I put in the Precision Pressure Plate, second. These are not speed corrected, so shot at 18fps they naturally play at near double-time:

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... tytest.wmv

The framelines do indeed tell much of the story. In the second clip, the framelines are fairly erratic and you can really see that at the bottom right hand corner. While in the first clip, without the pressure plate installed, it's a much different story top and bottom.

However, sorry Roger, by knocking the image size down to say 50% on your computer and using the curser/pointer on your screen, it is very easy to see visually how the Workprinter is actually contributing to image instability. This can be seen very clearly in the Dork clip by simply placing your pointer in the sprocket hole (I have to laugh as I write that), and touching the tip to the top and the side touching the inner right edge of the sprocket hole, you can let the clip play and see what happens. The Workprinter shifts the actual film both left to right and up and down.

If you look back to the full sized Dork with Camera that's cropped (the clip I originally posted), the straight lines I purposely put in the composition near the top and to the left to check for stability seem to be "dancing" a bit, showing a lack of solid stability. However, if you continue the experiment with the fully exposed clip and your pointer at 50% image size and place your pointer between the outside bottom edge of the sprocket hole and the window ledge line underneath you will see that there is hardly any such movement -- the sprocket hole and the line move virtually in unison. The same can be said for placing your pointer on the right hand side of the sprocket hole and examining variations in distance between the line to the right of it. Once again you find that there is very little detectable variation. In fact, the film clip itself is extremely stable. The overused term "rock steady" comes to mind. However, the Workprinter transfer has created a gentle instability into the equation. No if ands or buts.

Pointing this out, I would still say that the Workprinter is a valuable thing for transfering home movies and any hand-held stuff. The instability is relatively gentle and goes pretty much unnoticed in the hand-held two reels of K40 footage I had transfered. Unlike the bucking and jitter which really wrecks footage. However, the Workprinter, based on my observations of one reel of open gate film to really see what's going on, is unsuitable for film production which involves locked down shots. It is not a stable enough transfer method.

In my opinion, Roger could likely improve matters by using a higher-end projector with sprockets to increase stability. I have no doubt that his 16mm transfer units are a lot more stable.

[reedsturtevant]

...projector with sprockets to increase stability

Sprockets may not be key, take a look at this clip of VideoFred's:

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... OldMan.avi

The movement of the frame lines seems worse to my eye even though VideoFred's rig has a projector with sprockets, right?

Jitter may seem simple but I'm thinking it's a pretty complex system...

Even a perfect mechanical system that registers by sprocket holes and edge of film can never remove in-camera jitter, as tolerances just add up. If the film is jittery in-camera the sprocket holes will dance relative to the camera gate. To see jitter introduced during transfer it's better to watch the frame lines than the sprockets.

Here's a question for the engineers on the forum: do in-camera issues ever cause image jitter relative to the gate? Wouldn't that mean some vibration in the optical system, maybe like a floppy 6-180mm zoom lens ? ("Breathing" of course is a different matter...)

You can reduce in-camera jitter once you bring the image into the digital domain using image processing like de-shaker. Of course the digital world is a wonderful source of new errors

P.S. I think the WorkPrinter is an amazing accomplishment: commercially available, low cost, frame-by-frame digital capture!

[MovieStuff]

I read on here yesterday that the projectors don't have sprockets! Low-end GAFs I think. Needless to say, how stable can that really be?

How stable can a film transport be without sprockets? Interesting question considering that you are shooting film on a camera that also has no sprockets. ;)

In my opinion, Roger could likely improve matters by using a higher-end projector with sprockets to increase stability. I have no doubt that his 16mm transfer units are a lot more stable.

Actually, the stability of the 8mm WorkPrinters has more to do with routine maintenance and user error than it does any inherent flaw in the system. We get units back in from people that sometimes have issues with stability and then when we open them the insides make it clear that they are rarely/never cleaned, or the film path has been slicked up with Pledge, or that the film was over lubricated, or that they have used reels that cause feed problems, or they have their Steadi-Shot on, etc. These are not typical projectors and the tension on them is critical for optimum performance, but that is the price you pay for a safer transport of your film.

It is very easy to do registration tests with the WorkPrinters because you can pull back to see the sprocket holes relative to the image. Doing so can reveal a lot about whether the problem is with the WorkPrinter or in the camera or a combination of both. If someone does this routinely (which they should if they are concerned) then I can help them if they contact me. Out of 1000 units sold, I have only been contacted by a few people regarding this issue. Generally speaking, the registration of these units is superb and, in most cases, as steady a typical Rank transfer as long as the WorkPrinter is maintained properly. In fact, I have found that most projectors have a much steadier image than the breathing found on a Rank, so everything is pretty relative. If the person that transferred your film is having registration issues, then he should contact me.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Santo]

Sprockets may not be key, take a look at this clip of VideoFred's:

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... OldMan.avi

The movement of the frame lines seems worse to my eye even though VideoFred's rig has a projector with sprockets, right?

Frame lines are obviously a camera stability issue. There is nothing a projection transfer or any other transfer can do to change the frame lines on a piece of film. However, when that film is cropped, the door is wide open for registration problems which the transfer method might introduce -- like the Workprinter does very clearly and beyond any doubt in the example I have provided -- and unless we see the entire film, sprockets and frame-lines and all, we can't know if it's a camera issue or transfer issue. In this particular clip, the transfer method clearly does not measure up to the registration of the camera being used.

To see jitter introduced during transfer it's better to watch the frame lines than the sprockets.

Yes, if you follow suggestions I give with your pointer, you will see that I am 100% correct.

P.S. I think the WorkPrinter is an amazing accomplishment: commercially available, low cost, frame-by-frame digital capture!

I would never argue that point. I make a point, even in this eye-opening and real world test of its stability, that I very hardily recommend it for typical hand-held home movie transfer (about 95% of home movies?). It is unbeatable and better than any DIY system by about 3 light years.

However, the reality is is that I cannot recommend it for more demanding work involving locked down tripod-mounted filmmaking. Nor can I recommend the Precision Pressure Plate for use with Plus-X and the astonishing Leicina Special as it seems to override the brilliant one-of-a-kind engineering behind the legendary Teflon-coated "narrow" film gate that only the Special possesses.

[downix]

I'll be able to compare your Lecinia's results to MY Lecinia's results in short order. (newest purchase, quite happy about it)

[MovieStuff]

In this particular clip, the transfer method clearly does not measure up to the registration of the camera being used.

But the "method" you question is using a transport that has no sprockets, which a super 8 camera also does not have. What I find troubling is that you presume the problems in the transfer are inherent in a sprocketless system, without giving weight to the fact that a sprocketless system successfully created the original imagery that you find acceptable. You can't say that the transfer method is at fault simply because a sprocketless projector transport was used and then also say you feel confident in a sprocketless camera transport. As you have proven, not all sprocketless cameras produce unstable footage, nor do all sprocketless projectors. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

There are a variety of things that can cause registration problems on any projector, including the WorkPrinter. Until you know what those specific problems were, it is really unfair to make a blanket statement about the "method" used, since it is very same method used in your preferred camera. Again, if the WorkPrinter unit is having registration problems, there are ways to address that issue, if the operator desires to do so. If you would like to send us some footage to transfer, I can show you what a solid transfer looks like on a WorkPrinter.

Roger

[Santo]

How stable can a film transport be without sprockets? Interesting question considering that you are shooting film on a camera that also has no sprockets. ;)

Yes, it's a real problem: a film shot on super 8 and then transfered using a Workprinter must see potential instability imparted in both processes.

Actually, the stability of the 8mm WorkPrinters has more to do with routine maintenance and user error than it does any inherent flaw in the system.

Sort of like super 8 cameras.

Out of 1000 units sold, I have only been contacted by a few people regarding this issue.

Of course. What have you quoted on here before? 95 - 99% of people buying your system use it to transfer old home movies. Virtually all of which are hand-held messses, masking the registration of the Workprinter. And those that may not be likely see all the flaws written off entirely to super 8's on and off stability issues. There is no reason for an overwhelming majority of your customers to ever complain as they will virtually never be in the position to observe the flaws in your device and have it impact what they are doing. They aren't trying to optimize super 8's complete filmmaking potential.

Generally speaking, the registration of these units is superb and, in most cases, as steady a typical Rank transfer as long as the WorkPrinter is maintained properly. In fact, I have found that most projectors have a much steadier image than the breathing found on a Rank, so everything is pretty relative.

This is clearly fantasy. Considering that the variations of Ranks and Rank-type professional systems transfer virtually all feature films we see to pretty much perfect registration. Sorry, Roger, but that cannot possibly be the case. After your comments, I am strongly considering shooting another test reel and having it tested blindly at a Workprinter transfer place, and also at a state-of-the-art facility and posting the results here along with impossible to deny examples like I've done here. I'm uncertain if it's worth the money, but I might.

If the person that transferred your film is having registration issues, then he should contact me.

This is not restricted to one machine. After further observation today after having been made aware of this, it has become clear examining other footage done on two other Workprinters, that this is common across the board. There I don't have fully exposed gates to compare, but I do have multiple passes of the same footage! The flaws in registration are not consistent. Just like "Dork with Camera" does not exhibit the same film movement in the cropped image and exposed gate takes. It is a reduction in registration stability imparted by the Workprinter.

I'm still waiting for a 20 second locked down double super 8 clip or single 8 clip that beats Dork with Camera for registration -- even with the Workprinter-induced image fluctuation. Let's put that fantasy to bed, too, shall we?

[Santo]

If you would like to send us some footage to transfer, I can show you what a solid transfer looks like on a WorkPrinter.

Roger

Alright, but I will do this anonymously using a stateside contact, quite likely to ensure this is as if I were any other customer. I will also send that film to a state-of-the-art transfer facility. I will then post results on this board.

This is going to take some time as I will incorporate it in a test with negative footage as well. But this will take several weeks. I may send you either/or K40 or Plus-X.

Right now you're in a lot of trouble. Let's see if you can get out of it.

[reedsturtevant]

Right now you're in a lot of trouble.

Hold up a minute - I thought the Gallery of Fools would keep this civil

[MovieStuff]

Generally speaking, the registration of these units is superb and, in most cases, as steady a typical Rank transfer as long as the WorkPrinter is maintained properly. In fact, I have found that most projectors have a much steadier image than the breathing found on a Rank, so everything is pretty relative.

This is clearly fantasy. Considering that the variations of Ranks and Rank-type professional systems transfer virtually all feature films we see to pretty much perfect registration.

Sure, in 35mm. But if you crop into an 8mm section of that 35mm transfer that you consider "pretty much perfect", you will see breathing worse than most WorkPrinter transfers, and that's a fact. Ranks do not have anything close to perfect registration and that is common knowledge in the industry. That is why effects footage has to be transferred on a SteadiGate because the breathing and registration of a Rank is a known problem.

After your comments, I am strongly considering shooting another test reel and having it tested blindly at a Workprinter transfer place, and also at a state-of-the-art facility and posting the results here along with impossible to deny examples like I've done here. I'm uncertain if it's worth the money, but I might.

I'm certainlyu not trying to deny anything, Santos. I stand by the quality of my product and I, better than anyone, know what it's weaknesses are and a sprocketless drive system has to be maintained for critical performance. Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Take the same super 8 footage and send it to 6 different Rank houses and overlay that footage. You will see breathing all over the place and the registration of one Rank house will be better than another. Rank shops that are optimized for super 8 will do a better job, registration wise, than shops that are used to handling 35mm day in and day out. I maintain that the breathing that is seen in a typical Rank house is greater than you get with a well tuned projector. A well tuned Rank can be better, as well. It's all about maintenance and expertise of the operator to understand the equipment; there is no guarantee about the results, good or bad, based on the method used.

If the person that transferred your film is having registration issues, then he should contact me.

This is not restricted to one machine. After further observation today after having been made aware of this, it has become clear examining other footage done on two other Workprinters, that this is common across the board.

Again, this is an assumption, Santos. There are so many factors that can affect registration on any projector, just as there are factors that affect registration on super 8 cameras. Even if you tested all 1000 WorkPrinter units, you will find as much difference in results as testing every Rank house in the USA. Some do better than others, depending on maintenance and operator experience. It's just that simple.

I do my best to provide a quality product and dependable service. It is up to the operator to know their equipment and contact me if they feel there is an issue. I can't hold their hands. The same holds true with a Rank. If you sent a test to a Rank house and felt there was too much breathing in the transfer, then that hardly means all Ranks have the same exact problem. Some will be better than others. Servicing and operator expertise is needed for any serious telecine work, I'm sure you'll agree.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv