shooting 8mm film - lens recommendation?

[fmiller]

Hi

First post - so I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place (or a very tired question)...

I'm working on a personal project photographing 8mm movie frames. The goal is to produce large-ish prints, so scanning the film won't give me the resolution I want.

Right now I have a Sony A7RII attached to an old set of Nikon bellows (PB-4 I think), several macro tubes, ending in a reverse mounted Canon FD 35mm f3.5.

I'm able to fill the camera frame with the 8mm film frame (4.8mm x 3.5mm according to Wikipedia).

Can you recommend a better lens?

The 35mm is OK, but I'm wondering if there's a sharper solution any of you can suggest. I have a Sigma 35mm f1.4 I would love to use, but it's EF mount and I have no way to change the aperture....

Also, what I have now makes it a bit tricky to change the aperture...

Sorry - lots of questions....

Thanks! Any feedback would be appreciated!

[ChrisR]

Hi

Welcome!

Ok, what other lenses do you have - 200mm?

[Pau]

I have a Sigma 35mm f1.4 I would love to use, but it's EF mount and I have no way to change the aperture....

If you have a Canon EOS you can:
- mount it at the camera
- select in M or AV mode the aperture you want
- press the DOF preview button and while pressed remove the lens

at least it works with Canon EF lenses

Is your Canon 35mm a reversed wide angle? If so, you can find better lenses, mainly dedicated bellows macro lenses or reversed good enlarger lenses. You can also adapt to the Sony the excellent Canon MP-E with the Metabones adapter, an expensive solution.

but...Super 8 wasn't the king of resolution, maybe you could get more nitid grain, dust and scratches and not a better image

[fmiller]

I have a bunch of Canon EF lenses: 17-40, 24-105, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 135f2, 70-200f2.8...

I also have kicking around a Pentax 28mm m42, a Nikon 55 f3.5 macro and a Canon FD 20mm... (as well as what I mentioned before)...

Does this help?

[fmiller]

Thanks Pau!

Just to clarify what I'm up to here... I actually WANT the dust, scratches, film grain, blotchiness, etc...

So in THIS case the 'flaws' are the best part...

[Pau]

OK, I understand this part of the arts project
So you want a very sharp lens

[ChrisR]

Try reversing a 28, 35 etc on to the front of your 135mm f/2.
You can use electrical tape for a trial.

Focus both at infinity to begin with, maybe stop the littlun down a stop or whatever you can , while minimising vignetting.

[fmiller]

I'll give it a try - thanks

[Chris S.]

Fmiller, welcome to the forum! (A different Chris, here.)

I apologize if this is . . . a very tired question) .

As phrased, it’s not a tired question at all. But let me do my best to turn it into one. This will let us point you to FAQs, and clarify your query in terms commonly used in our community. So please bear with me while I work through determining what magnification you need; or more precisely, what "magnification on sensor" you need. This is important, because my sense is that you need 5x or 7.5 x magnification on sensor—and if correct, this means you would best be served with a microscope objective, rather than any of the lenses so far discussed. Once you get into the range of 5x, nothing matches a microscope objective.

First, a known: The sensor on your Sony A7RII is reportedly 35.9mm x 24mm (a flavor of “DSLR full frame”).

Next, something a bit unclear: What is the size of the field of view you wish to cover? As you’ve noted, Wikipedia does say "The frame size of regular 8 mm is 4.8 mm × 3.5 mm." But Wikipedia is a far-from-perfect source, and these numbers do not quite match the graphic in the upper right-hand corner of that same Wikipedia article. And that graphic is also suspect.

(And in case you’re wondering, these differences may be significant, not just pedantic, depending on how much quality you desire, how willing you are to crop, and how much money you’re willing to spend on this project.)

So a few questions:

• 1). Are you talking about the 8mm Eastman Kodak movie film format introduced in 1932? Or the Super-8mm Eastman Kodak movie film format introduced in 1965? These are the common film stocks referred to as “8-millimeter,” but have quite different dimensions for the image area. There are several other, less common, 8mm film standards to which you may be referring.
  
  2). Do you intend to photograph just the image area of the film stock? Or a larger area that includes the spindle hole and margins? Given your artistic intent, I could see either approach being reasonable.
  
  3). If you’re photographing just the image area, are you OK with a tiny bit of cropping? Or is portraying the actual edge of the image area an important element of your vision?
  
  4). Again, if you’re photographing just the image area, which of two image areas do you want to capture? There are two ways of defining the actual image portion of the film stock. The broader field is the “gate aperture” of the film camera—which determines the size of the image on the film stock. Slightly narrower are the “projection dimensions,” which define the width and height of the projector aperture plate. This determines the portion of the image that is actually projected, and was by design a slight crop of the frame, to avoid artifacts that would be bothersome to viewers’ eyes.

Let me work through a couple of reasonable scenarios:

Scenario one:

• Assume you are photographing 8 mm Eastman Kodak 1932-format stock, and want to cover just the portion of the stock covered by the image as seen by film viewers. According to the above reference, projection dimensions for this stock were 4.67mm x 3.28mm.
  
  Considering your 35.9mm x 24mm sensor, this means that your ideal long dimension magnification (35.9mm/4.67mm) would be 7.7x. Your ideal short dimension magnification (24mm/3.28mm) would be 7.3x. As one much choose a single magnification (barring use of exotic anamorphic lenses—and don’t even think of going there), the lower magnification is limiting, unless you’re willing to slightly crop the long dimension.
  
  For a bit above 7x, there are several good lens choices—all of them microscope objectives. Before enumerating them, let’s see if this is really the magnification territory you wish.

Scenario two:

• Assume you are photographing Super-8mm Eastman Kodak 1965 format stock, and want to cover the entire portion of the stock covered by the image as recorded by the movie camera. For this stock, gate dimensions are listed by the same source as 6.22mm x 4.22mm. Doing the math for your sensor, this means 5.8x for the long dimension, and 5.7x for the short dimension.
  
  If this is the case, you would be well-served with a 5x microscope objective. Here again there are varied choices, but before discussing them, it’s worth finding out if such discussion is warranted.

It may seem odd, but in the photography of small things, minute differences in field of view are ideally captured by wildly different lenses. This is why questions about your desired field of view strike me as vital, rather than pedantic.

If your interest is in photographing the image portion of any 8mm film stock, I think you should be looking at microscope objectives in the 5x to 7.5x range. Which objective—and more broadly, what regime of objectives—serves you best involves many variables and requires more discussion.

On the other hand, if you want to record the entire width of a nominally 8mm frame of film stock—image, margins, sprocket holes and all—you will be in the region of 4.5x (35.9mm/8mm=4.5). However, this is also a realm where microscope objectives rule.

If any of this makes sense, you might want to read FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera? And also provide us with specifics on what film stock you're shooting, and precisely what portion of this stock you want to record.

Cheers,

--Chris S.

[Chris S.]

but...Super 8 wasn't the king of resolution. . . .

Pau, I agree. But will you indulge me if I go pedantic here?

Some of my university professors, for whom these details were important, felt that many early 8-mm films tended to be superior to later Super 8 films, even though Super 8 used 8-mm film stock more efficiently by allocating more of the stock for the image, at the sacrifice of a smaller sprocket hole. Their opinion was that earlier "standard 8" cameras often had better lenses than later Super 8 cameras, and so tended to produce better images.

My experience is much less wide than that of my teachers, but seems to back up their opinion.

Cheers,

--Chris S.

[ChrisR]

Hmm, the B word - Budget!

It's hard to quantify "good" but you'll get an idea of realtive merit vs cost for whatever magnification you need, in the FAQ
How can I get a bit more magnification?

I wrote it, so I'm biased, but I've played with a number of lenses.

[lothman]

Just for reference, in the old Film days Canon had a dedicated 20mm macro lens for copying 8mm film do 24x36 ;-)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/co ... 5macro.htm

It had the microscope RMS thread and was provided with an adpater for Canon FD, you can still get it used. But there are optically better soulutions available today.

[fmiller]

Thank you all for your help! This is great information and very helpful.

To address Chris S.'s questions:

I don't THINK I'll need to get in the perforations, etc on each frame. That said, I chose to do this on my Sony because it is the highest resolution camera I have right now and I can get away with some cropping.

So... I guess I'm looking at a 5X objective....(?)

I know absolutely nothing about microscope lenses and the price range is pretty extreme.

Are there any 'go-to' objectives in this range that are known for delivering good images at a "modest" (sub-300) price?

Thanks!

[fmiller]

I should probably clarify here:

I really don't think I would ever need this lens to focus to infinity, or even past 6 inches...

[ChrisR]

It' a steep curve, as they say.

The two (4x and 10x) objectives here Where can I get.. with BE in their names aren't the sharpest on the planet - but they aren't all that far off.

You use them on a "tube" lens, of 200mm for the rated magnification, or shorter for proportionately less (usually has to be NOT a zoom), though they may not cover your sensor fully then. But you have pixels to spare, so could afford to lose the corners.
Old but good prime lenses such as 135mm can be £50 and perfect for the job. [Edit - sorry I missed that you have one, it should be fine]
The 10x BE on a 135mm gives you 10 * 135/200 which is 6.75x, in other words a field width just over 5mm. It Should cover your sensor, just.

You'd need a few adapter rings from ebay, but should come in under £200 for the lot.