IMAX vs. Super 8 The Tough Question

[Arislan]

IMAX vs. Super 8 The Tough Question
(from Virgil Mirano)

Think about it. You're a talented, up-and-coming filmmaker. You need to choose the format that you want to haunt you for the rest of your life. BUT REMEMBER NOW: Your talent is irrespective of your format. You're resourceful and creative. You're broke. This last point, too often ignored by industry professionals, is the
all-important one. consider these simple facts:

1) Super 8 uses only one two-hundredth the amount of celluloid as IMAX does. This means your negative cost per minute is much, much less.

2) Super 8 equipment is much easier to handle and much, much cheaper to deal with. We're talking a couple hundred rather than several hundred thousand, now.

3) Super 8 post-production is much less cumbersome and much more rewarding, as it forces you to really get close to your film.

4) There is NOTHING you can film in the big format that you can't do in Super 8. An optical is still an optical, whether it's five stories high or only on your living room wall.

5) The image quality of Super 8 is better that that of IMAX. It's true! Think about it. IMAX blows up its image 42,000 times in order to put it on the screen. Super 8 only blows up its frame 960 times, giving an over 400%
better quality image. And, since the frame is so much smaller, there is less chance of dust and scratches marring the picture. In fact, an IMAX frame has 192 times as much dirt on it as a Super 8 frame!

So you've got a huge image with IMAX that you can't show at home, a party, or move around as you please. Is it worth the hassle to build a huge, specially-designed theatre with a thousand seats and an expensive projection system just to show your cousin's wedding? Come on!

[twotoneska]

This is a joke, right?

[timdrage]

haha

Anyway, you can always shoot super-8 and blow it up to IMAX later via a digital intermediate! :lol:

[sooper8fan]

who's gonna be shooting a frickin' wedding in IMAX? seriously. I don't get this thread....
I always thought there were special cameras or lenses that were used when shooting for IMAX...am I wrong?

[timdrage]

I think some people need to download a new sense of humour plugin for their web browser. :roll:

[johnnhud]

Very funny! This just goes to show you how a GOOD SALESMAN can put the proper spin on anything!!! Bravo!

[MovieStuff]

True story;

Back in '74-'76 or so, my best friend and I used to make all sorts of super 8 movies in high school. Typical run time was, of course, about 2.5 minutes. Everything kept to a minimum on a single 50 foot roll. After graduation, he immediately went to work out of state for a start up company that was making the first IMAX films, only they were also called OmniMax (for use on a dome screen). Anyway, he was just hired as a grunt but the director came in and was addressing the entire crew, telling them in a thick British accent, "Right! Now, lads, working in OmniMAX is like nothing you've ever done before. TOTALLY different in all respects. The viewfinders are bloody hard to see through, you need a ton of light, the cameras are noisy and you get, at best, two and a half minutes run time per magazine of film. Any questions?"

My friend raised his hand and asked, "Uh...So what's different about it?" :lol:

Roger

[Scotness]

Now that's funny Roger

- someone shoud start a book of funny film anecdotes......



Scot

[David M. Leugers]

LOL! Kodak should use that story to help sell the idea of shooting S8mm better prepares you for a professional film career than shooting DV. 8)


David M. Leugers

[ekta-clone]

One good thing that I can think about Imax is that you could print promo enlargements out of your camera negatives since the images are about the size of medium format, so you don't have to pay a still photographer

[ekta-clone]

LOL! Kodak should use that story to help sell the idea of shooting S8mm better prepares you for a professional film career than shooting DV. 8)


David M. Leugers

doesn't it?

[S8 Booster]

anybody but me noticed that iMax is way more jumpy than S8.....


s8h00t

[MovieStuff]

anybody but me noticed that iMax is way more jumpy than S8.....

The film moves sideways so it shouldn't be. We see a lot of remasterd IMAX footage on HD broadcast and I never noticed it being jumpy.

Roger

[film_idaho]

The image quality of Super 8 is better that that of IMAX. It's true! Think about it. IMAX blows up its image 42,000 times in order to put it on the screen. Super 8 only blows up its frame 960 times, giving an over 400% better quality image. And, since the frame is so much smaller, there is less chance of dust and scratches marring the picture. In fact, an IMAX frame has 192 times as much dirt on it as a Super 8 frame!

:badgrin: This slays me!

-Alex M.

[Evan Kubota]

"The film moves sideways so it shouldn't be"

Why would this make a difference? If there's some problem with the mechanism it will still be visible... direction doesn't matter, unless you define "jumpy" as strictly limited to up-and-down movement.