Questions on Super8

[grogoreo]

Hi

I have yet to get my hands on a Super8 camera but am watching a few ones on eBay at the moment, but have a few quetions.
Firstly, when shooting with S8 film do you not find it quite restricting in that with each S8 cartridge you only have three minutes of film? Is this right, are there only three minutes available? If so, is this because of its size or of its market since it was aimed at families.
Also, I'm looking at a S8 projector and the description says it's silent. I hope this just means that it runs silent but I think it only projects the picture. For this, is there a way (other than buying another projector) of getting the sound off of the film? Like I know you can get a piece of hardware that lets you record onto the film but I want the other way 'round.
Lastly, I read a post where a guy said how expensive 'The Widescreen Centre' is and when comparing prices from eBay with it, it seems to be the same. Around ten pounds for EKTACHROME-64. Are there cheaper places or is this the going rate? Also, when looking at the different film stocks, is there any reason why you would want the film negative rather than 'reflective' (?).

And going off a bit now, is there any reason for a hobbiest to use 16mm? Like is there any benefits from stepping up. When looking at the Kodak calculator for how much film you would need it seems which each step up going from Single 8, Super 8, 16mm etc. the length (time) of the film in comparison to the other length (feet/metres) half's so it would seem extra cost and can you easily develop 16mm?

Thanks,
Greg

[Mitch Perkins]

Firstly, when shooting with S8 film do you not find it quite restricting in that with each S8 cartridge you only have three minutes of film?

Not generally, but I'm/we're used to it. Three minutes is a lot of (continuous) screen time. There were 10 min [200ft] cartridges, but it seems they, like the format itself, were too good to last.

Also, I'm looking at a S8 projector and the description says it's silent. I hope this just means that it runs silent but I think it only projects the picture.

I'm guessing you're right, picture only. If you have sound film, the best thing is a sound projector. There are other double system options, on which others here can give you the scoop.

Also, when looking at the different film stocks, is there any reason why you would want the film negative rather than 'reflective' (?).

Negs have more latitude, and modern colour, so to speak. They're state-of-the-art technology you can pop into your "outdated" Super 8 camera. Not for projection.

And going off a bit now, is there any reason for a hobbiest to use 16mm?

Thanks,
Greg

Depends on how much money the hobbyist has. Your images will look that much better to whoever finds them in a barn 100 years hence.
Plus, you could get a camera with Mickey Mouse ear magazines! Cool! And mount it on old wooden "sticks"! Yeah!

Mitch

[wado1942]

Reversal is probably the word you want to use rather than "reflective". All film starts as a negative which requires either a transfer to video or an answere print made of it in order to look at it/edit. During the development, film intended to be reversal actually starts as a negative but the development process "reverses" the negative image to a positive and thus does not require an answere print. The reversal process harms the image quality thus losing clarity and dynamic range but you can project it on a projector.
Most pro movie makers shoot negative film because of the better quality but like I said, you'd have to transfer it to video using a very expensive film scanner or make an optical print which is also expensive.

As for the short shooting lengths, I think it's actually a good thing. The reason I say that is you have fewer shots on a role meaning it's easier to organize IMHO.

As for advantages of 16mm. It will yeild a much better image and you have more options for post production. Unfortunately the film is twice as wide and moves twice as fast so it takes 4 times as much film to do the same shot as is super-8 which makes it much more expensive. Still, you can get a decent super-8 camera for a couple hundred pounds and get used to the workflow of film for much cheaper than with 16mm. If you screw up a shoot for 16mm, you lose a lot more money. It's also a lot easier to find good super-8 projectors than 16mm.

[grogoreo]

Hi

The reason why I had three minutes being quite short was, not just of being used to video, but after seeing the film Soy Cuba (I AM CUBA) where they did a magnificant shot going through a scene of bourgeios people and then dipping down to a pool. I imagine they used 35mm and aren't planning to be shooting crane shots.

"Most pro movie makers shoot negative film because of the better quality but like I said, you'd have to transfer it to video using a very expensive film scanner or make an optical print which is also expensive."

Would it be possible to use a DIY Telecine (Projector, screen with a video camera) and then reverse the video on the computer. Or, thinking about it, with those film scanners for still film, could you run 16mm film through? Or wouldn't it be the same or work?

Thanks again,
Greg

[wado1942]

I tried inverting a negative on my computer and it doesn't work. No amount of color correction can make the color of an inverted negative look right. I tried stacking blue filters on my camera, adjust the gamma, all that. Besides, home transfers using a camera and anything other than a condenser lens are not good enough to be worth while. You'd be better shooting reversal if you can't afford a Rank Cintel or a Datacine. To give you an idea, an OK transfer of 16mm will look about the same as a great transfer of super-8. A crappy transfer of super-8 will be fuzzy with details lost in the shadows and highlights.

As for the scanner, if you have a high quality 2400 dpi negative scanner, it will yeild a good image. But do you really want to scan negative after negative, visually cropping and aligning each one and pasting them into a video editor? On an average of 2 minutes per frame, it'll take you 48 hours of nonstop scanning to get 1 minute of film scanned. If you must cut corners, I'd suggest shoot super-8 reversal and use a Cinepal to transfer it to video. Otherwise I'd really suggest have the negatives transferred via flying spot scanner.

[reflex]

I tried inverting a negative on my computer and it doesn't work.

It's possible. Several forum members have uploaded clips of negative film that has been captured using WorkPrinters or other "usually reversal" devices. If memory serves me right, forum member Justean even offers negative transfers as part of his transfer service, and I believe he's using Moviestuff Snipers.

[mattias]

No amount of color correction can make the color of an inverted negative look right.

well, you can definitely make the colors look right, it's not even very hard especially if you have a cc with a curves function, but it's hard to do so while preserving image quality. especially dv breaks fast.

/matt

[audadvnc]

Welcome to Filmshooting, Grogoreo. Super 8 filming is a lot of fun for not a lot of money. You can buy a nice camera or projector for a fraction of its original cost, and digital computers have made editing your films a breeze. True, new film stock and processing is a bit pricier than it was back in the day, but the film stocks are better, and if you get a camera with manually adjustable iris you can shoot any stock available.

The 3 minute reel length is not really all that restrictive and makes you think about getting the shots you want, as opposed to the videotaper's tendency to shoot -everything- in 15 minute takes. Who needs all that extra footage anyway? If you've got a funny 20 second shot of your dog in the garbage, will it be any funnier at 7 minutes? As for Soy Cuba, that was a high-end production by one of the world's best cinematographers. When you get to his level, Comrade, you'll have our blanket permission to run shots as long as you like.

Keep in mind you can still shoot DV for those times when Super8 isn't appropriate, like when you need sound (interviews, etc). But most home videos have terrible sound which don't enhance the experience much. Also, Super 8 isn't great at low light levels, although you can shoot 500ASA Vision 2 negative stock.

Projection? Telecine is the way to go. Most processing labs have associate businesses that handle film transfer at the home (not great quality, but not expensive either) or professional telecine (pricey, but what an image!) levels. You can even do an "off the wall" transfer to video for free. With telecine, you get what you pay for.

16mm? It's more expensive, the cameras, stock and images are better. If you need footage that will hold up on broadcast TV, and isn't merely quaint looking, you should think about 16mm and Super16. But you should study lighting and still photography first before you invest big bucks in any format, even video. A good cinematographer can make any format look great, whereas a newbie can't make anything look as nice, no matter how expensive it was to make.

[grogoreo]

Thanks lads, that's great. I hope I win this eBay item!

[grogoreo]

Would anyone please mind telling me what they think of the following cameras and what they're worth or what you would expect them to sell at?

- Braun Nizo 801 (I have seen Nizos at Buy-It Now prices of £90)
- Canon 310 XL
- Canon 514 XL
- Canon Autozoom 518 SV

I read on the thread about the perfect beginner camera that the Canons were mentioned.

Thanks,
Greg

[lastcoyote]

Nizo 801.. it's great camera that have most of the advanced function. But I would go for the model that can micro focus. Depends on what you want to shoot. It reads 64T right. But very damn heavy. It needs 645 type button cell which the voltage is not right. Some said it will burn the lightmeter. Some said it's okay. Mine is fine

Canon 514XL... very handy camera, very light and easy to carry. XL shutter give it a brighter image even in low light condition (But less sharpness)... I love this camera as I broke one and bought another one. But it reads 64T wrong. 2 AA batteries run the whole thing. Cool.

Hope that's help.

[grogoreo]

Thanks lastcoyote,

When you say that the Canon 514XL doesn't read 64T right, does that means it's useless and no image will appear on it or just that it may look a bit funny.

Greg

[Patrick]

I'm not familiar with the Canon 514XL but if it reads 64T as 40asa, then the footage will be slightly overexposed. If the camera reads 64T as 160asa, the footage will be underexposed (ie - a bit dark.) So it could go either way.

Canon super 8 cameras are usually well designed and reliable quality machines though I believe there may be one particular Canon model on that list (can't recall which one) which is automatic exposure only. Such a camera should be avoided if you want to learn the fundamentals of cinematography. I strongly recommend a camera with manual exposure control for creativity and for avoiding nasty exposure problems that can be caused by auto exposure in certain situations.

[ulrichbusse]

The Canon 518 SV Zoom works with all available filmstock, the Nizo 800/801 too. The Nizo got the most features of all them.

Canon 310 XL & 514 XL are made for 40 and 160 ASA cartridges, but you get also with 64T rather satisfying results. I used 64T with the 310 XL with good results.

Look at http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Category:Manufacturers to compare.

[lastcoyote]

When you say that the Canon 514XL doesn't read 64T right, does that means it's useless and no image will appear on it or just that it may look a bit funny.

You are welcome Greg, no, it will not be useless or no image, just the image will go a little bit overexposed. But if you don't request too high, I personally still think that's acceptable. Patrick is right, if you want to learn more, then you should go for the camera with auto and manual exposure control. Canon 514XL is good for travel. It's so light and user friendly.

If you want to just a try out, not sure you will love Super8. Then 514XL could be a good choice as beginner camera. But if you decided to go for junkie stage, you will probably go for Nizo 801M from the start, save you a lot of money.... or you will end up buy them both...hehehe.. I did. :lol: