Ok, kill me, but why are we shooting S8 and not 16

[BolexPlusX]

Wow!, 16mm!

This is what I tease my wife about when she hints I'm spending too much on Super-8. (or more to the point too much time and space)

I've been using S-8 for so long that my whole filmmaking style is warped around it's capabilities and limitations, giving me 16mm would probably be a waste of capacity.

Example: We went to Russia last February to adopt our son. We brought along a brand new digital camcorder with several two hour tapes*. I recorded events in my usual style and came home with a total of 12 minutes worth of "footage" -just about enough for a 200 foot reel, which most of my S-8 films wind up being. It's interesting that none of the people we've shown this tape to have said "Is that all?" What's the other hour and 48 minutes on that tape supposed to be for?

*Note: Shot S-8 too.

Old dogs...new tricks!

Besides, I like the compactness and the portability. I film in a lot of places I have to hike a couple of miles to reach, so hauling a ton of equipment is limiting.

[jean]

A valid question, why not 16mm? I am currently shopping for short ends, and am amazed at the many different filmstocks available. I will begin with b/w reversal to see the "look" projected, and then make up my mind about if and when to use what format. It is great to have the choice!

About the costs, only k40 really makes a difference. I nevere looked at 16mm because i thought that it was completely out of range, but - have a look for yourself. Wonderful cameras, and plenty of filmstock, and quite in the same pricerange than the good super8 stuff.

I will use both, depending on what i will be doing. Hauling my arri s to film my vacation will surely not be a option, s8 rules in that department, and like calgodot said - all "illegal" filming can only be done with super8. And i do have a lot of city & street scenes planned :twisted:

[mattias]

shooting super8 on the same negative stock as 16mm and transferring it by rank is just as expensive as with 16mm.

but nobody here is? why would that be a more fair comparison if it doesn't even happen? if you compare k40 in s8 and 16mm s8 is less than half the price.

/matt

[studiocarter]

My 16mm Bolex cost $150 and the Keystone A7 & A9 were just $50 each and lenses $20 more. Either Keystone camera will fit in my pants pocket. If I cut a hole and let the lens stick out I could shoot anywhere. They are on e-bay now and sell much cheaper than any S8 camera. $50 was too much to pay, but when I saw them, I bought them. Now, I'd just get one on line. They are the size of two spools of 100 foot film next to each other and about 3 spools thick. A round ended brick is about what they look like. And about as heavy, better wear suspenders.
John Schwind is selling 16mm B&W reversal for $12.
I will purchase a Lomo tank some day.
I have an Auricon and a Printer for Optical sound.
I have a film dryer, in short, a complete studio, Black and White to be sure, but I can project 16mm sound on film prints all made at home.
That's cool.

S8 is too small for my big fingers and weak eyes.

And it does not require a computer.

[rhcvatni]

but nobody here is? why would that be a more fair comparison if it doesn't even happen? if you compare k40 in s8 and 16mm s8 is less than half the price.

/matt

I constantly see people on this forum talking about other stocks than K40. Of course people shoot super8 negative stocks as well. And they transfer them by other means than Work Printer. A vast majority probably mostly shoots k40, but that seems to be because of money and grain(less of both of course). So I was comparing getting the absolute best from both formats and not the best from one and semi-acceptable from the other. Although that might trigger another discussion as k40 gives you the least grain in super8, but has a narrow latitude and is very slow. What would be the best stock. Therefor I would compare a very slow neagtive stock in super8 with a negative stock in 16mm, and the same transfer. This also illustrates another good point about 16mm. You won't feel as limited as you're able to shoot a variety of stocks and not worry too much about grain.

[calgodot]

If the concern is diversity or availablity of film stock, then 16mm wins hands down. (And 35mm stomps the hell out of 16mm.)

What does it matter how cheap K40 is if you can't get a good exposure? I'd wager 90% of the K40 I've seen form S8ers is underexposed. It's a tough film stock to use. (And you can get K40 in 16mm rolls, can't you?)

I'd say my only discontent with S8 is the bland choice of film stocks. I'd love to be able to go beyond the K40 palette without blasting to gnatville via the 200T bus or wandering around overexposureland with a cart of 7240. I'm not a big Fuji fan, but I'd love to be able to use the film sometime in S8. And my favorite film stock (Kodak 100D reversal) will never be available in S8 carts. (Even Pro8mm backed out of stripping some for me, even though I was willing to pay!)

This is more of a big deal to me than the whole sync sound issue which gets everybody's panties all bunched up. I *will* be shooting 16mm this year (and it is likely to be a permanent switch) because of my choice of film stocks.

It seems to me that the only reasons for S8 that hold up are portability, affordability, and aesthetic. Those are damn good, solid reasons.

But aren't these the same reasons for shooting 16mm over 35mm?

[Lucas Lightfeat]

It seems to me that the only reasons for S8 that hold up are portability, affordability, and aesthetic. Those are damn good, solid reasons.

Don't forget personality

Lucas

[mattias]

I constantly see people on this forum talking about other stocks than K40.

talking yes, but those who do more than talk don't care about the cost. my point is that very few shoot s8 negative for cost reasons and those who shoot s8 for cost reasons usually shoot k40. saying that shooting s8 for cost reason is a bad idea since negative stock is so expensive isn't a very good argument imho.

/matt

[mattias]

What does it matter how cheap K40 is if you can't get a good exposure?

not much, but that's completely hypothetical since you can, and usually will, get good exposure with k40. if 90% of all k40 you've seen was underexposed you and your friends need new light meters. ;-) my experience is that 99% looks great.

/matt

[mattias]

sorry, missed this one:

And you can get K40 in 16mm rolls, can't you?

yeah, and it's three times as expensive as s8 for the same amount of screen time.

/matt

[Guest-]

This discussion only strengthens my liking of regular 8mm film. Personally, I feel a great deal of the cost issues are related to the cartridge. This is a significant cost factor. One person on this forum said that there is no cheaper film system than super 8. I disagree. If you are using cameras that can take the 100 foot rolls, Reg 8mm is cheaper. Actually this guage could be a lot cheaper if Kodak was not so obstinate about not selling it. What could the great cost be in this? Adding twice as many holes? No cartridge is needed, it goes on a spool just like 16mm and since 16mm film will be made for quite some time there should be no significant cost in perfing equipment. Consider these low cost issues and remember that you will get four times the playing time out from the same amount of 16 mm film. As I can see how rising costs in super 8 might be an issue, there is no reason why Regular 8mm availability cannot be made even cheaper than it is. I spoke to someone from Pro 8mm and They mentioned that perfing regular 8mm would be a good idea as a future option and might actually persue this course eventually. If there was not just one source that supplied Reg 8mm and Kodak "officially" got back into the game, there is no reason why this could not be the most cost effective way to go. If more attention was paid to reg 8mm an option could be set up to custom per any choice of filmstock for an additional, yet reasonable, fee. So what is the big deal? economic strategy could be an important issue with Regular 8mm and even Super 8mm in some cases. One theory that I have considered in the past is that the digitalization of video has made the smaller formats more appealing. If Kodak discontinues Kodachrome they may replace it with a new emulsion. And as we saw with the VNF, it brings the price up in the name of "development". How much of that cost is actually justified? Take this theory a little further and you will see that phasing out the two small guages alltogether would force people to use 16mm thus improving Kodak's profit margin. Getting back to Regular 8mm, I cannot see why this can't be a very pragmatic option for users and why it would be a cost issue for kodak

[Kurt8]

Getting back to the original question - Why do I shoot Super 8? Most of my shooting is collecting images over long periods of time. I have a camera with me all the time and I feel that I get shots that would be difficult to get with 16mm due to the size and weight of the cameras.

I have experimented with some 16mm cameras and although cost is not really that much of a factor with me, I have always returned to Super 8 for the bulk of my shooting.

Kurt

[filmman35]

Obviously the cost of film and equipment and the size of the equipment is the deciding factor in whether you shoot Super 8/8mm or 16mm.

If 9.5 mm film was as commonly available as super 8 and 16mm I think 16mm would be less of an issue.

[mattias]

Obviously the cost of film and equipment and the size of the equipment is the deciding factor in whether you shoot Super 8/8mm or 16mm.

i'd tend to agree, but there's always the "professional home movie imitation projects". i've done a couple of them myself, and such a look is much easier to achieve in super 8.

/matt

[Nigel]

I just got back from a shoot this morning and of course I had many talks with the other camera geeks about stocks and cameras.

The conversation came up about Super8--How much I love to use it. Yet, when I started thinking about it......I haven't used it in ages outside of making "home movies".

The reason--S16 is far more universal. More services, more options not just in lenses and cameras but in everything. With the USA trying slowly to go HD I see more and more film being shot actually. It is the best way to get your images then go to HD and NTSC all at once.

Plus, what happens after three years and that Sony HD camera that cost you a fortune is no longer the flavour of the week and it breaks?? Try finding electronic parts for it. Now, that Super16 Bolex you bought off eBay for 500USD is louder than shit but you know it will give you images that will look great and you can fix it.

My Beaulieu will be out tomorrow...

Good Luck

PS--I think that the Vision 200T is great and I shoot a ton of it.