Film stock

[Mojo_77]

Hi, I'm new to Super 8 having just got a Canon 814. I was wondering what the advantages/disadvantages of positive and negative film were as regards editing, processing and viewing etc. I've had a quick Google but nothing seems to specifically answer this question. I do a lot of stills photography, so I know the difference between the 2 formats, but not how this applies to Super 8. Thanks.

[Mitch Perkins]

I was wondering what the advantages/disadvantages of positive and negative film were as regards editing, processing and viewing etc.

For Super 8 shooting and processing, negative is generally more expensive and it's more difficult to find a transfer facility that will do a good job. Reversal requires less post CC and you've always got the rich blacks, as long as it's not under-exposed.

Assuming that editing and initial viewing will be done on an NLE, and viewing of the final product will be done on some sort of electronic format, there is no difference between the two types of emulsion.

What reversal and negative have in common is that they both need sufficient light on the camera original to look any good.

Mitch

[Mojo_77]

Thanks for that, I was leaning towards reversal because of the colour saturation, although I do quite fancy tring some mono too. I'd probably edit the oldschool way as I hate the thought of spending hours at a computer.

[Patrick]

Hey there Mojo. Congrats on scoring yourself a Canon 814! As you already know from your still photography, reversal film generally has finer grain than negative (if you are comparing film stocks of the same era) but on the other hand, negative film has greater exposure latitude. With regards to super 8, reversal film is more convenient (in some ways)because you can view your results right after processing - on your projector. You can also edit / splice reversal film to your heart's content. I don't recommend splicing negative film!

Negative film usually works out to be more expensive because there is an extra step involved in the film making / viewing process - and this is to get a positive image out of the negative. In order to obtain a positive image, you must either get a positive print made from the film or have the film transferred to video. (Most people transfer the film to video.)

Another thing that’s worth mentioning is contrast. There is always an increase in contrast when you make a print from a film or transfer a film to video. Most reversal films are designed so that the desired amount of contrast is seen when the film is projected. Negative films are low in contrast so that when you make a print from a negative or transfer that negative to video, the right amount of contrast in the image is obtained. If you were to make a print from a reversal film or transfer that reversal film to video, the image may end up looking just a little bit too contrasty. However, with a high end telecine and a skillful operator, you should be able to get a good looking transfer of reversal film. Though even so, negative film will transfer better. If youve stuffed up your exposure on negative film, you have more latitude for correcting it in telecine compared to reversal. Generally, negative is considered better if you are making copies of your film - both film copies or video copies. It is no surprise that film originated TV shows and feature films are almost always shot on negative film.

Reversal is great too. It’s good for testing newly aquired cameras, experimenting, vacation films, home movies as well as more serious projects. And there's nothing like watching those vibrant, saturated colours on the screen as the film is running through the projector.

[Mitch Perkins]

Thanks for that, I was leaning towards reversal because of the colour saturation, although I do quite fancy tring some mono too.

Mono = B+W? Yeah, that's gorgeous stuff.

The neg can be ultra-saturated through post CC, but as I say, reversal is sweet right out of the box.

I'd probably edit the oldschool way as I hate the thought of spending hours at a computer.

Well, far be it from me and all that, but I have to strongly urge you away from splicing these tiny strips of film together - even the best splices are visible on projection, (unless you print and A/B roll it), and you don't have the non-destructive single frame, dissolve, super-imposition, CC etc. flexibility that comes with NLEs.

Since editing is IMHO the most fun part of the whole process, spending hours is not really a chore, and with NLE, you get instant preview without scratching/handling the camera original.

Mitch

[Mojo_77]

Thanks for all the replies, I'm now a lot clearer on the issue. I think I'll try a few rolls of reversal to get used to it before I start experimenting! As I say I'm new to this so I appreciate the comments on NLE, but what's the best way of doing this? Getting the film transferred to DVD and taking it from there?

[Patrick]

You wouldn't want to transfer film directly to DVD. There are various technical issues that make this not such a good choice. Though DVD can be good for finishing your project. Usually, it's preferable to transfer your film to an editable digital tape format like MiniDv, edit with NLE, add sound etc and then transfer the finished project to DVD.

[Mitch Perkins]

sually, it's preferable to transfer your film to an editable digital tape format like MiniDv...

Yes, or send an external HDD to the transfer facility and have them stream it directly onto that.

Mitch

[Angus]

If you're editing old school with tape and scissors (so to speak) then reversal is the way to go.

There's only one colour reversal stock easily available now, Ektachrome 64T from Kodak. If you shop well you can probably find good deals on stock and processing. The issues of grain and poor colour initially found with this stock last year have been largely solved now though some labs do a better job than others - and colour saturation is a matter o personal taste. 64T is tugnsten balanced for indoor light...you add a filter for shooting outdoors with sunlight.

The B&W films are both lovely, plus-x gives you tighter grain whereas tri-x is grainy and moody and a stop faster.

There are possibly a couple of other stocks out there including "Wittnerchrome 100D" which is daylight balanced and gives gorgeous colours...but availability is not as wide as the 64T and prices are higher. There has also been a 50D film cut from Fuji stock.

The neg stocks from Kodak are 200T and 500T (both tungsten balanced). I've used both a little and 200T can produce truely gorgeous images, whereas 500T is very grainy but will work in low light conditions where no other film can go. Usually the neg stocks are telecinied and edited in NLE, though Andec in Berlin can produce a super 8 print from them for projection and/or editing. Neither process could be considered cheap.

[Mojo_77]

Thanks Angus, I was thinking of trying the Fuji stock as I love the colours on Velvia slide film. I'm open to digi editing, I'm just not sure about the transfers etc, I can see this is going to be a steep learning curve! Regarding tungston film etc, the camera I have has a built in CCA filter which according to the manual is for using tungston film in daylight. Would I still need a filter over the lens when using this film outside?

[Patrick]

"Would I still need a filter over the lens when using this film outside?"

If you're referring to colour correction, you don't need an additional filter in front of the lens when using a tungsten film outdoors during daylight. The internal filter will do all the colour correction for you. Though don't forget to cancel the filter if you're filming indoors under artificial light.

"I was thinking of trying the Fuji stock as I love the colours on Velvia slide film."

Same here! Most of my medium format photography is shot on Velvia. And you're in luck. The Fuji stock that is cut and loaded into super 8 cartridges is in fact Velvia.

[Mojo_77]

Aye, most of my MF stuff's taken on Velvia, apart from the monochrome shots. Seems odd getting Tungston film, then having to cancel the filter on the camera to use it under tungston light, have I got that right? Had to read that a couple of times in the manual before it sunk in!

[Angus]

For MP film, tungsten makes sense. You lose about 1/2 a stop when converting from tungsten to daylight...but hopefully have lots of daylight available so it doesn't matter.

You often lose 1 or more stops when you introduce a filter to a daylight stock for tungsten. Given that small format reversal stocks are often slow to begin with, losing film speed for indoor shooting is not ideal.

For example, a 64ASA tungsten film becomes 40ASA daylight, still very usable. (ektachrome 64T)

A 100ASA daylight becomes 25ASA tugnsten - almost useless. (Ektachrome 100D)

[Mojo_77]

Thanks for that, so I'm better off sticking to tungston film then unless I'm filming exclusively outside. It's all slowly becoming clearer!