differnce beetween 18fps and 24 fps

[FILM-THURSO]

Yup, 6 is only a number, in frame terms it's also 25% lower resolution per second if res' is your biggest foible. As with all things filmy look at what it is you plan to film and this should give you a clue as to the techy considerations. As has been said, if it's action then 24 is best, if it's home-movie, 18 is fine. There are quite a few who are equally happy filming standard 8 at 16fps. As for 25 it's of little consequence because it's only one frame extra per second. If you shoot 24 for telecine you can speed it up and no-one except yourself will ever know.
As for sound again the speed doesn't really suffer in viewing terms. At 18fps your soundtrack covers 1mm x 81mm per second and at 24 it's 1x 101mm in mono whilst an audio tape gives 1x 40.5mm per second in mono (on a stereo recording machine).
If you have magnetically striped your film for sound and recorded it correctly you will get a very high quality playback. And again if telecine-ing 24fps footage that one frame increase to 25 won't be noticed by the average viewer.
Take this into account: "Police Academy 4" in physical feet measured exactly 1 hour 20 minutes which is the bottom line for classification as a 'Full Length' feature. However it was released with a short cartoon of about 6 minutes because the feature would be shorter on it following runs after the first screening each day. This is caused by the projector warming and loosening up with each run of film meaning that the film might be as short as 78 minutes by the end of the day.
When you run your films the machinary will always be running faster by the time you switch it off. So if you are worried about the difference between 24 and 25fps, just don't because it really doesn't matter. That's only an issue for the professional industry or the perfectionists of the digital field.
But in all it's down to a combination of what your project requires, your own personal preferences and your budget considerations.
If you are filming 'life' as in living creatures (that might also include humans, oh and trees in the wind, water, smoke or vehicles- anything with a fluid movement) 18 or 24 is fine but it's not wise to mix footage of movement shot at different speeds. I film all live-action at 24 but if the shot required is inanimate or still then I might rephotograph a 'still' photo or shoot at a slower speed depending on the lighting requirements of the shot. It helps when shooting in poor light conditions that the slower speed results in a better exposure. I usually use such shots for in-fil or backgrounds for effects composities.
In effects the combination of two different shooting speeds can be fun and different anamorphic ratios can also be played upon for effect or hidden by foreground action. We have a few shots in our current project done in this way. There is one particularly that is a combination of 2 stills photographed on 35mm, tinted and darkened transfered to super 8, then mixed with a live actor shot and light effects shot and additional animation transfered to PIP and back to super 8. We couldn't have done it with some degree of flexible filming speed.
It's worth considering that if all your material is filmed at 18 this is decernable to the video generation who will acknowledge your work as the stereo-type 'amateur' film because of the flicker. The choice is ultimately yours.

[T-Scan]

i went down to 18fps last night for better exposure. only shot 2 rolls on 2 bands. the first roll i may not even bother process.. i swear everytime i pulled the trigger the light guy would turn down the lights

[FILM-THURSO]

Hey man, no matter what always process your film. Even if the exposure is bad you can still use the film and in any case optical reprinting can be used to bring up a little more of the image.
Not only that but even 'failed' footage has documentary value. On one of the BBC's Doctor Who DVDs they have as an extra some standard 8mm behind the scenes footage. The footage is double exposed with other shots and under exposed into the bargain but it is surprisingly viewable not to mention historically valuable.
All footage, good or bad, should be kept at least for the records' sake.

[T-Scan]

Yes, I did end up sending it today for processing anyway. its also a good opportunity to experiment with push processing 2/3 stop. sometimes i spout off in the heat of initial disappointment.

[Godzilla]

I like the dreamlike quality of 18fps. Super 8 at 18fps is definately a distinctive look. If you want to make your Super 8 look more like 16, it's worth shooting at 24fps.

There's no flicker at 18fps if it's transferred at 20fps. I think the slightly accelerated frame rate is one of the key aesthetics of Super 8 if that's the look you want. It's like the opening to The Wonder Years if anyone remembers that show

You should really transfer your 24fps film at 20fps also. The flicker is less noticeable at 24fps, but it's definately there. You can speed it up again in your NLE the same way you can slow down your 18fps after transfering at 20.

The reason the sync works that way is that a projector shutter flashes every frame three times before it pulls down the next frame. Transferring at 20fps is the sweet spot because the NTSC video camera scans at 60i. Three flashes per frame at twenty frames per second syncs up with the 60 field per second camera.

[FILM-THURSO]

Flicker is a problem only if it's a question of transfer to digital. If it's screened by normal projection 18 has a hint of flicker but 24 is just dandy. That whole transfer business seems like unecessary work to me. Of course most flicker comes about as a result of the difference between shutter speeds of video and film.
I only transfer from film to film in optical editing. This gives total control from shooting to final print.
It's good to see how young people are in here. There's a lot of UK clubs moaning a lack of new blood. It seems however that there is still plenty of new blood coming to film. Having said that many UK clubs don't really use Super 8, they've all gone entirely to video.