PRO8MM FILM RIPOFF!!!

[Alex]

Based on what I have read in this topic thread, it wouldn't surprise me if Pro-8mm is using recans and older film stock. Years ago I remember there was a blind man who did the film recanning for a company called Studio film and Tape in Hollywood. It's probably the same guy now working for Pro-8mm. I think it's great if it's the same person.

However recans being split for super-8 is ridiculous, dust is increased by a factor of 12 when the film is split from 35mm to super-8, so the last thing one would want to do is use recans for super-8, that's just plain idiotic.
Recans should never be split from 35mm to Super-8 because the film has probably already been handled on location, been put in and out of film magazines, and the odds are that film has more dust, is more susceptible to light contamination and dust. It's completely unnacceptable for Pro-8mm or anyone else to be using recans and passing it off as new film.

Recans need to stay in the format they were created in so that any probable increase in dust is minimized because the dust is much smaller looking on 16mm and 35mm. I'm not against recans, although I have seen some pretty poor film transfers from recans with an increase in dust particles, I have also heard success stories from recans, but slitting recans down to Super-8 is just not an option that is really viable from a quality control issue, and recans should be mentioned at the time the film is purchased.

[mattias]

A) Almost half the rolls I shot were short between 5-10 feet.

surely they're not using *that* short ends so they have to cut the film either way, which means it can be off no matter what length the source material is, right?

B) Their cartridges can be prone to jammin' in your camera.

please explain why recanned film would be more prone to jamming. you're probably right, i just don't understand.

C) Many of their film rolls have very High Density after their developed.

that would mean that they've gained sensitivity through storage, or do you mean that they have base fog?

All of these factors leads me to one conclusion: They're using old, recanned film that they load into their cartridges.

see that's where you lose me. i don't follow your logic, and i don't particularly like pro8 either so i would normally be easy to convince...

/matt

[mattias]

Sorry Guys,

I am afraid it’s all true. They buy all their junk stock from "Short Enz". This has been confirmed. Feel free to check for yourselves.

why are you sorry? we believe you and we're on your side. we just don't understand your rhetorics. we feel very free, but where exactly should we check?

/matt

[lostinspace]

Mattias my man,

A) I may have been exagerating and overstating my case when I said that "half the rolls I shot were short". That's just an American custom to engage in what's called hyperbole.

However, if Pro8mm was using 1000 foot factory sealed cans of 35mm film to slit, perforate and load into super 8 cartridges, they would end up with 60 rolls of exactly 50 ft each (1000 ft divided by 50 x 3 strands.).

But if they're cutting down a variety of odd sized short ends (645', 740', 890', etc., etc.), then they're most likely gonna end up with some odd ball lengths from each of those rolls. Now logic would dictate that a first class run organization would cut the 35mm film rolls off at a number that was evenly divided by 50 so that you end up with a group of rolls that all equal exactly 50 ft. Now stay with me here. However, if you decide to squeeze every foot of film out of an odd sized length, then your bound to end up with these unevened length rolls that are close to 50 ft but come up a little short.

I know this is confusing but that's my conclusion. That's the Pro8mm way of doing things.

B) I will admit that this was stated out of context and that recanned/short ends film would probably have no bearing on jammed cartridges. I would attribute that more to overall shoddy production.

C) As unexposed film ages the celluloid base and emulsion becomes denser over time, resulting in High Density film that creates a darker image that may appear to be underexposed even tho' it was properly exposed and developed. Edge fogging would be another sign of old film.

And "Sorry Guys" is just a figure of speech. "Short Enz" is a company that used to sell raw stock to Pro8mm. They are now owned by Media Distributors, which can be easily found in a phone directory of the metropolitan Los Angeles area.

Peace,

Lostinspace

[mattias]

C) As unexposed film ages the celluloid base and emulsion becomes denser over time, resulting in High Density film that creates a darker image that may appear to be underexposed even tho' it was properly exposed and developed.

higher density means a *brighter* image since we're talking negative. what you're talking about is exactly what i mean by base fog, but the d-max should actually decrease with age, so the film should both have higher d-min and lower d-max. what did you measure?

And "Sorry Guys" is just a figure of speech.

duh, i know. and i know how to use it too. sorry, but i won't buy it until you say where you got the info from. do you really expect everybody to call short enz and ask? what will they tell you? that pro8 has bough short ends from them? what does that prove? i'd say nothing but please let us in on it.

/matt

[lostinspace]

Whatever dude. Get a life.

[mattias]

what, you can't take being questioned? in what way is what i'm writing in any way inapropriate? i asked very simple questions about your sources and corrected the slight facutal errors you made, that's it. do you have a problem with that and if so what did you expect in the first place? for someone who makes such bold claims you chicken out awfully fast i must say...

/matt

[Carlos 8mm]

One of the things that piss me off from Pro8mm is their monopolistic policy. The fact to sell their film stock in not reliable cartridges with processing included ONLY.
For all those that we lived very far from U.S it turns out expensive to send again the material to Burbank to process it, when I can send the film to a lab of my country or Brazil. :evil:

Why they don´t sell their filmmaterial in 200 ft cans without development including as Kahl or Witter Kinothechnik in Germany do?

I want to test Their new ISO 10 B&W film (I always wanted to shoot a very low speed and high contrast film). But sorry, I don´t have the bucks to pay the expensive costs of "The tour around the world of a Super 8 roll in 20 days".

Carlos.

[jhoneycutt]

with that endorsement of Yale, I think my credit card information is safe there! Who'd a thunk there was a religious bias? Guess my stuff has been too family oriented for me to notice! Phew.

I understand Yale is already onto SpongeBobSquarePants. Next, it will be the Puppet Head! :lol:

jack

[audadvnc]

I'm curious why Pro8 seems to be the only game in town. If there was a business case for slitting down 35mm stock and repackaging as S8, why doesn't somebody else do it?

Apparently the expense of a slitting/perforating machine and S8 cartidges makes the profit margin so thin that nobody else wants to get in on the action.

[super8man]

Once again, another thread rendered useless...next subject please...

[Alex]

I think negative stock is slightly thicker than the reversals, so it is rather difficult to get 50 feet into the cartridge. From what I recall, usually the loads tend to be around 45-47 feet.

I don't recall if Kodak is able to get 50 feet out of their negative film stock that they load.

As for using recanned film, Pro-8mm shoudn't be doing that but it's possible they are.

Mattias, I would say it's up to Pro-8mm to make a public statement about whether or not they use recans rather than make someone else prove they do use recans. If Pro-8mm is using recans, it's being done a in a darkroom by a blind person and unless one is standing in that very small work area, it's never going to be "proveable".

However, one can demand that the kodak serial number that is given to each roll of 35mm film also be put on the super-8 slit version so that people can see for themselves how old the film is and if it's new or a re-can.

[B.K.]

Is anyone retailing the '18 from Kodak?

[mattias]

Once again, another thread rendered useless...next subject please...

wasn't it pretty useless to begin with? i just tried to make it useful but somebody was more interested in ranting than providing anything useful.

Mattias, I would say it's up to Pro-8mm to make a public statement about whether or not they use recans rather than make someone else prove they do use recans.

for christ's sake, i'm not asking for proof but i will trust somebody who can show where he got his information much more than somebody who simply just wants to express his anger with pro8. i'd welcome a public statement too but we're not there yet, are we?

/matt

[super8man]

agreed mattias... I guess I just internalize that feeling of "wonder how he knows that" sentiment so often that I just come on here for an opinion and then get back to reality...no more windmills for this don juan, that's for sure.

I think Santo hit it correctly in his "angel" sentiment...very very funny. That's mostly why I love the boards! Now if only I would get around to updating my website...oh yeah, I am on hold until I get my copy of the timelapse project...until then, I am in hiatus.

later