PRO SUPER8? An interesting article

[Mr_Floppy]

Have a look! :!:

http://www.btinternet.com/~tony.kent/pr ... per8bk.htm

[Nick]

This looks very interesting. I would definitely use this format if it were ever created. Lets hope some camera engineers contact that guy.

Nick

[jukkasil]

I'm not sure have you already seen these tests I did during last year, anyway here is that 16:9 example shot with 16:9 modified Lomo Aurora (total junk one, csoted me one Euro):

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8widescreen.mpg

I'm just right now transfering better looking 16:9 material to my client, I'll make a mpg-file of it soon and put the link here.

I also did couple another widescreen tests with anamorphic lens, here is my test page of it:

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/super8cinemascopetest.html

[Basstruc]

This article is crap. The only factor that is necessary to call a film format professional is that pro use it. Double Super8 is not a pro format. I'm sure I could do a search on internet & find an article cauld " VHS-C Porfessional " . Stupid...
The Bolex H8 is a pro camera ??? comon ... It's noizy as hell, have C-Mount & a tiny viewfinder ( when it's not paralax ).
Cut the image in order to get a 16/9 format ? What a brilliant idea when the frame is already so small...
The worst thing in it is that I'm sure the autor don't use his system himself because of 2 facts : enlarging the frame would surely create awfull & discentered vignetting with the 5.5mm that equipe his Bolex, the laboratory cutting of the Double Super8 is not millimetred & the tolerance of it would cut his image permanently.
Instead of arguing all the time why you consider your 100$ camera like a professional item, why don't you just consider Super8 only like it is really : a beautifull toy/tool that allow you to do movies, like 35mm or Pixellvision does.
Remember that 90% of pro full features that use super8 only use it in order to get a crappy home-movie like image. And that maybe 70% of "Super8 sequences" in pro full features or 35mm, 16mm or Video generated.

[Lucas Lightfeat]

Well, yes, I agree that the use of the word PRO is a bit of a misnomer here, and a bit meaningless. The Bolex is also, as you say, noisy as hell and not quite that great a camera. I'm not sure, however, that such a small adjustment to the gate would produce huge vignetting. Has anyone out there actually tried this? I guess it would add some distortion, but maybe not too severe. Doing the widening to a DS8 cam does sound a bit silly though, as the image runs the further risk of bleeding over into the other.

A new camera and format is what's needed - or else, cheap Super16 is perhaps the way forward - or a 9.5mm Ikonoskop!

Lucas

[Basstruc]

A new format ??? If you don't want to shoot Super8, don't. If you want to shoot S16, do. If you want to shoot S16 as cheaply as S8, well, you can't. It's not that difficult.
Ikonoscop ? Please... I can't see what this camera has more than other but I defenetly can see what it has less : large magazine capacity, pro lens mount, orientable shutter, reflex viewfinder, timecode, silence ....
If you want to shoot 9,5mm, I know an association that would modify a Krasnogorsk K3 in 9,5mm if you're interested, but you'll have to buy & devellop in france, find yourself a good projector ( not easy ) & find a facility that would transfer with a real telecinema 9,5mm to video ( don't search, it doesn't exist )

[Lucas Lightfeat]

Hey there Matt,

There are many reasons for why Super8 could be made a more professional format and also reasons for Super16 to become cheaper. On this forum, there seems to be a lot of people using Super8 for short films, and many will "graduate" to 16mm as their pockets allow, or already have. Many of the problems associated with Super8, are nothing to do with the format itself, but the cameras and their limitations. If one was made in the same way as a 16mm camera, it would offer more flexibility for the low budget film-maker. It is also, in my opinion, good to see the price of new Super16 cameras coming down with the Ikonoskop, though as you point out, it will have paralax issues.

There is definitely a place for Super8, not just "to get a crappy home-movie like image" but to get really great, cheap telecined footage, shot on gorgeous Kodachrome. IF our cameras were truly "pro" (16mm) specification, the format would be taken much more seriously and if not a pro format, it could be a standard "Student" format, because at the moment it's not even considered that.

I heard that Aaton started to develop a 9.5mm format camera, but abandoned it, but a really top notch small format camera would be an investment I would be interested in, for sure. Perhaps Super8 is better format though, because it is here and alive. :?:

I have left ideas of widescreen behind long ago, by the way....

Lucas

[Lunar07]

Many of the problems associated with Super8, are nothing to do with the format itself, but the cameras and their limitations. If one was made in the same way as a 16mm camera, it would offer more flexibility for the low budget film-maker.

While I agree with the jest of your argument, I do not agree that if a Super8 camera was made the same way as a 16 mm camera then it will offer more flexibility for the low budget film-maker.
For one thing: I remember looking at a price-list long ago offered by the then Super8 Sound. It was SO expensive, that have I afforded it, I would have preferred to take out a bank loan and move altogether not to 16mm but 35mm film. What made Super8 mm available for the budget film maker was EXACTLY why it is not taken seriously by the so-called 'pros.' The fact that it had the stigma of 'home made movies.' Count your blessings it had this stigma - otherwise we would not be on this forum discussing anything.
To me film making was always about the art of it, of making interesting things that belonged to the realm of the art. That is why I like Super8 mm. Because it allows me to do just that, without graduating into 16 mm or 35 mm. Had it be taken 'seriously' I could not have afforded it - How ironic it is: the FAILURE of Super8 Sound, for example, to make a Super8 a serious format, is what SAVED the format for me!

[Lucas Lightfeat]

Interesting perspective Lunar07....and maybe true! I just don't use Pro8mm stuff as I think the prices are a joke - they're more than 16mm, which is just silly.

I am a BIG Kodachrome fan - I buy it in batches of 24, and I think it is nicer than neg, which is an emotional rather than rational response, but K40 IS Super8 for me. I want the very best camera I can get, but it seems they're none of them quite up to 16mm spec. K40 allows us to make films cheaply, but we need good cameras, and a silent, crystal Beaulieu 4008 would verge on what I'm talking about, but it doesn't exist.

Now, if I was going to make a Super8 camera for today's market, I'm sure the above description is pretty much what I'd make. The Arri SR of Super8. I mentioned Ikonoskop, because they might, conceivably, do it.

Best Wishes

Lucas

[Carlos 8mm]

It´s fun, two years ago I was modified my Chinon 60 SMR XL S8 camera, enlarging its gate (eliminating the sound area).

This allows to obtain a more panoramic frame with dimensions near the 4.23 xs 6.5 mm (approx 1: 1,53) unlike the standard dimensions 4.23 x 5.65 mm (1: 1,33) The results were really very good, especially when you transfer it to video. When increasing the size of the surface the grain "seems" to be reduced.

But like many of you guys, I can´t call this modification as "PRO Super 8".
Perhaps, "PANoramic Super 8" it´s the most correct denomination.

We can talk of "PRO Super 8" when we pruned to use new film stocks (reversal and neg.) with less grain and more resolving power than the offered ones at the moment.

Carlos.

[Daniel]

Hello,

In reply to the message of Basstruc. I would like to say that i read that BBC in London do have a Transfer system for 9.5mm format.

Bye

Daniel

[roxics]

Personally I think we'd be better off with a mini16 system. Basically where you shoot 16mm film but it captures only half the vertical frame leaving you with roughly 5 minutes of footage at a 2.75:1(?) aspect ratio. Which would round out to about what $10 a minute after processing? Plus a larger image.

Film would be bought as regular 16mm. Developing would be done through 16mm labs. No need to slit the neg down the middle. The camera and video transfer would be the only difficulty. But even then you're only(not to make it sound easy) matting the gate and getting the claw and motor to pull half way.

I hope I have that all figured out right.

You'd end up with a format somewhere between super8 and 16mm at the cost of super 8 with the stock choices of 16mm. You'd be able to use real sprocket driven metal plate camera's and end up with a better image then super8. it doesn't seem like it would be a lot to rig a 16mm camera to do this. I'm probably wrong though

[jessh]

The camera and video transfer would be the only difficulty. But even then you're only(not to make it sound easy) matting the gate and getting the claw and motor to pull half way.

It's actually lot easier than that, all you have to do is matt the gate, and then after you shoot a roll of film you flip it over and shoot it in the other direction, like with regular 8mm. The main limitation is that it would only work with double perf film, which is becomming less common, but still not hard to get. No slitting would be required, or even possible (each frame is split horizontally, instead of vertically). You wouldn't be able to directly project the film, but you never do that with neg anyway. You could even use standard film to video transfer equipment, and just recent and crop the image in post.

Whenever I actually get my own 16mm gear I might play with doing this. It would have the advantage of being half the price of shooting 16mm, which would be even lower than super8 in many cases, while providing good registration, good choice of film stocks, and a wide screen image.

The main disadvantage over super8 is the price of equipment, it would require modifying 16mm cameras, which tend to be WAY more expensive than super8 cameras.

~Jess

p.s. If anyone feels like sending me a 16mm camera to play with I will convert it and share the results with everyone :-)

[Guest]

The original proposal for super 8 was similar to the double 8 mm system in that it used 16 mm film but the film was run horizontally instead of vertically. The height of the regular 8mm frame was doubled which gave it a wide screen aspect ratio. I think that the concerns with respect to this format were related to having a projector that could handle the film running horizontally instead of vertically. As far as the Bolex h-8 goes, It is Professional in concept. If sixteen mm is considered to be a professional format then the little brother to the h-16 would be the h-8. While not exactly a professional format, the 8mm filmmaker has all of the options of the 16 mm filmmaker who uses the h-16 while using the h-8. Now, whatever criticisms people may have about the Bolex camera, One cannot contest it's superb engineering and technical exactness. It has one of the steadiest images of any camera with superb quality lenses. Is it noisy? Maybe, but so is the Arriflex( maybe the noisest around) but this camera also has superb engineering. I will agree on one thing though: I never liked the fact that the view finder on the bolex cameras were so dim. This is the first thing that I would change on this camera.

[roxics]

jessh you misunderstood me.

I wasn't talking about the pro super8 idea. I was talking about shooting only half the 16mm film frame vertically. No flipping the film or any fancy tricks like that. See the attached image.




The camera shoots half the frame allowing you to shoot more and at a wider aspect ratio(I think i'm wrong on the aspect ratio though). A bigger image, use of all 16mm stock, 16mm processing but around the same price as super 8. Plus no need to worry about having to use double perf film. Don't know how hard it would be to modify the cameras though. Or for that matter projectors and video transfer equipment.

But several people who shoot 16mm already just crop the frame for 35mm or 16:9 tv. The differeence is when they crop normal 16mm they lose part of the image. With this you gain longer run times which reduces the cost of shooting. If you are going to crop then you'll crop horizontally.