Newbie : Why Super 8?

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

If you are concerned this is a "troll-thread" why do you bother coming back?

[rmichel]

Dude is that a picture of you? I didn't mean to offend you family, sorry :oops:

[ccortez]

rmichel, your behavior is more troll-like than the original poster in this case. (sorry, dude, but it's true.) he/she did a pretty good job of introducing the issue and putting the question in context, even gave some personal background. you may think the question is redundant or annoying. but it's not like there's an obvious search that would reveal the past history of answers to that question. (if i'd ever finish the FAQ, the question would be introduced and answered there; but it ain't the case thus far.)

[rmichel]

rmichel, your behavior is more troll-like than the original poster in this case. (sorry, dude, but it's true.)

got bored :oops:

What on earth are you going to put on this FAQ, how it’s better than miniDV with its access to NLEs??? Are you going to talk about the new HDV and Panasonic video cameras?

Do you transfer to video?

-The film and development cost are about $24 for 3 mins. Ridiculous cost.
-Resolution tap out at about 650-700 lines, I've seen super 8 test screen and that’s where it’s at.
-No equipment is currently made, all leftovers from the 70's, it was abandon 30 years ago.
-The cartridge has bad registration.
-Doing sound can get expensive and complex- sound cart no longer made.
-Films have gotten national play that were total done on DV, when was the last time you saw an entire movie shot on super 8.
-Its highest resolution film is going away!

DV and super 8 are comparable in resolution, and that's the truth.

There is no technical argument, do cost accessments, shooting super 8 makes no sense, other than you feel like, unless you shoot film loops for raves .

[npcoombs]

There is no technical argument, do cost accessments, shooting super 8 makes no sense, other than you feel like it

Of course there is no technical argument, reasons to shoot on super 8 are: aesthetic, educational (for transferring skills to 16mm and 35mm) or disciplinary (for forcing shot preparation and thoughful composition and forward planning).

Or at least these are the reasons I have traded in my Canon XL1 for a super-8 camera.

All this in mind I would like to comment that most DV films being produced (a lot of gov funding here in the UK) are of outrageously sloppy quality in every way. The shallow learning curve of DV encourages a lot of these filmmakers to attempt to throw their film together in editing. Documentary work is another thing altogether.

[gianni1]

To get the film look, use film...

Mini DV in a cassette is sterile, lacks feelings compared to film on a reel, which is gross, and you can see and touch... compare dust and hairs to drop outs!

Camcorders forgive lax technique and contribute to loose values, whereas Film Cameras challenge, demand technique and promote moral rectitude....

Gianni :-k

[rmichel]

To get the film look, use film...

Mini DV in a cassette is sterile, lacks feelings compared to film on a reel, which is gross, and you can see and touch... compare dust and hairs to drop outs!

Camcorders forgive lax technique and contribute to loose values, whereas Film Cameras challenge, demand technique and promote moral rectitude....

Gianni :-k

No format is going to make you a better artist, a pile of shit is a pile shit, no matter what. whether it's 35mm or video or super8.

So why is super 8 better, no boring techie answers which don't hold water. video out techs super 8 by a long shot.

I will say this about super 8, the camera are small, take them with you anywhere. They look strange and rare. They also make you look more serious about your art. Can you say video is sensuous? don't think so. They are great conversation starter and will help you pick up chicks. Film has immense cultural currency that video lacks, that why the big thing with camcorders now is the "film look", sad...

[Rick Palidwor]

video out techs super 8 by a long shot.

I have no idea what this means. "Out techs"? If you mean all those (often useless) settings buried in sub-menus, maybe your right, but I see a lot of video shooters, operating under the myth that video is "easy", who accidentally mix their settings and end up with apples and oranges in the edit suite. I always tell my classes that an advantage of super 8 (as with most film cameras) is that there are no hidden surprises in a sub-menu. Super 8 is in fact easier to shoot and therefore a better learning medium.

Rick

[sufian]

video out techs super 8 by a long shot.

I have no idea what this means. "Out techs"? If you mean all those (often useless) settings buried in sub-menus, maybe your right, but I see a lot of video shooters, operating under the myth that video is "easy", who accidentally mix their settings and end up with apples and oranges in the edit suite. I always tell my classes that an advantage of super 8 (as with most film cameras) is that there are no hidden surprises in a sub-menu. Super 8 is in fact easier to shoot and therefore a better learning medium.

Rick

Hi Rick,

You know your site http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca/, the middle image in Black and White (which looks absolutely awesome), what Watts light did you use? 1000W or 2000W or different?

Looks like you placed very powerful lights at quite a distance (as seeing the shadow on the wall is pretty strong). Reason I ask is I'm doing a similar type of scene in my new film on Plus-X. Any pointers would be appreciated

[monobath]

I shoot film for fun, not to compete with video. Video doesn't interest me. The video cameras aren't very well made and aren't a pleasure to use compared to almost any older film camera.

Happens that I enjoy working with old stuff. Most of my 50 or 60 cameras are 30 to 90 years old. Video bores me.

How's that for an entirely non-technical answer?

[Rick Palidwor]

Hi Rick,

You know your site http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca/, the middle image in Black and White (which looks absolutely awesome), what Watts light did you use? 1000W or 2000W or different?

Looks like you placed very powerful lights at quite a distance (as seeing the shadow on the wall is pretty strong). Reason I ask is I'm doing a similar type of scene in my new film on Plus-X. Any pointers would be appreciated

It's been a few years but I recall we probably had nothing more than a 500w photoflood placed a few feet back, just out of view of the door. I know it was just a few feet because it was a small space.

BTW, that still was shot with a 35mm still camera. The super 8 footage of the same scene in the movie is obviously higher contrast.

Hope that helps.

Rick

[snaggs]

Thanks for all the helpfull replies, it was a shame 8 of them were taken up with troll speculation. I certainly think Ill have to give this a go.. given that I sold most of my digital SLR gear and moved to Leica, I think it will suit my sensibilities ;)

Daniel.

PS. What about this...

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... 18278&rd=1

[chachi]

Not that it matters since this has come full circle now, but I'll tell you why I shoot super8.

All my life I have been misinformed about the medium. I have been told you can't buy film, then you can't get the expensive film processed anywhere. When I was 10, my Dad bought me a camera and projector off his buddy at work. The camera didn't work properly and when we went to repair it, we were told it's not worth it and to wait and by a video camera, film is on the way out! You name it, I have been told it.

I took TV production as well as 16mm film production and photography. All that time super 8 got minimal to no attention. So why do I shoot super8?

BECAUSE I CAN!

[snaggs]

Heres another question. If you were shooting black & white, couldn't you just develop the film your self?

Also, couldn't you just modify a Nikon 35mm film scanner to scan Super 8? This would avoid the process and telecine costs, which seem to be the main source of expense having looked at the http://www.Pro8mm.com site.

Daniel.

[Rick Palidwor]

PS. What about this...
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... 18278&rd=1

No. Not a great camera (IMHO) and definitely over-priced regardless of your opinion of the unit. Do a little research and think about the features you need and you'll find that you either get what you need for well under $100 or if you do spend $150+ you want to be sure of what you are buying.

By and large the Canons are good and economical, but some models suck. The autozoom series, specifically the 518 or 814, might suit, or the autozoom electronic series, such as the 814E. The 814 XLS or 1014 XLS are the best from Canon but can be pricey.

Also look at the Nikon 8 or R10 for a high-end unit, or the super zoom 8 for lower end.

The Minolta Autopak D series has some good low-end and high-end.

Also some good Nizo units out there.

Once again, it will depend on what features you want. Assuming you want manual exposure control, your questions are: can you live with 18fps (amateur speed) or do you need 24fps? (Some cameras do not have 24). Do you need single frame for animation? Need slow motion? (54 fps produces nice slo-mo. 36 fps, common on many cameras, does not feel that slow). Do you need something for low-light shooting? Look for a model with XL in the name - usually means a 220 degree shutter.

And so on. Lots of discussions here on the different cameras in the past. Check this site for a nice camera list (though there are some errors): http://www.kolumbus.fi/puistot/list.htm

Rick