Would you still buy new commercial super 8 prints?

[wado1942]

I never even checked to see who made the print till you asked. It was sold to me in a plain, clear plastic box and had to examine the tail of the film to see the name burned into just a few frames. All I know of them is that they were based in New York and had a reputation for being pretty good.

[mr8mm]

The outfit in Ukraine wants 200 euro($300) for customs clearance on more than 400ft. They're kidding, right. No way $300 tax is going to be paid by anyone in USA for some film. We don't believe in high taxes.

[jpolzfuss]

The 200€ might include more than just the taxes: E.g. the last time I had to pick up something at the custom's post office, it took me 4 hours (1h ride to the custom's office, 2h waiting, filling out a bunch of forms, paying, and 1h back home).

[wado1942]

Whoops, I forgot to actually say the name, "Canterbury Films" made my cartoon print.

[slashmaster]

Thanks for the replies everyone:)

[woods01]

I've long felt that for the right project and filmmaker that you could sell limited edition film prints. There is a small market for very limited edition deluxe music recordings. Almost always by indie musicians, usually with an arty style (post-rock, electronica, ambient, etc.) they will make cds, vinyl & cassettes. Sometimes they have a small wooden box, elaborate gate folds, photo booklets, postcards or other small trinkets. This site reviews many of them: http://www.hardformat.org/

Film is a different medium for mass production. But I think if you made a nice bundle with a dvd or blu-ray, cd soundtrack (maybe a VHS!) and a limited run 5-10 prints. Your film looks like a Russ Meyer style b-movie and could be able to find collectors. I'm not a collector but scanning eBay shows a very active market for 8/16mm prints be it commerical, home movies or old 50s striptease/stag films. I'd try asking around on 8mm film collector boards see what those guys want. I'd also suggest you do what was popular in the 70s and instead of a full film, make a 50' highlight reel to limit your film costs.

Since the market for indie film is not the same as music. I don't know how established your film career is but unless you've been around a while and have been fortunate to build a reputation, I imagine you won't have a lot of takers. But if done right, with a stylish presentation that represents the heart you put into your project, you could break even and at the worst you'll be stuck with a few copies of a handsome memento of your project.

As time, money and post-production workflow allows. I've done 16mm finishes of several of my shorts. The prints have all had a few festival screenings but the film finish is largely for my own satisfaction. If its something you want to do, then costs and internet opinions be damned!!!

[woods01]

Also, as far as the technical discussion. I've had pretty good success filming video shots off my laptop. I use it to make titles and to grab public domain shots that I can't get film prints for. You could try shooting 50D of your finished cut and then get Andec to print from that. Or you could try getting a colour reversal stock. Niagara Custom Lab does digital to 16mm prints with optical soundtrack. I've done that once and thought it looked great.

[wado1942]

I've filmed my computer as well. For best results, you should use single-frame advance and an 81a or skylight filter for best color. I also recommend taking light readings of the screen and adjusting the contrast/brightness to get the optimal range to film. Still, it's not as good or as cool as a film print struck from the negative.

[slashmaster]

Thanks Wado, Thanks Woods!


Woods, I've been planning on putting it on dvd, vhs, super 8, 16mm and maybe blu-ray. Planning to make each version so it compliments whatever format it is. For example not having chain link fences or car radiator grills in the dvd or vhs because it causes aliasing problems, or not having much sky in the film versions because scratches and dirt show up too easily in the sky.

Can't say I have a film career but do have a cnc machine which might come in handy making a deluxe set like you were talking about. I was thinking of making my own custom "Get On The Ground" reels in aluminum so that dipping in vitafilm won't be a problem (Vitafilm requires metal reels incase you didn't know) It's very rare to find super 8 reels that are not plastic.



Wado, are you using a crt monitor or lcd? I tried making titles with windows paint then filming in a dark room on an lcd monitor. Was very dim the first try but now I crank up the brightness on the monitor and open up the f-stop on the camera.

[wado1942]

I've done both CRT and LCD. CRTs are generally better because the color/contrast/resolution doesn't change as much towards the edges like LCDs do but you can also have an issue with the scanning nature of the screen causing one part of the frame to be brighter than another.. One of these days, I want to try my plasma screen, which I expect to be better still.

[carllooper]

Excellent results for film outs don't need expensive screens. Just careful use of otherwise inexpensive screens. The fact that a screen is cheap doesn't really mean anything. If you can calibrate the light that the screen otherwise emits you can alter the image displayed on it to precisely compensate for whatever (if any) shortcomings the screen otherwise exhibits. For example, I've acquired a cheap ($500) 4K LCD screen to do film out. And its really quite perfect.

Custom software is written to enable rendering out of 48 bit images to film, despite the screen itself only capable of 24 bits. The custom software just modulates the screen pixels during film exposure (in real time), in order to obtain a 48 bit result on the film. Even higher bit images would be possible but haven't tried it. The process is a frame by frame process using a computer controlled Bolex.

In order to get a desired result on the film the screen is calibrated using a light meter, where exposure values corresponding to each pixel value, from black (0) to white (255), are coded in a lookup table (LUT). For example, the screen I'm using, (with brightness/contrast at factory settings) when measured in this way, plots out a specific curve from 0.2 EV (px=0) to 9.2 EV (px=255), giving a dynamic range of 9 stops. In addition, the characteristic curve of whatever film stock will be used (to photograph the screen), is stored in a second LUT. The image to be rendered employs the LUTs to map a stored digital image to whatever is required of the screen render in order to get a desired result on a particular filmstock. The main thing provided by these LUTS is to ensure shadow and highlight details are correctly mapped/rendered to film.

The fall-off in brightness of the LCD screen, between the centre of the screen to the edge, is also calibrated using a light meter. As an image is rendered to the screen it is rendered a touch brighter towards the edge, ie. by just the amount required to compensate for what would otherwise be a drop off in brightness in the result.

C

[slashmaster]

Thanks Carl!

How long is each exposure typically done on the bolex? Where do you get such software? I would guess it doesn't have a problem converting images to positives or negatives does it? I've been wanting to make a positive film to project, but I'd get better results if I had the software convert the image to a negative and filmed out to negative film wouldn't I?

[carllooper]

Thanks Carl!

How long is each exposure typically done on the bolex? Where do you get such software? I would guess it doesn't have a problem converting images to positives or negatives does it? I've been wanting to make a positive film to project, but I'd get better results if I had the software convert the image to a negative and filmed out to negative film wouldn't I?

Insofar as the screen is modulated during exposure it's necessary to have an exposure time that allows the modulation to complete. I'm using exposure times of 1 sec but could probably get away with shorter times. I use a computer controlled stepper motor to drive the Bolex shaft. This controls exposure time. For printing from screen to Super8 I'd use a Leicina Special Super8. It's shutter is computer controllable.

I write the software. Either in C# or C++ depending on what's required.

Note that if your source is 24bit you could play it at, and photograph it at 24fps. Works fine. I'm only using a slower exposure time in order to expose non-compressed 48 bit images.

Using print film is the best. If you use print film it will be negative film. Print film is better because it's a much finer grain film. But that also means it's a slower film so exposure times (for a typical screen) will need to be slower than that used in a realtime 24fps transfer.

C

[slashmaster]

Thanks Carl!

Is that aTobin stepper and driver you have or are you using cheaper ones meant for cnc machininst? Are you running it from the printer port?

I've seen youtube video's of film out machines that scan the 3 main colors into the film seperatley. I'm not sure why they do this but does yours do this?

Does that Leicina have pin registration? One day someone on here told me about a camera that had a stationary pin in the gate and a camshaft that lifts the film over it. I think it might have been you.

[carllooper]

The stepper motor is one I purchased from a company called Phidgets (in Canada). They supply a USB interface and API in various languages for driving it. I made a bracket to mount it on the Bolex.

The traditional (and best) method for colour is to use a monochrome screen, with separate red, green and blue filtration passes on such, but monochrome screens are really expensive - especially 4K ones! But there are good reasons for using such. The potential issue with a colour screen is that the colour components are separated on the screen, and therefore (if in focus) would be separated on the film. This may not be overtly visible as such but might be apprehendable as a less strong colour, or indeed as separate RGB colours. Especially if using fine grain film and projecting it on a large bright screen.

Another potential issue with using a colour screen is if using black and white print film on such. Such film is only blue sensitive so would be blind to all of the red and green pixels on such a screen, so possibly causing faint lines to appear on the film. No such problem with panchromatic stock. Indeed with pan stock, your 4K screen becomes a 12K screen!

The method of separate RGB passes was invented in the days of standard definition screens where the issue of RGB separability appearing on the film was extremely visible. The higher the definition of the screen the less visible becomes such separability. But nevertheless they can be visible, if only subconsciously.

One solution around this, that I've been entertaining, is using pan stock to make colour separations off a colour screen, and then printing these together onto colour print stock (with appropriate filtration) in a contact or optical printer. On the other hand, vagaries in a camera and printer might mean there is some subtle fringing going on when doing the composite. Depending on the project that may be a cool thing or a completely undesireable thing. I was going to try this last year (as a cool thing) but still haven't got around to it. Sometimes solving something in theory means I never get around to doing it in practice. I'm often in battle with, and succumb to voices that argue: that doing something in practice is just to reach some theoretical understanding of it. So if you've already solved it in theory the practice becomes redundant (I don't agree with this but I fall victim to it). Either that or perhaps some things just require some sort of ex-theoretical motivation in order to inspire action.

One such project occurred. The theory that followed was that having built a film to digital, and then digital to film setup, it was apparent (with some nudges from Richard Tuohey) that we could just take out the entire digital part of the system (digital camera and screen) and we'd have a readymade optical printer (computer controlled frame by frame projector and bolex) and without any technical fidelity issues at all. Film to film. The project, insofar as it was independent of this technical idea, and simply required any technical idea that might be available, just adopted the optical printer as one of the paths of least resistance.

The Leicina doesn't have pin registration. But I did see one rare one, on this forum, a while back (apart from the new Logmar) that had pin registration.

C