PRO8MM FILM RIPOFF!!!

[Alex]

So you two don't want proof but would like to know where they are getting their information from.

huh? sounds like you do want proof, and there's nothing wrong with that.


All Kodak film is numbered by Kodak. All Pro-8mm has to do is put that number on their Super-8 slit version. Then anyone can look up the number and see when the film was actually made.

I think it's called a film batch number.

[Super8freakazoid24]

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.

As far as my transfer was concerned, the film had no trace of blue to work with except for an occasional shift. It would have been totally useless at any transfer facility. Even worse, some of my rolls were only 40 feet in length.

Kev, the fact that you have not had a major problem is only due to the "luck of the draw." But, I can assure you that your luck will run out at some point – just as it did with me. You have likely already had some significant inconsistencies in the film that may have been fixed to some extent with color correction. You also may not notice other signs such as increased grain or shift in color as you go to a "new" roll. Ultimately it just means a colorist has to spend more time in a $300.00 per hour telecine suite to fix these problems at your expense. You are really better off obtaining fresh stock from the same batch at a reputable company if you want your film consistent. You will NEVER get this at Pro8mm!

Finally, I ask you at look in Phil’s face and ask him point blank, “Do you use inferior short-ends when you remanufacture your 35mm into super 8? I have heard that you do from a number of sources.” Snake that he is, even he should become somewhat flustered. Perhaps he may even fess up to the truth if you catch him off guard. Try it and see.

No, I will never use Pro8mm again because well for one thing I can't afford them and second I did notice a couple of lines on the film itself.

Kev

[Santo]

Well, I for one am finding this thread very interesting. I've got a short on the drawing boards and am looking at using a variety of the negative stocks all the way from the V2 100t to the 800 asa and Pro8 is the only place to get them. The short, in its design, incorporates these stocks and their various looks. But before I spend maybe a 1000 US, I want to get some reliable info on this short end recanning claim and, in particular, expiry dates. Doesn't Pro 8 put them on their film boxes?

[MovieStuff]

But before I spend maybe a 1000 US, I want to get some reliable info on this short end recanning claim and, in particular, expiry dates.

With all the work a short would require, I'd say you have every right to ask. Do you think they would let you run a batch test? If they are loading their own carts, then perhaps they might process and one-light a test of each emulsion. Seems to me a reasonable request. I mean, I suppose it doesn't really matter if they are using short ends as long as the final product doesn't suffer?

BTW: What is your project about that requires a different look from each emulsion? My experience in 16mm is that the different negs all kind of look the same after being Ranked. I guess this is where the heightened grain of super 8 might make a more appreciable difference. Interesting.

Roger[/code]

[Santo]

BTW: What is your project about that requires a different look from each emulsion? My experience in 16mm is that the different negs all kind of look the same after being Ranked. I guess this is where the heightened grain of super 8 might make a more appreciable difference. Interesting.

Roger

One of the things which makes super8 so fantastic from an artistic viewpoint is that the medium very much should be involved in the storytelling process. At least in my opinion. Without giving too much away, the film involves the gradual psychotic breakdown of the lead who is suffering from Delusional Parasitosis. He believes he's got bugs crawling under his skin. It's told from his POV, so I want to use the stocks, starting with the most grainless from the begining, and then gradually moving to the 800 by the end of the film so I get that "swarm of gnats" look permeating most every shot.

[Alex]

Short ends will never be cleaner than new unopened film, and more than likely they will have additional dust and dirt from being already handled.

Factor in it's being slit to super-8 size, and those additional dust particles and dirt elements will be twelve times larger than they would appear if they had not been slit, and there will be more of them.

[gianni1]

This side of the pond, Kahl film & tv does interesting negative film stocks with processing at kahlfilm.de.

They have 200T, 320, 500, and 800 speed neg.

The link below points to their super 8 film stocks

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q2AC12ABA


Gianni

p.s. I don't work for them, I wuz just looking for odd filmz...

[Nigel]

We can all go round and round with how we hate Pro8. That seems to be a given...

What about the fact that their propaganda has started to appear on this sites homepage?? Doesn't anyone find that odd?? Andreas needs to sell space but these aren't ads. They are Pro8 written "Articles". Maybe Andreas got paid for the articles which is fine but if it is free for them then that seems like a bad move to me.

Good Luck
Just spewing my opinion here.

[mattias]

So you two don't want proof but would like to know where they are getting their information from.

yes.

huh? sounds like you do want proof

huh? you better listen more carefully then i guess.

/matt

[timdrage]

This side of the pond, Kahl film & tv does interesting negative film stocks with processing at kahlfilm.de

Wow, I hadn't seen that... anyone used any of these stocks?

[Alex]

Ok Mattias, give us a scenario or response that fulfills what you want to know. In other words, take license to give us a sample response that meets your criteria.

[supermag400_inventor]

I find all of this information about Pro 8 very enlightening. It has suddenly occured to me that half of the film tests I've shot with the Supermag have had all of these issues that others have had with the film stocks from Pro 8. Dirty, scratched, fogged and discolored film. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the logic is very clear to me. The films they sell should be fresh, new stock from Kodak or Fuji. NOT SCRAP FILM! I think that the films I've been using are from odds and ends they cut off the heap. No wonder I've gotten grungy images on my tests. Perhaps it's time to change to Wittner stock or someone else.

Does anyone know where I can get 1000 foot spools of K-40 or Fuji reversal stocks? I would love to get some beta testing of these stocks in the Supermag...that would tell me a great deal.

All this time, I've been blaming myself for the fuck'ups. ....Hummm!
Could I be wrong?

[Nigel]

Dave--

You are making an add-on film mag and yet you can't tell what bad film looks like???

This thread is an enlightenment....

That seems strange to me.

Pro8 are crooks and if you got wrapped up with them in one way or another that is fine. But to say that you honestly don't know what good film looks like when you are making something using film is odd. I would hope that you would know the medium enough to improve it.

Good Luck

[supermag400_inventor]

I'm not a film expert...far from it. I invented the Supermag but not film. I have never worked with film other than shooting it. I never claimed to be an expert or even well educated in the manufacture of film. I don't have any formal education in film. Do you? If you do then your one up on me.

I just like to invent stuff. I'm creative, engineering and imaginative. But I haven't shot super 8 in over 30 years. So, when you start talking latest emulsions, exposures and processing...your talking to the wrong guy.

Perhaps I should educate myself more in the manufacture of film. But why should I. I don't plan on making the stuff. If the film that I shoot is fresh and clean, then the mag should do it's job without a bit of problem. The results will only be as good as the stock. What I'm saying is that if the film I used was crap to begin with, then all I'll get is crap in the end. "No pun intended"

Don't miss understand my intentions here. I'm not slamming Pro 8 or anyone else. What I am saying is that if the film I use is questionable and not good film, then I won't get good results on my tests. That throws a wrench into the works for me. I have to decide if it's the mag or the film.

I'm not the one making the film. That's Pro 8's job. If they don't do their job properly, then the person using the Supermag will blame not only Pro 8 and the film but the Supermag as well. Don't you agree?

I plan on testing out the mag with other stocks from other sources. If they turn out better than the stuff I've shot with Pro 8 film, then that will answer a lot of my questions.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Nigel wrote:

You are making an add-on film mag and yet you can't tell what bad film looks like???.......But to say that you honestly don't know what good film looks like when you are making something using film is odd.

I´d say it is only natural for Dave to think that any defects in the film from his experiments is from the not-perfect supermag, that is why he does tests. To assume that it is the fresh film that is crap that he has bought from a specialist in 8mm films would be more far fetched.

I think it would be for anyone who hasn´t been reading all this crap about Pro8 and is in the middle of experimenting with a invention.