When do I move up to 16mm instead of higher end super 8?

[slashmaster]

Throughout my life I've been getting, or borrowing progressively better super 8 cameras. I think at some point before the most high end super 8, It would be cheaper and better getting mid to low end 16mm. But I'm not too sure where the line is drawn, can someone help me out with this?

[joelpierre]

But I’m not too sure where the line is drawn…

The price?
The 16mm costs at least double the Super 8 (camera, film, development, projector).

[bolextech]

Here's one way of looking at it from a strictly pragmatic point of view: the quality requirements of your final exhibition format should determine your choice of a production format.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[slashmaster]

But I’m not too sure where the line is drawn…

The price?
The 16mm costs at least double the Super 8 (camera, film, development, projector).

I use to think this same thing. But go to this website and look what the Super 8 cartridges and developing cost for 50 feet, then look what it cost for 16mm at 100 feet http://www.pro8mm.com/Merchant5/merchan ... Code=S8flm As far as the film is concerned I can get 2 1/2 minutes at 24fps on super 8 for $30, or I can get 2 minutes 45 seconds at 24fps for $45. I guess all the labor of putting the film in the cartridges, then breaking them open for processing doesn't make super 8 that much cheaper. But do let me know if you know a cheaper way for super 8.

[joelpierre]

In Europe (at Wittner):

[MovieStuff]

I have a saying that I borrowed from someone: No one wants to spend more than they have to. But not getting what you need at half the price is no bargain.

Super 8 can be very unpredictable while 16mm is very predictable. 16mm color negative transferred to digital can look indistinguishable from 35mm in many respects but 8mm will always look like 8mm. Will 16mm cost more? Not necessarily since cameras are practically free these days on ebay and labs are hungry for processing and telecine customers due to the onslaught of digital.

But here's the most important thing: You can use the cheapest, wind up 16mm camera with a fungus-laden Wollensak lens shooting color negative that is 5 years out of date unrefrigerated and, after processing and telecine, it will still look better that the best super 8 film stock in the best super 8 camera.

It's not about how much it costs but, rather, the value you get for the money spent. I would say move up to 16mm sooner rather than later, if you can. You will not regret it.

Roger

[joelpierre]

You can use the cheapest, wind up 16mm camera with a fungus-laden Wollensak lens shooting color negative that is 5 years out of date unrefrigerated and, after processing and telecine, it will still look better that the best super 8 film stock in the best super 8 camera.

Can you give an example with a identical HD scanning — in Super 8 and 16 mm (and the same film), that illustrates the difference?

[slashmaster]

Thanks guys! I think I'm going to go for it. Joel, that is what I was expecting 16mm to cost compared to super 8. I really feel like I can get a bargain now!