Forgive this heresy, but...

[Guest]

Every time somebody says "Double Super 8" I just have to wonder "well why not just use 16?"

I was always under the impression that the great virtue of 8mm was that the equipment involved was (relatively) inexpensive and compact. But a converted Bolex H8 is the same size as an H16, isn't it? And it's not exactly cheap. I understand that by eliminating the plastic S8 cartridge you'll get a steadier and sharper image, but if you're going to spend that much won't you get a bigger leap in quality by just going up to 16? Is it just that you figure you'll get twice as much film out of a 100' roll than if you used a 16mm camera?

Am I missing something?

(ducking to avoid flying objects),

-Schnozzle

[Cranium]

Well, it's the exact same amount of film in 16mm and DS8. It's just more like 4x the running time.

I think what a lot of people seem to miss is the fact that DS8 is clearly not for everyone. For me, a 16mm scoopic won't solve any of the shooting difficulty that a Canon DS8 solves. So when people say "Why not shoot 16mm?" there are a number of reasons for me. Size is one. To get the load time I get in DS8, you'd need to use a 16mm cam with a magazine. At that point, it becomes a bit cumbersome for me. Heck, just the Canon DS8 is bigger than I'd really like. I'd really REALLY like to see an A-cam in DS8. THAT would kinda be my ideal camera.
But if you're content with Super-8 cart system, stick with it, by all means. A documentarian recently contacted me about using one of my DS8 cams. I eventually talked him out of DS8, and into S8. It makes more sense for someone who's travelling, and may be shooting in a multitude of lighting cnditions, blah blah blah... He's a photog, and just wanted to shoot some film footage to go along with his stills. A good S8 cam seems to me like it would fit perfectly.

[francis]

its more of a case of if you had a choice of driving a car with balanced or unbalanced wheels. same car different balance. not an issue of car a over car b. if you are wanting to shoot 8mm, and have it as cheap as possible and as good as possible, then go ds8. i never considered loading film or a slightly bigger camera size as an issue. these things dont help me choose a format. budget, look and the project matter. if i could id be shooting everything on 70mm. my point is, if you are going to use a certain gage of film, why not make sure it it produces the best quality output as posible even if you have to put up with a few so called inconveniences. once again to me loading 100ft roll is piss easy so it doesnt bother me. that and you get 5 minutes per burn before flipping....40 minutes if you have a bolex ds8 with mag, all before turning it over.

[marc]

its more of a case of if you had a choice of driving a car with balanced or unbalanced wheels. same car different balance. not an issue of car a over car b. if you are wanting to shoot 8mm, and have it as cheap as possible..

And

my point is, if you are going to use a certain gage of film, why not make sure it it produces the best quality output as posible even if you have to put up with a few so called inconveniences. once again to me loading 100ft roll is piss easy so it doesnt bother me. that and you get 5 minutes per burn before flipping....40 minutes if you have a bolex ds8 with mag, all before turning it over.

Or you could shoot DR8 with resolving quality almost as good and get more play time for your film with the same high quality camera but at a cheaper cost (without the conversion price), no lens issues associated with an enlarged frame, sprocket holes compatable with those of 16mm so as to make it somewhat future proof and because there are so many more R8 cameras out there it makes more economic sense to use DR8 than DS8.

[unxetas]

huh?

actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but Regular8 perfs are the same size as 16mm but not the same pitch, right? About being future proof.. yeah right.. not even you and me are future proof ;)

About resolving power.. that's the same discussion as Reg8 vs. Super8, pointless in my opinion..


I don't understand all the fuss about DS8, I do think it's a great format and I will use it. Those who don't think highly of it as a viable format, why do you even complain? 8O

[marc]

huh?

actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but Regular8 perfs are the same size as 16mm but not the same pitch, right? About being future proof.. yeah right.. not even you and me are future proof ;)

Hence the words: "somewhat future proof". I said the sprocket holes are the same size as 16mm not the same pitch. If you investigate that statement more carefully you will see that if S8 ever becomes extinct 16mm will most likely still exist. If anyone still wants R8 the perfs will still be available and in use and a setup for perfing R8 will be that much more viable as a result. You are correct, nothing is future proof. "Somewhat future proof" or " more future proof " than S8 are relative statements. "Security" is a relative term as nothing is truly secure. There are only degrees of security relative to other things.

About resolving power.. that's the same discussion as Reg8 vs. Super8, pointless in my opinion..

Again, read more carefully, I didn't say " same resolving power" I said in so many words that the resolving power was close.

I don't understand all the fuss about DS8, I do think it's a great format and I will use it. Those who don't think highly of it as a viable format, why do you even complain? 8O

I don't know of any complaints here. As for myself, I am merely pointing out what I believe are objective and legitimate concerns about it's practicality versus DR8. You can use whatever makes you happy. If you want to jump off a bridge and that is something that thrills you then go for it! I personally will not see the value in that type of activity.

[mattias]

actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but Regular8 perfs are the same size as 16mm but not the same pitch, right?

but isn't it exactly half the pitch? as long as 16mm film stock exists, it can rather easily be reperfed into d8, while you'd need unperfed stock or 35mm along with a more complicaterd machine to create ds8.

/matt

[unxetas]

About resolving power.. that's the same discussion as Reg8 vs. Super8, pointless in my opinion..

Again, read more carefully, I didn't say " same resolving power" I said in so many words that the resolving power was close.

I didn't say you did say that..


As for complaining or whatever it is.. I'm probably just dumb anyway, but I can't understand the need to

merely pointing out what I believe are objective and legitimate concerns about it's practicality versus DR8.

It's exactly as you said, if I were into jumping off of bridges why would I want to come to a forum and specifically say my "sport" was better than football or baseball? I personally do not see the value in THAT type of activity (that is, saying my "sport" is better than yours.)

[SteveH]

Every time somebody says "Double Super 8" I just have to wonder "well why not just use 16?"

This is only a compelling argument so long as you can actually afford to shoot 16mm. The possibility of shooting DS8 K40 would in a lot of instances be the only thing that would make using film a viable alternative for people. Of course there's the 'bulky and hard to find camera' issue, but even K40 is expensive to use and the possibility (however rare) of having your film ruined on account of something as stupifying as 'cartridge jitter' is enough to make the case for DS8 pretty compelling. Besides which a DS8 camera need not be bulky - as has been said already. Ordinarily one might expect the film manufacturer to be sufficiently concerned that the best possible results were obtainable from their stock - but Kodak seem happy enough for everyone to stumble along with increasingly decrepid equipment, and why wouldn't they be?

[Nigel]

16mm really is cheap. That is probably why I haven't shot much Super8 in the last year and a half(I also end up with the extra film after shoots which helps).

In the end it depends on what it is that you are doing. If you are shooting home-movies to project for the family and friends then 16mm may be to much. However, if you are trying to make shorts, features or anything that involves Super8 can be a hassle. That is noot to say Super8 shouldn't be used--I am shooting the credit scenes for a film this weekend on Super8.

Good Luck

[marc]

As for complaining or whatever it is.. I'm probably just dumb anyway, but I can't understand the need to

merely pointing out what I believe are objective and legitimate concerns about it's practicality versus DR8.

.

It's exactly as you said, if I were into jumping off of bridges why would I want to come to a forum and specifically say my "sport" was better than football or baseball? I personally do not see the value in THAT type of activity (that is, saying my "sport" is better than yours.)

Nobody mentioned "better" only more practical for the reasons given. So you won't be coming to "my" forum and I won't be coming to "your" forum. It will be "OUR" forum for sports enthusiasts and I might point out why I think that my sport is a more practical endeavor than yours.

As Spock once said: " I never said that computers were better than humans only that they are more efficient."

[filmbuff]

but isn't it exactly half the pitch? as long as 16mm film stock exists, it can rather easily be reperfed into d8, while you'd need unperfed stock or 35mm along with a more complicaterd machine to create ds8.

/matt

Regular 8 film runs fine through my K-3. Its a neat (cheaper) way to scratch test a camera as long as you make sure the lab doesn't slit the film.

[marc]

actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but Regular8 perfs are the same size as 16mm but not the same pitch, right?

but isn't it exactly half the pitch? as long as 16mm film stock exists, it can rather easily be reperfed into d8, while you'd need unperfed stock or 35mm along with a more complicaterd machine to create ds8.

/matt

It's mainly because the perfs are the same. And because 16mm will be a common guage for some time, the dies will be common enough that they will not be hard to come by or too expensive because of rarity. And yes, the pitch is exactly half which is an easy calculation in terms of setting up a perfing gig for DR8. There is a lot more 16mm being used today as compared to S8 in it's niche market . And in terms of DS8, It is ridiculously outnumbered by the quantity of available DR8 cameras.

[SteveH]

16mm really is cheap.

Hmmm, doesn't this statement require just a bit of qualification? Most amusing that you follow this statement with an admission that you get lots of FREE stock anyway... tsk.

I was really thinking about the consumer market rather than the 'strictly' professional market. There are plenty of people out there who are interested in capturing moving images and a fair percentage of these folk will spend considerable sums of money on high-end consumer video gear. There is plenty of potential for film to appeal to this kind of consumer but it needs to weigh in at a price that compares favourably with their video expenditure. Super 8 does not compare favourably in this respect so 16mm obviously fairs even worse.

[mattias]

I was really thinking about the consumer market rather than the 'strictly' professional market.

you have a point, since the only reason super 8 is cheaper is spelled kodachrome. any other stock and i don't quite see the point if cost is your main concern. if you shoot negative stocks and "rank" the footage it evens out fast.

/matt