Super 8 widescreen?

[Bokes]

Anyone shoot any Super 8 Widescreen footage?
How does it compare to Super 16 when transfered to video?
I know pro 8 does it to their cameras but,
Can a Canon 814XLS be converted?

[Barry_Green]

Super 8 compares to Super16 about the same way that a 5 dollar bill compares to a hundred dollar bill.

(i.e., they're both money, (and Super8 and S16 are both film) but one of 'em is worth a whole lot more than the other!)

Super8 isn't in the same ballpark, league, city, state, or nation as Super16. I love Super8 for what it is, but if you try to pretend it's something it's not, you'll only be disappointed. Embrace it for what it is -- a funky, grainy, jittery low-latitude hyper-contrast format.

[themagickite]

i reckon that's a pretty harsh comparison, and potentially unfair
super8 is about 25% of the area of 16mm so 'should' be worth $25
i guess in your comparison you've taken into account the fact that super8 cameras don't have the same quality lenses and such, and is generally telecined by inferior means.

[Barry_Green]

I've taken into account everything. I was a major Super 8 fanatic and collected all the best cameras I could get my hands on, including a Beaulieu 6008 PRO, Elmo 1012XL-S, Nikon R10, Canon 1014, Sanyo 620, Chinon Pacific 200/8XL, and many more. That Beaulieu was gorgeous, crystal-sync, had interchangeable lenses, and basically shoots the best-looking Super 8 footage out there.

And it still can't hold a candle to 16mm.

And the infrastructure doesn't exist to work with and handle Super 8 nearly as well as 16mm or S16.

I liked Super 8 for what it was -- a funky, wild, jittery, low-latitude, grainy unique look. But comparing it to 16mm? Not a chance. And it makes no sense -- if you start spending the money for telecine at a good place, etc., all those costs are going to cost the same as for 16mm. And you can't buy "short ends" of Super 8, so you have to pay retail, vs. getting good/cheap deals on 16mm stock. Super 8 is more work and ends up costing more, and never looks nearly as good as, 16mm.

If you're using a sub-premium Super8 camera, that just compounds the quality difference -- you get jitter and weave and lame lenses and two-blade irises on the cheap cameras. And for my Beaulieu, I've bought many 16mm and even Super16mm cameras that were half to 1/3 the cost of the Beaulieu! :)

So I say shoot Super8 for its unique properties, if you want. But if you're after quality, a DVX (or especially HVX) would blow Super8 away, so why spend the extra if you're going for the most filmlike look? Super8 just doesn't play in that league, 16mm is so much better, so very very much better.

[Alessandro Machi]

I think you've over simplified the issue Barry.

First off, Super-16 is considered well above regular 16mm so it's kind of silly to compare Super-8 to Super-16.

I have heard that widescreen can look pretty decent even from Super-8 however one needs the right combinations of lenses.

As for "normal" Super-8 shooting, it's probably nowadays the most underrated format in existence. The key to getting good results is to use either a rank cintel transfer facility or perhaps one of the other systems on the market as long as the operator is really really good at what they do.

I've shot 35 cartridges for a super-8 short and I can tell you that we have managed to get about every look imaginable, all from the super-8 format.

[Barry_Green]

Super16 is the same frame as 16mm, but 20% wider. If you're shooting 16:9 you get a lot more from S16, if you're shooting 4:3 you get nothing additional from S16.

S8 is 1/4 the size of regular 16. When put in widescreen mode it's maybe 1/8th the size; I haven't bothered to do the math. Which means that it's 8x grainier, with less latitude, greatly magnified dust and hairs, etc.

S8 is a great format for what it is. The only problem I have with it is when people start trying to make it into something that it's not. For example, using a Rank -- yes, you can, and yes I have. But -- it costs *more* to transfer S8 on a Rank, than it does to transfer 16 on a Rank. So -- why do it?

Embrace it for what it is, budget appropriately, and enjoy its unique look. But to spend the same money on S8 as you would on 16mm? If you want the 16mm look? Why? Why not let S8 be S8, instead of trying to pretend it's 16?

If you want the 16mm look, why shoot S8? And if you want the S8 look, why treat it as if it's 16, or try to make it look like 16?

[themagickite]

S8 is 1/4 the size of regular 16. When put in widescreen mode it's maybe 1/8th the size; I haven't bothered to do the math. Which means that it's 8x grainier, with less latitude, greatly magnified dust and hairs, etc.


i think Bokes was talking about the enlarged gate super8 cameras, like what pro8mm have done with "max8", and the "super duper 8" format (essentially the same thing, used on "sleeps always") where the area of film that was reserved for the sound strip is now exposed (much as is the case with super 16) this gives you more resolution to play with and a widescreen image. rather than shooting 4:3 and cropping.

about your comment "why treat super8 like 16mm" why not? i guess it comes down to expectations, but i think you should ALWAYS be trying to get the very best images possible regardless of format, whether it's film or video. using an enlarged gate camera and scanning at high resolutions does exactly this.

barry, have you seen the halogenuros project? http://onsuper8.blip.tv/file/216098/
i think the format really deserves to be taken seriously, after all 16mm was itself brought out as an amerture format but now it's completely shifted all preconceptions and is a full fledged industry standard (well... i guess it has been for many years, but the point still stands).