Shooting a feature film on Super 8...
- Thread starter nouou
- Start date
You can do it - anything's possible. Check out pro8mm.com. They provide stock cut from current Kodak negatives and telecine.
Do I recommend it? No. It's way too grainy. The only use I see for Super 8mm transfers is for special looks in music videos, horror sequences, flashbacks, etc. But for a whole feature film? I personally wouldn't bother, it's a lot of hassle and the look of it is just way to out of the ordinary. You can shoot 50' and see if you like it.
If you're looking for a cheap good 16mm sync package, I would sell you my Arri 16 BL package for $1700 which is a very low price. It includes a blimped Angenieux 9.5-95mm, batteries, two mags, CP speed control, and various filters. I'm in Los Angeles and you can check it out if you are local. Send me a Personal Message if you're interested. It's not as quiet as my Arri SR, but it's much cheaper than what I would sell an SR for. If you buy a magazine blimp for the Arri 16 BL mag (about $50), it's quieter still.
I was thinking of using the $1700 to buy a Canon 7D
. But between the two, the Arri BL is the real sweetheart :kiss:
Do I recommend it? No. It's way too grainy. The only use I see for Super 8mm transfers is for special looks in music videos, horror sequences, flashbacks, etc. But for a whole feature film? I personally wouldn't bother, it's a lot of hassle and the look of it is just way to out of the ordinary. You can shoot 50' and see if you like it.
If you're looking for a cheap good 16mm sync package, I would sell you my Arri 16 BL package for $1700 which is a very low price. It includes a blimped Angenieux 9.5-95mm, batteries, two mags, CP speed control, and various filters. I'm in Los Angeles and you can check it out if you are local. Send me a Personal Message if you're interested. It's not as quiet as my Arri SR, but it's much cheaper than what I would sell an SR for. If you buy a magazine blimp for the Arri 16 BL mag (about $50), it's quieter still.
I was thinking of using the $1700 to buy a Canon 7D
. But between the two, the Arri BL is the real sweetheart :kiss:
youngindiefilms
Well-known member
There are some S8 cameras quite enough to shoot sync sound. I am shooting a short film on Super 8 soon and will take a look at the outcome and see if is good enough for a feature.
I think it really depends on what kind of look you are going for and on the genre. But I saw some professional work on S8 which looked very convincing.
Shooting on 16mm would obviously preferable, you can get a good camera package at a reasonable price but film will be that much more expensive. So only do it when you have enough money.
No offense to dadaboy here, but I strongly discourage anyone to buy a Arri BL. Simply because you will have a hard time to find a experienced technician to get it serviced and the lack of spare parts! And like any mechanical machine, it will need servicing in time.
I think it really depends on what kind of look you are going for and on the genre. But I saw some professional work on S8 which looked very convincing.
Shooting on 16mm would obviously preferable, you can get a good camera package at a reasonable price but film will be that much more expensive. So only do it when you have enough money.
No offense to dadaboy here, but I strongly discourage anyone to buy a Arri BL. Simply because you will have a hard time to find a experienced technician to get it serviced and the lack of spare parts! And like any mechanical machine, it will need servicing in time.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There is only one series of super8 cameras that have the requisite crystal-controlled motor that allows for accurate syncing of picture to dialogue: the Beaulieu 6008Pro/7008Pro/9008Pro. No other super8 camera will hold sync. Last time I bought one it cost $900; I have no idea what the market is like for them now.
The beaulieus are not silent, but they're reasonably quiet, with a bit of a homemade blimp you could probably do it. But should you?
I love super8, I think it's a fun format, but any DV camera will provide a crisper/sharper picture. This new hmc40 I'm playing with will blow any super8-shot picture into the weeds, as far as sharpness, clarity, dynamic range, everything. And yes, while Pro8mm does sell new Super8 stocks, so does Kodak. Unless Pro8mm has changed their service significantly in the last five years, I wouldn't go with 'em, I'd just buy the direct kodak stocks.
nouou, why would you want to shoot on Super8? Is it just to say that you shot on film? Because, yes, it's film, but it's also profoundly inconvenient -- you'll be shooting double-system sound, you're only getting two and a half minutes out of each roll of film, and each roll will cost you about $15, plus about $15.00 for processing, plus about $20 per roll for transfer to videotape, so that's $50 total per roll shot, or about $20 per minute of footage. Assuming that you're shooting a 90-minute feature film, at a 10:1 ratio, that's 900 minutes of source footage, at $20 per, is $18,000.00.
Are you sure you wouldn't rather just get an HMC40 or GH1 or 7D and use that instead? $2,000 total cost, and no actual cost per minute of footage.
The beaulieus are not silent, but they're reasonably quiet, with a bit of a homemade blimp you could probably do it. But should you?
I love super8, I think it's a fun format, but any DV camera will provide a crisper/sharper picture. This new hmc40 I'm playing with will blow any super8-shot picture into the weeds, as far as sharpness, clarity, dynamic range, everything. And yes, while Pro8mm does sell new Super8 stocks, so does Kodak. Unless Pro8mm has changed their service significantly in the last five years, I wouldn't go with 'em, I'd just buy the direct kodak stocks.
nouou, why would you want to shoot on Super8? Is it just to say that you shot on film? Because, yes, it's film, but it's also profoundly inconvenient -- you'll be shooting double-system sound, you're only getting two and a half minutes out of each roll of film, and each roll will cost you about $15, plus about $15.00 for processing, plus about $20 per roll for transfer to videotape, so that's $50 total per roll shot, or about $20 per minute of footage. Assuming that you're shooting a 90-minute feature film, at a 10:1 ratio, that's 900 minutes of source footage, at $20 per, is $18,000.00.
Are you sure you wouldn't rather just get an HMC40 or GH1 or 7D and use that instead? $2,000 total cost, and no actual cost per minute of footage.
I bought my 6008 from a man named zeljko uhmeyer, his site is super-8-camera-shop.com fabulous gear, my camera was in its box, mint condition. 24/25 sync up to 80fps.
I love it, but still think the size of the frame is waaaay too small. 16mm is something I'd like to try.
If experimenting with looks, google the name martin baumgarten, very good advice on hand developing, also google olexander and super8mm gear will come up, along with more technique.
Transferring is costly, if you want to do a feature, have a look at the workprinter from moviestuff.tv the man's name is roger, very helpful. They're under 2000 dollars and project frame by frame to a lens.
A switch wired to the modified mouse sends signals to your pc in the form of 'left click' to capture each frame. I've been playing with the idea to tether this switch to a dslr's shutter, put a macro lens on, set it to like 2 fps, and focus on aerial image and shoot.
If it works you could get a raw sequence. You'll need a few dslr's though, as you'll pass the 100,000 shutter lifespan 20 min of footage down the line.
just an idea. i love super8mm. but it's definitely a look now in and of itself.
I'd say develop in a lab, invest in a workprinter and transfer at home. also DS8 (if you can find a cam) has the edge on super8mm in that there's a much more stable plate holding the film steady than with super8mm, the plate being made of plastic.
The image will be steadier, taking away from the gauge's character. that'll chill out the jumpiness, and scanning with a work printer as it is frame by frame, can reduce flicker greatly.
Cheers all,
someone tell me if i'm wrong about anything
t
I love it, but still think the size of the frame is waaaay too small. 16mm is something I'd like to try.
If experimenting with looks, google the name martin baumgarten, very good advice on hand developing, also google olexander and super8mm gear will come up, along with more technique.
Transferring is costly, if you want to do a feature, have a look at the workprinter from moviestuff.tv the man's name is roger, very helpful. They're under 2000 dollars and project frame by frame to a lens.
A switch wired to the modified mouse sends signals to your pc in the form of 'left click' to capture each frame. I've been playing with the idea to tether this switch to a dslr's shutter, put a macro lens on, set it to like 2 fps, and focus on aerial image and shoot.
If it works you could get a raw sequence. You'll need a few dslr's though, as you'll pass the 100,000 shutter lifespan 20 min of footage down the line.
just an idea. i love super8mm. but it's definitely a look now in and of itself.
I'd say develop in a lab, invest in a workprinter and transfer at home. also DS8 (if you can find a cam) has the edge on super8mm in that there's a much more stable plate holding the film steady than with super8mm, the plate being made of plastic.
The image will be steadier, taking away from the gauge's character. that'll chill out the jumpiness, and scanning with a work printer as it is frame by frame, can reduce flicker greatly.
Cheers all,
someone tell me if i'm wrong about anything
t
youngindiefilms
Well-known member
I guess he wants to shoot on film because he wants the look he is getting out of it. Nothing wrong with shooting film. I'd only recommend shooting a short film first and on S8 (since cheaper) to see if the way you have to work with film suits you. If you like it afterwards then go ahead with your feature, if it didn't work out for you no big harm done and you have gained some experience on the way.
Shooting digital gets you a completely other look than shooting film, I think it is a good way to learn the ropes (unless you are very restricted money wise).
Barry no offense, please don't scare people away, I think your 10:1 ratio is very exaggerated and I say that out of experience, not assuming.
Barry_Green
Moderator
What ratio do you think a first-timer typically shoots? I think 10:1 is pretty conservative.
Remember, we're not talking about 10 takes of each shot, we're talking about 10 minutes of total footage shot for every 1 minute of total running time. Do a wide shot, medium shot, closeup on actor A, closeup on actor B. Now do three takes of each, and you're already running at a 12:1 ratio!
Remember, we're not talking about 10 takes of each shot, we're talking about 10 minutes of total footage shot for every 1 minute of total running time. Do a wide shot, medium shot, closeup on actor A, closeup on actor B. Now do three takes of each, and you're already running at a 12:1 ratio!
youngindiefilms
Well-known member
I can only talk for me, but when I shoot a film I have a very clear mind of what angles I want to use. I don't like to shoot all possible angles but rather do careful planning beforehand and only shoot what I know I will use. In average I need 3 to max. 4 minutes per film minute, but that really depends on what kind of genre.
Also a film doesn't consist of only dialogue scenes where you need more minutes per film minute so you can't apply this formula to the whole film.
Also a film doesn't consist of only dialogue scenes where you need more minutes per film minute so you can't apply this formula to the whole film.
Nick Walters
Mentholated Member
I don't see any problems with using or getting service for a 16BL....It's a motion film camera, which means that if you go with any motion film camera repair shop then it'll get fixed, maintained, etc.....it's just as much trouble as getting service for any other camera. You find a shop, send it in the post, and get it back later.
Film ain't quite as dead as alot of people like to pretend it is.....and stock, parts, repairs, and maintenance are all available.
I have a 16BL.....It's a damn good camera, and is super cheap compared to alot of other more modern film cameras. You definitely don't need to spend 3k.
Film ain't quite as dead as alot of people like to pretend it is.....and stock, parts, repairs, and maintenance are all available.
I have a 16BL.....It's a damn good camera, and is super cheap compared to alot of other more modern film cameras. You definitely don't need to spend 3k.
youngindiefilms
Well-known member
Nobody says film is dead, on the contrary. I love shooting on film, be it stills or "film".
Spare parts for the 16BL are not readily available and machining those can cost a fortune, that's what a professional Arri technician says and he should know.
Spare parts for the 16BL are not readily available and machining those can cost a fortune, that's what a professional Arri technician says and he should know.
Well, it depends on his style and the kind of movie he wants to make. Have you seen "4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days" ? "Mystery Train" ?
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Although I have no experience shooting moving film, I have a fair amount doing stills. I am also in love with the celluloid dream and intend on doing, if not my first, my second feature with super 16mm. I think I am going to do a short with s16 next summer and see how that goes initially. Have you thought about going 16?
You are probably reading Jorge's CinemaTechnic write up on the Arri 16 BL (it's a good resource). I've owned two Arri 16 BL's in the past.
If a BL gets physically damaged in some way - you crack the mirror shutter say or the viewfinder system, then yes, getting it serviced will be a pain in the a** unless you are in LA or New York. But the same can be said of many if not most of the older 16mm camera systems. Someone like Jorge does not want to get involved with servicing a camera for which spare parts are hard to get without having to buy a whole new system. Many other technicians, some more renowned for Arri service than Jorge, are quite willing to service BLs.
The fact is that for most owners an Arri BL just keeps going and going, with only minor service requirements such as lubrication. Only in the event of physical damage like a cracked mirror will you need "spare parts" and if you have cracked your mirror boy you are a dufus. The BL's have a much simpler design and mechanism than the CP-16s, Eclairs and yes even the Arri SR, it's basic thread is based on the Arri IIs, so there's less chance that things go wrong with them.
My main beef with Arri BLs - and I'm only intending to be honest here - is that with age they tend to be noisier than what they were originally rated at. Don't believe the specs - they were based on factory new BLs . Even with lubrication. My SR is far quieter.
The big plusses of Arri BLs:
-Relatively Cheap. It's not such a big loss if your system gets messed up.
-Bright, orientable really nice viewfinder with "look around" where you can see past the frame guides.
-Cool looking, inexpensive Arri mags.
-Did I say it was built like a tank? Very rugged.
-I likes em better than CP-16s, Bolexes, Eclairs.
-Charming personality, seriously. If it was a pig, I would name it Babe.
Minuses:
-Kinda noisy.
-Blimped lens is a nuisance when you want to have a geared lens.
-Too heavy for long durations of hand held work. You need an Arri handheld support. Arri SR is much lighter and better balances on shoulder.
I'm trying to sell mine, but if it don't sell, no big deal. It's kind of nice to have around.
If a BL gets physically damaged in some way - you crack the mirror shutter say or the viewfinder system, then yes, getting it serviced will be a pain in the a** unless you are in LA or New York. But the same can be said of many if not most of the older 16mm camera systems. Someone like Jorge does not want to get involved with servicing a camera for which spare parts are hard to get without having to buy a whole new system. Many other technicians, some more renowned for Arri service than Jorge, are quite willing to service BLs.
The fact is that for most owners an Arri BL just keeps going and going, with only minor service requirements such as lubrication. Only in the event of physical damage like a cracked mirror will you need "spare parts" and if you have cracked your mirror boy you are a dufus. The BL's have a much simpler design and mechanism than the CP-16s, Eclairs and yes even the Arri SR, it's basic thread is based on the Arri IIs, so there's less chance that things go wrong with them.
My main beef with Arri BLs - and I'm only intending to be honest here - is that with age they tend to be noisier than what they were originally rated at. Don't believe the specs - they were based on factory new BLs . Even with lubrication. My SR is far quieter.
The big plusses of Arri BLs:
-Relatively Cheap. It's not such a big loss if your system gets messed up.
-Bright, orientable really nice viewfinder with "look around" where you can see past the frame guides.
-Cool looking, inexpensive Arri mags.
-Did I say it was built like a tank? Very rugged.
-I likes em better than CP-16s, Bolexes, Eclairs.
-Charming personality, seriously. If it was a pig, I would name it Babe.
Minuses:
-Kinda noisy.
-Blimped lens is a nuisance when you want to have a geared lens.
-Too heavy for long durations of hand held work. You need an Arri handheld support. Arri SR is much lighter and better balances on shoulder.
I'm trying to sell mine, but if it don't sell, no big deal. It's kind of nice to have around.
Last edited:
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I have shot a Super 8 feature and would say, without any hesitation, to NOT do it. It was a an absolute disaster. We shot on K-40, with a newly refurbished Canon 1014-XLS and used (or tried to use) the digital (On-off) signal from the PC flash contact to generate a pilot-tone track on a multi-track recorder for sound sync (I had a Super 8 full coat recorder for resolving the sound). This was in the days before digital video and our plan was to sync up our sound using Super 8 full coat on a four gang editing bench, make a video work print on 3/4" SP video and then do our creative editing on 3/4" SP (for which we had access to an editing bay at the time).
However, we did not even get to post on this film. We had bought our film, with the pre-paid processing mailers and sent our footage back to the Kodak approved processor, Qualux, and ended up being massively screwed. We shot a little over a third of our script and then send in the footage for developing (we had set up our shooting schedule and resources for 3 blocks of shooting, because of money). When the footage came back over half of it was totally ruined by a nice big yellow scratch down the middle of the frame. Of course the lab said that it was a camera problem and refused to do anything about the issue. It was not a camera problem, because we set up the footage and reviewed it. Rolls shot back to back on set would be alternately scratched, then scratch free, then scratched. I was pretty experienced shooting Super 8, so I was anal about keeping the gate clean and checking for any emulsion build up in the camera, which I never saw. We did not have the money to go back and re-shoot a good 3rd of the film, and could not trust that what we re-shot would not be ruined again, so we did not finish the film. We had to just eat the expense of what we had already shot and chalk it up to one of those nasty life lessons we all seem to get from time to time.
Now, I know that things have changed somewhat from the time we shot our film and now. The choice of available film stocks have increased and the use of the color negative stocks with transfer to digital video formats makes posting a Super 8 feature much simpler now. Also, I would hope that the labs that offer the developing and transfer of the new Super 8 stocks, with all of them being boutique shops, would be a little more careful with their products and services than was a mass market lab back in the day.
That being said, there is still no way I would try to shoot a feature film on Super 8 now, and to me the main reason is the running time of the Super 8 cartridge. I shutter at the thought of trying that again. You just can not imagine just how disruptive having to change cartridges every two and a half minuets is. Two and half minutes (at 24fps) is also not going to be the real useful running time you are going to get out of a role, since you are going to have to shot double system audio. Coming up to speed and slating of each scene (a necessity) is going to eat into that running time a considerable amount over the length of a feature. Trust me on this, dealing with the short running time on the Super 8 cartridges sucks.
I was just looking at the "Package deals" that are being offered on Pro8mm.com for stock, processing, and SD transfer. In their "Feature Film" deal which offers 192 rolls of film, 24 hours of unsupervised transfer at 8 hours of running time to Mini-DV, costs $8,198.00. I don't think that would be a realistic projection of the costs to make an independent feature on Super 8. This deal is only for a shooting ratio of 4.8:1 for a 100 minute feature (4:1 for a 120 minute feature). Barry is right, I would bet that a shooting ratio of 10:1 is much more realistic. So, instead of $8,198.00 you should look at that as, realistically, about 2 to 2.5 times more, $16, 396.00 to $20495.00, just to end up with your images on SD Mini-DV. Getting your stuff scanned to HD Cam, looks like it would cost about 30% more.
Now if you have to shoot film, I would recommend 16mm is the way to go. The choice of cameras, stocks and labs is greater as is the availability of trained people to help you shot you film. Of course your costs are going to increase. I just submitted a budget proposal for a feature film, 120 minutes at a 10:1 shooting ratio to be shot on Super 16mm, with a rented camera, and the actual costs I calculated (stock, processing, transfer, with camera, support and accessory rental) came in just a smidge under $60,000. This assumed a 27 day shooting schedule and did NOT include me and a crew's cost.
Yeah, you can find a 16mm camera that is quite enough to shot a feature for $3,000, on eBay. However, I keep a close eye on eBay cameras and have noticed that 16mm cameras that I would consider "Feature worthy" and really look like they are in good enough shape are usually in the $5,000 and up range. (Cameras like the CP 16R, the CP GSMO, ARRI 16BL, Éclair ACL, and sometimes some pretty beat up ARRI 16 SR-1s). However, I would not try to shoot a feature with a camera off of eBay with out it being fully checked and serviced (including the lens) by a qualified technician. I would budget a least $500 to $1000 for that. If you are going to get into to making a feature, with the massive investment of time and energy, and try to shoot it without knowing that you camera will carry you through is a bad gamble.
So, the answer to question is, yes you can shoot a feature film on Super 8mm film, and it has been done before ( "Polish Vampire in Burbank" is, I think, the most famous, check it out and see if that is the kind of film you want to make) and, yes, you CAN get a sync sound 16mm camera for around $3000.00 that COULD shot a feature. I am of the opinion, however, that these really aren't realistic options for low budget filmmakers. Barry Green is right. With the expanding availability of low cost HD cameras, including the new HD capable DSLR cameras, the capability to shoot a GREAT looking feature film is now within the means of more and more people. The caveat is, that just making a feature film is very, very hard. So don't hamstring yourself by trying to manhandle an obsolete, fragile film format like Super 8mm in to working for you, or by risking large financial resources on 16mm, when there are newer, less costly image acquisition formats available that you can use, that can give you comparable, if not better results. I believe that we have reached the point where the Uber Independent/Underground filmmaker can compete on the things that matter most, without the issue of small film formats, or image quality getting in the way. Of course, the things that matter most, such as story, characterization, acting, the ability to speak to our humanity, and touching the hearts, minds and soul of an audience, are the things that are the hardest part of filmmaking.
However, we did not even get to post on this film. We had bought our film, with the pre-paid processing mailers and sent our footage back to the Kodak approved processor, Qualux, and ended up being massively screwed. We shot a little over a third of our script and then send in the footage for developing (we had set up our shooting schedule and resources for 3 blocks of shooting, because of money). When the footage came back over half of it was totally ruined by a nice big yellow scratch down the middle of the frame. Of course the lab said that it was a camera problem and refused to do anything about the issue. It was not a camera problem, because we set up the footage and reviewed it. Rolls shot back to back on set would be alternately scratched, then scratch free, then scratched. I was pretty experienced shooting Super 8, so I was anal about keeping the gate clean and checking for any emulsion build up in the camera, which I never saw. We did not have the money to go back and re-shoot a good 3rd of the film, and could not trust that what we re-shot would not be ruined again, so we did not finish the film. We had to just eat the expense of what we had already shot and chalk it up to one of those nasty life lessons we all seem to get from time to time.
Now, I know that things have changed somewhat from the time we shot our film and now. The choice of available film stocks have increased and the use of the color negative stocks with transfer to digital video formats makes posting a Super 8 feature much simpler now. Also, I would hope that the labs that offer the developing and transfer of the new Super 8 stocks, with all of them being boutique shops, would be a little more careful with their products and services than was a mass market lab back in the day.
That being said, there is still no way I would try to shoot a feature film on Super 8 now, and to me the main reason is the running time of the Super 8 cartridge. I shutter at the thought of trying that again. You just can not imagine just how disruptive having to change cartridges every two and a half minuets is. Two and half minutes (at 24fps) is also not going to be the real useful running time you are going to get out of a role, since you are going to have to shot double system audio. Coming up to speed and slating of each scene (a necessity) is going to eat into that running time a considerable amount over the length of a feature. Trust me on this, dealing with the short running time on the Super 8 cartridges sucks.
I was just looking at the "Package deals" that are being offered on Pro8mm.com for stock, processing, and SD transfer. In their "Feature Film" deal which offers 192 rolls of film, 24 hours of unsupervised transfer at 8 hours of running time to Mini-DV, costs $8,198.00. I don't think that would be a realistic projection of the costs to make an independent feature on Super 8. This deal is only for a shooting ratio of 4.8:1 for a 100 minute feature (4:1 for a 120 minute feature). Barry is right, I would bet that a shooting ratio of 10:1 is much more realistic. So, instead of $8,198.00 you should look at that as, realistically, about 2 to 2.5 times more, $16, 396.00 to $20495.00, just to end up with your images on SD Mini-DV. Getting your stuff scanned to HD Cam, looks like it would cost about 30% more.
Now if you have to shoot film, I would recommend 16mm is the way to go. The choice of cameras, stocks and labs is greater as is the availability of trained people to help you shot you film. Of course your costs are going to increase. I just submitted a budget proposal for a feature film, 120 minutes at a 10:1 shooting ratio to be shot on Super 16mm, with a rented camera, and the actual costs I calculated (stock, processing, transfer, with camera, support and accessory rental) came in just a smidge under $60,000. This assumed a 27 day shooting schedule and did NOT include me and a crew's cost.
Yeah, you can find a 16mm camera that is quite enough to shot a feature for $3,000, on eBay. However, I keep a close eye on eBay cameras and have noticed that 16mm cameras that I would consider "Feature worthy" and really look like they are in good enough shape are usually in the $5,000 and up range. (Cameras like the CP 16R, the CP GSMO, ARRI 16BL, Éclair ACL, and sometimes some pretty beat up ARRI 16 SR-1s). However, I would not try to shoot a feature with a camera off of eBay with out it being fully checked and serviced (including the lens) by a qualified technician. I would budget a least $500 to $1000 for that. If you are going to get into to making a feature, with the massive investment of time and energy, and try to shoot it without knowing that you camera will carry you through is a bad gamble.
So, the answer to question is, yes you can shoot a feature film on Super 8mm film, and it has been done before ( "Polish Vampire in Burbank" is, I think, the most famous, check it out and see if that is the kind of film you want to make) and, yes, you CAN get a sync sound 16mm camera for around $3000.00 that COULD shot a feature. I am of the opinion, however, that these really aren't realistic options for low budget filmmakers. Barry Green is right. With the expanding availability of low cost HD cameras, including the new HD capable DSLR cameras, the capability to shoot a GREAT looking feature film is now within the means of more and more people. The caveat is, that just making a feature film is very, very hard. So don't hamstring yourself by trying to manhandle an obsolete, fragile film format like Super 8mm in to working for you, or by risking large financial resources on 16mm, when there are newer, less costly image acquisition formats available that you can use, that can give you comparable, if not better results. I believe that we have reached the point where the Uber Independent/Underground filmmaker can compete on the things that matter most, without the issue of small film formats, or image quality getting in the way. Of course, the things that matter most, such as story, characterization, acting, the ability to speak to our humanity, and touching the hearts, minds and soul of an audience, are the things that are the hardest part of filmmaking.
David i used super way back and also tried again around 2000, i have had all my super 8 and some friends as well transfered to dv tape by the proffessional frame at a time way it was very expensive, none of the film i have had transfered looks standard dv resolution despite claims super 8 is 900 lines and some firms now giving hd super 8 transfers.
http://www.mymovietransfer.com/ what are your thoughts on this.
Ps i once bought an australian super 8 film called in my image
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Well, that Pittsburgh outfit seems to have a good set up, though I noticed that on their pricing page they said that 14-15 rolls of Super 8 would fill an hour on a DV tape. I don't get that math. At 2.5 minutes/roll (at 24fps) 15 rolls is 37.5 minutes. An hour of Super 8, at 24 fps would be 24 rolls and at their pricing, that would be right around $400 bucks for a transfer to DV. That seems to be right at the high end for Rank-Cintel transfers.
As far as the look of the Super 8 film you and your friends have transferred maybe not looking like it reaches DV resolution, you are probably right. However, as a multitude of threads on this board have attested to, the resolution of a final image is subject to a variety of factors. For Super 8, the resolution of the final image is at the mercy of the stock that you shot, the camera you used, especially, the quality of the lens on the camera. It is also subject to how the image was lit and exposed and ultimately to the quality of the transfer. I do think that Super 8, shot with a high quality camera, with a good lens, using a fine grain stock that is well lit and properly exposed, is more than capable of resolving images that approach HD video quality. This is just an assumption on my part, and this could be solved testing. Shot a resolution chart with Super 8, using your cameras, have it transferred, and see what resolution you are getting. I would compare the resolution of the transferred image to what you see with the film projected with the best projector you have available.
That being said, I have never been that much of a, "By the Math" filmmaker. Of course, I am as much of a geek as the next DVXUser dude/dudet, and absolutely embrace the need to understand the science behind our craft. However, I am much more a fan of the right brain when it comes to image making, and equally embrace the "Touchy-Feely" aspect of the craft and, when in doubt, have learned to trust my eye. I think that an equally valid method of evaluating the image quality of a Super 8mm transfer is to compare the look of the video transfer to the look of the projected film. When I was working heavy in Super 8, we actually did this. Set up a monitor and watch the video image, side by side with the projected Super 8 image. Compare the contrast, color rendition, and overall PERCEIVED SHARPNESS (which is not necessarily resolution). This would probably be one of the best ways to test several transfer houses. Shot a test reel, have it transferred at a couple of different transfer houses, and compare them all to the projected film. From there I would chose the one that most closely matched the look of the projected film. That is, unless you like the look of a transfer that is different from the project film, but meets your aesthetic needs (trust your eye).
As far as the look of the Super 8 film you and your friends have transferred maybe not looking like it reaches DV resolution, you are probably right. However, as a multitude of threads on this board have attested to, the resolution of a final image is subject to a variety of factors. For Super 8, the resolution of the final image is at the mercy of the stock that you shot, the camera you used, especially, the quality of the lens on the camera. It is also subject to how the image was lit and exposed and ultimately to the quality of the transfer. I do think that Super 8, shot with a high quality camera, with a good lens, using a fine grain stock that is well lit and properly exposed, is more than capable of resolving images that approach HD video quality. This is just an assumption on my part, and this could be solved testing. Shot a resolution chart with Super 8, using your cameras, have it transferred, and see what resolution you are getting. I would compare the resolution of the transferred image to what you see with the film projected with the best projector you have available.
That being said, I have never been that much of a, "By the Math" filmmaker. Of course, I am as much of a geek as the next DVXUser dude/dudet, and absolutely embrace the need to understand the science behind our craft. However, I am much more a fan of the right brain when it comes to image making, and equally embrace the "Touchy-Feely" aspect of the craft and, when in doubt, have learned to trust my eye. I think that an equally valid method of evaluating the image quality of a Super 8mm transfer is to compare the look of the video transfer to the look of the projected film. When I was working heavy in Super 8, we actually did this. Set up a monitor and watch the video image, side by side with the projected Super 8 image. Compare the contrast, color rendition, and overall PERCEIVED SHARPNESS (which is not necessarily resolution). This would probably be one of the best ways to test several transfer houses. Shot a test reel, have it transferred at a couple of different transfer houses, and compare them all to the projected film. From there I would chose the one that most closely matched the look of the projected film. That is, unless you like the look of a transfer that is different from the project film, but meets your aesthetic needs (trust your eye).
I do not have as bad of a time shooting Super 8 with dialog as Barry and David suggest. I'm not saying they are wrong, just saying it was relatively pleasant. I did hurt myself by only shooting at 2.5:1 ratio which I almost pulled off but I had a bad cartridge which ruined a key scene. If I had only shot 5:1 I would have been totally covered. 10:1 is really not necessary if you plan your shots out right and don't expect an unreal amount of options at the editing table...also rehearse like crazy too!
If you're interested, this is a link to a short film of mine I did last year. It was shot on an Elmo 1012S-XL with no crystal sync, set at 24fps, and recorded using head and tail slates, a basic boom mic hooked up to my pc using Windows Sound Recorder. I did the whole short, camera included, on about $1,000. See what you think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obSX_E51fUM
I would love to shoot a feature on Super 8. I realize 16mm would be good too but it would be very pricey.
If you're interested, this is a link to a short film of mine I did last year. It was shot on an Elmo 1012S-XL with no crystal sync, set at 24fps, and recorded using head and tail slates, a basic boom mic hooked up to my pc using Windows Sound Recorder. I did the whole short, camera included, on about $1,000. See what you think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obSX_E51fUM
I would love to shoot a feature on Super 8. I realize 16mm would be good too but it would be very pricey.
http://www.mymovietransfer.com/High_Definition_Film_Transfer_Start.html
To my eyes only the 35mm examples look hd, as i said for me the super 8 looks the same whether standard or hd transfer less than dv.The color correction does a nice job.
To my eyes only the 35mm examples look hd, as i said for me the super 8 looks the same whether standard or hd transfer less than dv.The color correction does a nice job.