Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: My super 8 short has a life of it's own.

  1. #1
    Inactive Member Greg Crawford's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 6th, 2002
    Posts
    603
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Cool

    The most important shots of my short film (the graveyard scene were filmed last weekend. )

    Some of the more important shots, I shot with two types of film stock.

    Ektachrome T125
    Pro-8's T200.

    It will be interesting to see the comparison I might post some still frames from this test.

    I still need to film the "front story" of the older woman coming back home to visit her parents in Michigan. I am considering shooting these scenes, mainly driving shots in 35mm! ( I also own a old Arri 2-A .)

    Cost 2-1/2 min. of Pro 8 film $35.00
    2 min of the same film from Dr. Raw Stock in 35mm. .15 per foot. development running around .15 cents a foot brings me to .30 per foot x 200 (little over 2 min.) $60.00

    I would be doing this to give the film a different look.

    Would this give me a 35 mm short with super 8 flashbacks? Or would the quality differences be to extreme?

  2. #2
    HB Forum Moderator Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 29th, 2000
    Posts
    11,383
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I'm just going to focus on the cost differences. Have you compared new Kodak 35mm to new Super-8 film? I assume Dr. Raw Stock is selling you recans?

  3. #3
    Inactive Member Greg Crawford's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 6th, 2002
    Posts
    603
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alex: Have you compared new Kodak 35mm to new Super-8 film? </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I have not. It's not totally a cost think, but I would not even consider 35mm the new unopened price of .95 cents a foot. (I'm guessing).

    For the driving scenes I am waiting for the leaves to fall of the trees and more of a foreboding winter look. The car turns past a mortuary a type and shadow of the things to come.

    I am also thinking of desaturating the color. lighting the INT car with a 1/2 CTB and correcting with an 81EF to give the EXT a more foreboding colder feel.

    I would think that not many super 8 filmmakers have thought about the price differences with 35...maybe 16.

    On one posts I read a while back, their was a discussion going on how to shoot a difficult
    night EXT scene from a car. Without lighting it and bags of grain. Super 8 has it's good points but at some point it might be an easier fix to think of shooting in another format.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •