Another newbie with another question...

[Skagnetti]

ABout the whole fps thing...

Is 18 fps the standard? I've noticed a lot of cameras are 18 fps only, but I thought film was 24 fps. And, what speed do most projectors run at?

Thanks!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 25, 2002 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Skagnetti ]</font>

[Alex]

Elmo made lots of cameras, but at one point, they decided against including 24 FPS in many of their more affordable models.

The Elmo's have held up well over the years, so you may be experiencing this 18fps issue if you have looked at elmo cameras.

Most projectors give you an option to play at either 18 or 24 FPS.

You can use either standard to learn on. You'll save some money at 18 FPS because the film cartridge lasts 3 minutes and 20 seconds at 18 FPS versus 2 min & 30 seconds at 24 FPS.

What Super-8 Cameras are you considering?

[cameraguy]

The Super 8 standard is 18 fps. It saves money over 24 fps and it still looks fine. I shoot mostly 18 fps myself cause upon projection I can't tell any major difference in quality and running 18 is not as hard on the equipment.

[Skagnetti]

3 minutes on one cartridge?!? Really? I thought it was more (but I totally don't know anything so I'm probably wrong). And a cartridge costs about 12 bucks, right?

I saw a few Canon 518s (is that a crappy camera?) on eBay that still have the boxes and manuals (I need them for sure!) with starting bids around $20. I do the Digital Video thing, but am looking for a little something different.

[Alex]

I think Cameraguy has lots of experience with the Canon 518's (is there a 514 also?)

The psychology of shooting film versus video makes the amount of film you get per cartridge less of an issue. When Shooting Video, you shoot as much as you want, and the capture of live audio is as important as the video footage itself.

With Film, you are capturing moments in time and you quite possibly have put more of an effort into the preparation of the shot before shooting.

Perhaps an analogy would be if you were mining for some exotic resource such as petroleum and you could either acquire it in it's raw form (video) or in a more completed form such as plastic or gasoline (film).

To verify this view point, look at your parents home movies, perhaps virtually every moment captured on film has become a precious memory. Now look at the hundreds of hours of home video, Precious yes, but can we plus cut it down by a significant amount!

[cameraguy]

<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="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alex:
I think Cameraguy has lots of experience with the Canon 518's (is there a 514 also?)</font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have lots of experience with the Canon 514 XL-S. It's a decent camera and can take very nice pictures. Lack of manual exposure control is a big downside (to me) but it does have a manual EE lock. For the older 518 models I like the 518 SV the best.


<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="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cameraguy:
I love the Canon 518 SV. It is one of the best values out there. Its got the solid Canon construction and optics, 24 frames per second and full manual exposure control but without the large price tag.

To Mike: the camera I personally would recomend the most for under $300 is the Canon 1014 electronic. They are selling pretty low right now. Under $100 I would look into the Canon 518SV. Sometimes they even sell for under $35. The only down down side to the older Canons above is that they are loud.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cameraguy, I have added your quote from a previous post of yours. -Alex

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 25, 2002 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>