The economics of Super 8 vs.16mm

[oldasdirt]

OK,I've heard this argument before.Some folks argue why mess with super 8,when a project could be done in 16mm,or some even say if you shoot with an old MOS camera such as an Arri 2 C and use recanned short ends,even 35mm.I've heard that argument too.
First off, for the argument to be fair,all things have to be equal.You certainly wouldn't compare a full blown super 16 project with grip trucks and a full crew to a loner with a Canon 1014.So lets say it's a loner with a Canon 1014 vs. the same loner with a Bolex Rex IV.Let's regardless,you only have 500 bucks to spend.
Either format,your big cost is going to in lab work and transfer.
I would like to hear some ideas on how a 500 dollar budget would be done in each format.I've seen it done in super 8,in fact there is a music video posted on the super 8 filmmaking forum where the budget was just that.Could the same thing have been done in 16mm?
Marty

[Alex]

I think there is just enough of an aesthetic difference between Super-8mm and 16mm to not make a direct head to head comparison an issue.

If I am shooting outdoors during the day, I think I can shoot much quicker and with more options in relation to speed and frame rate manipulation with a Super-8 camera than with a 16mm camera.

If I want the best absolute best quality for the outside daytime shooting and my footage is being shot at 24 FPS, then I would go with 16mm instead of Super-8 and the film cost would be irrelevant.


If I am shooting outdoors at night and will be doing time-exposure, I can do much more with a Super-8 camera than a 16mm.

If I am shooting outdoors at night with a 16mm camera at 24 FPS, I can probably do a lot more with that than with a Super-8 camera.

If I am shooting indoors during the day, I can do more with a 16mm camera than a super-8 camera.

If I am trying to downplay the background, minimize it to the point where you can't even recognize it or notice it, I would shoot Super-8 rather than 16mm.

If you can cater your shot selection and will be doing FPS manipulation, Super-8 can be used instead of 16mm, if your shoot has a cast that will be speaking, then 16mm makes more sense in most situations. However, I believe the super-quiet Nizo cameras combined with a script that takes into account the advantages of Super-8 versus 16mm can make shooting Super-8 a better choice than 16mm in some instances.

<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ May 26, 2004 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[oldasdirt]

Interesting Alex.Never guaged it quite like that,though I think I would boil it down much simpler.
Super 8 has it's own unique look.Video has it's own look,16mm,35mm and the varying stocks all yielding their uniqueness.If I'm shooting something that requires the look of super 8,or if I'm experimenting on my own dime, then I'm going with super 8.Anything else with a budget is going to be what a given client needs and in some cases super 8 will work.
Having said that,did you or anyone else catch the remake of Helter Skelter on CBS the 16th?It looked like there was super 8 footage there,pseudo newsfilm and an ending monolgue from Manson.I thought the pseudo newsfilm would've been better on 16mm.Being one that shot newsfilm in the 70's I know it wasn't that grainy.

[Alex]

You shot with newsfilm for the news back in the 70's, that's way cool. Did you guys ever consider Super-8 as an additional option?

I did not see Helter Skelter but it could have had sequences shot in super-8mm. Although I agree that the different guages have their own look, K-40 can look like average 16mm, and that does it make it tempting to shoot since the cameras can be loaded and set-up and shoot in smaller quarters etc...

[oldasdirt]

You shot with newsfilm for the news back in the 70's, that's way cool. Did you guys ever consider Super-8 as an additional option?

It was discussed by some groups but never taken seriously in my market.News is such a quick turn around business that video was really the only format to go with.The first live remotes via microwave truck determined film's fate for TV news.
Some markets,however did experiment with super 8.I worked with a reporter who shot super 8 in the early 70's in his home market in San Diego.He didn't speak very highly of it though.
For what it's worth,I would've welcomed something smaller,lighter and one piece than the early ENG equipment we worked with when film was laid to rest for TV news.Print media laughing called our RCA TK-76's "new,lightweight,portable minicams".They obviously never worked with them.

[Scott Spears]

I think the key to shooting Super-8 and making it economical is the subject matter. If you're shooting day exteriors, then consider Super-8, but if you're shooting lots of dark interiors or night exteriors you should consider 16mm. The problem with Super-8 is to get a decent image you need to shoot with the slower speed films which then means you need a ton of light. A loner making his $500 music video isn't going to have the time to set up the lights for music video shot on K40 in an old warehouse at night. Take your band out into the desert with some cool rock out croppings and you've got it made on Super-8.

Scott

[oldasdirt]

The problem with Super-8 is to get a decent image you need to shoot with the slower speed films which then means you need a ton of light.>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well I've never shot any of the negative s-8 emulsions so I really can't speak for how well they perform,One could take the Robert Rodriguez approach and shoot a lot of closeups where the instruments are placed closer to the subject.
On another super 8 forum there is an example of a 500 dollar music video with both interiors and exteriors.I thought they did quite well and they guaged their subject accordingly.