alternatives to super8 ?

Matt Pacini · March 13th, 2002, 06:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by gaspode:
...and once out of the catridge is the same format as super8.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true.
It may be the same width, but the frame size is smaller, the sprocket holes are larger and in a different place relative to the frame.
Quite a bit of difference, and worse quality too.

Matt Pacini

------------------

Steve Mick · March 13th, 2002, 07:25 PM

If only there were a WorkPrinter/DV8 style transfer machine for 16mm. I've worked in 16mm (with a Bolex SB and EBM) for quite a while. Yes, 16mm filmstock costs more, as does processing. But, as has been mentioned here before, we're not shooting home movies. These are 'serious' filmmaking endeavours. I can deal with the more expensive lab fees and stock costs, but 16mm telecine is what, for me, makes it cost-prohibitive. Roger, how 'bout fixing us up with a 16mm WorkPrinter?

--Steve

------------------

MovieStuff · March 13th, 2002, 07:28 PM

Regarding "Single 8" being the same as "Super 8":

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Not true.
It may be the same width, but the frame size is smaller, the sprocket holes are larger and in a different place relative to the frame.
Quite a bit of difference, and worse quality too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah. You're confusing Regular 8 with Single 8. They are totally different animals. Regular 8 is just like you descibed. However, Single 8 is EXACTLY the same as Super 8 but in a different cartridge that is reel to reel, just like an audio cassette. Much better design. I've shot with a Fuji ZC1000 and it would make you cream you shorts, dude.

Now, after having transferred quite a bit of regular 8mm film (not single 8) I have to say I am quite impressed. True, on some of the older cameras the frame line is HUGE, which makes the frame quite a bit smaller in height. But for the cameras that don't have a huge frameline, Regular 8 fits the video format much better than super 8 does, since Super 8 loses information on the edges anyway; about the same as regular 8 leaves out, it would appear.

Some of the sharpest footage we've transferred so far as been from regular 8 cameras that maximized the vertical height and didn't have a huge frame line. For video work, it does not appear that you gain any resolution by shooting on super 8, if the height is maximized. More to the point, EVERY regular 8mm film was super sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner. More than I can say for some of the super 8 footage we've transferred. I would love to transfer some footage shot on a Double Super 8 camera. Man, I bet that would rock. But I am starting to think seriously about either a Single 8 or Regular 8 camera....

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited March 13, 2002).]

MovieStuff · March 13th, 2002, 07:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Steve Mick:
If only there were a WorkPrinter/DV8 style transfer machine for 16mm.

Roger, how 'bout fixing us up with a 16mm WorkPrinter?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I do offer one for $995.00 but haven't put anything up on the website yet. I'm currently building one for Barry (blackangus) that frequents these boards. I also have an order for one (repeat WorkPrinter customer, no less!) for a customer in Hawaii. He's already ordered a second WorkPrinter-2 along with the 16mm version for his transfer business.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

el don · March 13th, 2002, 09:09 PM

i'm hapy to see that most of the people aon this board are open to other formats. Since i haven't invest in a whole super8 equipment yet, and considering what is happening to those kodak cartridges, i'm seriously thinking about shooting on another format. If Roger could make some 16mm transfer with his workprinter, i would consider this option:
-you can get a crystal-sync 16mm camera for 2000$ or even less.
-you can shoot with short-ends or raw stocks
as this already has benn dicsussed, and then transfer it using a workprinter.
Of course this would still be more expensive than super8...
Cruel dilemma...
Does anyone already had any experience with DS8 ?

------------------

gaspode · March 13th, 2002, 11:45 PM

try looking on places like ebay, and yahoo auctions, for all the different alternatives. If you already have Super8 equipment, then single 8 may be less expencive for you to transfer over to

------------------
'It comes in Pints?!'

cameraguy · March 14th, 2002, 12:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
I've shot with a Fuji ZC1000 and it would make you cream you shorts, dude.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like the Fuji is priceless in more ways than I originally thought!

------------------

cameraguy · March 14th, 2002, 12:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by el don:

So, even if it's already has been discused here, what alternatives do we have? Double super8? 16mm raw stocks? or maybe another super8 brand?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the Beaulieu magazine loading modification (for 6,7,9008's). Most complain that it's too expensive, but when you hear about a movie project with 40 bad cartridges the price seems like it would have been worth it to me!!

------------------

rollemfilm · March 14th, 2002, 12:31 AM

don't be too freaked out by the bad carts. it's not as bad as all that. in my 20 years or so shooting super8 i have only had a handfull of problems with super8 film stock. infact, it has been a very reliable medium. there are always problems when you shoot as much film as some of us do. i was working a music festival as a still photographer, as i was processing the 20 plus rolls of black & white t-max i had 3 or 4 rolls with some type of debris on the negatives. i was able to remove this "stuff" with no major problems, but these things do happen. it's part of the job....

------------------

MovieStuff · March 14th, 2002, 01:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cameraguy:
Sounds like the Fuji is priceless in more ways than I originally thought!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The ZC1000 is just an awesome camera. It has a monster c-mount lens, manually variable shutter that can be manipulated while shooting, electronic single frame or remote run, mirrored shutter, ground glass focusing, removable handle for tripod shooting, 72fps slow motion, synch contact switch for double system sound, digital frame counter, match needle metering in the viewfinder, A REAL METAL PRESSURE PLATE and, of course, unlimited backwind as it uses a reel to reel cassette. This is the unit I modified years ago for a top mounted magazine to run 200+ loads of super 8. Here's a pic:

fujica