A short film on a budget, Super 8 or 16?

[S8 Booster]

For a start:
http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000007.html

cameraguy
Senior Hostboard Member

Posts: 152
From: New England
Registered: Mar 2001 posted December 14, 2001 11:37 ??? ???? ??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't the 814XL-S just the most. I could not get over how incredible my test roll came out when I got one this summer. I was brainwashed into thinking 'beaulieu' 'beaulieu' 'beaulieu' is what was neede to get the sharpest out of Super 8. Now I do have a 4008 and it gives incredibly sharp images but in a projected test the Canon's is just as good. I had a 514XL-S which was good but the XL only shutter made images just too soft. Now I have a Nikon R10 that I will be trying soon and can't wait to see how it compares.

cg



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[S8 Booster]

Mikko
Senior Hostboard Member

Posts: 164
From: Finland
Registered: Jul 2000 posted March 21, 2002 06:15 ??? ???? ??
------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Among others it sets ASA speeds of 16 to 400 auto and compensates manually up to 800, "


It has no manual ASA settings, only automatically from ASA 25 to 400.

+ It has a Full stop (+/- 1) manual under/override if required: 16-800ASA

Dial F for FW



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[S8 Booster]

Mikko
Senior Hostboard Member

Posts: 164
From: Finland
Registered: Jul 2000 posted March 21, 2002 06:15 ??? ???? ??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1014 XL-S
"I think that the 1014 XL-S was planned as an option for TV news shooting. I think I read this a long time ago."

If it was for TV's news teams, where's the 25 fps speed? it's a good camera, but not designed for TV use. Or they just ignored the PAL countrys.

In those days, heard of the 25th (PAL) duplicate frame Mikko, or every 6th on NTSC? Seen any standard 30fps cams?

Ever wondered why some of the older features shown on TV jerks every 25th frame? (PAL)

Dial M for Mikko?

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

PEDRO:
I agree on the viewfinder but since the "C" has a nice, fast easy operated manual zoom you zoom in very fast on the target make precise focus with the split image and zoom out and start shooting. No big deal.

I find this operation much easier on the C than the B.

LENSES:
Technical in theory yes, in practise no.
I have a 1:1.2 Elmo 1012 Xl and when you compare the 1:1.4 Canon the C is far superior on sharpness & Colour balance.
Low light shoot is the same leving a little for the non prism on the B.

A friend of mine has a Bauer 715 with a 1:1.4 / 6-90mm Angineux lens and he recently commented to me that it falls off at the outer corners and It falls apart at low light too.

Whatever the differences are for low light conditions: Who would ever shoot film in the 1.2 - 2.8 area? No film maker i guess, at least not with the K40 or any reversal film. For Home movies its OK. The 1.2 - 1.4 exposure capabilities will be marginal
with a 60W bulb to be used as a light source. I guess the PROs will shot scenes like this in a lot of light and pull it back in the lab?

I think the "C" lens is 1:1.4 due to the extensive coating. A little loss in light sensitivity pays back well on image quality.


MANUAL ASA setting is OK but it may be very simple to use the CART auto setting sometimes and you won?t forget about readjusting it while going to a different film. The daylight 85 filter will normally be faded out by the cartridge but it is still a possibilty to fail here.
Full manual override available.

LAP DISSOLVES:
The 15m carts does have a estimated safety rewind limit of 100 frames without breaking the film so thats why it is a limit in time here. Using the "C" XL setting for the LAPdissolve enhances the transition a lot.
The Conon 1014E does have more options for the LAP DISSOLVE like fixed 50/50 and more.

If I need extensive lap dissolve or special effects I will transfer it to and make it in my computer and transfer it back to film afterwards. No reason to mess with it in the CAM. This is what the PROs do right?

I guess you can send the DV file somehwere on the net to get it transfered to film if you do not have the gear to do it your self.


60m mags offer total rewind for Bs but at what cost?

I am not trying to slam Beaulieu or other cams. I recently bought a 5008MS and I like the cam. No problem. I know its not the hottest B on the ball but it has most of the "PRO" features typical for the Bs.

However, my general impression is that for fast and convinient shooting the "C" is in a different division. It has an exceptional light metering system (biased in the lower half), exposure control and variable shutter angles. Coupled with THAT lens it produces phenomenal Images that easily compare with the "B"s. I regard the image colour balance and content of K40 grain superior with the "C" than the "B" film I have seen projected.

Regarding lenses:
The fixed lens for the "C"s may be a better thing for most purposes than many interchangables. It is made for and tuned THAT CAM with it spesific requirements.
The lens is built well into the long body of the 1014 so it is very rugged and stable. Not so vulnerable as the "B" lenses i think. The result is, excellent.

And for the 16mm buffs:
15 years sgo I shot some film (K40) with a polaroid filter attached to the 1014. That footage, when I project it today (on 1.25m screen) is better than any 16mm projected amatur reversal film I have ever seen. (leave a little for the sharpness.) The colour balance is so rich, the contrast is very sharp and the grain is, kind of not visual, which it isn?t without the POL filter either.

Realy incredible result that is.


Why do you think the PROs use extensive light always: To get full control over the exposure. They won?t search for 1.2 or 1.4 takes for sure.

Leaving room for special occations.


Super 8 is good great fun and a great format. It will do anything you need in the hands of the right person. Experience is an advantage.

I think that if the S8 is used in a proper, professional manner through out a shoot it compares well to many average 16mm jobs.

I think PEDRO has the same opinion too.

Bother no more tech-spec. Go shoot!



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[MovieStuff]

Films shot at 24fps are transferred to PAL at 25fps all the time. There is no reason for the weird "25th frame" jerkiness you describe; no fame doubling nor frame dropping.

Beyond that, the 6th frame on NTSC is not doubled. It is the 4th frame that is doubled; or, technically, the second field of the fourth frame the first field of the next frame are combined to create a 5th artificial frame, every 4 frames. But it is not the 6th frame.

And lastly, news film cameras have never shot at 30fps for NTSC video applications. Not only would there be no need, it would have created problems as all film chains were set up for 24fps and shooting would require much more light at a time when the typical ASA for news film was about 125 or less. It would have also used more film than necessary which is not compatible with a newsfilm approach.

Roger

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

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited March 21, 2002).]

[S8 Booster]

Hi Roger; i refered to the early 80?s when this cam was new. The 25th frame was a duplicat I think in those days.

The jerky features on TV seemed to stay vith us up to the 90?s or so whatever way it was transfered.

I watched some archival 70?s 16 mm news footage on TV a couple of days a go and there it was: jerkiness.




------------------
Forrest Warrior

[S8 Booster]

What all that noise????

Well, oh, yes, its the DV VIDEO GUYS LAUGHING at us!?



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S8 Booster:
Hi Roger; i refered to the early 80?s when this cam was new. The 25th frame was a duplicat I think in those days.

The jerky features on TV seemed to stay vith us up to the 90?s or so whatever way it was transfered.

I watched some archival 70?s 16 mm news footage on TV a couple of days a go and there it was: jerkiness.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any jerkiness of older 24fps footage seen on PAL would be from a bad NTSC to PAL conversion if the film had been transferred to NTSC first. No matter how long ago, 24fps film footage would have been transferred to PAL at 25fps; this was standard as there was no reason to try for a 24fps rate since the two were so close in speed. However, NTSC conversions back then were pretty bad and generally consisted of dropping frames entirely, which would lead to a "jutter". But film transferred directly to PAL, whether originally shot at 25fps or 24fps will not have any jerky qualities to it at all as they will both be transferred at 25fps.

Roger


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

[mattias]

a professionally shot super 8 film can look better than an average amateur 16 mm one? amazing. who would have thought?

as for the references to what the "PROs" think and do, what about the many pros on this board? i think we are very well aware of what we think and do, so you don't have to bother trying to tell us. digital intermediate for dissolves? filmmakers never use 1.4-2.8? pull it back in the lab? *sigh* i'm so totally completely sick and tired of all the bullshit on this board. goodbye thread.

/matt

[S8 Booster]

TNX for sorting it out!

I knew the modern transfer were free of jerkiness independant of the frame rates, it just so noticeable on the old stuff.

My old MAC 840 AV does exactly the same from recording any frame rate to produce & playback any frame rate dividable by itself. without a hitch.

But the frame rates must be like 30/30 or 30/15 (record/playback). This is even if the film originates from 18 or 24fps. But 18 or 24, his doesent matter for the machine. 24/12 works well too.

RGDS
Vidar



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[mattias]

ok, i'm back, briefly.

> The guy asked for advice and you seemed to contribute very little to help him out

that was possibly the stupidest thing i've ever read. are you retarded or something? or dyslexic? either way, you'll always be a complete moron in my eyes. goodbye for good.

remember, this was written *after* my sorry note, so you can be certain it's 100% sincere.

/matt