One more reason why it's crazy to shoot negative in Super 8

[Matt Pacini]

So I shot a roll of Kodak Vision 200T Super 8, for my 16mm trailer shoot I'm working on.

I called Yale to see how much processing and telecine is for just one roll of Kodak neg...

$17.00 a roll for processing!!!

I'm getting 16mm processing for 9 cents a foot, meaning, $9.00 per 2.5 minutes of 16mm footage, and $17.00 per 2.5 mintues of Super 8 neg, compared to $5.59 for PK-59 Super 8 mailers for Kodachrome 40.

Does this make sense to you?(I'm not slamming Yale, they're charging about the going rate).

My point is, S8 is only cheaper than 16mm if you're shooting reversal.
I simply can't understand the insanity of anyone shooting neg stock in Super 8, considering it costs MORE than if shooting in 16mm, and gives vastly inferior results.

Matt Pacini

[TA152]

Too bad you are onto somehing there.

Strange that it is so more xpensive to process neg than reversals?

http://www.andecfilm.de/html/development-s8.htm

R

[Actor]

Where are you getting 16mm processed for 0.09/foot? Yale's web site quotes something like 0.16/foot.

[MovieStuff]

Well, at the risk of feeling the wrath of you know who, let me tell you a dirty little secret about shooting 16mm over super 8. Let me preface this statement by saying that I LOVE super 8. I think that anyone who knows me or has dealt with me will tell you that I do everything I can to support the medium.

-HOWEVER-

Here is the advantage regarding 16mm neg over super 8 (reversal or neg). There are only a handful of labs that process super 8 neg and have a gate for Rank transfers that will handle 8mm. There are only two labs in the entire world that will process K40 super 8, which realistically is the only emulsion that will give 16mm a run for its money on video. Now, such limited resources makes super 8 handling the exception and not the rule and that's what drives up the cost of the super 8mm format. Contrast this to how it USED to be when 16mm neg processing was rare and there were hundreds of labs that handled super 8 during its hey-day. So things are opposite now than the way they were back in the late 70's.

As it stands now, if you have a fairly large project you want to do in 16mm, you can buy your film using short ends (which can almost cut the cost in half) and, because you can swing a dead cat and find a lab that will process 16mm neg AND do transfers, you can get the labs into a bidding war for your project. They all do decent transfer jobs so you simply inform them that you will have X number of feet and you want a package deal that incorporates process and Rank transfer and that you are simply going to give the job to the lab with the lowest price. As digital has cut WAY into the lab's profits, these guys are hungry and will slash prices like you can't believe, especially if you tell them you'll pay in advance for the package deal.

So, Matt is quite correct. Shooting super 8 reversal may give you a fighting chance to compete with 16mm neg but shooting super 8 negative is a joke. It looks grainy and totally defeats MOST people's reason for shooting super 8.

Furthermore, you can tell that the Pro8mm negative was not really meant as an alternative for the average low budget producer. Why? Well, the lowest ASA negative (which is still grainier than K40) is a 50 ASA DAYLIGHT emulsion. How useless can you get? Let's have a show of hands here: How many of you have some daylight balanced HMI's in your kit for shooting interior scenes?

None. Right. Oops. Well, maybe Nigel but he probably has a rare Aaton super 8 camera to go with it. (just a joke Nigel [img]smile.gif[/img] )

So that means that the 50 ASA will need a filter to allow for tungsten light which effectively can drop the ASA down to ASA 25 or so. And since we all know that the grain will look better if you overexpose about a stop, then you have to de-rate the ASA 25 down to almost ASA 12!

Insane! That's slower than K40 and the grain of the 50 ASA STILL won't be as good as the Kodachrome.

So, why is the 50 ASA neg from Pro8mm daylight balanced? To accomodate the multitude of high budgeted music video producers that DO have HMI lighting as the norm for their productions. These guys are the bulk of Pro8mm's clientel and make up the their bread and butter. More to the point, NONE of these guys shoot 8mm because they want it to look like 16mm or 35mm. They shoot 8mm because they WANT it to look like 8mm and anything they can do to exagerate the grain or the look is what they do every time. Therefore, the daylight balance stock is provided as a convenience for the big budget music video producers even though it leaves the low budget super 8 guys out in the cold.

Now, I don't blame Pro8mm for servicing the market that butters their bread. But I am uncomfortable with the continued marketing that paints a picture of them as benevolent supporters of the independent film producer. I see nothing about their pricing or their product line that reflects that. If Pro8mm really cared about the low budget shooters, they would produce a 50T neg instead. The grain would still be the pits (IMHO) and you'd still have to rate it at ASA 25 to tighten it up a bit but at least you'd have the option of ASA 50 if you needed it.

Super 8 negative is a really bad joke, in my opinion. If you're going to shoot negative, shoot 16mm and get on with it. You'll shoot faster and save money. If you're going to shoot super 8, then stick with K40 and make the best of it.

Roger

[Actor]

Pro8mm does not make a 50T neg because Kodak does not make a 50T neg. Pro8mm makes their film by cutting down Kodak 35mm stock and re-packaging it in super8 cartridges. The slowest neg emulsion that Kodak makes is 100T, whick Pro8mm does offer.

As I was visiting Kodak's site just now to check out this information I discovered that K40 is available in 100' 16mm spools. That's right, the same emulsion as super8 K40. Wow. Gotta try that. The only trouble is that I wonder about getting it processed. I think the rest of Kodak's reversal stocks are E-6 processing while the K40 is K-14. Yale should have the chemistry since they process the super8 K40, but would a reel of 16mm be a special run?

[MovieStuff]

<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 Actor:
Pro8mm does not make a 50T neg because Kodak does not make a 50T neg. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. That's odd. Admittedly, I did not check to see what Kodak offers these days but I did a stop motion pilot on 16mm back in 90 and I would have sworn that we used an asa 50 tungsten.

<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 Actor:
Yale should have the chemistry since they process the super8 K40, but would a reel of 16mm be a special run?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe Yale processes Kodachrome in house. I think they send it out.

Roger

[Actor]

I the few hours since I discovered Kodak's admission that 16mm K40 exists my enthusiasm has cooled a little, mainly due to possible complications. First off, there's the processing question. Then Kodak has kind of hidden the information in their website, leading me to anticipate that maybe it's a special order item. Like maybe you have to buy 8000 feet of the stuff.

I'm definitely going to do some checking.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 06, 2002 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Actor ]</font>

[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">Originally posted by Actor:
The only trouble is that I wonder about getting it processed. I think the rest of Kodak's reversal stocks are E-6 processing while the K40 is K-14. Yale should have the chemistry since they process the super8 K40, but would a reel of 16mm be a special run?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yale does not process Kodachrome Super 8 movie film, they outlab it.

Dwaynes does the K40 16mm for $25

[TA152]

Guess you probably right but it is too bad that the high prices on S8 NEG film/processing/transfer basically prevents the rest of us from experimenting with it to find out if there are room for improvement.

Example: Currently doing some experiments with my Agfa 9600 dpi scanner which has a neg film function.

I have scanned 35mm negs to see if different settings influence on grain etc.

The preliminary result is that any manual conversion produces a lot more grain than the AUTO setup which seem to supress the grain one way or anotherwithout lossing any image quality or sharpness. It becomes incredibly good. Very 35mm movie like impression. This result indicates that there might be possible to find a transfer method for S8 that controls the grain.

Additionally I have done some DIY experiments with off screen transfer with both E160 & K40 film projected.

As it is, now my quipment is Hi8 LQ - keep that in mind, the video camera seem to extract grain off the screen that is hardly visible at all with the K40, but at the video it becomes visible.

I guess this will be even more so with the NEG but I belive that there might be some ways to get around it given the opportunety to experiment with it.

However, currently, costs considered the 16mm may be a better choice - unfortunately.

R

[Matt Pacini]

Well, Roger, I hate to admit it, but you were right.

I've gotten back some of my 16mm footage, and MANNNNNNN IS IT ASTOUNDING!!!!!
I'm overwhelmed by the jump in quality, and you're talking to a guy who shot 300 rolls of Super 8 to make a feature, so don't say I haven't been committed to Super 8.

I love the stuff, but for serious work, I'm never going back. I was shooting in low light situations that I would never dare shoot S8 in, and it looked great. I mean really, really great.

And Roger is right, the demand for S8 neg is so low, compared to the demand for 16mm & 35mm neg, that you're really dealing with companies that almost have a monopoly on it (for processing, I mean).

So I will NEVER under any circumstances shoot anything but K-40 for Super 8, because only then does it make financial sense, and also because K-40 just looks better than any other film stock in S8.

Matt Pacini