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

[blackangus1]

<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 Matt Pacini:

I've gotten back some of my 16mm footage, and MANNNNNNN IS IT ASTOUNDING!!!!!
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Glad you're happy with the footage -- was this through the Canon zoom on the CP?

And, to re-ask what someone else asked, where do you get processing for 9c/ft? The lowest I know of is RGB at 10c/ft...

<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">
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</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

After much experimentation, that's pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. For "serious" work, 16mm is so dramatically better that it's really not worth even talking about. But for cost, nothing beats a $30 S-8 camera loaded with $13 K-40, processing included (finally!) And if what you want is the "Super 8 LOOK", there's no other way to get it than to shoot the real thing.

But that's also why I started fiddling around with Velvia, Provia, and Ektachrome 100D... you simply cannot shoot those stocks in 16mm no matter how hard you try -- there is no such thing as 16mm E-6 processing, and nobody makes E-6 stocks in 16mm... but with Pro8mm being willing to cut the film into S8 carts, and Yale offering E-6 processing, at least then you have a chance to experiment. It's not cost-efficient compared to shooting an alternative stock in 16mm, but considering it's simply not possible in 16mm, S8 at least gives someone a chance to play around with the fine-grained Fuji reversal stocks.

[Actor]

<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">
nobody makes E-6 stocks in 16mm
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kodak Ektachrome 100D is an E-6 stock, albeit the only one they make in 16mm.

[Actor]

I shot a test cartridge of Super8 200T last week. It cost me about $17 including shipping. It was my intention to have Roger transfer it. But now this thread is making me wonder if the $18 processing and $15 transfer plus shipping (probably around $40 in all) would be just throwing good money after bad. I mean I only shot it as a test to see what it looks like. There are no really precious images on it. Should I just pitch it?

[TA152]

Do not know how useful this might be but I found out that even my modest Sony Hi8 TR 840E can invert neg films from a projector screen.

If it is a test film only this may be an option if you can get hold of a Vcam that can invert your film. Have not yet tried it my self so result is not guaranteed but I have a V200T that I plan to testshoot this Autumn so I will find out later.

Assume it is of the jitter-bug so it won?t be of much use anyway.

R

[blackangus1]

<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:

Kodak Ektachrome 100D is an E-6 stock, albeit the only one they make in 16mm.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's only offered in 35mm. There is no 16mm version. I wish it was available, but it isn't. On the other hand, K40 is available in 16mm.

[blackangus1]

<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 Matt Pacini:


This is with the Angeniuex 12-120 lens you sold me with the CP-16R, and I'm also pretty happy with the stuff from my Scoopic M (Canon 12.5-76mm lens), but believe it or not, it doesn't look as good as the Angeniuex footage.

Matt Pacini</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, see there, I told you not to be too hard on the old Angenieux! I know you were very skeptical about it, but it's possible to squeeze some pretty nice footage out of one of those old lenses. Glad you're happy with it. I'd be quite interested to hear how the Canon Fluorite stacks up against it though. From all I've heard it should handily outperform the Angenieux. Keep us posted!

[Matt Pacini]

<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 blackangus1:
[QB]

"Glad you're happy with the footage -- was this through the Canon zoom on the CP?"
QB]</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no Barry.
This is with the Angeniuex 12-120 lens you sold me with the CP-16R, and I'm also pretty happy with the stuff from my Scoopic M (Canon 12.5-76mm lens), but believe it or not, it doesn't look as good as the Angeniuex footage.

THIS MAY INTEREST SOME OF YOU:

I've shot a bunch of footage of a resolution test chart, using:
(16MM):
1. the Canon 12-120 and the Angeniuex 12-120 on the CP-16R
2. the Canon Scoopic M,
3. with each one of those cameras & lenses fitted with the Nizo Schneider UWIII wide angle adapter,

AND

(Super 8):
4. with my Nizo 6080 (shooting Kodachrome 40)
5. Nizo 6080 with the Nizo UWIII wide angle adapter (shooting Kodachrome 40)
6. same as above, with Kodak 200T neg stock
7. A Nikon Super zoom (K-40)
8. Nikon super zoom (K-40) with a different Schneider wide angle adapter (made for 35mm still cameras).

All the above at different F-stops, ranging from f1.8 to f16.

Whew!

So as soon as I get the footage back and finally work the final bugs out of my film scanning setup (a few weeks, hopefully), I'll post all of this to my webpage.

There's been a lot of argument and discussion on this and other forums, about K-40 vs. ProNeg, Super 8 vs. 16mm, etc., and although I want to make it VERY clear, that this test I did was primarily to see how the Angeniuex and Canon lens stacked up against each other for my Cp-16R shooting, and also how the Scoopic compared to those, (I decided to shoot the Super 8 footage as an afterthought), I think when I get this posted, it will be a good source of info, and a possible argument killer as well! (har har!!!).

Thanks for Roger for talking me into 16mm, and thanks to Barry for selling me the awesome setup. I've really been enjoying it.

Matt Pacini

[Supa-eight]

I would have to agree in all respects that K40 is the mother of all Super 8 and I probably won't shoot anything else in the future except for the Provia and Velvia that Barry hooked me up with.

On the note of Processing, MATT PLEASE TELL US WHERE YOU ARE GETTING 16 MM PROCESSED FOR SO DAMN CHEAP ?????

In response to Roger's comment about negotiating with labs don't bother with Yale Film and Video. I spole with Keith and attempted to suggest I was "Shopping for the best price" thinking he would negotiate. I even said I was a student. Instead he just called me back and gave me the same darn prices I found on their website. No deals at that lab.

I am interested in hearing more about those test charts and comparisons. I have the Angineux 12-120 (who doesn't who is shooting 16mm) and am curious to how it stacks up against the others.

Matt please post your info!

[Nigel]

You guys know how I like Neg over reversal. I have always wondered why the price per foot for S8 is more--I can't figure it out. 50 feet is 50 feet.

Does 16 look better--I would say yes. Reg.16 and S8 I think are close when Telecined. But when projected 16mm looks a hell of a lot better.

But 50 feet is still 50 feet and I still don't understand why it costs so much.

Good Luck

[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 Nigel:
50 feet is still 50 feet and I still don't understand why it costs so much.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the same reason that a premium quality two hour VHS tape costs less at the local drug store than a 30 minute junkola dub stock VHS tape does from a tape house. More people use the two hour tapes so there's economy in scale.

Hardly anyone uses Super 8 at all, compared to 16mm. And even fewer people use super 8 neg than super 8 reversal. Frankly, I'm surprised that super 8 neg can be offered as cheap as it is, considering the almost pioneer day method of cutting it down and loading it into carts. Talk about hand crafted....Sheesh.