Super 8 vistavision?

I saw on the Vertigo DVD how it was shot in vistavision - where the film is turned onto it's side and then run past the gate and lense - thus making what used to be the width of the frame now the height - and the new width could be whatever you want it to be (within the limitation of the lenses and equipment) -- so anyway of course I got to thinking why not do it with Super 8 -- what would the new frame dimensions be - you could get 2:1 if you wanted to -- but of course you'd probably have to build a camera from scratch -- but is any of this possible? Roger, Basstruc, Pedro -- anyone else who knows what they're talking about....

Scot M

The original concept of super8 was that the film would run through the camera horizontally. That's all I know for certain. I would speculate that the original name for the format was Vista8, the aspect ratio would be 2:3(the same as 35mm stills), there would be 36 frames per foot and a cartridge would hold 100 feet for the same running time as today's 50 foot cartridge. I'm also guessing that the concept was dropped because it cost too much.

If you wanted to pursue the idea of vista8 I think the best way to go about it would be to use double perf 16mm film and a 16mm camera. Have a camera tech install a mask in the gate so that only half the film is exposed, say the right half. Then flip the film and run it through a second time the way it is done with double8. Of course you'd have to hold the camera sideways.

After the film is processed slit it down the middle and splice the ends together, again imitating double8 practice.

The big problem is projecting it. You'd have to modify a 16mm projector by not only masking the gate but modifying it to hold 8mm reels and use 8mm sprockets. You'd probably have to make other modifications to the film path. And of course the projector would have to lay on it's side.

If you were satisfied to finish on video you could forgo slitting and splicing the film. You just buy one of Roger's 16mm WorkPrinters and put your video camera on it's side during the transfer. Run the film through the WorkPrinter twice and letterbox the resulting images with your video editor. I think FCP3 or Premiere will do this but I'm not certain since I've yet to graduate from iMovie.

This system would give an aspect ratio of 3:2.

Spartacus was shot using a camera that ran the film through the gate sideways at a rate of 8 perfs per frame giving an aspect ratio of 3:2. This was combined with an anamorphic lens with a compression of 1.5 giving an overall aspect ratio of 2.25:1. The top and bottom of the picture were cropped to give a final aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

There was some talk about this idea a while ago. Most practical way I could see to do something similar is to mask the TOP or BOTTOM of a 16mm frame. Run some double perf through it once, then turn it over, and run it through again. Just like regular8, and just like actor's idea, but the projection and transfer is a little easier. OK, projection for viewing's sake is out, but for transfer you could just use a 16mm WP, frame for just the top or bottom of the film, transfer it, then flip it over and do it again.
I still like this idea. More film area than S8, wide aspect ratio (too wide, IMHO) no 16mm film wasted to cropping, loads of stocks to choose from. If you got a 16mm cam w/ C-mount lenses, you could get the lenses re-centered, too, and maybe get away with some lenses you couldn't use in regular 16mm.
I gotta bite the bullet and try this some day.
Roger, do any 16mm WPs exist yet?

It would be cheaper to shoot in 16 mm.

For comparison only, I have checked the film package prices on 16mm and Super 8 film from Super 8 Sound, in Burbank , CA. These packages come with film / Dev. and video transfer.

If you were to buy 15 min. of 16 mm film the price would be $519.00 If you were to buy 30 minutes of Super 8 film.... remember you will need twice as much film to use to frames for your Vista Vision look... the cost would be $808.

I'm not sure if anyone could transfer via Rank without a lot of R & D and re-tooling .

<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=""><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cranium:

I gotta bite the bullet and try this some day.
Roger, do any 16mm WPs exist yet?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck yeah! See:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp_16.html

Works beautifully.

Roger

Pro8mm (formerly Super8Sound) in Burbank is definitely overpriced and not the place to go for price comparisons.

Let's consider four possible systems with the following equalizers:
<ul type="square">[*]Finish on video with aspect ratio of 16:9, either letterboxed on a 4:3 NTSC set or on a 16:9 widescreen monitor.[*]24 frames per second.[*]Use 100 foot reels of 16mm or 50 foot super8 cartridges.[*]Frame dimensions given in milli-inches (thousandths of an inch).[*]One hour of screen time.[/list]THE SYSTEMS:
<ul type="square">[*]LB-S8: Letterboxed super8 film.[*]VISTA-8: Regular 16mm film with the frame split vertically (the camera held sidewise) and letterboxed. This is the system I proposed.[*]PAN-8: Regular 16mm film with the frame split horizontally and windowboxed. The system Cranium proposed.[*]LB-16: Letterboxed regular 16mm film.[/list]FRAME DIMENSIONS:
<ul type="square">[*]LB-S: 225x165. After letterboxing: 225x127. Frame area: 28575.[*]VISTA-8: 300x200. After letterboxing: 300x170. Frame area: 51000; 1.78 times greater than LB-8.[*]PAN-8: 400x150. After windowboxing: 270x150. Frame area: 40500; 1.42 times greater than LB-8.[*]LB-16: 400x300. After letterboxing: 400x225. Frame area: 90000; 3.15 times greater than LB-8.[/list]COST OF 1 HOUR RAW STOCK:
<ul type="square">[*]LB-8: 24 carts K40 direct from Kodak @ $11 ea = $264[*]VISTA-8: 11 spools 16mm direct from Kodak @ $35 ea = $330.[*]PAN-8: Same as VISTA-8.[*]LB-16: 22 spools 16mm direct from Kodak @ $35 ea = $660.[/list]PROCESSING:
<ul type="square">[*]LB-8: 24 PK-59 mailers @ $6 ea = $144.[*]VISTA-8: 11 spools = 1100 feet @ $0.15/ft = $165.[*]PAN-8: Same as VISTA-8.[*]LB-16: 22 spools = 2200 feet @ $0.15/ft = $330.[/list]TRANSFER:
<ul type="square">[*]LB-8: 24 reels (50 feet ea) @ $15 ea (Roger's price) = $360.[*]VISTA-8: 1.5 hours lab time @ $175/hr = $262.50. (Remember, they?re going to see this as ? hr of film.)[*]PAN-8: Same as VISTA-8.[*]LB-16: 3 hours lab time @ $175/hr = $525.[/list]TOTALS:
<ul type="square">[*]LB-8: $264 + $144 + $360 = $768.[*]VISTA-8: $330 + $165 + $262.5 = $757.50[*]PAN-8: Same as VISTA-8.[*]LB-16: $660 + $330 + $525 = $1515.[/list]The surprising thing here is that the cost of the Vista and Pan systems is right in there with super8 (assuming I haven't made a mistake in all that math). For about the same price you get a tremendous increase in quality. Vista wins the quality contest if you are going for 16:9. If you are going for 2.35:1 I think the Pan system would win.

This is all predicated on the assumption that you could do all the cropping and separation of the frames in post with Premiere or Final Cut Pro so that no one would have to do any R&D and/or retooling.

The sticky part is the cost of modifying a 16mm camera. I'm guessing that a Bolex or Canon Scoopic would be $2000 to $3000, including the modification. That would amortize the cost after shooting four hours of film.

vista super8 sounds cool. If you could manufacture a camera what would the running time of a cartridge shot at 2:3 ratio be? and how would you project or transfer it?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 04, 2002 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Jon P ]</font>

Look, I love super8, but this idea is WAY too complicated and problematic than it's worth. At this point, I would just shoot 16mm at whatever ratio I wanted.

Exactly.
Manufacturing anything from scratch for S8 kinda defeats the purpose these days.
My comments above are just one (well, two)relatively small mod to a camera which are easily removed for real 16mm filmmaking.
The only benefit over just cropping the 16mm frame in post is that you could cut your raw film costs in half.

For me the main reason for trying something like this would be the technical challenge. Like training a bear to dance. It's not that you trained the bear to dance well but that you trained the bear to dance at all.

Second would be getting an improved picture without that much, if any, increase in film cost.

I may try something like this someday. For now I have enough irons in the fire.