Guest santo Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 ... yet in the above quote you dis the very film stock (kodachrome reversal) and Super-8 Camera (a Canon "Japanese" camera) that was used by the Super-8 filmmaker at Cannes. Oops. The filmmaker used it for the only thing it was good for -- to look like "film projected on the bathroom wall", to quote the filmmaker from his interviews. For that purpose, a Japanashit home movie camera and K40 was well-suited. Not to dismiss him, his approach was valid for that project, but some of us recognize that there are more looks possible for super 8. A Japanashit home movie camera and K40 fulfilled none of them and is thankfully a thing of the past since it so severely restricted what could be done. So now what, Alex? Are you going to get back on your KUNG FU RASCALS soapbox for the K40/Japanashit home movie camera approach again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron X Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 (edited) Woah, it looks like Santo figured out a new buzz word; "Japanashit." Good job! Maybe you'd sound a little more intelligent if you didn't average half a "Japanashit" per sentence in you previous post. (Edit) Oh, and yes I believe there is a future in Super 8 film. But, Kodak must bring a daylight reversal stock into the mix to allow for a wider (less technically inclined) consumer base. Nostalgia is king in today's world and, if marketed properly, Super 8 could regain popularity among the general public. If this were to happen, film stock/processing prices would drop and those of us who use Super 8 for professional purposes would benefit. Just a thought from a 15-year-old. Edited March 18, 2006 by Tron X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Woah, it looks like Santo figured out a new buzz word; "Japanashit." Good job! Maybe you'd sound a little more intelligent if you didn't average half a "Japanashit" per sentence in you previous post. I tend to use the terms "Japanashit" and "Japanazoom" and "Japanacrap" interchangeably. However, call it a personal fault, I like to use things in 3's and 5's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 18, 2006 The filmmaker used it for the only thing it was good for -- to look like "film projected on the bathroom wall", to quote the filmmaker from his interviews. For that purpose, a Japanashit home movie camera and K40 was well-suited. Not to dismiss him, his approach was valid for that project, but some of us recognize that there are more looks possible for super 8. A Japanashit home movie camera and K40 fulfilled none of them and is thankfully a thing of the past since it so severely restricted what could be done. So now what, Alex? Are you going to get back on your KUNG FU RASCALS soapbox for the K40/Japanashit home movie camera approach again? Ben Crowe's very own quote from Super-8 Today..."Many people felt it had been shot on 16mm and most people didn't realize it had been shot on Super-8." Talk about the best of all worlds. Make your own cheap as possible "LO-FI" video transfer version of the original film footage and then edit this footage NLE style, Enter this "LO-FI version at Cannes with the cheapest upfront cost possible. What's even more remarkable is after the film IS accepted at Cannes, Mr. Crow could have used the EXACT SAME FILM FOOTAGE to make a high quality video transfer version if he had had the money. For a grand or two more, the quality could have been enhanced even more! I wouldn't even recommend such a combination of a low fi - hi / fi approach from the same super-8 reversal footage, but Mr. Crowe did the first step only and he was rewarded for his efforts, an effort that could only have been achieved using reversal film. There's no wiggle room on this one Santo, Reversal film was the ideal manner for Mr. Crowe to have a chance to enter and be a finalist at Cannes, and he was successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Talk about the best of all worlds. Make your own cheap as possible "LO-FI" video transfer version of the original film footage and then edit this footage NLE style, Enter this "LO-FI version at Cannes with the cheapest upfront cost possible. It was transfered to miniDV on a Rank for editing of the footage on the DVD sent to Cannes, you moron. Then had to be retransfered to digiBeta so it would look worth a crap digitally projected on a big screen. What part don't you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 18, 2006 It was transfered to miniDV on a Rank for editing of the footage on the DVD sent to Cannes, you moron. Then had to be retransfered to digiBeta so it would look worth a crap digitally projected on a big screen. What part don't you get? Irrelevant, Mr. Crowe still used the lo-fi Super-8 film to video transfer step first by transferring ALL of his reversal super-8 footage himself. Then Mr. Crowe followed that up with a hi-quality film transfer via a rank cintel transfer of ONLY the super-8 footage he needed. It was critical that Mr. Crowe view ALL of his super-8 footage first via a low fi transfer that he did himself BEFORE he did his online hi-quality Super-8 reversal film to video transfer of only the super-8 footage he really needed, on a rank cintel. The reality still is that it was a Japanese Super-8 camera and Reversal super-8 film stock that allowed Mr. Crowe to end up a finalist at Cannes. Now if we could just create a Japanese Super-8 camera necklace and have you wear it Santo, perhaps your super powers of abrasiveness would melt away, think of it as a kryptonite chaser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon-Hebert Barto Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 :D This thread is funny :P I would like to say KODAK needs a B&W negative S8 stock. Well, maybe not need, but I totally want it :lol: Why no B&W neg. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 rick, are you still doing super duber mods? I have never done them. I send everyone to mitchsperkins@yahoo.com He's the man. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ryan Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Hello All, This is a great thread, very interesting. I just want to clear up a few comments (from several of the posts above) that are not exactly correct (close, but no cigar). At the time Ben Crowe was shooting THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF Kodak's Vision2 200T and 500T or 64T were not available in the market place. Mr. Crowe picked Kodachrome because he really liked the way it captured the London sky in winter and the colors of London in general. Budget was a very big factor. Kodachrome in England could be purchased with processing included and that worked very well into Mr. Crowe's very limited budget for film. Mr. Crowe screened all of his film from THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF on his bathroom wall mainly because it was the largest blank wall in his house. The walls in his bathroom are painted a cream color. So, after many months of looking at all of this footage on his bathroom wall, he now liked the slight cream color tint it gave to all of his shots. So, he wasn't trying to make his final footage appear as if it were projected onto a bathroom wall. It was the fact that he liked the cream colored tint (All of this cream colored tint was added in Final Cut Pro). Ben Crowe would have been happy to screen his film at Cannes by projecting it from a Super 8 projector (he did this at a few places in London), but the Cannes Film Festival would only consider the short in a few different formats. Ben decided that his best option was to have it transfered from DVcam up to DigiBeta. So, it was screened from a DigiBeta master at Cannes. (This DigiBeta transfer caused Ben no end of stress as he had to come up with the money in a very short time frame.) Ben Crowe felt THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF could only have been shot in film. He felt the only color film for his short was Kodachrome. He liked Kodachrome so much, that I believe if the other films (200T, 500T, 64T) had been available he still would have picked the film he did. Very few people at Cannes knew that THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF was shot on Super 8. In fact, most people that spoke to Ben afterwards thought it was 16mm. I have viewed THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF on DVD and it does look very good. It has a very professional quality about it (and it's also a very well made short film). Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 And it was shot on a Canon 1014XLS, which is one of Santo's favourite cameras, so you know it's good, because he knows everything! Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 19, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 19, 2006 And it was shot on a Canon 1014XLS, which is one of Santo's favourite cameras, so you know it's good, because he knows everything! Rick And then it was shot on Santo's most favored film stock of all, Kodachrome 40. This low ASA reversal film stock allowed Mr. Crowe to shoot at a practically wide open f-stop, which as Santo has pointed out, works perfectly well with soft focus Japanazoom cameras that Santo claims are soft when used with a wide open aperture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tuohy Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 what about in australia? any thing happening there? Yes, there are things happening here too. Where I live in Daylesfor Vic there is a super8 group. We have about 15 filmmakers in one small town. I will be soon be offering a super8 ektachrome processing service. I can currently handle small volumes only. Cost is $18 per roll excluding postage. Film is returned with leader and tail, lubricated and on a 50' spool. Let me know if you are interested. my email is richtuo@iprimus.com.au Regards, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Now if we could just create a Japanese Super-8 camera necklace and have you wear it Santo, perhaps your super powers of abrasiveness would melt away, think of it as a kryptonite chaser. You mean like Lex Luthor did in SUPERMAN? I know I'm a hero in the world of super 8, but if there's a Superman it's Phil Vigeant from Pro8mm. Now that guy is a super 8 Superman if ever there was one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.Oliver Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) And then it was shot on Santo's most favored film stock of all, Kodachrome 40. This low ASA reversal film stock allowed Mr. Crowe to shoot at a practically wide open f-stop, which as Santo has pointed out, works perfectly well with soft focus Japanazoom cameras that Santo claims are soft when used with a wide open aperture. Santo 'CLAIMS' japcrap zoom lenses are soft!!!!!!!!! Well he is of course absolutely right. I have owned three canon 1014xls plus my existing 814xls since 1985, also canon 514,514xls,318m. All the canons i have owned except, believe it or not the 318m, go soft when wide, sharpness improves after f2.8/3.5. The best lens i have used wide open is the 6-66 schneider. Canon lenses are very sharp, don't get me wrong, up until a few years back i swore by 1014/814xls glassware. Trouble is, the glassware cannot be relied on in grubby light. Don't knock Santo, he knows his stuff. Edited March 19, 2006 by k25rip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 19, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 19, 2006 Santo 'CLAIMS' japcrap zoom lenses are soft!!!!!!!!! Well he is of course absolutely right. I have owned three canon 1014xls plus my existing 814xls since 1985, also canon 514,514xls,318m. All the canons i have owned except, believe it or not the 318m, go soft when wide, sharpness improves after f2.8/3.5. The best lens i have used wide open is the 6-66 schneider. Canon lenses are very sharp, don't get me wrong, up until a few years back i swore by 1014/814xls glassware. Trouble is, the glassware cannot be relied on in grubby light. Don't knock Santo, he knows his stuff. The Canon lenses on the 814XLS and 1014XLS literally can focus completely around the barrel. A large part of the Canon lens focusing element is devoted to the close focal distances. It is quite likely that one can be off on the focus simply because of the amount of close focusing range that is provided, it is more than any other super-8 camera ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Missing the point as always, Alex. Perhaps purposely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 19, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 19, 2006 Missing the point as always, Alex. Perhaps purposely. No, I'm bringing up a point that you have not addressed. If a lens can be focused practically 340 degrees, it seems focusing precision will be more difficult to achieve, especially when the focus markings are well spaced for distances from 2.5 feet to 10 feet. That doesn't mean the lens is bad, just that the operator has to take more care in setting focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Trouble is, the glassware cannot be relied on in grubby light. Don't knock Santo, he knows his stuff. All lenses are softer when wide open. It's an optical principal. No doubt some are better than others, even wide, which is why we discuss lens quality, but it's a specific fault of the Canons to go soft when wide. (My Canon 814XLS is definitely soft below 2.8, which is why I avoid shooting in grubby light. Pretty simple. Re: Santo knowing his stuff: I sometimes doubt it. I have heard too much nonsense disguised as expertise. No doubt he knows a few things, and could probably contribute something to this forum if he dropped his attitude: talking down to everyone, insulting people for having different opinions, pretending to speak for everyone and so on. On the flip side, he goes for hero worship (Phil at Pro8). It's a classic case of an "authoritarian personality": everybody is either above or below you. You bow to those above, and you kick those below. No place for that on any forum in my opinion. It usually comes from overcompensating for an insecurity. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 The only people who ever get a beating from me are those who are making stuff up or are clearly trying to con somebody (who knows why?) or have something to sell. Pay attention, Rick. There are opinions and then there are misunderstandings of simple facts. In super 8 it is surprising how often the former is confused with the latter. I simply point out when that happens and offer correct information -- most of it simple text book stuff, or what you'd learn at the begining of film school or on a film set in a couple of days. Seems to make me unpopular with some people ... oh, well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 19, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 19, 2006 The only people who ever get a beating from me are those who are making stuff up or are clearly trying to con somebody (who knows why?) or have something to sell. Pay attention, Rick. There are opinions and then there are misunderstandings of simple facts. In super 8 it is surprising how often the former is confused with the latter. I simply point out when that happens and offer correct information -- most of it simple text book stuff, or what you'd learn at the begining of film school or on a film set in a couple of days. Seems to make me unpopular with some people ... oh, well. Santo, you still think that Kodachrome with processing for $15.00-20.00 dollars doesn't mean the processing is free even though negative film stock with processing sells for between $29.00-35.00, just who is it that is selling something Santo? You are. You're constantly selling something, and frankly, EVERYTHING you sell is also what Pro-8mm sells, "superior beaulieu cameras, superior Pro-8mm film loading", superior superior superior. Does Pro-8mm offer 10 bit transfers, if not, that is about the only thing you haven't knighted them for sainthood. Either way, you sell something on with virtually every post you make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Hamrick Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Super 8 has definitely enjoyed a sort of revival in the last few years.What's ironic is the very technology that "killed" it, seems to be in part responsible for it's rebirth.So I would say it's far from dead.What will determine it's future is whether or not it's unique look will translate into an apreciable difference in the profits for the films that use it. I doubt the serious hobbyists or small independent filmmakers will be able to purchase enough film and gear to keep it going as there certainly weren't enough of them buying to make an apreciable difference when the format went almost "terminally ill" back in the 80's.Unless someone is able to make it affordable to them, the trend for the small indie will continue to be DV. The feature films that use inserts and music videos seem to be where the "business super 8" is going.This will continue up until the difference in the bottom line becomes seriously noticeable. No matter how you slice it, it still boils down to money,profit, the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Thompson Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Santo, what do you think Stalker was filmed on? Kodachrome. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Santo, what do you think Stalker was filmed on? Kodachrome. The end. Tarkovsky's Stalker ?? Definitely not Kodachrome. (I don't know the name of the Russian color neg used) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Thompson Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Tarkovsky's Stalker ?? Definitely not Kodachrome. (I don't know the name of the Russian color neg used) -Sam ??? ARE YOU SAYING STALKER WAS FILMED ON A SVHS-C CAMERA??? YOU ARE MAD MAN. MAD I SAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 ??? ARE YOU SAYING STALKER WAS FILMED ON A SVHS-C CAMERA??? YOU ARE MAD MAN. MAD I SAY Mentioning russian negative would indicate otherwise ---IMDB.com claims eastmancolor and arriflexes. Shows how much they can be trusted. Production stills show a Mitchell NC or Soviet knockoff. Svema/sovcolor or orwocolor is more likely than eastman. plus B/W negative. ---LV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now