Marco Van Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 which side(s) of the gate should i file to have a super duper 8? some pictures of a widened super 8 gate would be great. i am interested in this format. i really want to push the beautiful images of super 8 despite its limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 which side(s) of the gate should i file to have a super duper 8?some pictures of a widened super 8 gate would be great. i am interested in this format. i really want to push the beautiful images of super 8 despite its limitations. You file down the left side of the gate. When shooting it is the right-hand side which has more image area, so frame accordingly since the extra area is not in the viewfinder. Good luck. (Sorry, no pictures, but I am sure there are some out there.) Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Van Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 You file down the left side of the gate. When shooting it is the right-hand side which has more image area, so frame accordingly since the extra area is not in the viewfinder. Good luck. (Sorry, no pictures, but I am sure there are some out there.) Rick thanks rick. how much was your budget on "sleep always"? (if you don't mind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 thanks rick. how much was your budget on "sleep always"? (if you don't mind) Cash budget was $27,000 Cdn, but total budget with all deferrals was $500,000 which is high because we offered everyone generous contracts since it was 100% deferred. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Van Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 Cash budget was $27,000 Cdn, but total budget with all deferrals was $500,000 which is high because we offered everyone generous contracts since it was 100% deferred. Rick my jaw just dropped on the floor :) do i have to accurately measure the gate in order to get that 16:9 screen? in the perfect world, i want to get this right the first time. i am planning to use the super duper 8 format for my first feature. hopefully, it won't cost me much. i hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 my jaw just dropped on the floor :) do i have to accurately measure the gate in order to get that 16:9 screen? in the perfect world, i want to get this right the first time. i am planning to use the super duper 8 format for my first feature. hopefully, it won't cost me much. i hope. Why did your jaw drop? Number too low? Too high? $27,000 is very low in my books. The $500,000 is a play-money number. You don't have to measure the gate. Just file the left side as far as you can, while leaving enough there to maintain the gates strength. It won't be 16:9. It's about 1.55. Mask it further in post. We masked Sleep Always at about 1.85, so we cropped a little off the top and bottom. We like the shape of 1.85, but you can mask as you like. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Van Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 The $500,000 is a play-money number. oh! well, $27,000 doesn't sound too bad, considering it is a feature film :) are you planning another super duper 8 feature in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Van Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 rick, another question: will it be alright if i file down the gate of my projector in order to get the whole frame of my film? i know i read about this somewhere but i can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 rick, another question: will it be alright if i file down the gate of my projector in order to get the whole frame of my film? i know i read about this somewhere but i can't remember. You have to file down the projector. Otherwise there is no point. I have not projected super-duper 8. I shoot strictly for transfer to tape with a wide telecine set-up. And I wouldn't hesitate to shoot another super-duper 8 feature, but it would have to be the right story to consider super 8 at all. I am currently writing a script which I would not shoot on super 8. It's a story-driven decision. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I have been reading about this super duper 8 and it seems the understanding is hard. WHY? Some questions. If the camera it is only changed so that the film gate is ground down on the left then: = is there not a scratch? film it is very easy to scratch emulsion. there is a scratch, no? must be! even pieces of dust scratch emulsion. I have never had scratches. = lens it only is designed for smaller frame. it must be not sharp on right side of image. it is because very edge of lens is used, no? seems like useless extra image. It is NOT AS SHARP, definitely, but usually sharp enough (if the main image is sharp). So it is not useless extra image. Check the framegrabs on my website (not the stills on all the pages, but the link to actual framegrabs at the bottom of the home page.) = worse it makes sense for the tunnel vision. do you not experience the rounded black circle of edges or lens on right side. you must! This is known as vignetting and it can happen, but not always, depending on the settings. Check the frame grabs on my website. = okay consideration of last question . maybe some lengths of lens might work. some that are not so short. please say exactly what lengths of lens work without big black round cut offs from side of lens. i see on your web site you use a Nikon R 10. what lens lengths work? 7mm? 12mm? 15mm? 20mm? up from there? please inform. i have R 10, but what use is only 15mm or longer? Most person shooting below inside! I don't know the exact settings. The R10 we used was owned by the other guy, Mitch Perkins, and he has since sold it. But you are right, it is more likely to happen at the wider angle settings, also when focused close, and when aperture is wide open. It is a combination of these three factors, so I don't have exact numbers. Sorry. You have to experiment, but play it safe, since you know where the problems will be. There are lots of reasons to avoid shooting at the widest settings anyway, and you may want an f2.8 or better anyway (lens will be sharper all around). = also how do you frame it? if you can not see the right side of image in viewfinder? You get used to it. Check that side before you roll to make sure there are no unwanted objects there, and frame things slightly off-centre. It's not that hard. ALL SEEM LIKe big problems. It depends what you want and how precise you want to be. I don't treat it like an exact science so am not worried about the fuzzy areas. For me it's an inexpensive way of exposing a little more emulsion on each frame, and the final results on video are a little tighter and sharper. Is it worth it? I think so. But some people would think not. That's an individual choice. = But bigger is question that what is It's a story-driven decision. ? it is very strange? slight rectangle or little larger rectangle? no big difference. it is not the cinescope or regular choice which is only small decision for story only. Please explain. I was referring to the type of story that would suit super 8. Our feature Sleep Always is the kind of story that works well on super 8, but not all stories would. I think horror movies would work with super 8. Or something that feels "small and personal". My current script has some serious locations and to shoot them on super 8 would compromise all the effort that would go into the locations, so I would want to shoot on 35. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 (edited) This it is very odd, as I have looked up on an easy Google search and found some answers as is to be usual. So here is what I have found. I notice that frst result from "super duper 8 scratches" is from a Kodak review of a person using the weird non-format. You are right about the scratches. I answered too hastily. But we wet-gate our transfer so they have never been a problem for us, so I forgot about that. Check my stills. They speak for themselves. Or check our film Sleep Always. Not a scratch in site. They are on the film, but not the transfer. I am sorry but no way. It seems very silly this super duper 8. I will not be wrecking the camera I have. Anamorphic lens for a good HD 16 x 9 as is modern framing makes a lot of sense (like video cameras). This I may try. Fine. No one is forcing you to shoot super-duper 8. And it doesn't wreck the camera, but whatever... Don't do it if that makes you happy. Rick Edited November 15, 2006 by Rick Palidwor 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