Less hassle and more freedom??

Jason M Silverman · January 28, 2007

Hey,

It has been ages since I've posted on here, and I apologize if I posted similar things before (but my search didn#t bring any of them up)

I'm finally wittling away at another film project, and once again I'm at the pre-planning of logistics stage. The project in question is to be a silent film, and I've been thinking I'd film it in super-8 to enable me to save money, maybe even buying two cameras for easy extra coverage, etc.

But--is this actually going to be true in the long run? Will I end up with less colour and more grain for nearly the same price? I plan to edit digitally, and if the money is there, then edit a print on film; I have no idea if I'll be able to afford a 16-mm print or not. If a print for festivals is on the table, would shooting in 16 originally be cheaper by saving the blow-up costs, as well as giving better image results on a theatricl blow-up if it ever came to that?

While the graininess of 8 would suit sections of the film, there will be a few large-set sections where I'm afraid it might come out too fuzzy. Any opinions?

Peace,

Jason

Alessandro Machi · January 29, 2007

Hey,

It has been ages since I've posted on here, and I apologize if I posted similar things before (but my search didn#t bring any of them up)

I'm finally wittling away at another film project, and once again I'm at the pre-planning of logistics stage. The project in question is to be a silent film, and I've been thinking I'd film it in super-8 to enable me to save money, maybe even buying two cameras for easy extra coverage, etc.

But--is this actually going to be true in the long run? Will I end up with less colour and more grain for nearly the same price? I plan to edit digitally, and if the money is there, then edit a print on film; I have no idea if I'll be able to afford a 16-mm print or not. If a print for festivals is on the table, would shooting in 16 originally be cheaper by saving the blow-up costs, as well as giving better image results on a theatricl blow-up if it ever came to that?

While the graininess of 8 would suit sections of the film, there will be a few large-set sections where I'm afraid it might come out too fuzzy. Any opinions?

Peace,

Jason

As much as I am a fan of film projection for both 16mm and 35mm, Super-8 actually looks acceptable to me even if it's been transferred to video and then video projected. So in theory you should be able to make a DVD and submit that. I don't know what percentage of festivals require film prints or betacam sp / digital betacam masters, but I would assume a growing legion has accepted DVD for projection. Just make sure to give them a back up.

I think the Kodak 500T and the 200T have tight enough grain to look fine even when blown up large. I saw some 500T that had been transferred to mini-dv and video projected at the Egyptian Theatre for the Flicker Festival, I really was pleased with the look. For low ASA film stock I would recommend either the Kodak Ektachrome 100D or Fuji Velvia 50, both of which can be purchased from Spectra Film and Video.

Ektachrome 64 is probably fine as well, but for my tastes I find it slightly too grainy. I actually like the grain structure in the 500T and 200T better. If you are comfortable with a DVD as your finished product, you should be fine with Super-8.

Anthony Schilling · January 29, 2007

I had a piece projected digitally on the big screen at a festival last year. I used a lot of different stocks. The Velevia 50D and Ekta 100D S8 help up surprisingly nice... the 200T looked pretty grainy, and the 64T was even more grainy, a bit distracting (at least for me) You can shoot S8 that looks good on the big screen, but you're really limited to the 3 finest grain stocks like Velvia 50D, Ekta 100D, or V2 50D negative... non of which are available direct from Kodak, and all more expensive than Kodak packaged S8. As much as I love S8, I'd still go with 16mm for the big screen... at least for whats available now.

Jason M Silverman · January 29, 2007

Thanks for that: I wasn't aware that some festivals are accepting DVD submissions now. (Maybe I could submit my last project, lol...)

Maybe the best bet for me at the moment is to test a few of those stcoks and see if they look grainier than I'd like and then decide.

Matt Sandstrom · January 29, 2007

super 8 can look fantastic and done right it will be cheaper, and an optical print isn't much more expensive than a contact one so even if you're printing to 16 it probably will. do many fests still show 16mm though? seems like video has taken over that, with 35mm being the standard for bigger festivals.

but!!! you will have a much smoother production on 16mm since it's supported by an entire industry. on super 8 you're on your own. plus us guys of course but it will be a pain asking for support here while shooting. although do any of you remember shane carruth on the usenet boards years ago? we taught him how to make a film online, sometimes laughing at him, and when the result was primer we didn't laugh anymore. ;-)

/matt

Alessandro Machi · January 29, 2007

I had a piece projected digitally on the big screen at a festival last year. I used a lot of different stocks. The Velevia 50D and Ekta 100D S8 help up surprisingly nice... the 200T looked pretty grainy, and the 64T was even more grainy, a bit distracting (at least for me) You can shoot S8 that looks good on the big screen, but you're really limited to the 3 finest grain stocks like Velvia 50D, Ekta 100D, or V2 50D negative... non of which are available direct from Kodak, and all more expensive than Kodak packaged S8. As much as I love S8, I'd still go with 16mm for the big screen... at least for whats available now.

My experience with the 500T was really good. Spectra Film and Video did the rank transfer. The grain is really tight, which makes the color rendition a few notches above what I was expecting for a 500T stock. I would never hesitate to shoot with the 500T because of grain issues.

Alessandro Machi · January 30, 2007

Thanks for that: I wasn't aware that some festivals are accepting DVD submissions now. (Maybe I could submit my last project, lol...)

Submit your last project, heck I've started to submit my 20 year old plus films. :D

Maybe the best bet for me at the moment is to test a few of those stocks and see if they look grainier than I'd like and then decide.

A great idea.

Anthony Schilling · January 30, 2007

My experience with the 500T was really good. Spectra Film and Video did the rank transfer. The grain is really tight, which makes the color rendition a few notches above what I was expecting for a 500T stock. I would never hesitate to shoot with the 500T because of grain issues.

The 500T is amazing. I almost forgot, I did do a large screen projection at a club last summer of a concert film where I mixed in a lot of S8 500T, at it did look great up there. But the look really went with the aesthetic of the film. The subject matter or aesthetic is also something major to consider when deciding what format to use. S8 500T rules under tungston, where you can crush the blacks and not see a whole lot of grain... but I steer away from using it in daylight.

Alessandro Machi · January 30, 2007

The 500T is amazing. I almost forgot, I did do a large screen projection at a club last summer of a concert film where I mixed in a lot of S8 500T, at it did look great up there. But the look really went with the aesthetic of the film. The subject matter or aesthetic is also something major to consider when deciding what format to use. S8 500T rules under tungston, where you can crush the blacks and not see a whole lot of grain... but I steer away from using it in daylight.

My experience was the blacks were solid 7.5 I.R.E. set-up with no apparent crushing. I even had an outdoor shot that I was thrilled with, the camera was reading somewhere between an f-22/44 split.

I recall stating I would try and post a couple of images from the stock. Maybe soon.