Super 8 feature

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I was wondering, who was it that did a feature in Super 8 on this forum? I was just curious 1) how are you doing right now, and 2) was there a webpage you had up for your movie?

 

Also, I don't know if Kodak does this but it would be nice to profile filmmakers who make feature movies in Super 8. Although I haven't completely searched Kodak's archives to make an informed opinion, I haven't really seen any guerilla productions highlighted in their publications - yet I really would think that's a good idea. I understand they may not be thrilled about promoting the use of short ends, for example, and the cinematography in some of the films may not be top notch (I am not referring to the Super 8 filmmaker I speak of above, btw), but it is really in my opinion excellent "shoot film" propaganda.

 

Thanks,

 

- G.

[IBL]

I was actually going to do this George but I opted out in the end. I still have the Canon Super 8mm here and the images are nice.

 

Have you seen the zombie movie - The Dead Next Door. That was shot on Super 8mm.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

There was someone else who actually made a film and distributed it here from last year or the year before, I even saw posted stills from it. He shot on K-40 and would talk about his experiences with S8 sound.

 

- G.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Certainly if any Super-8 production has made "the big time" with a pick-up by a distributor, network, or cable, or great success on the festival circuit, let us know about it. If you know you are working on such a potential "blockbuster", take lots of photos to document "the making", and keep accurate technical records for any article that may be written. :)

 

If you make a good film that wins local acclaim (e.g., best film in your Filmmaking-101 class, or broadcast on your local TV or public-access cable), recognize that many others are learning and perfecting their craft in the same way. B)

[GeorgeSelinsky]

If you make a good film that wins local acclaim (e.g., best film in your Filmmaking-101 class, or broadcast on your local TV or public-access cable), recognize that many others are learning and perfecting their craft in the same way. B)

The point here from a marketing perspective is to illustrate that even on very low budgets one can shoot film and do a good enough job. I understand the desire for industry level accreditation, it certainly helps push the sell, but I think that even if a film shot on Super 8 is self distributed (I think that's what the filmmaker who made his film here did), that in itself is an interesting story. The DV format wasn't winning awards at festivals when articles appeared about its use in feature film production. That helped make the buzz, I believe, in the format's adoption by more and more people, and eventually there were award winners.

 

I like the Super 8 format, even though I personally have no designs on shooting a feature with it right now, I think it could use a bit more of a boost by showing how people can achieve something interesting with it, doing a lot with a little. If the format gets more attention that way, it will encourage others to try more - and before you know it, you will get some award winners.

 

Showing a bit of the micro-budget world is interesting, and I think the point here is not free publicity (I mean, I doubt someone will get distribution thanks to an article in a Kodak magazine - a critical review is much more important), but encouragement.

 

Just my two c's.

 

- G.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here are some things already being done to promote Super-8:

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...00/super8.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/super8/tips.shtml

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Here are some things already being done to promote Super-8:

That's actually very nice John, that Super 8 site of Kodak's has gotten better.

 

I still maintain the points I made in my last post and I hope that the people at EKC will take that into consideration.

 

As for me, I have my regular theses about the necessities for a solid Super 8 revival. They probably will require third party innovation to succeed though:

 

1) A perforator/slitter that will cut bulk rolls of 35mm stock into Super 8 size, which can be hand or motor operated by enthusiasts, coupled with an easy to reload cartridge. I could cut up any Kodak color negative stock, any still stock, it would open a new world of opportunities.

 

2) A good Super 8 home processing tank (better than that plastic Lomo junk that buckles film), along with a decent little home small batch processing manual (remember H-7?). I'm sick of sending out my film to goodness knows were to get it processed, and overpaying to top it off (esp. in the case of B&W). The PK-59 mailers only handle Kodachrome 40, and unless I have a film that takes place in all daylight, I wouldn't be using much of that, nor would most other people.

 

3) More home telecine devices like "the Workprinter". I keep waiting for someone to rip the CCD's from a flatbed scanner and use them in conjunction with a continuous film movement. The flatbed scanners of today have some pretty good CCD's. I can then use Vision 200 without booking telecine time (and nobody does contact prints in Super 8, and if they did, I can imagine it would be expensive).

 

If I had time on my hands and money I'd set up my own company and do this.

 

- G.

[Mitch Gross]

I believe it was Matt Pacini, who has moved on to 16mm now. "Lost Tribes," wasn't it? Also there was someone in Austrailia or NZ who posted some frame grabs last year.

[Guest Fred]

Pro8mm offers near all Kodak EXR and Vision 35mm color negative films in Super8 format...

http://www.pro8mm.com/us/film_frm.htm

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here's the Kodak Super-8 products:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/film.shtml

[Tim Carroll]

George,

 

Franklin Film Labs does really good B&W 16mm for a good price. They are in California. I had a Kodak person inspect some stuff they did for me and she said the processing was top notch.

 

I looked into the Pro8mm and I felt that there stuff was really expensive. Would love to see something like George is talking about, where you could do it yourself.

 

-Tim

[AmatEscalante]

A feature film shot in Super8 that made it semi big, is "I Am Josh Polonski's Brother"

http://imdb.com/title/tt0278493/

 

It found international ditribution and I belive it showed in Cannes film festival.

Shot with a Beaulieu 7008pro. I belive the blow-up to 35mm was made from a digiBetacam master.

[Matt Pacini]

Guilty as charged!

I shot a feature, Lost Tribes on Super 8, and I've commented on it extensively on a couple boards, as to the pro's & cons of shooting Super 8.

I had a distribution deal with Revolution Filmworks (not to be confused with the "BIG" Revolution pictures), but then they decided to stop distributing, so all rights reverted back to me.

I've been selling it on ebay (sold about 500+ copies or so, so it's not exactly a blockbuster), and as Mitch said, I've moved on to 16mm, writing scripts, and hoping to get a real budget on one of my scripts.

 

Any questions, feel free to ask.

It was interesting doing the film in Super 8, although I certainly don't recommend it.

It's very difficult to consistently get good looking footage, as most here would expect, but given that difficulty, I certainly recommend it for beginners, because it will get you used to shooting film, and it will make you very cautious and caring about your images.

 

Matt Pacini

[Jason Maeda]

Guilty as charged!

(sold about 500+ copies or so)

 

matt thats great! i remember on the older forums you put up a web link and had stills, etc. i love super-8 and shoot it constantly, although i am getting ready to pick up a bolex as well. i remember hearing stan brackhage say that the thing about 8mm (his wasn't even "super") was that, and i wish i could quote him exactly, the camera is so small it literally reveals the "pulse" of the cameraman. so true! there is something so intimate about super-8. great that you shot an entire feature on it, you must be a member of a small club who can credit themselves with doing so.

jk :ph34r:

[Matt Pacini]

Well, there's a reason so few have shot features on Super 8.

It's an insane thing to do!!!

 

The best thing about Super 8, is that the cameras are so small, you can steal shots just about anywhere, and also it's so quick to pop in those little light-tight cartridges.

But it's really tough to get decent images.

I found my best looking stuff, was shooting outside in total shade with nothing in the frame that had direct sunlight to blow out the highlights (pretty tough to do here in California!).

Some of that stuff came out really, really nicely, but it's damn near impossible to make that happen when you're filming a feature, at least on a no-budget feature.

Oh, and nothing ever looks sharp with such a tiny format, unless it's shot in a tight close-up.

And obviously, you have to have a good camera.

There were so many bad ones made, that you have to know which ones to look for, and so far, the best I've seen or used, has been the Nikon R-10.

Great, sharp, fast glass! F1.8 7-80mm macro zoom.

 

Matt Pacini

[Vivian Zetetick]

Canadian filmmaker Guy Maddin (the youngest recipient of the Telluride Film Festival's Lifetime Achievement Award) continues to work in super-8, in shorts and in features. His recent feature film Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary was shot mostly in super-8. His rapid-fire Russian propaganda pastiche The Heart of the World (a super-8/16mm hybrid) won the 2002 New York Critic's Circle award for Best Experimental Film, and was the hit of the 2002 Toronto Film Festival. Guy Maddin has probably achieved more international success as a super-8 filmmaker than any other director. His latest film stars Isabella Rossellini.

 

English filmmaker Derek Jarman also made features in super-8. His super-8 feature The Last of England is a classic work of Avant-Garde cinema.

[Matt Pacini]

Interesting...

I'll have to check out his work.

 

Of course, probably the most profitable film of all time was shot on 8mm.

The Zapruder film of JFK's assasination.

Probably about $20.00 including the cost of the camera, and it's made tens of millions of dollars!

 

Matt Pacini

[Dan Salzmann]

I'm convinced that it's cheaper to shoot 16mm than super8. Just look at some facts:

The filmstock per/foot is cheaper in price - the super8 cartridge shell gets discarded.

Super8 neg is fiercely expensive and very few labs develop it.

Many telecines do not have super8 gates so quality telecinema is more difficult to find and negotiate. Get a Bolex or a Scoopic and shoot away!

I would love to know if anyone has tricked out a flatbed or transparency scanner to do motion picture film.

Cheers,

Dan

[Matt Pacini]

Yes, and no, Dan.

I'm gonna guess you're referring to Super 8 Sound (Pro8mm, whatever) prices, which are always WAY over retail for everything they sell.

 

Kodachrome 40 costs $10. a roll, and $5.50 a roll to process.

That's cheaper than 16mm.

You're right on the telecine though.

 

As to the flatbed or transparency options to scan the film, that was the first thing I eliminated in my quest to scan film myself.

Even if you get the hardware modified to scan & register, the amount of labor involved would takes literally months if not years of 40+ hour weeks to scan a couple hours of film.

Picture yourself putting what amounts to 1.5 seconds of film on a flatbed for each scan, processing the file, splitting out each frame somehow, keeping track of the frames , naming them, etc...

Do the math.

Just impossible.

 

Matt Pacini

[schnozzle]

I just thought I'd revive this for a sec:

 

I vaguely recall that a teacher of mine at CalArts rigged up a compuer-controlled system several years back to digitally scan Super8mm film. He had some sort of film movement or gate attached to motorized rewinds that could move frame-by-frame--it was basically like the projector end of a Super8mm-sized optical printer, but built it from scratch. He also had a video camera with a macro lens pointed at the Super8mm gate; the camera's output fed into a Mac via a "Snappy" interface, which was capable of scanning .jpg stills from the video signal. The Mac was also attached to a little black box (I never figured out what it was) that controlled the rewind motors; my teacher then wrote a code that would first instruct the rewinds to advance a frame and then tell the Snappy software to scan a frame.

 

Something like this is way, way past my ability to put together, but the point is that you could just turn it on and it would scan an entire reel of Super 8 by itself, and it didn't cost much to put together.

[Nate Downes]

Sounds like you're discussing the Workprinter which works pretty much in the way you've described.

 

And I'm plotting on making my own Super8 movie... once I have enough experience.

[Rob Belics]

Matt,

 

So if there was a good Super8 camera out there as someone described in another post (Top 7 features), and you used Kodak's new Vision2, whaddya think you'd get? (He asked vaguely).

[Nate Downes]

Even the existing cameras and the old stocks can achieve fantastic results. I watched the Super8 film Sleep Always (widened-gate Super8, similar technique done to 16mm to make Super16) which really impressed me as to the quality of the production. And they were doing it on Ektachrome!

[schnozzle]

So...if Pro8mm is overpriced, then who would you folks recommend for lab work & telecine for Super 8?

[Nate Downes]

So...if Pro8mm is overpriced, then who would you folks recommend for lab work & telecine for Super 8?

Not exactly overpriced, but on the higher-end definately. Yale Film and Video does a great job on developing, and for telecine, the Workprinter's creator also offers this service for a reasonable cost.