16 vs 8.

Ben McPhee · September 6, 2004

Hi, I was after a bit of advice on 16mm cameras vs 8mm.

I have been considering trying to get an Arriflex 16sb, and the main thing holding me back is the cost of film processing (Which would have to include conversion to a digital format for use in a non linear editing program.)

A few people have suggested 8mm as an alternative, but I'm pretty unfamiliar with the format. Is it much cheaper to process (and convert to digital) 8mm compared to 16mm? (I'm looking to shoot a fair bit. Would it be considered an expensive hobby?)

How is the quality of 8mm?

And what about the cameras themselves? Do they compromise on "features" (mainly concerned with frame rate). And are they and the appropriate lenses cheaper? If I master an 8mm camera, would a 16mm camera be pretty similar?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Ben

delmarerik · September 6, 2004

depends on what you are trying to shoot.

without knowing the full details of what you are hoping to be shooting, maybe a manual windup H16 would be a great way to enter the 16mm situation.

Ben McPhee · September 6, 2004

Well I do kind of want a versatile camera.

My main area of interest is in Snowboarding, but I'm also into Skating, surfing, and eventually (Possibly) Music Video's. If I ever get to a stage where I can sell my footage, I'll probably go straight for the Arri 16SB, but for now, I'm just kind of wanting to shoot some local skaters and surfers (I'm nowhere near the snow right now), and maybe make my own short films.

But obviosuly, do do that, I would need to process the film, and I know 16mm is expensive, and I was just curious as to how 8mm compared, both in price and quality.

In a 16mm camera, I would need a variable speed motor, and I could probably live without it in 8mm, but I'd still like one if possible. The cost of the camera isn't so important. It's the running costs that I'm more concerned with.

Alessandro Machi · September 6, 2004

The right tool for your specific application would be a couple of Super-8 8mm cameras, not just one.

I'm of the opinion you will be dropping your camera every now and then. Buy a couple of crash cameras in Super-8 (bentley's come to mind) for like 10 bucks each. Buy the really good Super-8 cameras like a Beaulieu 4008 or a Canon 814XLS or 1014XLS for the "safer shots" for around $300-500 dollars.

For incredbily versatile filming speeds with intervalometer and time-exposure techniques thrown in the Eumig 800 series and several Nizo's (I think the Nizo model numbers with 3 digits do time-exposure) will give you lots of options. Pre-loaded Super-8 film cartridges will make your life easier for grab and go shots.

However, I still assume you'll have a digital camera to grab a lot of action and SOUND. And if I were you I would hire a DP with a 16mm camera package from time to time to grab extra special events to mix into your overall production.

delmarerik · September 6, 2004

I wouldn't bother with the 8mm, but thats just me. Get the 16mm a bolex spring loaded like the H16 or similar. They are super trustworthy, and can be found on e bay for a good price.

guys like alby falzon traveled all over the world with them and loved them. When they get enough money they got the higher end electrical models, which would always end up breaking down on them at some beah in bali.

Get the hand crank, film is relatively cheap, and you'll scrape some money to get it transfered...

a good call about the 8mm cameras, but if you have something like the H16, and you score some mental surf footage of North Point or something down in Margret River, You'll have some footage of true value that you can use in your production or sell at a decent price.

just my opinion...

oh, and it does have variable frame rate

Rick Eisenstein · September 6, 2004

If you want a good mos camera for not a lot of money I would suggest a canon scoopic. But if you have a few thousand to spend on a versatile sound sync camera, I would suggest an Eclair NPR with a good sound barney.

Rick Eisenstein · September 6, 2004

Plus, there are several motor choices for the Eclair NPR 16mm camera including variable, variable with preset speeds, and variable/crystal sync motors.

Scot McPhie · September 6, 2004

Have a look at this interesting thread

Scot

Phil Rhodes · September 6, 2004

Hi,

If you're concerned about running costs then 16mm is insane. It's slightly more expensive than 8mm, and that's VERY expensive. I have some super-8 I shot back in April which I won't be able to look at until I can blag some free transfer time; the only other option is to pay a fortune to have it done. 8mm can cost slightly more than 16 to transfer as many places have to subrent the gate.

Personally I think you're insane to eschew the reasonably decent modern video cameras - you're going to be shooting miles and miles of stuff with sports to get the material you need, it's going to cost so much it becomes a once-yearly thing. Bear in mind that a DVX-100 might cost $3000; it's going to cost you over half of that every time you get a 16mm camera out of the box, and probably much more.

Phil

jasarsenault · September 7, 2004

Hey, Check out the movie "fruit of the vine". It s a feature length skate/doc movie on the development of pools skating. It is shot completly in super 8 film. Fantastic movie with fantastic footage. They use super 8 for what it is good for. Raw and gritty, with cameras you can bring anywhere. They just add their interviews as audio tracks laid over the skate images. really interesting.

Jason

Patrick Neary · September 8, 2004

...Or shoot dv for the cost benefits and use super-8 or 16 for the slo-mo and time-lapse bits, etc. After all, we live in a multi-media age.

Super-8 neg transferred on a good telecine can look pretty decent. I shot a little rough-and-tumble music video using the vision 200 and had it telecined at Flying Spot in Seattle, and the director had to dirty it down in post. He thought it looked too much like 16.