Jump to content

Experiences with the Super8 Negative Film


John Adolfi

Recommended Posts

Would like to hear from anyone who has shot negative Super8 film. I'd like to hear the pluses and minuses. Cinepost's transfer guy told me that Kodachrome transfers the best. Negative looks like bad super8. Please I would prefer actual experience not textbook information. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on where you have it transferred, their equipment. some places use older Ranks. if you want the best go with higher end like Flying Spot. the only drawback to the color negs is the cost of telecine. the new V2500T has very decent grain for a film that fast. K-40 will transfer better of course because of its low speed/finer grain. but I would rarely use a 200 or 500 speed film in a case where K-40 will expose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to hear from anyone who has shot negative Super8 film.  I'd like to hear the pluses and minuses. Cinepost's transfer guy told me that Kodachrome transfers the best.  Negative looks like bad super8.  Please I would prefer actual experience not textbook information. Thanks.

 

My brother and I used Super 8 neg, on a short two years ago. We liked it, but understood that it wasn't really a 16 replacement....more like an alternative. I'd say that it is nice for small projects. I'll try to post some stills from the short. I assume that you are looking at stock from Pro8mm...

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding. My goal as I shoot Super8 is to get the absolute best picture I can get. Yes I guess I too want it to look like 16mm. As for shooting Pro8m, I could and Kodak has the ASA 200 and 500 so there is a choise today. I may just stick with purchasing the two emulsions from Kodak unless I need something specific from pro8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinepost's transfer guy told me that Kodachrome transfers the best.  Negative looks like bad super8.

 

wrong wrong wrong!!!!

 

(well, it depends on how you shoot it, and where you transfer, I guess)

 

Super-8 neg can look fantastic, and very much like 16mm, if that's what you want. Plus it's really fun to shoot. Send your stuff to flying spot in seattle, and you'll see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I haven't used them, but Pro8mm has a bad rap for poor telecine.. and they are using the old vision stocks. if you use a good lense, Kodak V2, and Flying Spot.. you will be impressed that it was S-8 you shot. i have been blown away since i started using the new negs with FS.

 

The Kodak VISION2 films have significantly improved grain and sharpness, especially important in Super-8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to hear from anyone who has shot negative Super8 film.  I'd like to hear the pluses and minuses. Cinepost's transfer guy told me that Kodachrome transfers the best.  Negative looks like bad super8.  Please I would prefer actual experience not textbook information. Thanks.

 

I have now shot quite a bit of the negative films in Super8, both the Kodak and Pro8 branded films (although all of these are of course Kodak emulsions)

 

My opinion is that if you know you are going to have the footage transfered via Rank or similar then you might as well shoot negative and take advantage of the larger variety of stocks, the degree of manipulation facilitated by the use of neg during telecine and the fact that the neg stocks play back better on TV screens than the traditional stocks like K40, although this is, to a degree, a matter of opinion and depends on what type of 'look' you are after.

 

I have found the Vision 200T and Vision2 200T to produce excellent results without intrusive grain. The look is superb and very distinctive.

 

The EXR 50D from Pro8mm is good for snowscapes etc and I have had some excellent footage of sking etc. - very low grain, etc.

 

The Vision 500T from Pro8 is surprisingly low grain in good light, but if you take it to the limit in terms of low light then the grain can become intrusive. However saying this I have had some surprisingly good results from inside a very dark bar.

 

All in all I would reccomend the use of the neg stocks because you have a much easier time lighting and I really don't think the grain is as bas as some make out.

 

In a nutshell it has a very distinctive look which I believe compliments brilliantly other film and video formats. And I don't mean compliment in that it looks "bad" I mean compliment in that it looks a quality image, but with very different contrast and colour saturation.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to thank everyone for this post. Very informative. I have been planning a short to be shot on V2500T and now I feel much more confident that I will be able to produce interesting, high quality images.

 

I want to shoot with much available light and NYC streets at night. Has anyone of you shot footage like this? Any samples I can see on the net?

 

Also, should I use slow reversal stock for outdoors daytime footage or can I stick with the neg for everything?

 

-steve

http://www.insomniacreations.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, should I use slow reversal stock for outdoors daytime footage or can I stick with the neg for everything?

 

-steve

 

I would stick with negative because Kodachrome and ektachrome both have very different solour saturation to the negative stocks (and to each other). Don't worry about overexposure, I would just have some neuteral density filters handy - although you could get away without any even in the brightest scene, but you will be working right at the smallest aperture.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I will be coming back from Flying Spot next week with some V2 500T night shots, under street lights.. i'm hoping for the best. so far i've shot 30-40 carts under stage lights with stunning results. a few neon exteriors with the same great results.

 

Interesting.

 

I've been thinking shooting a live performance, either an opera or a stage play on Super-8. It could have an interesting look on stage, especially if the cameras are handheld (do the master shot on a second pass). My idea was to get 4 Nizos of the ##56 or ##80 series and have two running at all times and then rotate out the 2 cameras for film changes after starting the other two cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would stick with negative because Kodachrome and ektachrome both have very different solour saturation to the negative stocks (and to each other). Don't worry about overexposure, I would just have some neuteral density filters handy - although you could get away without any even in the brightest scene, but you will be working right at the smallest aperture.

 

Matt

 

Great. I was pretty set on using the negative but just wanted an opinion. I'll pick up an ND filter. Thanks very much.

 

-steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be coming back from Flying Spot next week with some V2 500T night shots, under street lights.. i'm hoping for the best. so far i've shot 30-40 carts under stage lights with stunning results. a few neon exteriors with the same great results.

 

I'd love to see a few samples. Perhaps a quicktime or some stills.

 

thanks,

 

-steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a couple of things, im harassing people into wanting to use double super8 because it makes using super8 neg not only better for mechanical reasons but becasuse itll make the cost of using super8 neg the way it should be...way cheaper than 16mm. those interested in ds8 can email me at bloopoid@yahoo.com and ill ad you to my group.

 

tink about 10 minutes of super8 neg at the cost of a roll of bought and processed 100ft roll of 16mm film. thats cheap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting super8 neg can be as expensive as shooting s16mm neg, even more expensive  :angry:  I'd love to shoot some neg with my cameras, but it really isn't too economical.

 

 

I think that you have to view Super8 as a format that produces a very different and distict look, rather than as a purely economic choice.

 

It can look superb intercut with other film and video formats.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh yeah, imagine 100t in super8 neg, looks likje we are getting a batch of it in ds8, any takers?

Well, I am if it's cheap. Are you ordering it as a large bulk from Kodak?

 

And I agree with Wells that it's a different look. Though I've always shot K40 if I wanted the familiar super8 look. I don't think the negs are too much different to s16mm, except for the apparent grain and sharpness issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...