Blow up super-8 to 16mm

Tony Terziev · February 7, 2008

Hello from Sweden!

I'm intrested to blow up super-8 to a 16mm print for a coming production, using Andecs services. Are there any examples of how the result might look with reversal or negative film?

Best Regards

Edited February 7, 2008 by Tony Terziev

kevin jackman · February 7, 2008

no idea but you should really use the best glass you can get and the best camera. blowing up super8-crappy regustration would not be good.

kevin jackman · February 7, 2008

and use neg

Michael Lehnert · February 7, 2008

Once saw a S8-to-N16 blow-up projected, shot on K-40 origination. That was not good looking, very contrasty and grainy!

However, the increase in quality with neg film stocks is considerable and Andec has a reputation for excellent work in this area, certainly in Europe only rivalled by Todd-AO in London. So I think you should follow Kevin's points on that.

However: if this isn't for a technical experiment, be prepared that most people (incl producer) might ask you why you don't shoot on 16mm originally because of the costs involved. Not that I would agree with this argument, but it's something one should duly calculate through.

Robert Houllahan · February 8, 2008

Hello from Sweden!
I'm intrested to blow up super-8 to a 16mm print for a coming production, using Andecs services. Are there any examples of how the result might look with reversal or negative film?

Best Regards

I have seen some really great looking E6 and K40 Super8 optically blown up to 16mm on a JK printer using inter-neg stock. Really amazing results but the original was well shot.....

-Rob-

Bernhard Zitz · February 8, 2008

However: if this isn't for a technical experiment, be prepared that most people (incl producer) might ask you why you don't shoot on 16mm originally because of the costs involved. Not that I would agree with this argument, but it's something one should duly calculate through.

Yep, I'd do the maths first. 16mm stock is a little more expensiv than S8. Processing 16mm is about the same and a contactprint will be cheaper and will give you much better results. It's possible that doing all 16mm is cheaper, depending on your shooting ratio, deal for the stock and the lab.

cheers, bernhard

Edited February 8, 2008 by Bernhard Zitz

Robert Houllahan · February 8, 2008

It's possible that doing all 16mm is cheaper, depending on your shooting ratio, deal for the stock and the lab.

cheers, bernhard

It certainly is more expensive to shoot S8 and optically blow up to 16mm as Interbeg stock is expensive but the look of a S8->16mm optical blowup is very distinctive and cannot be made any other way...

-Rob-

Tony Terziev · February 8, 2008

Thank you for all the informative replys!

I'm fully aware of that I could shoot the short in 16mm and get better results, but I want to experiment and go though super-8.

Are there any examples of how it could look, using negative film?

Thanks once again!

steve hyde · February 8, 2008

Hi Tony,

I have not done this myself, although I have done a bit of research into doing this. Here in the United States I have been told the go-to guy is Bill Brand in New York.

web:

http://www.bboptics.com/

I realize you are working from Sweden; however, Bill may be able to advise you or maybe you will decide to send to him.

Also , you may find that blowing your S8 to 35mm is a better solution. For example you could shoot S8 color negative - have it transfered to HD - or 2K - then have it printed on an Arri Laser.

I recently saw a stunning 35mm show print that originated from black and white Super 8 that was done this way.

web:

http://www.branduponthebrain.com/

Steve