Why Super 8?

[Marco Leavitt]

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck or anything, but since film and developing are a far greater expense than camera equipment, why would anyone shoot Super 8 over 16mm, let alone Super 16 or Ultra 16? The cost of 16mm film and developing is only slightly more than 8 mm.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The reasons are:

 

1) There was a time when it cost about half as much to shoot Super 8 than 16mm. If you shoot Kodachrome 40 (at arond $13 a cartridge) and get processing via the PK-59 mailer (I think it comes out to about $7 a roll with postage), the price of $20 is less than shooting color 16mm and getting it processed today. Even with the old 16mm Ektachromes, the processing was about $18 a roll, film new from Kodak was about $25 a roll (although short ends of VNF-1 Ektachrome were cheap as all hell and fairly abundant, I used to pick up some pretty long ends for $0.05 a foot).

 

If we compare it to 16mm color negative, getting a positive print made and directly projecting that versus the K-40 combo it's certainly still cheaper to go S8 K-40. But that's not exactly apples with apples though. Super 8 color negative is more expensive to shoot (and nobody offers film dailies on that). This is where Super 8 gets expensive. Also, you used to be able to get the old Ektachrome 160 processed via the PK-59 mailer, this was no longer true for the VNF-1 chrome - I've seen prices as high as $20 a cartridge for processing. B&W Super 8 reversal versus B&W 16mm reversal Super 8 still comes out ahead, but not by THAT much (maybe by like $10 a roll).

 

2) People may already own Super 8 equipment and just want to get their feet wet. Getting 16mm equipment is an additional investment they may want to avoid.

 

3) People want the look. Jim Jarmusch or Oliver Stone aren't going to be shooting it to save money, that's for sure :) This is the community that "Pro8mm" is targeted at.

 

The whole K-40 Super 8 experience is cool, everyone should do it once just for fun. It's nice to see film images on a screen in your basement. But I can't imagine shooting an entire feature or even a significant short with an asa 40 filmstock, and dealing with its high contrast to top it off. It would drive me insane (I know, all the people who shot ECO are about to call me a spoiled wuss). Then there's the editing issue and integrating it either into video (which requires finding a Rank S8 gate, something which incurs extra setup and rental charges, which also probably makes it much harder to get a break on price), and/or getting it blown up to a format that you can put a soundtrack on (16mm, 35mm).

 

Kodak does a lot to keep Super 8 alive (I imagine the processing of K-40 film may even come to a loss for them at this point), it's an excellent way to get into shooting film. But when it comes to labs and transfer houses they don't seem to share Kodak's enthusiasm for pushing the format.

 

- G.

Edited December 12, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Alessandro Machi]

The super-8 cameras are much cooler than Super-16 with way more built in filming options and if I had a 24 hour day to shoot (and no crew) I'd run rings around anyone with a 16mm camera (and no crew), except for those who have learned the art of converting their 16mm camera into a Super-8 camera in the 16mm format.

 

The reason 16mm and 35mm are overall better choices is because the filming media is a collaborative format and when you begin to add in production value that a variety of professionals bring to the table, such as good actors, good script, hair, make-up, costuming, special effects make-up, props, set design, set location, AD, camera assistants, Gaffers, Grips, PA's & sound recording, crafts services and of course lighting, it's generally not be wise to shoot it in Super-8 compared to shooting on 16mm or 35mm unless Super-8 will be used to meet a desired look or feel, and usually it's not just Super-8 that is being shot.

 

Generally, nobody pays guerilla Super-8 filmmakers to just whip something up UNLESS they know the person from previous experiences AND nobody pays for guerilla Super-8 filmmaking because the financer can't really take credit for the project in the same manner they can walk onto a 16mm or 35mm "set" and be the cheese and the ego that made the project happen. When money changes hands, and script specifications and agreements have been legalized and formalized, Super-8 would not be the format of choice in most instances to people who want the public adulation for creating a film project.

 

The interest is not there to create in Super-8 because most people who make film productions happen do it so they can take full credit for the spending of lots of money in a hopefully profitable manner because that is how they want to make their living in the future.

 

I think my experience in video production and editing over the last ten years would make it easier for me to create a sellable project in Super-8 then somebody just starting out, but I would have to shut down my business to do that and that is not something that would be a wise move. The people best suited to do a good job with the medium of Super-8 tend to also be people with other committments.

 

There are a few DP's that actually derive a living from Shooting in Super-8, but they do not shoot exclusively in Super-8.

[Anthony Schilling]

Right.. I shoot Super 8 because i'm paying for it. shooting it where ever, how ever and when ever i want. I'm just starting to get into 16mm, just out for curiosity and fun.. and with my calculations so far, it will be 3 times more expensive to shoot 16mm then the same amount of running time in S8. 10 minutes of reversal, telecine not included reads like this.. K-40 S8: 4 carts processed at Dwayne's= $80 roughly. 100D 16mm: 400ft of stock and processing at $.25 per foot= $240. If i ever get paid, or expect a big return.. I'd do it with 16mm. Super 8 is cheaper, its good experience, and a lot of fun.

[Alessandro Machi]

Fun is the key word.

 

Sometimes I think others are afraid to pay super-8 filmmakers to gather images simply because they know it will be fun for the super-8 filmmaker and this is business, dammit!

[Marco Leavitt]

Thanks everyone. I guess K-40 is fairly inexpensive if you just want to project the film yourself. In saying the costs were similar I was thinking of negative stocks and the cost of developing and telecine. I also didn't factor in that you probably would need a lot more feet of film with 16mm for the equivalent running time. We just acquired a lot of Super 8 equipment to get our feet wet, but we'll almost certainly go to 16mm when we're ready to shoot a feature.

Edited December 13, 2004 by Marco Leavitt

[jasarsenault]

Super 8 is fun.

 

Jason

[Alessandro Machi]

Thanks everyone. I guess K-40 is fairly inexpensive if you just want to project the film yourself. In saying the costs were similar I was thinking of negative stocks and the cost of developing and telecine. I also didn't factor in that you probably would need a lot more feet of film for the equivalent running time. We just acquired a lot of Super 8 equipment to get our feet wet, but we'll almost certainly go to 16 mm when we're ready to shoot a feature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If your movie is going straight to Video and a film print won't be made and you can get the primary focal point of a shot (lets say the actor's face) to be the same size in the super-8 frame as it would have been on 16mm, the actual quality might intercut, so you might find use for the Super-8 as a B camera for doing insert shots, POV, telephoto or shots up close and wide with big objects near the lens (versus a wide shot of many small or distant objects).

 

Of course a lot of this depends on who does your telecine transfer and if their transfers are overly grainy or not.

[Matt Pacini]

The simple answer is, it has the film look, but it's really cheap.

 

Not as cheap as DV, but much better looking.

And it's fun to shoot, and a really good way for one to learn to shoot film.

 

Once you move into neg stock however, I think it makes less sense, since it's not much cheaper than 16mm at that point.

I shoot only on K-40.

If they could get the price down to K-40 levels, I'd probably shoot some neg stock in S8.

 

Matt Pacini

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The super-8 cameras are much cooler than Super-16 with way more built in filming options and if I had a 24 hour day to shoot (and no crew) I'd run rings around anyone with a 16mm camera (and no crew), except for those who have learned the art of converting their 16mm camera into a Super-8 camera in the 16mm format.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Way more built in filming options? Like what?

 

My Nizo S40 didn't have any fewer options than my Bolex. As a matter of fact with my Bolex I can rewind the film, there are more variable speeds, there's a feet AND frames counter, I can attach a sync motor to it, I can put behind the lens filters in it, I can use different lenses with it, etc. The only camera to match in flexibility is a Bolex DS-8.

 

That's like saying that DV saves you time - baloney, it takes MORE time because of the limitations of the format, you have to have a different lighting strategy. Super 8 also requires more light (40 asa is pretty slow), and more fill (at least for the Kodachrome reversal).

 

You're certainly not going to run circles around anyone unless you want to get crappy images. Yeah, you don't have to "spend time" focusing autofocus cameras (or using cameras with fixed focus lenses), you don't have to "spend time" setting the exposure on cameras with an auto electric eye, but any serious DP is going to go through that trouble before every shot because otherwise there's no control over what you're going to get! The only place where a Super 8 camera saves time is in reloading. Pop the cartridge in and out. Yet cartridge design is by its nature inferior, you're not using a real pressure plate which isn't going to give you such steady images. So there's something to be said about manual threading designs, too.

 

One of the features that was nice on Super 8 cameras was the ability to record sound on film, but first of all the sound cartridges were expensive, the sound still sucked (better than 16mm optical though!), and what are you going to do when it comes time for editing? The same problem with Super 8 all the time. Post production - whadda ya do with it now?

 

I have a GAF Super 8 sound camera, and it's cool (I always had a big love of home movie cameras), but the damn thing only shoots at 18fps. If I wanted to use it for something that means I'm stuck with that speed, I'd have to live with that look and resolve it to video, or to a print.

 

I still have 3 sound K40 sound cartridges sitting in my freezer but I don't know what to do with them. If I sold them I'd probably make enough to buy myself a 35mm Konvas at this point ;)

 

- G.

Edited December 14, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[GeorgeSelinsky]

and you can get the primary focal point of a shot (lets say the actor's face) to be the same size in the super-8 frame as it would have been on 16mm, the actual quality might intercut, so you might find use for the Super-8 as a B camera for doing insert shots, POV, telephoto or shots up close and wide with big objects near the lens

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You'd have to use a pretty slow Super 8 stock and a high speed 16mm stock, and even then the lack of Super 8's sharpness is going to be visible. The telecine guy would have to knock down the sharpness on the 16mm and pump up the grain to get it to match. You'd have to do this on negative stock, mixing reversal and negative would not work in this case because you have two different contrasts and color reproductions to deal with - if you wanted the colorist to match that you'd have to wait even longer. The amount of time you'd spend doing this in the expensive supervised telecine suite (which charges hourly) would certainly make this not a worthwhile exercise. If you need a "b camera" it's a much better idea to get a K-3 off Ebay than try to mix and match two different film formats.

 

The only way you can get the 16mm image to match the Super 8 image in grain and sharpness is if the colorist were to optically zoom into the 16mm image on the telecine to get the framesize of Super 8. That, once again, would be a pretty inefficient way of working.

 

- G.

Edited December 14, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[S8 Booster]

Actually with the right gear & knowledge the S8 will look better than PRO 16mm gear with K40.

 

Read a "shock" story from the real world: Super8 K40 vs 16mm K40 please help.

 

R

Edited December 15, 2004 by S8 Booster

[Alessandro Machi]

Way more built in filming options? Like what?

 

My Nizo S40 didn't have any fewer options than my Bolex. As a matter of fact with my Bolex I can rewind the film, there are more variable speeds, there's a feet AND frames counter, I can attach a sync motor to it, I can put behind the lens filters in it, I can use different lenses with it, etc. The only camera to match in flexibility is a Bolex DS-8. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A Nizo S40 is one of the plainer Super-8 cameras that Nizo made (no offense meant). It's probably more like a 16mm camera in terms of capabilities, or as you noted, it even has less capabilities.

 

I've attached a digital frame counter to my camera, it was very inexpensive.

 

I don't want to rewind my film because that means double exposure, which I'd much rather do in a post editing environment.

 

I can shoot time-lapse anywhere from 2 minutes a frame down to 4-5 frames per second and vary the shutter speeds, while in the time-lapse mode. (rather than be stuck with a too slow shutter in certain time-lapse situations).

 

Different filming speeds including 9, 18, 24, 45. (and of course the 0-4 FPS as well). These speeds are instantly variable and I can go between any two speeds in an instant, literally in a tenth of a second.

 

Time exposure function with both automatic or manual exposure override from one frame every two minutes up to 4-5 frames per second. Full time Viewable viewfinder and accurately framed image while in the time-exposure and time-lapse mode. Automatic exposure when necessary, plus one f-stop automatic exposure when necessary, completely scaleable manual exposure function. Crisp 8-1 zoom lens with focusing capabilities down to 3.3 feet, even in telephoto mode. 3x wide angle exposure attachment in the macro mode AND the ability to put filtration behind the wide angle lens without vignetting.

 

That's like saying that DV saves you time - baloney, it takes MORE time because of the limitations of the format, you have to have a different lighting strategy. Super 8 also requires more light (40 asa is pretty slow), and more fill (at least for the Kodachrome reversal). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not the DV format, it's the incorrectly set lower end video cameras that increase gamma contrast instead of decreasing it. An inane procedure put in practice almost a decade ago and still in use by the camera manufacturers.

 

You're certainly not going to run circles around anyone unless you want to get crappy images. Yeah, you don't have to "spend time" focusing autofocus cameras (or using cameras with fixed focus lenses), you don't have to "spend time" setting the exposure on cameras with an auto electric eye, but any serious DP is going to go through that trouble before every shot because otherwise there's no control over what you're going to get! The only place where a Super 8 camera saves time is in reloading. Pop the cartridge in and out. Yet cartridge design is by its nature inferior, you're not using a real pressure plate which isn't going to give you such steady images. So there's something to be said about manual threading designs, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The steadiness issue revolves greatly around using rank cintel transfer systems with digital servos. Film cartridge issues appear to have been resolved. Click on my signature link and see if the images I have shot with my super-8 camera are crappy.

 

One of the features that was nice on Super 8 cameras was the ability to record sound on film, but first of all the sound cartridges were expensive, the sound still sucked (better than 16mm optical though!), and what are you going to do when it comes time for editing? The same problem with Super 8 all the time. Post production - whadda ya do with it now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Super-8 for my purposes is edited on video. With Digital intermediates Super-8 can actually make sense in more types of shooting situations, especially as "B-roll"/insert shots, hand held shots as in Lord of the Rings (there must be a least 200 indescernible "action" shots during the battles, hey, maybe they did use Super-8 for some of those!)

 

I have a GAF Super 8 sound camera, and it's cool (I always had a big love of home movie cameras), but the damn thing only shoots at 18fps. If I wanted to use it for something that means I'm stuck with that speed, I'd have to live with that look and resolve it to video, or to a print. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You should own a Canon 814XLS and a Nizo 801 before panning the format.

 

I still have 3 sound K40 sound cartridges sitting in my freezer but I don't know what to do with them. If I sold them I'd probably make enough to buy myself a 35mm Konvas at this point ;)

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just be careful for super-8 fanatics posing as refrigerator repair people offering a free inspection.

[Matt Pacini]

Actually with the right gear & knowledge the S8 will look better than PRO 16mm gear with K40.

 

Read a "shock" story from the real world: Super8 K40 vs 16mm K40 please help.

 

R

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry, that post above is just sillyness.

He doesn't even mention how he's looking at it.

Is he holding the frames up to a light bulb?

He says "just got my rolls back today", meaning he didn't have it telecine'd, and obviously all other things are not equal.

He could have been shooting with bad, scratched lenses, etc.

 

I'm a big S8 fan, but I can tell you, under no circumstances is it even close to equal to 16mm stock, unless somebody is using inferior equipment, got a bad transfer, etc.

 

Matt Pacini

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I can shoot time-lapse anywhere from 2 minutes a frame down to 4-5 frames per second and vary the shutter speeds, while in the time-lapse mode. (rather than be stuck with a too slow shutter in certain time-lapse situations).

 

Different filming speeds including 9, 18, 24, 45. (and of course the 0-4 FPS as well).  These speeds are instantly variable and I can go between any two speeds in an instant, literally in a tenth of a second.

 

Time exposure function with both automatic or manual exposure override from one frame every two minutes up to 4-5 frames per second.  Full time Viewable viewfinder and accurately framed image while in the time-exposure and time-lapse mode.  Automatic exposure when necessary, plus one f-stop automatic exposure when necessary, completely scaleable manual exposure function.  Crisp 8-1 zoom lens with focusing capabilities down to 3.3 feet, even in telephoto mode. 3x wide angle exposure attachment in the macro mode AND the ability to put filtration behind the wide angle lens without vignetting.

 

All of these things pertain to time lapse pretty much. That's not what most people use film cameras for.

 

And I can also switch speeds on my Bolex in an instant's notice, only I'm sure as with your camera it doesn't adjust the shutter (maybe it does adjust the iris) as you do the change. That's not something I find myself doing a lot of anyway.

 

As for the rest of these features, there's a company out there that makes some pretty flexible time lapse motors for 16mm and 35mm cameras. There is also the Bolex POE zoom lense that has an auto electric eye on it if you need that capability. There are macro rings for close focus (I can go down to 1 foot with most of my primes). Btw, most wide angle attachments are cokebottles unless you get the $1000 ones.

 

It's not the DV format, it's the incorrectly set lower end video cameras that increase gamma contrast instead of decreasing it.  An inane procedure put in practice almost a decade ago and still in use by the camera manufacturers.

 

Even if you reset the video gamma, the dynamic range of video still is poorer, so you have to use more fill light, and be very wary of burning out your highlights. Only the most expensive DV cameras have a decent range (and even that is no match for film, and it still requires more work).

 

The steadiness issue revolves greatly around using rank cintel transfer systems with digital servos.  Film cartridge issues appear to have been resolved.  Click on my signature link and see if the images I have shot with my super-8 camera are crappy.

 

There's one guy who came out with a gate that he's selling for Super 8 cartridges which is supposed to improve registration and take out weave.

 

Super-8 for my purposes is edited on video.  With Digital intermediates Super-8 can actually make sense in more types of shooting situations, especially as "B-roll"/insert shots, hand held shots as in Lord of the Rings (there must be a least 200 indescernible "action" shots during the battles, hey, maybe they did use Super-8 for some of those!)

 

The price of doing digital intermediate on Super 8 or even optical work is not cheap at all.

 

You should own a Canon 814XLS and a Nizo 801 before panning the format.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not panning the format at all. I actually have shot quite a bit of Super 8 back when I was starting out, so I'm quite familiar with the format.

 

You still, in my opinion, haven't convinced me that a Super 8 camera is more "feature packed" for normal live action filming than a 16mm camera. If you gave me a choice between the Arri S or even a Bell and Howell Filmo and the most advanced Super 8 camera on the planet, I'd take the 16mm camera hands down. In the overwhelming majority of cases I'd choose format over ergomonics. Only in the case of a documentary would I possibly want to consider this otherwise.

 

As for that post that argues that S8 can look better than 16mm, I'd say that person simply doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't provided enough information either way.

 

- G.

Edited December 16, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Riku Naskali]

signature link and see if the images I have shot with my super-8 camera are crappy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you post full frame stills? The small ones I saw on your page seemed like a standard super8, nothing groundbreaking, sorry :huh:

[Matt Wells]

Super8 is what it is - I love it because it is fun to use and the quality and distinctive look are what I want sometimes.

 

The question should not be EITHER 16mm OR Super8 - the choice is sometimes economic and sometimes (probably most of the time) artistic.

 

It is also the simplest and quickest way of shooting motion picture film - I have shot super8 where 16mm gear would have been very impractical - eg whilst snowboarding with the camera hanging from my neck.

 

Often in these debates people forget of the ease of loading and compactness of super8 equipment.

 

The format has its place, and in terms of quality it can be excellent, but 16mm will always show more detail and greater clarity because the negative is so much larger.

 

It just depends what you want.

 

Super8 cut with DV can give an excellent effect.

 

Matt

[GeorgeSelinsky]

It is also the simplest and quickest way of shooting motion picture film - I have shot super8 where 16mm gear would have been very impractical - eg whilst snowboarding with the camera hanging from my neck.

 

Often in these debates people forget of the ease of loading and compactness of super8 equipment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, compactness is of course great when you're on a crew of one, filming documentary style outdoors with plenty of light. Even then, an H-16 Bolex isn't that much more large and unportable, I've shoved my Bolex together with boxes of film into a fairly small briefcase before, even fit the electric motor and battery, too.

 

If you're shooting Kodachrome 40 you need more fill light if you want nice images, and you need more light period. Those two things are minuses, and they will take up more of your time.

 

If you're shooting modern color negative that problem can be abated, but again, the faster the speed the larger the grains (and at this point Super 8 starts costing the same as 16mm, even more). There's a tradeoff for everything.

 

Honestly, you can even take a 35mm Eyemo to the slopes with you if you want - it's certainly been done before. So long as you're willing to live with 1 minute loads versus 2:20, the latter which you can also get if you use 16mm, you'll be fine. For 16mm you can also use the compact B&H 50' magazine cameras if you really need ultra small size (although loading those cassettes is a pain from what I hear)

 

Super 8 can be a lot of fun, I had my fun with it way back when I was starting. It's a novel format. But unfortunately due to the economics of this world the price/performance ratio isn't as good as with 16mm.

 

Theoretically if we are to look at it, since with Super 8 you are using a little under 1/3rd the same amount of physical filmstock as you are with 16mm, it should cost about 1/3rd the price. Every minute of Super 8 uses less than 1/3rd the silver, gelatin, and acetate of every minute of 16mm. If you sat in your basement and developed the film yourself, you'd discover that for each minute of Super 8 film you use up 1/3rd the chemistry that you'd use for the equivalent amount in 16mm.

 

But if you look at lab rates you'll find that they don't agree with that attitude. I've seen prices of up to $20 to process 50ft of VNF-1 Super 8. For that same price I could have gotten 100ft of VNF-1 16mm developed. The higher up the format ladder you go, the more the price/performance ratio betters. The ONLY exception I can think of is 35mm Ektachrome, the price of stock and processing of which is VERY incongruous to the usual 16mm/35mm ratio. It's a shame because I was really thinking about shooting my next feature on 35mm Ektachrome. The only way I could concievably do it now is if I went Techniscope.

 

- G.

[Nate Downes]

I shoot both 16mm and Super8 because, frankly, I enjoy it. Super8 just gives me another paintbrush to work with, in the end.

 

There is still the advantage to buying a dozen Super8 cams at a flea market for the same price as a Filmo tho.

[Alessandro Machi]

You still, in my opinion, haven't convinced me that a Super 8 camera is more "feature packed" for normal live action filming than a 16mm camera.

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For Normal Live Action Filming a 16mm camera offers generally what is needed.

 

I'm talking about being a filmmaker and going out and creating images and imagery. The term "Live Action Filmmaking" denotes a specific type of filmmaking and in most situations I would be comfortable with the features found on a 16mm camera to do that type of filmmaking.

 

Time-exposure, time-lapse, multiple filming speeds, multiple shutter settings, instant interchangeability of filming effects, three exposure options, those features are not commonly found on any 16mm or 35mm camera.

 

The type of filmmaking I am talking about will be reintroduced on bigger budget productions later on in one's careers. I hope most filmmakers take the time to learn them on the Super-8 format, I suspect many filmmakers never really get to the core of what they can learn from the Super-8 format because of their own pre-determned biases.

[steve hyde]

S8 will never look better than 16 -- but I'd say Kodaks Vision 2 stocks , which are now available in S8 carts can be closely matched to 16 of the same stock at the time of transfer as long as the photographer takes the limits of S8 into consideration. eg. wide shots have a tendency to get blown out. Close up - carefully lit shots will look a lot like 16mm with nice grain. the neg stocks yeild a much different look than K40

 

S8 is still a highly mobile format. I'm using it for mountain climbing.

 

In tems of K40: I recently bought several carts of K40 at a student rate from Kodak at $11.40 - that includes processing with the mailer....

 

Hope this helps, have fun.

 

Steve

[Riku Naskali]

In tems of K40: I recently bought several carts of K40 at a student rate from Kodak at $11.40 - that includes processing with the mailer....

I wish I'd get K40 that cheap! We don't get student discounts from Kodak here at Finland anymore. They have some really strange policies locally...

[Alessandro Machi]

Can you get 20% off if you buy 5 or more cartridges of the same emulsion?

[Riku Naskali]

Can you get 20% off if you buy 5 or more cartridges of the same emulsion?

Can't get anything off when buying direct from Kodak. However I get a lot more better deals when buying from resellers...

[Michael Ahumada]

I've been using the Super-8 format for the past 12 years and even made a 43 min. short film as a student at a junior college. (shot back in 1995) Check out my .mac site I'm working on. It will give you an idea of what I've done with the format. Any advice or questions would be apprecitated. Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/michaelsfilms/Menu1.html