Super 8 with Sound Question

[Bruce Taylor]

Will has it knocked.

 

I used to shoot S8 sound carts back in the early 80's, and while they were passable at the time, that time has passed! Poor sound quality (wow and flutter, limited dynamic range, high noise), the sound 18 frames in front of the picture, etc. Everytime you did a mix you'd move a generation from the source and lose quality.

 

The old cassette recorders were not so hot, especially when compared to digital recorders you can get for a couple of hundred dollars today. Record double system digital sound (slide it around in post as needed) and you'll be way ahead. Make a barney for your noisy S8 camera (my Canon 1014xls was pretty quiet, but it still needed a barney). I had forgotten about the camcorder trick until I read Will's post, it works great-- especially if it has an external mic input and you plug in a decent mic. Pretty good digital sound, and you probably already have the recorder. Also, don't forget about the possibility of dialog replacement in post, it's not that hard and you'll get the cleanest dialog recording.

 

Good luck and have fun.

[Alessandro Malfatti]

Gentlemen, this is leading nowhere. On one side we're getting side-tracked by silly discussions about the suggestion of depending on scavenging expired sound stock. Yes, there was a time when people didn't use telecine to finish their films, it was also a time when the necessary technology was more readily available, btw a technology that barely ever existed for super8. To shoot super8 with sound nowadays there is no other viable option than either telecine, or designing your own workflow, within which however you could not depend on outside sources for what isn't film stock, processing or striping.

To add to the suggestion of doing the digital-sound double system, which has recently worked out for me as well, you can do it in a more rudimentary way, by first recording the sound separately, getting the film developed, editing it, having it shipped to andec for mag striping, and then finally recording the sound onto the cut film by means of a projector with a recording option. It's certainly doable, but the very idea seems like a huge pain in the ass, just putting it out there. As for me I'd say go for the suggestion of digital sound, telecine and syncing it in post, I think you can even get an HD telecine nowdays, that way you'd minimize the loss of quality as well.

[david savetsky]

To Will,Bruce,and Allesandro,

It seems that needles is lost in cyberspace.I understand where you are coming from but would like to know what drives you to shoot in film and avoid the video camera while producing dvds or digital end products

[Alessandro Malfatti]

To Will,Bruce,and Allesandro,

It seems that needles is lost in cyberspace.I understand where you are coming from but would like to know what drives you to shoot in film and avoid the video camera while producing dvds or digital end products

 

The distinctive look of film originates when the original action is captured not by a chip but by the emulsion of the film. Once you have this original camera negative/positive, you have a physical representation that once copied to a digital medium would achieve a satisfactory digital representation of the original physical representation's appearance. Were the original action captured on video and then printed onto film, in an attempt to recreate the film-look, for example, this would only result in a filmed video, unlike the other way around.

 

I'll explain Schematically:

 

-Original action

*Film creates image X off it.

*Video creates image Y off it.

--Image X (film)

*Telecine yields video of image X.

--Image Y (video)

*Kinescope yields film of image Y.

 

What does this tell us? As long as the original source medium is film, the end result will look like film, because it's there where this look originates, and it's that look I want when I shoot film (because, video looks like... well, video), whether I edit it analogically or digitally, the end result will look like (but not be, as it would only if I shot reversal and then edited and viewed that) the filmed action.

The End.

[Will Montgomery]

To Will,Bruce,and Allesandro,

It seems that needles is lost in cyberspace.I understand where you are coming from but would like to know what drives you to shoot in film and avoid the video camera while producing dvds or digital end products

If you're asking why I shoot film instead of video the answer is that I shoot both. I love the unique look of Super 8 and Regular 8mm AND I love the sharp, high end look of Super 16mm and 35mm. But right now I'm shooting more with a Canon 5DmkII than anything else... at least professionally. For my own recreation I'm shooting more Regular 8mm for a "home movie" look and 16mm with a Scoopic MS when it's more important.

 

Just try shooting some Super 8, take it through the entire process so you understand the costs and the results and make your own decision as to whether or not it's worth it. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. A little super 8 thrown into a wedding video can look amazing. Shoot a bride on Tri-X or Double X b&w 16mm and you'll have something amazing. BUT, you have to try it and understand it.

[Patrick Cooper]

Ive read of the advice of using a MiniDv camcorder to record sound before. Though I definitely wouldn't recommend my MiniDv camera for audio recording. It makes this sound sort of like that annoying humming sound you get with a lot of tape recorders. Perhaps my MiniDv cam is the exception. I also have an older analogue SVHS-C video camera with manual overide. I haven't used it in a while but I don't recall any humming sound coming from that with audio recordings. Perhaps I'll use the SVHS-C cam for recording clean sound for a project I'm currently working on.

[Alessandro Malfatti]

Here's a short experimental film I made to try out synching up sound with a non-crystal camera. I'll admit the image is pretty crap, light was too low and compression doesn't help. However the very first take is over a minute long, add to that the slate which you don't see, and it holds up synch pretty well except maybe for the very last seconds. I shot this with a Nizo 156 Macro at 24fps, and recorded the sound with one of those little digital recorders, and a crappy 5$ mic you can see taped to the table. You can also hear the camera rattling because I didn't care to blimp it. When synching up I only had to adjust the speed of one take with beginning and end slate, and apply that speed adjustment to the rest of the takes, worked like a charm. you can clearly see the lips synched up in the close shots.

 

 

http://vimeo.com/12502405

[Art Leal]

Here's a short experimental film I made to try out synching up sound with a non-crystal camera.

 

That worked well. Very good sync. Loved the clip...LOL! The State of Fruits (and the Economy).

[Art Leal]

Here's a roll of Kodachrome 40 Sound film I shot over the Memorial Day weekend using an Elmo FS-20XL sound camera and an external Rode microphone I plugged into it. It was more work than I cared for when transferring and doesn't sound as good as the method Alessandro used. In retrospect using an external audio device would be easier since I would not have had to get the sound projector involved in the process. It was a lot more fun just seeing/hearing it projected. Don't think I'd be inclined to do this again unless I'd get some newer K40 sound film. Would have loved to have seen better colors on this.

 

[Alessandro Malfatti]

doesn't sound as good as the method Alessandro used.

 

Oh, but the romance of an actual super8 sound film, and not a digital recording synched to the film. Too bad I was born too late to get to experience it.

 

And it doesn't even sound that bad, it's definitely above your average 16mm optical track...