Paying pro gigs in super 8

Marty Hamrick · February 25, 2005

I have a few super 8 cameras sitting in one of my drawers in my bedroom.From time to time I'll play around with them and I hear some folks mention music videos and such gigs in s-8.I'm curious to know who is out there shooting paying gis in super 8 besides the people who are shooting segments of features such as David Mullen's excellent work in Twin Falls Idaho.

So who's got paying gis in super 8?Back in the late 70's and early 80's I shot a couple of commercials and industrials in super 8.That market for s-8 is long gone.

Alessandro Machi · February 25, 2005

So who's got paying gis in super 8?Back in the late 70's and early 80's I shot a couple of commercials and industrials in super 8. That market for s-8 is long gone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's important to understand why that market has evaporated. The market has shrunk because most hungry businesses want what they want immediately. However, not every job has to be done instantly, it just turns into an immediate want because most businesses want to instantly get a return on their investment.

If a business can turn around a marketing idea in 7 days with HD for X amount of money, or turn it around in 30 days for 1/2 X with film, which would the business choose? Many times having the idea turned into reality in 7 days (or less!) matters more than saving money by taking a month.

Am I saying that film can save money over video? I think it's possible that a streamlined film project can cost less than an HD project where the lure of the endless supply of tape causes production excesses to occur, especially among newbie clients and newbie HD crews. Newbie HD crews can cause budgets to explode and experienced HD crews who have already been through the HD ringer can charge a premium because they've already been through the bleeding edge and have a huge edge over their less experienced counterparts.

What if the costs are the same between film and HD, but it takes longer to shoot with film?

Another hidden issue is that any company funding spent for marketing or education is internally fought over by various departments within the company. HOW the money is spent is a bigtime battle within the corporation. This too puts additional pressure on how quickly a return is achieved. Whatever department gets to spend the money has other departments watching over them to see if they have failed by taking too long to get their goal achieved. The longer it takes for a specific project to get done by the winning department, the more susceptible to attacks from other departments within the company they are.

The conclusion is that film can be a cool idea for mom and pop shops that don't need a result instantly, and for very high end companies that can just hire the best people who have a proven track record to get the job done. Most up and coming companies want to dive into the latest technology because in many instances their business may have some type of relationship to it.

It's the newbie filmmaker that has the hardest road to hoe, and that's the person that Kodak has to try harder and harder with each passing year to help.

Patrick Neary · February 25, 2005

Hi-

I have shot a few low-end music videos in Super8, mainly because the director wanted that gritty look.

I've tried to hawk Super8 to other folks I shoot corporate and commercial stuff for, but it's a hard or impossible sell.

In corporate-land, you don't often have time for the processing and telecine, and the producer can usually do a "super8" effect in post much faster/easier/cheaper, and considering the audience for most corporate vids (poor saps) no-one would appreciate real super-8 anyway. In commercial-land, well now you're talking about clients and creatives all hanging around watching the shoot, and people tend to get nervous about super-8 as a production medium for their $$$ spots!

Marty Hamrick · February 25, 2005

If a business can turn around a marketing idea in 7 days with HD for X amount of money, or turn it around in 30 days for 1/2 X with film, which would the business choose? Many times having the idea turned into reality in 7 days (or less!) matters more than saving money by taking a month.

Am I saying that film can save money over video? I think it's possible that a streamlined film project can cost less than an HD project where the lure of the endless supply of tape causes production excesses to occur, especially among newbie clients and newbie HD crews. Newbie HD crews can cause budgets to

The conclusion is that film can be a cool idea for mom and pop shops that don't need a result instantly, and for very high end companies that can just hire the best people who have a proven track record to get the job done. Most up and coming companies want to dive into the latest technology because in many instances their business may have some type of relationship to it.

It's the newbie filmmaker that has the hardest road to hoe, and that's the person that Kodak has to try harder and harder with each passing year to help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting,although I don't see the corporate world jumping on the super 8 bandwagon any time soon.It would take some intrepid,cutting edge marketing to get the format taken seriously.You would have to show that the profit would be higher because of the film image being superior and selling whatever it is the film project was selling.

I could see someone making a name for themselves shooting specialty commercials in super 8 by establishing themselves with a signature image,but still that would be such a specialized look I can't see enough business to support a super 8 production company.

Who knows?I've often thought the way for a mom and pop business to survive is to carve a specialty niche that is not cost effective for the larger companies to mess with.

Patrick Neary · February 26, 2005

There was a run of "cutting edge" super-8 commercials more than a few years ago, Nike specifically, along with a bunch of others.

The notion that super-8 is a superior imaging medium just because it's film doesn't really fly. It's a special effect, something you use for a distinctive look, not as a general-purpose production medium. I can't imagine shooting anything that is supposed to say "quality" on jumpy, grainy, dirty super-8.

Alessandro Machi · February 26, 2005

Yeah, I couldn't see any company being exclusively super-8 (although I have heard of one company in California that does a lot of Super-8 stuff), the idea is it's a small part of a much bigger pallette of video options.

A wedding videographer recently asked me about Super-8. He wanted to be able to keep a Super-8 camera on his hip and actually grab shots during the pre-wedding events. That's how Super-8 can end up on somebody's price sheet, a special premium item that can give a company a slightly different edge to all the other companies that don't shoot film.

The day somebody proclaims film officially dead will be about a week before many start missing the option of being different from what everyone else is doing.

February 26, 2005

I just shot some super 8mm and was incredibly surprised by the turnaround.

From the day it left my hands, it took about 72 to make it from Vancouver to Seattle and then down to Atlants for telecine and back to me.

that's a three day turnaround with internation shipping!

So much for the time theory.

February 26, 2005

I just shot some super 8mm and was incredibly surprised by the turnaround.

From the day it left my hands, it took about 72 to make it from Vancouver to Seattle and then down to Atlants for telecine and back to me.

that's a three day turnaround with internation shipping!

So much for the time theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that was 72 hours....literally 3 days.

Sorry

Marty Hamrick · March 1, 2005

There was a run of "cutting edge" super-8 commercials more than a few years ago, Nike specifically, along with a bunch of others.

The notion that super-8 is a superior imaging medium just because it's film doesn't really fly. It's a special effect, something you use for a distinctive look, not as a general-purpose production medium. I can't imagine shooting anything that is supposed to say "quality" on jumpy, grainy, dirty super-8.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree it's a signature look.Music videos,insert scenes in features and TV shows but recently I saw some Pro 8mm negative transfered via Rank and it looked anything but grainy,dirty or jumpy.

I would also prefer it to something DV originated if it's something narrative.I've been less than impressed with the DV originated features I've seen.

Patrick Neary · March 1, 2005

oh absolutely- despite the technical, er-shortcomings- of Neil Young's Greendale, there were shots in there that just looked like an incredible impressionist painting. I'd love to know what his post-route was, going from 18fps super-8 to 35mm print!

Also, I thought I read somewhere (uh, oh, another "factual error" found on the internet!) that Jim Jarmusch's "Coffee and Cigarettes" had at least portions shot on super-8, and that whole film looked fabulous.

Maybe somebody knows with more certainty about that one...

I have done super8 (transferred up at Flying Spot) that did look very nice, even 16mm-ish, but I was referring more to a situation where a client (especially a media-savvy one) is expecting REALLY clean 16mm or 35mm or Digibeta type look, and gets super-8, there's going to be hell to pay...

March 3, 2005

Could you give the details on who did your developing and telecine [seattle and Atlanta]? I'd be interested in trying them out. Do they [seattle] send it to Atlanta for you? Thanks.