Chris Burke

Several questions back to you: How long is the finished film going to be? Give me a ball park length. Are you renting or buying your sound equipment? If renting, rent a digital recorder, compact flash, hard drive or what ever. You can import that audio very easily into your computer. With the use of a slate (be sure to do head and tail slates at each take) you can very easily sync up your audio. It will take some time and is a big headache. But don't loose heart. If you are buying a recorder, what is your budget? You can spend a grand on the Tascam HD-P2, this is a good price compared to DAT. It records to compact flash and has timecode, XLR in and out, digital in and out, basically, the best of all worlds. If you can't afford that, go for the Sony Hi MD, I guess they sound pretty good and can upload to a computer very easily as well, so no generational loss. With the sony you want to use a Beach Box so you can connect XLR inputs to a mini jack. Now back to my first question about length. this is the most important part. How long are your pieces of dialogue? If really short and infrequent, you can very easily get away with out a sync camera. If on the other hand your film is dialogue driven or even has a normal amount of dialogue like most films, then with a non sync camera, you are going to have such a laborious time syncing everything up in post that you may loose your mind. What kind of camera are you shooting with? Most better Super 8 cameras ie; Beaulieu, Nizo , Canon etc.. can be made into a sync camera for about $500 US. Sticker shock just hit you, huh? Welcome to filmmaking, a very expensive art form. In the grand scheme of filmmaking, 500 isn't that much, believe it or not. Now given the fact that it can very well take you weeks of work, loads of screaming at the monitor and a massive helping of chaos and misery when you try to sync an entire film form wild sound, $500 spent on getting the camera made sync, doesn't sound that bad. This step, if there is any way you can do it, will save you and your film in the end. I have tried the wild sound sync method, and although it can be done, it is not worth all the work and frustration. Spend the money, or rent a camera that is sync! I can't stress this enough. Another bit of advice is, get your camera overhauled. It can be done at the same time they are making the crystal mod, this is money well spent as well. If you want to make other sync super 8 films in the future, you already have the equipment and have done it before and will be a lot easier the second time around. With a sync camera, you can also rent it out, if you are into that, or be hired by other up and coming Super 8ers, cause you have a sync camera! I recommend you shoot a test roll, one, and see how that works for you. Simpley multiply the amount of work you did for that one test roll by the total number or carts you end up with and you will have a pretty good idea of what you will be getting into. Good luck! :D Why not? This is a forum for first time "film makers". Why paint with oil or acrylic? Why sculpt with ice, or wood? Who knows? Why suggest that someone not bother with a particular medium. Many, many people, like myself, shoot Super 8 for it's asthetic, is there a better reason? Film making is not cheap, no matter how you slice it. Why NOT choose a medium that peaks your interest? Look around this website and many others and you will see that Super 8 is enjoying quite a modest renaisance.

Isn't Super 16 slightly higher res than HD? And with say a 2K or 4K downsampled to 2k DI, you are already in a better color space and resolution than HD. So I don't agree that S16 is a bit a a stretch mastering to 1080p. Check out the action short Prey Alone. Shot entirely on green screen, much the same way Sky Captain was, and it was shot on Super 16. The filmmakers said they chose Super 16 A.) because they couldn't afford 35 and B.) they needed to maintain all the color resolution possible. Vera Drake also comes to mind, where they shot the entire film on 7218 and did a 2k DI. Admittedly, not a green screen heavy movie, probably no green screen, but the S16 held up very well. I could have thought it was 35 if I didn't already know it wasn't going into the theatre. The original post said that the F950 route was budgetting out too high and he was looking for alternatives for ending up with 10 bit 4:4:4 files. I still think S16 is a viable alternative, especially if other routes are proving too expensive.

forgot to list a contact email of zaefod@verizon.net

For sale I have a K3 that has been converted to Super 16. It has been overhauled by Reel Trading and works perfectly. It is the complete K3 kit and case. I have just shot a test roll with it and the camera passed with flying colors. No frame jitter, no scratching. Sharp lens with good contrast. Everything works 100%, camera is sold as is. I can send DVD of my test for you to check out. I am asking $800 or best offer. I will ship world wide. Buyer pays for shipping and insurance. Camera is located in Boston, MA USA :rolleyes:

I have shot both single and double perf, color and black and white. All with great results. Make sure the camera is threaded properly. You will know once you hit the trigger if it is or not, the K3s are a little tricky at first. I have shot all negative film, 7274, 7279, 7222 and 7231. Again all with great results. I think that the K3 is a great little MOS camera, easy to use and very rugged. THe standard lens that comes with them is quite sharp and has nice contrast for a under $200 camera. I have also used a Pentax Takumar 50 ?1.4 lens that gave great results, really shallow depth of field when wide open and great contrast. Have fun and good luck. Chris

What will the final product live on? Film, video? If video, consider Super 16. With the quality of lenses these days and a stock like 7217 or 7212, you can get excellent results. The cost of shooting on S16 will also help to offset the cost of a DI. Chris

You will be loosing resolution from the overall image because, you are essentially taking an "almost square" and chopping off the top and bottom and then enlarging what is left, to fit the 35mm neg. So the image will suffer. Why didn't you shoot with the 16:9 adapter? In any case, the image will probably be softer than if you had shot with the adapter, but not bad. If you poke around this website and perhaps DVXuser.com, you will find literally reems of discussion about this very topic. In short, this camera does pretty well for what it is, many like the results. Keep in mind what I said before and that if your shots were lit poorly, you may not like it. Some labs will do a free or really cheap 1 minute test of your material, which I highly recommend before your final film out. Sorry to ramble on a bit, but I would also recommend that you do a proffesional level color grade of your final cut, one that cateers to the labs specifications for the print. It never really got that big of a theatrical releasem, but the film November with Cortney Cox, was shot with a DVX100 and blown up to 35. Not sure if there is any other film out there now that you could go and check out at the local theatre. Anybody else have an idea?....

Don't rule out a Nizo 6080. If you are going to be shooting sync, this is the camera to get. Chris

In reference to the picture quality, in a word, fantastic. Given the fact that it is Super 16 and that it can use PL mount lenses, you can get a picture that will rival even 35mm. That is to say, as long as you use really sharp lenses and shoot with any of the fantastic new stocks Kodak has available for it. Sadly no Fuji film comes in the special 200' loads. It is a great B cam, or for getting into really tight spaces. chris

What 123 is looking for, a new sort of scope scenario for Super 16, is something I have thought about a lot lately. I know that Canon manufactures an anamorphic adapter for 2/3" digital cameras. It compresses the image horizontally to fit into a scope(2.39:1) format. Much the same way the 16:9 adapters that are out there, do for the DVX100 and the like. Why not one of these for Super 16? It would be cheaper to make one of these than to go out an manufacture a whole new lens line. You would have to have a compression factor of 1.44 to make the resulting image 2.39.

David, Do you know where I can check out an example of this, other than shooting a test? I am considering this stock in Super 16. Shooting will be at night in a car driving through the Big Dig, a monster public works network of tunnels underneath Boston. Lots of flourescent banks and sodium lights I think? Grain I like, what the grain looks like matters a great deal. I know a test is essential and I fully intend to do one, I'm just looking for examples. The Fuji rep even said that he can send a 35mm cassette for a still camera with any stock loaded. I will test with that film, extracting a Super 16 size image from it. Chris

I agree with you, much more style than substance. Probably the only two people in the world who actually like the film, are in this thread. As stated before, it was really hard to get invested in any of the characters. I did not care what, if anything, happened to them.

Technicallly speaking, depending upon the lab that you use (search this forum for a thread posted last week about this very topic) you may be getting a digibeta quality transfer simply dumped onto tape. Some labs, ie Cinelab.com, transfer uncompressed SD straight to hard drive. Uncompressed SD is of better quality than digibeta, not much, but better. Often and increasingly more so, many labs are offering this service at NO PREMIUM charge. So why not do it? Get the best that SD can be for little money. The file or files you would get are an uncompressed Quicktime file, either 8 bit or 10 bit, get the 10. You need a RAID to play back files of this type, so if you don't own one, you will be doing an offline/ online edit scenario. Search for the affore mentioned thread and good luck. Chris

I am not sure if you can deliver a 720p master for broadcast. Anybody else know? If not, you would have to up res to 1080, which would yield a slight hit in quality. Why not Super 16 and master to 1080? I am not sure how long your piece will be, but 16 may well be cheaper than HD. Better look as well. My two cents. Chris

sounds interesting. Could you please post a photo of this mount? Thank you. chris

But a digital refitting of a theatre cost what, quarter million US on average? What would this proposal cost? I know that digital is facing an uphill battle because of the high cost to the theatre. Studios may shy away from this because they are looking to save money by not having to make huge amounts of prints, where digital projection is much cheaper for them in the long run.

It is not an assumption. Go out and get some prices. Kodak charges 15.50 per 50 foot cart. Sure the 16 cost a little bit more, but for the bump in quality and running time, the cost savings means less and less. You pay a little bit more than 30 cents a foot for Super 8 raw stock and another 30 or so to process. Telecine to hard drive as uncompressed HD, which is what I would do with the Super 16, cost exactly the same amount. My point was and still is, the prices savings isn't a whole lot, so you really are only going for look.

I have heard excellent reports about them as a lab and as a business to deal with. The few time I spoke with them on the phone, they were very friendly and informative. They truly wanted to talk with me and take the time to make sure all my questions were answered. That being said, they do not currently offer direct to hard drive as a telecine option. It is probably forth coming and I for one can't wait. Chris

Good question. I guess the only real reason is for it's look. I have been pricing out shooting a 20 minute short on 7217 Super 8, transfer to hard drive as uncompressed HD. Both Super 8 budget and the Super 16 budget have the same scary minimum shooting ratio of 6:1, and both cost roughly the same amount of money. So it must be for the look. chris

If you are shooting the 7217, then may I suggest that you buy direct from Kodak. The filmstock and carts are better than those you will get from Pro8mm. They use lots of short ends for their film. In terms of how to rate the film and the color cast, test. Many say rate the stock at least 2/3 over. some say rate it at 100 asa. I would shoot a test roll and see what works best for you. Good luck

It all boils down to your hard drive speed. If you are going to conform your online material at home on your own system, you will need a RAID. SCSI or SATA II will do it. Here's the catch. SATA raid will set you back about 1500. I am not sure how long your pieces is or what sort of effects are in it, but 1500 is about a day at a really good post house using all their stuff; proper monitors and all kinds of tape decks for output. A SCSI raid will cost much much more. So, if you intend to do all your films this way from now on, then the SATA raid may be an option. If not, go to a post house to have it done. They have done this sort of thing many times. Good luck

This is NOT the case in the labs that I have spoken to. What happens is that the SDI out from the telecine is going straight into a computer into a computer via a Decklink card or the equivilent. Actually, it is probably going through a color corrector first, then into a G5 or some sort of PC. For SD, this is cheap and easy, for HD, not that much more difficult. The biggest drawback is storage space. Ask around to see if they are going to tape first then to hard drive, if so, there is a quality hit. How much depends on what kind of tape it is coming from. Bono goes straight to a G5, Cinelab does the same as does Movielab. All three are in the US, use them if you can. Can't toot the straight to hard drive enough if you are on a budget and want the best of both worlds. Chris This is the real world translation, but many people use the word scan when referring to telecine and they are not incorrect. Telecine by definition means: Flying spot scan. Hint hint from the post house in Seattle. Cine means scan. The word for film in Gaelic is scanna. So we are all talking about the same thing. I think the confusion is centered around thinkmonkeymedia's general lack of understanding involved with all this technical jargon and understandlibly so. It took me a while to wrap my brain around it all. Wikipedia has a very clear and concise definition about all of this stuff and I highly recommend lots more research via the web and phone calls to the lab you choose before jumping in. Good luck. Chris

Fair enough, but how? I have looked and looked and can't figure it out. No luck in My Controls or My Assistant. Sorry for sounding rather stupid. I do always end my entries with my real name. Chris

Just saw it last night and I was wondering, was it an optical blow up or DI? I really liked the film and the look of it. Super 16, yeah! chris :D

You are getting lots of info here and it seems like you are settling in on mini DV. I know that this can be a very confusing maze of info and often the easiest way is best. That being said, telecine to miniDV is good enough for broadcast, but not great. May I suggest for the maximum in quality and minimum price that you telecine straight to hard drive as an uncompressed SD file. The quality of this file is better than DigiBeta and the very best you are going to get in standard def. Many labs are now offering this. Many do not charge a premium for this service. I suggest Cinelab.com, they will TK your film at .18/foot as a scene to scene session straight to hard drive. Call them or email them and tell them your situation. Once you get the hard drive back with the files, you can make a sort of window burn version in miniDV and lay that back onto tape as a back up. At least if your hard drive crashes, you will have a tape back up. This is very easy with Final Cut Pro. Unfortunately, if this happens, you lost all that quality, but you can still cut the movie. But that won't happen, so here is what you do. Once you have the files on your computer, make low res clips from the uncompressed ones, make sure the timecode matches in both resolutions. Use the lower res ones to do your offline, when finished, output an EDL and take your hard drive with the uncompressed media, all the other stuff you have added and a miniDV tape of your final edit to a post house and have them do a proper online. If you have a short film, the cost will not be that out of hand and it will be well worth it. This is IMHO, the best and most cost effective way to do post these days. I have done it for three short film now, using both 16mm and Super 8 and I will never do it any other way, if I don't have to. The cost savings is unheard( you don't have to rent a digiBeta deck, just buy a firewire hard drive) of and the quality is fantastic. If you can't afford an online now, at least you have a miniDV version and you have the umcompressed stuff waiting for when you can afford to. I hope this barrage of info helps, it really is quite easy to do. Good luck. Chris