Matthew W. Phillips

I like Super 8 over 16 for many reasons:

1) Dont have to worry about magazine changes and risk of exposing the film

2) Here in California, Super 8 is much cheaper than 16 in everything but RANK transfer which still doesnt offset the total savings of S8.

3) Super 8 has a look all its own where 16 looks like "baby 35"

4) I have found that, when comparing S8 cameras to hand cranked 16 cameras, S8 cameras hold sync much better for 24fps. I have a Sankyo Supertronic XL620 and I can actually do sync sound with it. I dont know if its because this was a sound camera initially or what, but it will hold sync for the short scenes I shoot. The hand cranked K-3 will not hold sync very well, in my experience.

5) Super 8 is great for Guerilla shooting, if that's your thing.

6) Many low cost S8 cams have great features available to you for prices that would be unheard of for 16 cameras. My Supertronic has dissolves, fades, intervals, slow, fast, and stop motion, and some other S8 cameras even have backwind capability. Try getting all that in 16 for less than $100.

7) For grindhouse horror, Super 8 cannot be beat. It can instantly give people the chills with most any setting. I think all horror movies should be shot on Super 8.

This is all I can think of now, anyone else have any ideas?

If I have a Kinor 16, would it really matter which light meter I use. Sorry, probably a dumb question. I am on the creative side rather than the tech side. **LondonFilmMan**

I would recommend getting an incident meter and taking an average reading based on a few areas on or near the subject. I do this and it always worked well for me. Many people will tell you you need an expensive digital meter for "utmost accuracy" but I use an analog meter and it is still close enough. I dont think that the 1 micrometer you might be off will affect your exposure noticeably.

Its single frame? What advances the projector, a button or a timer? A cheap way to go about it (and also get 4:4:4 uncompressed HD out of the deal) could be to rig a D20 or similar digital camera (still, not video) and a timer to advance the projector. then you would have a couple options. Rig the timer to a delay to snap a photo a few 1/10 of a second after the projector starts projecting and then a second timer to let the system wait for the camera to be ready again.

I may aim for this idea...it is more time concuming, but the payoff is worth it, I feel. I am definitely not expecting a marketable product out of this. Maybe something that I can benefit from or at least have fun doing when I drink... :D

Crazy? Like a fox, maybe! Super-8 will continue to be a viable format due to the efforts of tireless technicians such as yourself. Excellent work!

Thank you Scott for the encouragement. However, anyone have an idea of how I can (cheaply) devise a method of syncing for 24fps (or any particular rate for that matter)?

No idea is too silly for me to try!

I also wish to tell Jim Jannard that I have posted my prototype so I would love to see his for RED. Dont be ashamed of the beast Sir, be proud of it!

Mike, you have a good attitude and I may like to utilize your services some day.

Take advice from him, a good fellow indeed.

When im shooting 64 T on a Canon 1014xls do i need put to Manual fstop camera or Automatic will to work?

 

Thanks

Auto should work fine...check out this link

http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Super_8_EK..._meter_properly

Could you post a picture of your ptototype?

You want it, you got it...although my digital camera is buried in storage so you have to settle for webcam grabs...so sorry. Here it is.

I will try to get better images in the future, but this is the general idea.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Jim

Thanks Jim, finally I got your attention for once. My hypothesis was correct in thinking that you would not leave these boards afterall. I had previously asked you a question in another thread and I dont think it was ever answered. I was utmost sincere when I asked it and I still am.

I will rephrase how I asked it before...

Is RED a good value for the filmmaker who can only afford to shoot on 16mm? When I ask this, I mean total workflow and everything. Would the cost be reasonable considering shooting till editing on a computer? For instance, if I want to make a 90 minute feature, would the RED be a better cost/ value tradeoff than 16mm film? I mean this question with all sincerity. And I dont consider a fire sale of the RED after production as a true indicator of value. Afterall, you have to come up with money initially to fund a project.

As far as my remark about him never having it in his hands, it is because I think as the project goes on, demand will increase such that he wont get one. Also, I feel that the price will go up as interest increases. A good thing never lasts for us poor folks, you can count on that. And I am assuming this will be a good thing. But if it is, there will be a catch.

Some clips from my first camera-test of Vision 2 200t negative film, shot with a nizo professional with the internal lightmeter in auto-mode. I'm pretty satisfied with the results, although I'm sure somebody else will show less grainy clipsthan me. Also, there is a black dot/area in the up-right corner in some of my clips that I don't know where came from... But for a first time, I'm happy :-)

 

my clip

 

Regards,

Bjarne, Oslo, Norway.

Not a bad roll indeed. What method of transfer did you use? Also, wanted to say that the zoom in there was one of the fastest zooms I've ever saw! Nice color though.

Also, someone on this site had posted this url before for comparison of Vision2 200t vs. 16 vs. S16 vs. DVX100. Here it is:

http://www.philrosefilms.com/kodakfilmdemo.html

...Shooting it can turn out as or more expensive than super 16, however if you avoid telecine route it can be a cheap way to learn how to shoot film.

You're in UK right? That explains this statement...otherwise, S8 is considerably cheaper than 16mm, especially for large projects.

If I will have a reservation now when will it be in my hands?

I wouldnt get my hopes up of having it in your hands.

I got the bright idea to build my own Super 8 projector from scratch and I want it to be capable of single frame projection for scanning. I have a ridiculous looking functional model that can now project single frames but cant sync and has no shutter. Is this a foolish venture? The images look pretty good bounced off of a black television screen.

Anyone else try crazy stuff like this?

What about Standard 8mm and Super Duper 8? Heck, let's bring back the 17.5mm also! Hell, I think someone should invent a method of pulling the film through that doesnt take precious space from our 8mm stock so we can use the full surface. Ok, that was my soapbox for the day.

Four times the area not twice !!!! Someone needs Maths classes.

It's actually not four times when you are talking about regular 16mm. This is because 16mm originally had double perfs and has room for a soundtrack.

To clarify, Super 8 frame size is 5.5mm x 4mm (22mm area)

16mm has frame size of 10.26mm x 7.49mm (76.85mm area)

So, about 3.5 times the area. :P

That figure is a complete guesswork by an outside viewer of the footage and there is no evidence to support it.

 

Jim himself has said in another discussion in this very subforum that no one measured the stop range of the shot in question and that he does not want to make claims yet about the latitude of the camera.

 

I would encourage anyone to read the thread in question before repeating any claims that are not based on facts.

On the video for IBC, a rep did indeed say that RED was holding detail with a light 15 stops hotter than the subject without blow out. I am extremely skeptical of that.

I guess it is pure coincidence but I feel that the behavior here on this forum actually became much worse over the last weeks despite(!) the use of real names. (Just take a look into some of the HD subforums (RED cough cough) or the Miami Vice thread, some super 8 topics etc.)

 

Since I still don't see the point and consider privacy a value on its own..

 

I'm signing off

 

-k

Later, you wont be missed...sorry if I am jerky but I don't think it is a huge deal to give your real name.

Comeon guys, get off of Max Jacoby's back. I can never understand anything that Manny says. No one is insulting him, but comeon...don't act all pious and start throwing out accusations about people being racist. I would bet most anything that many, if not all, of you have insulted fast food workers or others who do not speak good English. Don't be a hypocrite or someone may call you on it one day.

I'm not a person who would never consider using a video camera. I just think it is foolish for REDs site to tell people to quit shooting on 35mm now. The camera isn't even built yet and I'm supposed to put my life on hold and shaft film until Jim feels like releasing his super camera. That is a ridiculous notion and, quite frankly, a stupid marketing line. Maybe if the camera was available for sale now it might be ok, but comeon man.

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this camera is any better of a value than shooting on S16. S16 is easily 2k and the price is considerably cheaper than this camera with a decent lense. The camera + the $10k lense + hard drive = almost 30k. For that, I could shoot 16mm for days. The quality difference between s16 and RED would not be worth the extra money and workflow hassle IMHO.

I experienced that kind of shooting. It gives you 99 crappy takes to choose from...

Yeah, I been there too...

What an idiot...I want to come back in five years and ask what all those "film is dead" people what they think when film is still the origination medium on over 50% of all narrative productions.

...and super low budget independent moviemakers...

Yeah, that would be me. :(

Of course if you are going the really low budget route as described above, after shooting with the HVX you could sell the camera for easily $5k if not more, so at that point it would become the cheaper option. Not to mention your audio can go to the same tape and you can monitor while shooting.

 

That said, nothing makes you feel like you're walking in the footsteps of giants more then shooting film. Of course the image is higher quality, but there's something about the process....something about not EXACTLY knowing how it's going to turn out that is really exciting.

Okay, I stand corrected...I totally overlooked the fire sale idea. However, most people I know might have trouble procuring that much cash initially for gear even if they know they are going to get back a significant portion.

And you're right about the great feeling of shooting on film. I think shooting on Super 8 is more exciting than shooting HD. Of course I am referring to low level HD like HVX200, etc. I wouldn't mind trying a shoot on a Genesis but that is way out of my range and I would rather shoot 35. Actually, I cannot think of any scenario where it would be better for me to shoot on video than on film. Unless the only thing I could afford was a cheap MiniDV cam and then I would probably shoot S8 and do a short instead.

I think that the overall "argument" or "discussion" centers around the point of shooting Super 8 when there are now somewhat more economical and arguably "better" choices are available for the beginning aspiring filmmaker... ...Kodachrome 40 has about the same or less latitude than most video these days, so that argument about film being inherently better because of latitude falls flat at that level. The "look" is another factor, but again, unless you really screw things up, some of the newer "prosumer" HD cameras can give you a pretty acceptable "film look" for a fraction of the price. Considering the general point of a low-budget production, the only reason to choose Super 8 over a more economical video choice would be to be a "stubborn traditionalist."

I don't get what you are saying...I think you have had fancy digital gear so long, you don't understand the low-budget mindset anymore. Check this scenario...

I want to shoot a 90 minute feature. If I shoot at 4:1 ratio like you did, I can:

Buy a $100 Super8 camera off ebay. (I got a good one for $40, but let's just figure high)

Go through Spectra and get 6 hours worth of Color negative film in a bulk

deal with processing, prep/clean, and RANK telecine to digital format: $7,137

TOTAL FOR JUST THE IMAGE ACQUISITION AND EDITABLE PLATFORM: $7,237

Let's say Panasonic HVX200 camera: $5,285.00 (figure taken from buydig for estimate)

At least two 8 GB cards for swapping out (assuming you transfer footage and delete): $2,300.00 (B&H)

TOTAL FOR IMAGE ACQUISTION AND EDITABLE PLATFORM: $7,585

Granted, the HVX200, in DVCPRO50 mode will have higher res. than Super 8. But using a good S8 stock like Vision2 200T is going to give a much better latitude than the HVX200. If the end result is SD, is there really any significant gain in using the HVX? If it's not for SD, you still have a native film negative instead of a digital source. Either way, I think the Super 8 is the better choice in the super low budget realm. And MiniDV is not even on the charts in this discussion.

This thread is just too funny. I guess it is being suggested that our footage looks too good to be real? Thank you so much. And just because you can't do it doesn't mean that we can't either? Let's see, the Assimilate people are in on the hoax? And David Stump, head of ASC, is in on the hoax? And the people at Quvis are in as well? You guys really kill me. Do you have anything valid to offer besides such nonsense?

 

Please excuse me if I take personal offense that my 30 year business career (and public scrutiny, NYSE-OO) has lead to being accused as a fraud. Get a life.

 

Jim

 

By the way, Otto Nemitz has personally been to the RED building, seen our camera, has seen the raw footage, and witnessed the grading of the footage.

 

Jim

I never said you were a fraud. Honestly, my concerns are really that you aren't going to have your camera done as soon as you say and also that the perceived value of the 17.5k camera is going to disappoint as all the neccessary add-ons factor in. I am a low budget filmmaker so a package costing upwards towards 30k might as well be like shooting 35mm film for me. It still seems to make more sense, cost wise, to shoot 16mm. This camera most likely will not change that.

I don't think it is so much that it looks cgi that makes people suspicious as the fact that the whole RED operation has sounded fishy. No prototype but yet this "brilliant" footage. How am I to be convinced that this mystery unbuilt camera produces this great footage and will be available at the price suggested when there is no camera yet. I think that RED seems grossly behind target to reach their release deadline and I didnt hear what sort of lense was used to acquire these images. A realistic entry level lense or some other worldly priced prime? Many more questions than this exist in my mind before I start ditching film.