ryan_bennett

Ha - you should've titled this thread something else, it sounds threatening to Storaro hahaha, was I happy it wasn't and also go to learn difference of DP and cinematographer.

This is kodaks website it has everything you are asking about.

Type John Schwind into Google, He's a very nice man, quick prompt. He'll hook you up.

I agree with the past posts. Look near the lens you should see an empty slot, I've been told these get lost a lot. If you can't find it search for a bolex in google you should get a manual.

Okay that's my music video I shot on regular 8mm and just wondering what others think of it. You might've seen it already, I posted it on Filmshooting.com a few weeks ago. We're gearing up production to make 2 more with the other band members in their own videos and making a bit of a trilogy. It's a mix of k-40 and DV, the next ones we're shooting 16mm neg. Took awhile to get it ready and out there and it's about a year and few months old but ya enjoy.

Ya PM me details about the 250D, I think I can really use that.

What lights are you using, as you're planning on using daylight balance either way, just curious.

Any working decent camera with 400' capacity is good enough. Just see what you have available at the local rental shop. But I think ou should ask yourself, how long shots do you honestly need? Does it have to be longer than 2 minutes 46 seconds (the time of a 100' load?) Besides, most cameras that take daylight 100' are sometimes windup and only the wind only lasts for 25seconds. Have you ever sat and just tried to guess how long a minute is? It's a lot longer than you actually think it is. THIS IS FILM! EDITING! You said you like slow films/scenes - not LONG TAKES/SHOTS. With editing, you can take one minute of time and edit it together to expand time. Depending on what oyu're planning, you prboably don't need anything that long. Like a man runs across from point A to B. Realtime it takes 5 seconds, but you can take it all from 12 different angles and only use 3 seconds from each of those angles - poof! You just made 5 seconds into 36. Think more about what you want then you can think how you can get it achieved.

No, a slightly larger frame with an unsteady image. I have a feeling you don't know much about the parts of a camera or about intermitten motion or registration. I really don't see big difference in image quality between reg 8 and super 8 except most super 8 cameras have cheap plastic lenses plus those dreaded jittery carts. You need to look at the big picture, not just the bigger picture.

There is no difference between double exposure in camera or optically. In camera might look better and it's far easier, think about it for a second. You shoot, you rewind, you shoot again vs. shoot, prcoess, set up the optical printer/pay money for it, etc. etc.

Either way it's still true, you get a larger image and easy loading but Regular 8 gives you a stable image because of the pressure plate. Depending on what you're doing you one format would be more useful than the other.

Also, the perfs are correct right? You had to have respooled because it takes awhile to load a k-3 but certainly not 30 minutes.

Is this directed to me? If so maybe I wasn't clear but this is true but this is what I typed: the frame is slightly larger because of the position of the perfs. And back to the original poster, go to kodak's site: Kodak Super 8 This page has a film calculator.

Does it sound like it still works properly? Can you push it back to 24fps?

Not true. Regular 8mm is 25ft of film, you shoot, you flip it over and shoot the other side and gets split and spliced into 50 feet. It's essentially 16mm film wiht more perfs. Regular 8mm advantage is that the cameras have a far better pressure plate, super 8 doesn't. Also you can easily do double exposures, etc. with regular 8mm that the cart won't allow. SUper 8 is just easier to load, you just pop it in and good to go and the frame is slightly larger because of the position of the perfs. 2 minutes and 46 seconds is the run time at 24fps and around 3 minutes 20 at 18fps. WHY DOES EVERYONE WORRY ABOUT GRAIN? Just buy a test roll and see if you like the grain or not DON"T BE AFRAID OF GRAIN. I hate hate hate clean super sharp video. Grain is natural. Cost of development depends on what lab you go to. I go to www.cinelab.com because they're local and only $10 for blakc and white. Direct from kodak you can get a cart of plus -x for around $11. People have used a flatbed scanner but it's not worth while just get it telecine. Most cameras you can see the f-stop etc. Color negative is just that, a negative, like the stuff you put into a 35mm camera that you have toget processed and then a print made from it. Reversal you can project directly.

Just keep it simple! and I'll say it again, optical work takes awhile.

Don't take offense to this but, you don't know too much about using an optical printer do you? It's a shame, I wish there was more information on the internet but there's gotta be a few more books you could look into. What I am getting at is, you'll get generational loss depending on what effect you're trying to achieve. You might not get it for what you are doing. THere only super 8 optical printer is one that you'll have to make yourself or search on the internet and find a hobbyist to make one for you. I think if you found an FX house that actually had one it would cost as much or more than to just build one. But, you want a double ghosting effect it sounds, so do you even need an optical printer? Buy a super 8 camera that you can rewind the film and just double exposure. There can be other in camera effects you can do. Or you can just digitally composite because optical printing is hard long work and you do have to run tests to make sure you get what you want - making it expensive. Personally, what I would do, is think what you have, think what you can do and also what you would like to do. Play to your strengths, play to the very limits and boundaries of super 8 and if you can't do something one way, well, there's about 5 other ways you can do it or something else.

That's it right there, shot a year ago on my k-3. We had to use a 50mm lens in a small cellar because it's faster than the stock lens so thats why there's a lot of odd close ups but really we wanted to see if the thing actually just worked.

Ya it came back on early today, I thought it was before when Andreas had to shut it down for week and reboot it all after that guy took over and bungled everything up.

Title says it all, it's been down for today, so anyone knows whats going on with the super 8 forum filmshooting.com ?

Ya sorry, 16mm usually looks a million times better than this but it looks this way because you choose stylistically for it to look like this, right?

This is really interesting, in fact I recently made a short film for class about a spaceman who crashed landed on earth and wanders around and experiences the wonders of Earth life (playgrounds, geese, soda machines). Ideas I thought up but never got to use includes animating radio waves (coincedence stemming from the fact that the aliens radio plays an important role to the plot) either by drawing or scratching, using a sharpie or something to add color animation to his suit (it was shot on plus-x) and because we didn't have any sync dialogue, I was going to garble anything spoken so it was vaguely familiar, or possibly not at all just because I just kept thinking of how it would like to be in a completely foriegn land. Would love to see this idea developed further, even more timely about this post is James Cameron talking about his next movie Avatar and how that's going to be revolutionary...

This inspires me, reminds me of people plugging away making shorts on those pixel cameras. Really got me thinking of just what I can use...

Smearing:

Just remember to compensate open up a stop or so when you change the film speed to faster, and slower speeds close down.