Jim Simon

From Wikipedia. "A typical modern cassette recorder may have a wow and flutter specification of 0.08%" This seems pretty consistent with cassette deck specs I recall reading back in the day. And thanks for sharing your experience with the 5008. Anyone else care to chime in?

Audio cassette playback variations were pretty small - only a few hundredths of a percent. If non-crystal sound cameras also exhibit such small variations in frame rate, I won't worry much about it. With a 2.5 minute shooting limitation per cart (24fps), there's not enough time for things to go out of sync. I guess the next part of this question is to learn from other users their experience shooting sound with a top flight sound camera without the crystal sync modification. Please share.

In the U.S., you can use parts of copyrighted works for certain things. A reviewer can use quotes from a copyrighted book. A critic can use a clips of a copyrighted movie for his reviews. Etc. This is called "fair use". "Fair Use" generally does NOT include using any part of an artist's work for creative reasons.

I don't agree. Having sound locked to picture is only half the issue. Because unless the camera manufacturer could guarantee that all sound projectors would play at the exact same speed as their non crystal-synced camera, there would be a difference in pitch for audio playback. Thus the seeming absolute requirement that all sound cameras and projectors would require precise frame rates. Did manufacturers actually miss this fairly obvious concept? Assuming they did, what are users' experiences recording synced sound with a good camera - Canon 1014, Nizo 6080, etc. Was crystal sync modification (which ain't cheap) really necessary for accurate post-production?

From a Wikipedia page... "Sync-sound cameras are able to both maintain a constant speed (usually crystal lock) and run quietly enough not to be heard by the sound recordist." Now, I noticed there's a company that will modify sound Super 8 cameras for crystal sync recording. I'm confused by this. It seems to me that any sound camera would need to be crystal locked by default right out of the factory. The same would apply to any and all sound projectors. Otherwise, if you don't have both camera and projector locked, playback pitch would vary. So why would any modifications be needed for a sound camera, like the Canon 1014 XL-S for instance? How can you manufacture a sound camera without crystal locked frame rate? Especially your top-of-the-line model? That's a little like building a DV camera that won't record at precisely 29.97 fps. It makes no sense. Amy I missing something here?

If anyone knows who is still doing this, please inform.

OK, I'll admit it may have been over my head, but since you asked for feedback... I get done watching this, and my first thought is "Yeah, so, what's your point?". In short, I didn't get it. My comments on the technical quality... Workprinter's suck. It looked as if you aimed a VHS camera at a projection screen. Hotspoting was definitely visible, corners were unnaturally dark. Definitely not a showpiece for the Super 8 format. That may change when we see the 200T from a Rank transfer. I also found the makeshift steadicam lacking, though I may be biased in this regard. A lot of American TV is shot handheld, and I absolutely HATE it. (Buy a freakin' tripod morons!) So take this criticism with a grain of salt. Some of the Foley was a little off, footsteps in particular, though the overall sound was quite nicely done. Bottom line, my artistic comments won't change, but I'm looking forward to seeing the 200T version.

Getting back on track... A forum search turned up a few hits about where one might buy 200' loads, but all the posts are old, as are the links in them. Is anyone familiar with where 200' loads can currently be purchased? Anywhere in the US maybe?

I thank you for the directorial suggestions, but the scene itself may well run over the time available when shooting at 24fps (which I am decided on). That doesn't mean it will end up being one shot. I've already planned on three camera angles to cover the scene. All this will be edited together in post. But the scene itself is particularly dramatic, and I feel it might be better for the actors if they're allowed to just run through each take without breaks. If it's economically feasible, I'd like to avoid what happened to Cameron when shooting The Abyss, where he ran out of film while shooting the scene where Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio was being revived. To the others, thank you for the model listings. If anyone has any experience working with such cameras and larger mags, please post any advice here.

And those would be? (Make/Model) I checked out the Bolex. For that price, I can probably move to 16mm. The Pathe is spring loaded and probably not a good choice for shooting sync.

OK. More info on that, please. What camera models might use such a mag? Has anyone here ever used one? I may have to. But there are a few scenes that run longer than a single 50' roll will cover. Thus the inquiry over longer rolls.

My company's first film is in development now, and principal photography is slated for October of this year. I'll be taking up both the Director's hat as well as the DP. One of my concerns is that shooting at 24 fps, I'll get less than three minutes per roll. With slates and pre-roll, that ain't much time for actual footage. I understand there are Super 8 cameras that can use rolls larger than 50'. Can anyone shed some light on these cameras and their operation?

Maybe not, but in the United States, the songwriters and publishers certainly have the legal right to say who can and who can't, as well as charge money for those they allow. And sue those who do so without permission. "Fair Use" does not include using an entire song in a movie.

I haven't tried it yet, but one idea I had was to simply send the mixer output to my DV camera.

I thought I might try using Super 8 to shoot the formal session when I do wedding videos. Of course, until the practice is perfected, I will have an assistant shoot with my normal DV camera. But this could add that special something to my wedding movies that few others have.

I'll take the one in the brown dress.

Am I incorrect then in assuming that a roll of Super 8 still comes with processing included? Processing must be paid for separately? Even doing a 10 bit 4:2:2 telecine to HD will cost only about $340 at Debenham Media Group for 12 rolls of Super 8, about 1/3 of Mark's estimate. From their site, I gather they use the same process and equipment used by Hollywood and broadcast studios for their film to video conversions. To me that says quality. I'm not familiar with the Spirit equipment. Is it a general consensus that it's superior to the Rank Cintel Turbo Telecine?

OK, I've been out of the Super 8 game for about 20 years, and am only just now getting back into it. So maybe I've just not far enough back into it to know any better, but those costs seems rather high to me. At B&H in NY, a roll of 200T costs about $20. Back in the day, Super 8 rolls included processing, so I'll assume that still holds true. That translates to about $240 for the twelve rolls with processing. That a significant discount over mark's estimate of $363. A DV transfer using a Rank Cintel Turbo (I assume that's a good telecine) will cost $214 at the Debenham Media Group (3516.com), and that's a very big difference from Mark's estimate of $925. So my total comes up to about $460. That's just over 1/3 of Mark's estimate. Am I missing something here, or am I just a better shopper than Mark?