Tyler Purcell

Yea, I was gonna suggest a 2x extender. The only problem is the loss of wide angle.

I'd like to see Lawrence Of Arabia 10 bit UHD BluRay. If I ever get a 4k projector and player, that would be the first title I'd watch. :)

It's kinda funny because there is a great article on Arri's site about people who shoot in extreme conditions relying on film cameras vs digital. Film cameras are generally lubricated with a light-weight lubricant that won't be too thick when running in freezing conditions. I've shot quite a bit in below freezing temps with an Arri SR, CP16 and Bolex, no problems. I agree about things like film being brittle lenses getting stiff. Also remember that going from cold to warm and back to cold can cause a fog up.

Yea, the problem at 16/18fps with digital is that the frames stay on much longer then 24, so it has more of a stutter effect then 18fps projected through a projector where your cutting off the light between frames. 18fps actually doesn't look bad projected, but with digital it looks wrong. I guess you could blur the frames together, which is what 18 to 24 conversions do, that looks more pleasing, but now you're dealing with blurring and the crispness of each frame is kinda of lost. Also... I don't think shooting a compromised 20fps will make that much of a difference for "eco" friendliness. We're talking 4 frames less per second? Converting cinema to 20fps would probably be the final nail in the coffin for theaters. With modern televisions that make content look like it's running at 48fps, people are so accustom to that smooth picture. If you give them something that looks looks staccato at the cinema, they just won't go anymore. Digital cinema actually removed the flicker, but there would for sure be an odd look to 20fps. If there was something to change that WOULD make a difference, it's broadcasting frame rates world-wide being changed to 24. Almost all of the digital gear can work with 24fps. Most single camera shows are 24fps, but they still run 3:2 pulldown in order to get 30 out of them. Why can't we just switch over to 24fps world wide? HD uses the same color standards throughout the world, so why not the same frame rate? Now that would save a lot of man hours and probably a decent amount of space as well.

I've had at least 10 super 8 cameras in my lifetime. First one was a sears model, with a non-adjustable lens, pretty much point and shoot. My dad bought that at a garage sale for me when I was 6 or 7 years old, can't remember. Second one was a Eumig which was a real piece of junk. I remember having that little round Agfa deal, I think it was called the Family, I even had the matching viewer. I had a few Yashica's, some sound, some silent. My last camera was an Elmo Super 8 sound that I got brand new. I shot almost all of my sound films with that, but it was 18fps. Not a big deal when you're projecting, but a small problem for digital. Wish I knew where all those cameras wound up, over the years they seemed to all disappear! I also had a B&H Filmo that I so wish I hadn't gotten rid of. As a kid, I always wanted a Nizo, but in Boston pre-internet days, they were really rare. I somehow miraculously still have one o the Yashica's and the Elmo Super 8 sound. Funny though, for all those years I've had a bunch of pre-WWII film and still cameras, which I still have today. Anyway, I think you're right about the F1.8 labeled on the lens, but I was basing my measurements on the light meters lowest setting inside the camera. The Yashica is like 5.6 and I'm like what? Maybe that's why the lens looks pretty decent. It's a honkin' lens thou, goes into the camera quite far and is removable as well, which is pretty sweet. Love the electric zoom, it's a sound of my childhood! Little green battery check light is so bright, it could probably be a fill light in a shot! LOL ;)

Hmm... so why couldn't you use that trick on standard lamp projectors? Also, all the mirrors do is reflect the light, so how does adding more mirrors achieve this? I'd love to learn more about it, but there don't seem to be very many technical documents around.

Man, I wish I had a "versatile" super 8 camera. I just acquired a Beaulieu 4008, but it hasn't run in years and the special rechargeable batteries are toast. So I gotta invest in batteries and doing a camera test. I was hoping to use it to shoot my friends stuff, but for the time being he's just going to use the camera we tested few weeks ago and verified to be working. What kills me is not having complete control over the exposure.

I wish there was a home processing system for Super 8 and 16mm that actually worked well. Every one I've seen is very meager and is nearly impossible to get perfect results from. I love the guys who show video's of their home processing kits and pull film out with all sorts of issues like left over coating on the film and areas that aren't processed. They're like "lets put it back in the soup" and I'm like, hold on a sec, you just exposed it to light!!! Anyway, one would think for a grand or two, you could make a pretty serious home processing machine to do small runs of motion picture film. Do you know of any developments in that arena?

Thanks! Yea it's gonna be awesome. We're matching stuff shot in the 80's and our first test with I believe Agfachrome 200 (whatever pro8mm sells) was perfect. It wobbled around and was super grainy. I had to project it for the director 4 times and every time he was just, "WOW it looks just like the old footage" and I was shocked how close it was. He's actually going to shoot 2 rolls in a week on location for the film. I can't wait to see what he gets! :) Meanwhile, I'm shooting 16 like it's going out of style. Can't even afford to process it all right now! Hopefully I can work out a deal to get selects transferred soon so I can start cutting digitally.

Bachelors of fine arts with a major in Cinematography Bachelors of media arts with a major in Broadcasting Associates in journalism Associates in Photography Associates in Public speaking I was also a year shy of finishing my MFA (masters of fine arts). However, I had been going to school for 5 years (and two full summers) already and at the end of my last semester, with all 5 degree's in my hand, I was kinda done. Plus, I had exhausted all my excess money on becoming certified as a NAUI SCUBA instructor and certified Apple bench technician. I had a great company teaching SCUBA and was shooting films on the side. It worked great until I destroyed my inner ear and couldn't dive anymore. So I moved to Los Angeles with my friends and started in the film industry working as a broadcast/computer technician.

I'm not complaining... I merely made a comment a few pages back about The Logmar not being a professional camera and stated why it isn't. I was then lambasted on my comment and ridiculed for even contemplating that Super 8 was only good for home movies. Hey man, that's my opinion and I've got drawers, boxes and cabinets full of Super 8 film. So it's not like I'm new to the whole thing and you won't find someone more in love with celluloid then I am. Heck, I'm in the middle of shooting super 8 home movie material for an award-winning filmmakers documentary.

If you need a shot that's suppose to look like a home movie from the 60's, 70's or 80's, then Super 8 will work great. My issue has nothing to do with the format BEING professional, I could care less. It has to do with people trying to turn a format which is clearly consumer grade into something that it was never designed to be then claiming it's awesome, when it truly isn't. I only re-entered this thread because many pages ago when someone said Logmar was a professional product. I disagreed with this notion and the thread blew up. It's great to have so many passionate people who care about Super 8. I have a very strong connection to the format, I've shot 10's of thousands of feet of it and have even made a few quite challenging narratives with it as well. My personal experiences with the format clearly differ then a hand-full of people on here, who maybe using it in a completely different way then I have in the past. Lenses are a huge issue, but with the plastic pressure plate of super 8, it's hard to get crispness out of even the best glass on super 8. Plus, most cameras have built-in lenses which are pretty slow. My two S8 cameras are 5.6 and they weren't bad when they came out. It doesn't matter what camera or lenses you use. What matters is how good the quality of the film is at the end. I'd say technical bits, like how professional the cinematography, color and sound mix are, really help. I've seen films with bad actors get picked up because they were professionally made. I've seen great actors in technically poor films, not see the light of day. Plus, in this all-digital world, it's really challenging to separate your project from everyone else. Distributors expectations have been set much higher then they were 10 years ago. For it's very specific use, you can't beat it.

True, but I was trying to mention things that make a format more professional and the ability to do over-cranking is a huge deal.

Since modern films have something called dialog, crystal lock is critical for audio recording. Timelapse is a special effect. Filmmakers don't need special effects to make movies.

Interesting read, though it does clearly say "Super 8 sound" which is Pro8mm today and the only place I know of in the whole of North America who sold Super 8 negative stocks before 2004. Well, it's also well documented on Wikipedia and Kodak's website. I wish it existed when I was trying to shoot Super 8 all those years ago, it would have been awesome.

Yep, Jay is 100% right. I have a cheap camera and cheap lights because even if I had a great camera and great lights, it's still never enough to do a lot of the productions. Plus, everything is changing so rapidly right now, as a cinematographer, you'd have to spend boat loads to keep up. People always want to shoot on the newest stuff and if you have 2 year old gear, they may not hire you. It's far cheaper to put a 3 ton grip truck and newest XYZ camera rental in your fee, then buying gear and having it sit around unused most of the time. Remember that cameras and lenses turn into boat anchors over time.

We do have a huge problem in western society related to graduates not finding work. It's actually about to be an epidemic because a lot of them will be stuck with huge debt from school as well. Ya know, job placement after graduating a trade school, isn't much better either. So it's not really a problem of JUST what you study, it's a problem of there simply not being very many opportunities right now. I think part of the problem is that people today do live longer then they have in the history of the species. So the days of people dropping dead, are dwindling away. People who have great jobs and are enjoying them, aren't as motivated to retire because the more you put in to social security, the more you get out. Some companies cut you off when you reach retirement age, others don't care because if you're doing a good job, why replace you? Ya know, both my parents work at prominent east coast schools and they have a job placement average of around 25%, which isn't that bad. So those are people who graduate with a guaranteed job. However, I think you'd find that most of those people are in computer science, nursing and agricultural. Those are kind of the hot job's today, tech companies are hiring like wild fire. But those are the key high-end positions, so if you don't like those opportunities, you may not find anywhere to go. I graduated with many degree's, not just one in cinematography. However, I never had a real tech "degree" just certifications and I've spent the vast majority of my life making a living in the tech side of the film industry, even before I went to college. I always tell people that if you really want to be in the film industry, do computer sciences. Learn trades that directly connect with the film industry like 3D design or even more technical ones like how to support huge corporations networks. Once your foot is in the door, it's a lot easier to wiggle your way through the ranks. I personally know many people who have achieved that, myself included. There are actually plenty of entry level tech jobs in the film industry, the studio's are always hiring new graduates. I always say to young people just headed to college to get a broad degree and remember that in the long run, it's just a piece of paper, not an automatic job entry form. Outside of college, you have to be hounding people for internships in whatever profession you wish to take up. You should be graduating with a full-time job, not graduating and preying your paper will get you one. This is the most common mistake of kids these days, they just assume there is someone with open arms waiting for them when that piece of paper is signed and delivered.

ROFL!!!! So damn true! Being a successful director for hire is like winning the lotto.

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I think if you do more research, you may find my opinion spot on. He didn't like film because he's nervous wreck about how things would look out of the soup. The moment he switched to digital, he found himself much more relaxed and able to work better as well. Plus comments like this: "As I say, just the technical problems with film, I’m sorry, it’s over." don't come from someone who likes film. You would never hear Wally Pfister say something like that.

Betacam SP looks different then the Alexa, but nobody shoots in that anymore.

Short section of track inside the garage, nothing that would be seen by the camera unless using a wide lens. I didn't think of the lighting, but that's easy to achieve. Yes, I'd start the shot close to the door for sure, so the overlap would still be a solid second if possible so the editor can make it works.

Yep I am... but it's clear by the way he talks, starts 15 min in.

I think they had no choice to update the format. It was the best quality for the price and with the whole world pushing towards television and broadcasters needing portable equipment to capture programs, it was a no brainer for manufacturers to make products that broadcasters would buy. It's a demand and supply theory and because Super 8 never reached that status, it never had the same innovation. In a lot of ways, 16mm went through more innovation in less time then 35mm.

Well... I mean, the whole point of Super 8 was to buy stock at your local drug store and when done, give it back to them so they can ship it to the lab for processing. I remember as a kid LOVING our local drug store and being able to pick what stocks I wanted to use for the next shoot. Then the excitement of going back to get the film and I'd always unspool a bunch into my lap on the drive home. I did the same thing few weeks ago when I started shooting Super 8 again, I just couldn't help myself! Once I saw an image, I had a sigh of relief! :)

According to wikipedia and Kodak's own website, it was 2004. It had to be after 2002 because I remember not shooting something on super 8 in 2002 because I couldn't get negative stocks. Right, but those aren't really "improvements" in the format, they're just individual features of particular cameras. If you really wanna get down to the nitty gritty, 16mm had ultra high speed cameras, one's that could rewind for double exposure, cameras that were also projectors, I mean the format has been all over the place. It's more like forcing a format to be something it never was intended to be. We all want good quality images, but people (companies) spend so much money trying to make the format better, but it's still the same ol' format no matter what you do. Sure, the combination of modern low-grain stocks, Logmar and decent glass with perfect exposure and excellent digital scan, presented digitally, is very impressive. Then you realize hey.., you can't really use the built in sound because the camera is too loud. Then you realize, hey... the cartridge lasts 2.5 minutes. Then you realize hey... if I need sensitive stocks, the result will be a big blotch of grain. So in the long run, it's a fine line between impressive and home movie quality. Well, the frame jitter and gate weave was nasty. They clearly used a decent camera, the glass wasn't bad and the crazy high power lights/low grain mean they probably used 50D. So man, if you want a camera that requires a few thousand watts of tungsten in order to look good and frame jitter/gate weave were irrelevant, then go for it! I just think it looks amateurish and again, the logmar test footage looks quite good in comparison. So if you work the format in a perfect situation, it can deliver some decent images. It's just, perfect situations are hard to come by and the larger the camera negative, the less you have to work negative to achieve an acceptable image. As a side note, I'm going to be shooting a short film in Los Angeles at night soon. My choices are Super 8, Super 16 or Super 35. I've been debating S16 or S35 because I have a feeling if I shoot S16, 500T if I slightly underexpose because I have no choice, I won't have enough image to pull from due to the grain. On the other side, if I shoot S35 4 perf, with my own bloody camera, I can probably pull a lot more out of the negative. It's all about having the right tool for the right job and delivering a product that 20 years from now, will still surprise you. It's the methodology I've tried used for my entire filmmaking career.