steve hyde

...well, for the record, Rick Palidwor and Mitch Perkins are the inovators of widening Super 8 gates for widescreen aspect ratios: http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca/

...I saw a battered 35mm print of this thing last night. I thought it looked fine. It's remarkable that a 16mm documentary film can look *just good enough* and go on to earn more than 100 million at the box office! I think the initial production costs were just under 150,000. Warner Brothers obviously added to that exponentially for post production and distribution. ref: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/EMPJY.php

Thanks Santo, I'll check out the link. This is good to know. Steve

Andy, Glad to help. Santo, This is a good question. No I don't even have the lens yet. The guy who is selling it to me is removing a filter from it and taking a long time to do that because he just purchased another camera shop. It is a fixed focus lens and I don't know anything about "back focus". What is that? This guy used to work on Beaulieu's in the 1970s and 1980s (refuses to work on them now) though maybe he can do the "collimation" (whatever that is??) Steve

I think it really depends on how you want your film to look and what kind of *life* you want your film to have. With 16mm you are buying more options. (maybe buying options you don't want) If the film is shot by a skilled photographer under controlled lighting a "one light" transfer might look better than a "best light" super 8 transfer. This would save you money and buy you more options. If your 20 mins of Super 8 "best light" rank costs say $350.00 and your 20mins 16mm "one light" rank costs you $500.00 - Then you are saving about a third for stock, processing and transfer by shooting Super 8. Steve

Hi Tim, If you are concerned with noise maybe you should go for the Nizo's that John recommends. I have a Nizo S80 and it is not very quiet. A sound barney seems to be the answer. (I have never used one) You should know that Kodak offers a 20% discount to student's of filmmaking. Call Kodak to learn more. 30.00 for stock and processing is pretty average - some places may charge more. I buy my negative film direct from Kodak at -20% and pay 13.00 for processing at Forde Labs in Seattle. www.fordelabs.com After taxes I'm in it for around 26.00 USD for stock and processing. Steve

Hi Tim, I don't advise wasting your time with the Kodak M6. Film is too expensive. Even if you just want to make some soft focus home movies, you will have more fun if you just spend a couple hundred bucks on good super 8 camera. I bought a Nikon R-10 for 200.00 and a Beaulieu 4008 for $125.00. Both are reliable cameras - The Beaulieu is fully servicable yet not cheap to service. By the way the 64T should work fine in your M6, with an 85 daylight filter you are at E.I.40 ref: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/s8mm/t7280.jhtml Steve

Thanks David. I'll be doing a bit of homework on using anamorphic adaptors in the near future. The lens Yemi used is high priced for a starving student like myself. It's a bit weird for me because I'm learning filmmaking in an NLE world where everything is made into awkward little quick time clips. I feel left in the dark on the ins and outs of projecting the final film. Fortunately, I will be screening some DigiBeta samples of my work at "Modern Digital" here in Seattle in the near future - yet even then they have to capture the footage to hard disk before projecting it, which makes it something other than a DigiBeta projection in the end. I need to talk to some projection experts before I go off and do something stupid. That said, anyone reading this with suggestions - please suggest away.. Santo, Yes..I'm poo pooing myself for buying a prime lens for my Beaulieu :blink: Now the guys at the post house are going anamorphic on me!! Personally I like 4:3 and will likely visually design my film to be shot in that aspect ratio....just measuring options at this point. My workflow is a double system post that looks a lot like this one: http://kbase.communication.utexas.edu/kbas...ow_parameters=1

I had a conversation with Myron Lenenski at CinePost in Atlanta this morning. He is strongly suggesting I shoot my upcomming Super 8 short with an anamorphic adaptor on the lens. I have never used one. He told me anamorphic will look better projected DigiBeta at film festivals. I was reminded of this excellent footage shot by Yemi and posted at Filmshooting.com I found the clips and viewed them again. Looks like S16 to me..... http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/...b8999b699d535d0 Opinions on S8 anamorphic for DigiBeta projection? Pros? Cons? Thanks in advance, Steve

David, Here is a useful film calculator: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/filmCalculator.html In terms of stock and processing (by my own estimates and experience working in both formats) 16mm is approximately 1/3 more expensive than Super 8. This one third savings can easily be eclipsed by postproduction expenses associated with shooting super 8. In terms of grain and Super 8 - Super 8 is always grainier than larger formats, but visual grain can be greatly reduced by taking lighting seriously. Most Super 8 footage that you will find on the web is not shot under carefully calculated lighting conditions and therefore it looks like shmack. Take a look at some of the screen shots I posted in the other thread. Most Super 8 stocks are represented there. Steve edit: by the way a good posthouse for super 8 is CinePost in Atlanta GA. www.posthouse.com

Once your break the foil on your film you should not put it back in the fridge (at least I don't). Temperature fluctuations are hard on film. Especially exposed film that has not been processed.

..Thanks. Yes I agree that 200T is the all purpose Super 8 stock. In really controlled situations K40 and 64T also look great - finer grain etc., but in shooting situations when lighting cannot be controlled 200T and 500T have the latitude to give consistantly useable results (albeit grainy) Steve

Thanks for this explanation David.....very helpful... Steve

Hi Andy, I just had a B4008 serviced by Bjorn Andersson in Sweden. My choice to go with Bjorn was entirely based on the good reputation he has acquired after decades of service on Beaulieu cameras. I sent him my camera from Seattle and he kept it for about one week. I bought the camera with a sticky shutter and bad battery. Now it purs like a kitten and my first film test projected beautifully. Here is a break down of my costs: Cost: work US$230:-, parts US$22:-, re-cell battery US$130:- and postage US$50:-. Total US$432 Bjorn's contact info: bjorn.andersson@brevet.nu Hope this helps, Steve edit: by the way - this included removing the stupid filter that sits near the film plane. I now use screw on filters on the lens.

Perhaps of interest is one more screen shot that I have online: Note that the R-10 shots are much sharper than the Super zoom 8

Santo, Your posts in this thread have been helpful and informative. I'm just making a good old fashioned evidence-based argument that challenges your claims about a "prime lens advantage" with super 8. Keep in mind one definition of *rational* is "based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation." I think it is interesting that you are taking the time to test prime lenses on super 8 and I appreciate the fact that you are posting your results so that others can learn from your work. The tests that you have posted are unscientific, which is fine - so are mine, but I don't even see a significant difference based on practical observation..... The verdict is still out. For the sake of argument, I will say a Schnieder 6 - 66 zoom is still the sharpest, most practical, most economical Super 8 lens ever made and that given the limits of the small frame of super 8 there is very little in the way of a prime lens advantage for this format when it comes to *image sharpness*. Furthermore, I think using an HD workflow for Super 8 is a lot like putting one pound of flour in a ten pound sack. You might have a ten pound sack, but you still only have one pound of flour. The reason I'm taking the time to make this argument is in the interest of truth - not because I think I have access to the truth about this matter - I don't because I have never shot Super 8 with a prime lens or transferred Super 8 to HD. I make the argument because there is no visual evidence that there is a prime lens advantage or an HD advantage for Super 8. So let's be careful not to hype super 8 to be something that it isn't. Maybe my logic sounds irrational to you. What can I say? - I'm just trying to keep the conversation interesting. Respectfully, Steve

Well - obviously Santo is going for a dream-like look with this shot. That is why he overexposed it. I just don't see the "prime lens advantage" you are arguing here Santo. Any photographer that knows anything about optics knows that prime lenses are sharper and brighter than zoom lenses, but I have to say - when it comes to Super 8 the difference is very difficult to detect. The prime lens difference is much more evident on 35mm or S16. Santo, the image that you are referencing here - yours with the box with the light on it - does less to make your case than the image that you posted in the other thread (it is a shot from a roof top down on to the street). The rooftop shot is much sharper and I think that shot does show something of a "prime lens advantage." The box shot is out of focus in the foreground and the background is so overexposed it looks soft. All I'm saying is your obsession with putting high-end lenses on super 8 cameras is unwarranted. If sharpness is your obsession, you are shooting the wrong format. More specifically - you will have a sharper image by shooting 16mm with a bright prime and getting a one light transfer to DigiBeta than you will by using a Leica Super 8 camera with ten thousand dollar Zeiss 10mm lens transfered scene to scene to HD. Sometimes I think you are living in some kind of imagined Super 8 la la land. I mean sure - filmmakers might notice that it looks sharp *for super 8* but any non-filmmaking person watching the footage will just think it looks grainy..... or as my girlfriend says when she see's my super 8 footage: "Hmmmm. why does it look like poop?" edit: hey who censored my explitive? Steve

I'm not a pro - I agree that buying expensive prime lenses for super 8 is a sketchy proposition. The law of dimensioning returns comes into play. Just have a look at Santo's prime lens tests. They look great for super 8. The images are slightly sharper than those made with a zoom, but what does that add up to? The way I see it - one can buy a Leica Super 8 camera and the brightest Leica primes, then shoot the finest grain stocks under bright light conditons at mid aperatures and mid focal lengths. Then have a $400.00 per hour color correction session and transfer the footage to HDcam and one will still end up with footage that looks just good enough to look like grainy old 16mm.... All the evidence I have seen suggests this to be true. I hope someone proves me wrong about this. Yet, I just bought an Angeniuex 5,9 prime lens for my Beaulieu 4008. Why? Because I like the look of Super 8. I like working with the format. I want my student films to look like student films. I bought this prime lens not because I think it will look sharper, but because it is a fixed focus lens that gives me the freedom to make tracking shots without having to worry about focusing and it allows me to get really close to my subjects. (4 inches + or -) and hold focus to infinity. It is very difficult to follow focus with a Super 8 camera - therefore I plan to try to get around this problem with a fixed-focus moving camera. ...just a few more thoughts to consider. Super 8 is a wonderful format. have fun, Steve

Novice cinematographer that I am - I have to agree that still photography work is a great way to learn about the way films behave. Motion picture and still photography requires a knowledge of the medium that is film. Not just how to expose a given stock properly based on tech sheets published by film manufacturers, but also knowing how to acheive various looks that can be acheived through over exposure, push or pull processing, cross processing and so on. For those of us that cannot afford to go out and shoot miles of super 8 - still photography with an SLR is the most cost effective way to learn the nuances of the medium. Steve

I suggest trying Filmshooting.com There may be some Super 8 enthusiasts there interested in your equipment. A B4008 in recently serviced condition is worth somewhere between 500 - 600 bucks with a Schnieder 6-66. If it hasn't been serviced recently, it is worth about 150 - 300. (in my opinion - although you can probably get more for it) A company called Pro 8 mm snatches this camera up on Ebay as often as they can. I beleive they refubish them for resale. I have heard they never bid more than 300 for one. I can not advise about your other equipment for lack of experience with those items. Try Filmshooting.com for more info. Steve

I loved this film. I beleive great films are often born from great constraints. This one had many: one location and no sound - to name just two. Dreyer focused the camera on the eyes of Falconetti for almost the entire film and he succeeds in presenting a powerful and emotive story of injustice. In the current era of spectacle-driven high concept pictures, The Passion of Joan of Arc is a historical reminder that simplicity in cinema undervalued today. Steve edit: spelling error

....this information is all very helpful. Thank you, by the way - i agree that it is more lens than necessary for Super 8, but I found one for 250.00 bucks and decided to go for it. Steve

After reviewing my post above - I noticed I didn't really ask a specific question and perhaps depth of field tables for this lens do not exist. If anyone has any experience at all with this lens, I would like to hear about your experiences with it. pros? cons? I just want to learn as much as possible about this lens. Thanks, Steve

Here are a few screen grabs that I have posted elsewhere. All images are from my super 8 test reels. Film was processed at Forde Labs in Seattle and transfered at Flying Spot in Seattle. (although the plus X is a CinePost rank) Vision 200 7217 Vison 500T K40 Tri - X Plus - X

I have shot color negative with mine. With manual exposure cart notches are of little concern. The light meter requires a battery. I recomend using an external meter. It is a common practice to overexpose color negative films by up to a stop. have fun, Steve