steve hyde

Looks like a Nikon Super Zoom - if it is it runs at 12, 18 and 24 and has manual exposure control. Steve

....My point is not that they are not different - my point is that they are more the same than they are different. In other words - you are splitting hairs here. And you are making a big deal out of difference that is insignificantl. Good luck with your project. It looks interesting. Steve

...I have recently acquired an Angenieux F 1.8/ 5.9 type R7 lens that I will be using on a Beaulieu 4008 ZMII super 8 camera. I need the depth of field tables for this lens. Any help finding this information would be greatly appreciated. edit: by the way this is a c-mount lens Thanks in advance, Steve

Hi Santo, I like the look of your image. You are taking advantage of the dream-like quality that overexposing plus-X offers. That's cool. Like you, I also prefer prime lenses, but I feel like I have yet to see any Super8 photographies that really show a significant difference between a good quality Nikon Zoom Super 8 camera like the R -10 that I used for the image below and images from a Beaulieu or Leicina with a prime lens. I'm not saying that there is not a difference - I'm just saying the difference is almost undetectable most of the time. The above image was made with a Nikon R-10, 7266 plus x film, transfered best light rank: CinePost, Atlanta GA. Edit:....I thought I was in your "Prime Lens advantage" thread. Apologies for if I went off topic.

Thanks. When the film won the low-budget (??) film award at IFP, I assumed it was made on video then I was surprised when it looked like 35mm... It all makes sense now...all but the low budget. I thought it won in a $500,000 or less category. by the way, I thought it was an excellent picture: great script, great acting and directing and the film really connected with me culturally. From the Northwest US. myself, the film had a powerful authenticity. I recommend it. Steve

I'm curious. Was MEAN CREEK shot on HD? I was under the impression it was shot on HD until I saw it. I know there is a lot of hand-held video in it, but the rest of it looked like S16 or 35.... Steve

I saw SIDEWAYS last night. In a word I would call it authentic. The story really connected with me. It had so much to say about American culture in both sad and funny ways. It just seemed like an honest portrait so I can see why the screenplay won an award from the IFP. The photography on the other hand, is tough for me to judge in part because the print I saw looked like it had been used to decorate a Christmas tree before being put in the projector -- but I too noticed the extreme diffussion and personally did not see how it acheived a particular mood. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear (in this thread) that it was shot on 35mm. The opening scenes of the film particularly looked like 16mm to me with lots of visible grain etc. If the director wanted that look, I wonder why they didn't just shoot the film of S16 (??) Great film, I recommend it. Steve

I'm just curious if anyone has been using the new Vision 2 super 8 cartridges. Kodak: 7218 and 7217 If yes, how are the results. I've recently been shooting it some and have not taken it to transfer yet. I have seen some nice looking .mov samples that have been posted elsewhere, although I have yet to see it used in a composed movie. Personally, I've been thinking of using the VISION 2 stocks by way of combining 16mm and super8 formats -- then having the colorist try to match at x-fer.....My logic is that super8 can look nice for close up shots that don't require much depth. 16mm can be used for wider shots where more depth is desired. has anyone tried this? Any thoughts? Steve

My advice is to stay away from the cheap cameras. eg, Nikon Super Zoom and other low-end super 8 cameras. You might get a nice image with them for a while, but they have tendency to break down. (at least mine did) When compared to 16mm cameras, higher end S8 cameras are still really cheap... It also depends on what you want to do with the camera. If your a lomographer out to capture fuzzy stuff then use whatever you can get, but if you want the best image possible, you are going to be using negative stocks and spending close to what you would spend for 16mm, after you transfer, color correct etc etc... Have fun -- hope this helps

S8 will never look better than 16 -- but I'd say Kodaks Vision 2 stocks , which are now available in S8 carts can be closely matched to 16 of the same stock at the time of transfer as long as the photographer takes the limits of S8 into consideration. eg. wide shots have a tendency to get blown out. Close up - carefully lit shots will look a lot like 16mm with nice grain. the neg stocks yeild a much different look than K40 S8 is still a highly mobile format. I'm using it for mountain climbing. In tems of K40: I recently bought several carts of K40 at a student rate from Kodak at $11.40 - that includes processing with the mailer.... Hope this helps, have fun. Steve

R10 is a highly coveted S8 camera....I bought one recently for 250.00USD - they go for 300.00 to 600.00 dollars on Ebay... Cheers, Steve Hyde