GeorgeSelinsky

That's actually a 35mm Arri II and it's my avatar which appears all over this forum. With that logic people could be asking me what am I doing on a 35mm only forum pictured with my trusty Nizo S8! I love Super 8, I've shot quite a lot of it in my earlier days just as Dave Mullen who contributes here but probably, like me, doesn't shoot it regularly today anymore. I am interested in following in the developments behind Super 8 and am hoping that the format becomes more viable to work with. There are some good developments out there like the Workprinter, and Kodak is still keeping the format alive. The increased cost in laboratory work, however, is a big letdown. I used to get my film processed for $3.12 just twelve years ago. Since then the price has shot up by a factor of four. It's a little disappointing, because one of the greatest things about Super 8 was that you could shoot it for peanuts, compared to 16mm and 35mm. Now of course there are filmstocks like Vision color negative (which is really awesome of Kodak to do), but you still can't put it in an envelope in Walmart and get it back for under $10. That to me looses about 50% of the format's attractiveness. Things like small camera size and instaload cartridges don't mean as much to me if the price of shooting the format nearly equate 16mm. I'll gladly stoop down on my knees and thread a spool of film through my Bolex in that case. As I'm a director and writer, as well as a cinematographer, I'm always on the lookout for formats that I may want to use to tell my story. I would rather shoot on Super 8 than mini DV, even though the resolution war seems to be at a draw between the two (the colors and range still rule in S8). When I hear some Super 8 filmmakers tell me that Super 8 can equal 16mm in image quality, I'm sorry but this is just wishful thinking. As John Pytlak, an imaging techician from Kodak who designs films, repeatedly affirms here: size does matter! There are some things that filmmakers can do more cheaply which won't affect image quality, but when it comes to choice of format or lenses, that is something that has a direct scientific relationship to quality (sharpness, grain). Granted, if it was a choice between shooting on expired Anschochrome 500 in 16mm that has been sitting in a hot attic for years, with a camera that has an uncoated lens, or shooting the latest Vision 100 asa stock in a Super 8 camera with modern optics, you could have a point. But barring such extreme situations, it's irresponsible for Super 8 filmmakers to advertize Super 8 as being capable of equalling 16mm. Maybe they wish that was true, but that's simply not being realistic and truthful. I also think its important to be critical of certain statements and suggestions people make because it's important to think through things. Our own David Mullen here usually throws in some devil's advocate questions and it's not to be maliscious, it's simply a question of "Did you consider this problem, that problem...". Development teams do this all the time. I myself used to spend hours thinking of various film engineering exploits, sometimes my ideas were quite interesting but then I realized one strong logical or practical flaw that made the idea impractical. Sound striping Super 8 film sounds like a great idea since there are a lot of cameras out there that have been made to shoot the format, and projectors that can project it. But what about the new portable digital recording equipment out there, which is affordable, of a higher quality, and small enough to fit into your pocket so you can maintain the portability of Super 8? Is it worth going through the trouble of reviving the mag stripe or does it make better sense to adapt a newer approach that can cost less and produce better results? What would solution would be of greater benefit to the Super 8 format and Super 8 filmmakers? - G.

Let me ask this question, pardon me if it sounds stupid... Why would a lab charge you an entire fifteen thousand dollars extra to run your negative through its optical printer versus contact (stock being the same)? Fifteen grand is a lot of dough. Contact printers are obviously cheaper machines than optical printers, but fifteen thousand bucks seems like there's a lot of very special things going on with the optical printer that don't happen on the contact printer. An optical printer is basically a pin registered camera looking at another pin registered movement, which goes through a set of quality optics. Other than that, it's like a contact printer, it has an RGB light source and a motor drive (and it doesn't need to run in the dark). With a regular blowup you're not doing wipes or any other funny mirror stuff. I'm sorry for sounding arrogant and I may be wrong, but I don't see anything so difficult about operating such a machine that's set up properly, nothing that's that much more difficult than a contact printer. It doesn't take rocket science to work an Oxberry and a JK printer for instance (and all the telecine people know how to work a wetgate). I understand that it's probably more expensive to maintain, but fifteen thousand bucks for maintainance sounds like they fly in some bespectacled technician from the German part of Switzerland in order to put in a new movement and machine the gate after every 10 reeler. So, who gets the fifteen grand and why? Maybe I aught to learn what they're doing that's so valuable, maybe I'll be driving a much better car in a year :) - G.

http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/JohnSchwind2.html/ He's got a batch of sound Ektachrome 160 that's been frozen which he's selling for $23 a cartridge. Not a bad deal being that they usually go for twice the price on Ebay, and it's certainly cheaper than striping your own :) - G.

I did some more math and basically figured out the following... Finishing optically from 2 perf costs from $19 to $23K MORE (depending on whether you squeeze up to 4 perf in IN or IP) than originating in 4 perf and going the IN/IP route (considering all things, including the reduced footage for the answer print and correcteds). If you originate in 4 perf and go straight from negative to a print (if you're only striking a few prints) than shooting and finishing in 2 perf will cost you $40,000 over your budget. This is not calculating the issues of camera conversion or ease of rental, any metaspeed charges that may be incurred in telecine (you may be able to negotiate your way out of it if you're doing a feature), the necessity of A/B cutting meaning you always have 2 printing rolls instead of 1, and the flight to and stay in Australia while the lab does the printing. Unfortunately it seems that 2 perf only makes sense if you're paying retail for Kodak film, and/or you're shooting a very high ratio, and/or you're going straight to tape. It's also a saver if you don't have the money to go to print right away but want to shoot your movie anyway and see if you can get a film finish funded (basically means you gotta raise about 60 grand). In a way it's similar to the Super 16 dilemma, except I believe finishing from S16 to 35mm costs less than 2 perf to regular 4 perf 35mm. - G.

Try asking a lab or going to a place which rents out flatbed editing tables for editing. In both you can get it free in most cases. - G.

Honestly, I'd just spend the $20 on a roll of B&W reversal and get it processed at a cheap lab (or process it yourself). You may even go and find some expired B&W film on Ebay and develop it in a jar. If you want to test optical sound you really aught to get it developed at a lab. You're not going to get accurate results with an orange mask. - G.

$0.35/ft??? That's a LOT of money! I'm not saying this outfit is necessarily ripping you off, maybe it is an expensive process (and the magnetic material may be costly to procure), but I think this is hardly a functional way of doing sound Super 8. If it's going to cost people an extra $17.50 to get prestriped raw stock (oh yes, then there's also putting it back into the cartridge and the cost of a S8 sound cart), you can forget about it. At that price I'd rather shoot double system 16mm any day. About the digital conversions, very interesting. I only wish this person's webpage was a bit more clear, he seems to have come up with some very interesting stuff but it's hard for me to understand everything and there's a lot of missing info. His stuff certainly considerably cheaper than Clive Tobin's though, all due respect to Clive. - G.

That works out to about $17 for 3 100ft rolls worth of film (plus international shipping). I am actually tempted to try it just for fun. I'm also interested in the Foma and Orwo stuff, do you know of anyone who sells them in the USA? I'm afraid to have film shipped because how do I know they won't x-ray it, with all the security issues of today? - G.

Absolutely not. I've grabbed my 35mm camera on a last minute notice basis and for under $100 have gotten some terrific footage that I cut into my film. I set up a light in a corner and filmed. I had one kid helping me drag my battery. That was it, no circus involved. If I didn't own my own kit I doubt I could have gotten to the rental house on time to check out the camera I wanted, etc. - G.

Lol, at that point 35mm film may finally be obsolete! (okay, here come the protests...) At least then they'll be much cheaper to own :D I was always thinking what would happen if I did a commercial and the client saw me using a BNCR. I wonder what their reaction would be to it. I also wondered how silly it would be if I used it for my current feature (where I often do all the crew work myself), what would my actors think if they saw me dragging that huge beast out of the trunk of my car just to do some pickup shots, or steal footage on the subway with it? Don't wanna alarm those transit cops with the sound of the Arri's loud motor :lol: I've already done silly things like filming with a green painted Eyemo using a 400' mag, winding it up with a ratchet. I think the next stunt I'll pull is taking my tiny B&H Double 8mm Filmo to the set, and mounting it on a huge metal tripod... - G.

You may find them on Ebay, keep checking. I think a BNCR makes much more sense than the regular BNC which has an optical finder. Most BNC's were converted to BNCR's from what I understand. Visual Products sells BNCR's. They're certainly cool cameras to look at, but for a low budget filmmaker (I imagine you fall into that category) their heft is really a hinderance for a small crew and for small locations. Try raising that camera to get a high angle shot, or doing camera movements with it in a tight space - forget about it. And forget about any hand held work at all... Besides, you don't need the BNC/R's 1000' mags since most low budget filmmakers can only afford to shoot on 200'-300' short ends. You'll have this huge hulking mag that is full to only 1/4th its capacity in most cases. It's a waste. - G.

Any film on a daylight spool you can load in subdued light. That means out of the way of any direct rays of light, esp. outdoors. Cheapsters like me like to load and unload film in a changing bag to salvage the first and last feet of film that always get fogged. - G.

Hi John, I'm actually on the other coast here in NY, your offer is very appreciated all the same! The material on the side of the shutter to which I must glue the gaffers onto looks and feels more like metal than glass, but I gather that's because of the paint on it. I will try to get that glue and experiment, thanks! - George.

I have no experiences with modifications like this, but I can say that you can easily get a IIc package with three pieces of Cooke glass for under $6K. That's what I have. The conversion to Nikon on a IIc means you get a hardfront camera - no more turret, which is actually not so bad, since turrets have a tendency to loosen up and more easily alter the flange distance than hard fronts. Nikon glass has its problems with focus breathing, which others here will tell you about. I never shot MP with Nikon glass so I best shut up about it. I know Nikon glass is pretty cheap, and they have some fast glass out there, too (1.4, which costs considerably less than the Zeiss version). - G.

Just today, I got this answer from Movielab, which handles Multivision: "As we are a full motion picture laboratory (Movielab) we handle all 16 and 35mm formats and yes of course all 2 perf requirements as well. Most 2 perf originals now though are all DI finished, not the I/Pos/I/neg route. We only did one 110 minute feature that way last year and the rest were all DI. Costs for squeezing up to a 4 perf image from 2 perf is around Aust$3.50 a foot followed up by a check print from that 4 perf I/Neg at Aust$1.50 a foot. Hope this info helps you. We normally enlarge directly from the original neg as this is the best way for end quality. But it is harder to do and longer in footage for the I/Pos, hence more costly. The way you are suggesting, which we have done before for very low budgets (2nd generation enlargement) is okay in quality and a little bit cheaper and quicker to do." $5 Aus (combined price of squeezing to 4 perf and a check print) works out to about $3.90 a foot USD. My question centered around striking a 2 perf IP and then going up to a 4 perf anamorphic IN. - G.

I'm interested in what kind of projector setup you are using. You bought this? Where? What concerns having two separate inputs, virtually all audio recorders today are stereo. Getting a split Y miniplug connecter is a piece of cake. The sound stripe has lower fidelity, you have to invest a pretty chunk of change to get a striper (and making sure it works in the dark, and works well), you have to make sure you have a working sound projector with heads in decent shape, and if you edit the old fasioned razor way with the sound stripe, it's very limiting. You really have to move forward with technology. Filming single system mag stripe is something that belongs to the past. Double system has every advantage, unless all you want to do is make home movies. I don't think that market is serious enough to warrant the expense and trouble of reviving the mag stripe. To each their own of course... - G

Check out my site http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky , take a look at what Martin Baumgarten says about processing Vision 200 Super 8 film. He goes into how to take off the backing. Basically if you use a borax prebath solution you can soften it up and get rid of it. The orange mask is a different story. According to Kodak this method doesn't exist, but in fact if you prepare a mixture of mare's sweat, tannis root, and Perrier, spray it on the film, stand on one foot and say "Coupler mask be gone", it will clear up on its own. Okay, just kidding about that last part :P I don't really believe there is a chemical way to remove it, unfortunately. Wish there was. - G.

That's very magnanimous of you, but I think that there are better, more practical options out there for today's filmmakers. What's wrong with shooting Super 8 and using a minidisc recorder for instance? Fairly portable solution, and the sound quality is better. It would be a better idea to develop a projector that can project Super 8 or 16mm with interlocked digital sound coming from a computer. That could be a worthwhile enterprise if you want to help Super 8 become a better format. This way people can splice their reversal originals and project them along with high quality digital sound. - G.

It would be helpful if you can ask them why they have a webpage with an email address if they won't answer their emails!? I've emailed them twice already and nothing. They won't answer generally or specifically. It would be nice if they came on this forum and gave us a low down on the practical end of shooting, developing, and posting in 2 perf. This is a very popular forum (I'd even say more popular than the Usenet), and it would be a great opportunity for their business if they spent a little time here and let us know that 2 perf is a viable format to shoot in. They should also stick around to answer a few questions (i.e. what cameras do they have available, can they be rented internationally, do they do optical printing and how much do they charge to make an anamorphic 35mm interneg, how does the negative matching and cutting work). Otherwise they're forcing me and everyone else who has questions like mine to pay for an international call to Australia just to get the basic questions answered, questions that can be answered to a larger group of potentially interested people here and can also be searched via Google. All it takes is for one of them to sit down at a computer tied to the internet and register here. I think it would be in their best interest. Thanks, - G.

Hello again everyone, I think I've found that the most effective solution is to use a piece of gaffer's tape (as per the last image). It's hard for me to find the right paint for the aluminum and dull it down properly, the gaffer's does a great job. The finish on it shows no fare at all. My one concern now is its reliability. I want to use some glue as a safety measure to keep the gaffers' tape strip in place. Also, the chip in the shutter should somehow be filled up. I'd like to hear your suggestions, what kind of glue should I use? I'm hoping it won't melt and and goop or leave residue on the mirrored shutter with time. Thanks again for all of your helpful suggestions and time, - George.

There's some German company that prestripes Kodachrome 40 and puts it into the 200' sound cartridges. The film is expensive. I frankly don't know why someone would bother paying so much for recording single system S8. If you want to get into the business of making some film product keep in mind this will take time and energy away from your creative tasks and probably won't make you much money (which explains why Super 8 costs so much - there is little demand so you need to charge more to make it in your interest to work with it). - G.

I always liked the thought that at any given moment I can go outside with a camera and film anything, instead of having to do the whole check out ritual at a rental house. I think it is actually a good idea to own a modest camera that can deliver at least a semi-professional quality. It lets you do some kind of work and get yourself practiced, you can even get hired with it in some cases. You can shoot a completely broadcast airable TV commercial on a Canon GL-2 which costs under $3K. You can do the same with a 16mm Arri S, or a 35mm Konvas, both of which cost under $2K and neither of which look as amateurish as a K-3 or as archaic as an Eyemo (a good paint job for appearance sakes always helps, of course). You can also do short films with these combinations that will help train your eye and get you practice. The investment isn't heavy, and if you're good enough you can get it to pay for itself with relative ease, even getting paid as little as you do in the beginning. There is absolutely no need for you to drop down tens of thousands of dollars to get the latest and greatest equipment, especially when there's always something else around the corner that will upstage what you have - film or video. That is only a game you can play if you have a guaranteed stream of work coming in that pays well enough. This is where you really win with rental. As an example, the rental company will charge you $600 a day to rent the latest 35mm camera that costs hundreds of thousands. The same outfit will charge you $200 a day to rent an older 35mm camera that costs under ten thousand. With the newer equipment they're absorbing much more of the cost than with the older which has paid for itself and is basically only incurring maintenance fees (meaning that they profit more off of it per rental, than with the newer equipment). The equipment doesn't even have to be old per sey, a Canon XL-1 rents for not that much less than a higher end DV camera that can cost up to 5 times its price. One of the reasons for this is that the rental house has a bottom line to deal with on top of rental popularity issues. So in the end, owning modest gear that can deliver professional results is efficient. Owning the latest gear is in the overwhelming majority of situations (esp. yours) not. - G.

Hello everyone, As I continue working on my IIc, I was wondering, perhaps it is time to take advantage of that six pin DIN connector in back of it. I want to see if I can capture the pulse that comes from the motor and lay it onto one of the stereo channels of my recorder. This way I can sync up my footage with considerably greater ease than before if I have this guide wave on one of my sound channels. Does anyone know of the pin layout? Is the signal of the right strength to go onto a mic input of a sound recorder? Any advice is appreciated, - G.

I haven't experimented with filters yet, it probably makes more sense to warm up the one lens than cool down the other two. The correction should be slight. You really have to just shoot a comparison test and try several CC filters. Taking it out in timing means that when the film is timed by the lab (color corrected) from negative to positive, or on the telecine, they will adjust for this difference thereby correcting it. - G.

I have a Cooke Speed Panchro set for my Arri II, and my 25mm lens is colder than my 50 and 75mm. The 25mm is a Speed Panchro III, the other two are Speed Panchro II's. I assume they have different coatings. With negative film this problem is taken care of in timing. With reversal it sticks out like a sore thumb, you'd have to use a CC filter to fix it. - G.