Giray Izcan

You would get IN (internegative) which would be used for making release prints. 

Unlike negative stocks,  you would expose reversal at the box speed or underexpose it a bit.. 1/3 of a stop.

It sounds like you're really right on budget.. I would shoot digital and have a better end product instead of relying on 1 take wonders just to shoot on film. 

Aapo,

I would pay the extra and get the Lemo connection.. Have you ever seen  HAfflex motors with flat bottom that resembles SRs in a way.. How about that kind of design to accommodate needed extra real estate for additional plugs, footage counter and a lemon or 4 pin XLR? If the motor connected to the body at an angle and extended back towards the magazine flat, I would be OK with it. Of course, I don't know if that's doable.

Aapo, 

Wow.. that does look a lot more compact any other option available. I hope it ends up being 12v but if not, oh well.. do you have any orders in so far? If it's going to make it easier, I do not need the 25fps option, just crsytal 24fps.. Could you let me posted if you have 2 more so I can place the order too? Also, is it possible to have d-tap and fischer plugs on the body as well? Thank you.

You will find those lenses to be pretty soft wide open unfortunately...

Even if he did, I'm sure it'd be a one time deal for that film alone. I hope I'm wrong though.

Last time I checked a couple of years ago, he was offering hd tap for the NPR. So he stopped offering it?

That will never happen as photochemical finishing more or less doesn't exist anymore.. We're lucky to have the negative and print stocks that we have for as long as it lasts unfortunately.

It's not super 8..it is MAX 8!!! Lol...£4000 well spent haha

They are supposed to ship them in the first quarter of 2024 if I am not mistaken.

I remember reading an article on Argo on American Cinematographer a while back and remember reading they chose 2 perf over s16 because s16 did not yield satisfactory resolution for their needs.

32 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Guarantee you, with 1.5x anamorphic lenses on Super 16, you'd never notice the difference between 50D S16 2.40:1 and 250D S35 2 perf. Once you matte down the image to 2.40:1 on a TV or your computer screen, nobody is gonna care. It's just aesthetics at that point. With 3 perf or 4 perf S35mm, at least you've got a HUGE negative to work with. I guess that's my point. 

I'll see if I can do this test at some point in the near future. Reason we haven't is because our scanner(s) can't do 2 perf. I know, it's annoying. So I'd have to ship it out to Nicky and have her do the scan, which takes time and costs money. But yea, next time I get a Penelope in for service, I'll run a test. 

You are comparing 50d on one format with 1.5x anamorphic and 250d on the other... let's shoot the '13 and '19 stock under same lighting and lenses and see which format will be noticeably sharper and finer grained... I love s16 but I definitely believe 2 perf is much sharper than s16 in any crop... 

I was assuming the end product would be 16x9 or 1.85.

2mm taller and 10mm wider is quite of a difference. Imagine the bump in quality from going n16 to s16 where it is not nowhere this much of a difference in size, it's a big difference. You photograph a lot larger and sharper images and then crop into that to get 16x9 in comparison to s16.

Also no one has mentioned the fact that it charges with USB-C with the pins bending inside as well as the charging post itself gets bent and stop working after using it for a while hahaha.

If I were to spend big money on a brand new s8 camera, I would go with Logmar.

They kept everything but changed out one of the most important aspects from Logmar s8.. this camera doesn't even have pin registration. Film gate and transport are the most important details with film cameras, not the sound capturing abilities like this camera.. first of all, all those features are nice, but why would I worry about capturing sound when the camera is not quiet enough and only takes 50ft cartridges? I understand the camera allows for different aspect ratios, which is nice, but again, who would want to further crop their already tiny s8 frames? 

Tyler, even cropped to 1:85, 2 perf images are significantly larger and sharper than any s16 - of course, assuming a 2 perf camera is available.

It looks very nice Tyler.

16 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'm sure Super 8 can be made to look really sharp and impressive, getting somewhat towards a 16mm look, but I'm not really interested in it for that. I specifically got back into Super 8 because I wanted a format that looks obviously like film when viewed on a phone screen. It might surprise some, but 50D 16mm can look very clean and pristine on a phone screen. On a computer screen you can see that 16mm is actually scanned film, but on a phone only Super 8 looks very obviously like real film. Most young people tend to watch videos on their phones, and many of them really love Super 8. That's why I'm back into it. They're the ones getting married, and hopefully wanting wedding films (if they can afford them). Otherwise, I'd shoot 16mm and 35mm only. Lately I'm thinking even 16mm looks too grainy for a short film or feature movie, and ideally I'd shoot only 35mm 2-perf. Maybe one day.

S16 is fine I think, except, everyone insists on shooting on 7219 and light it like it is digital and push it even further to  accentuate the grain even more on an already inherently grainy and soft format. I like to shoot 7213 and overexpose 1 stop and light within film print contrast range.  Or at least, shoot it at box speed. I would like to squeeze out every bit of sharpness that I can. It's my own personal taste of course...

Also, I see the 220 degree shutter angle as an offset from the light loss due to the beam splitter.

4 minutes ago, Scott Bullock said:

You're shooting your short with the Minolta XL84, right? That's got a nice lens on it. One of the things I *don't* like about XL cameras, however, are their slow shutters. I think that camera has a 220 degree shutter, which equates to 1/39 at 24fps. That's slow, and there may be a perceivable loss in sharpness due to the shutter and not the lens.

Some of the reasons that my Beaulieu 6008 S has shot to the top of my list of most-used cameras are: Its low-light shutter is 144 degrees, which is 1/60 of a second at 24fps. This greatly reduces softness and blur due to camera movement. It uses a mirrored shutter, so all of the light stays directed toward the film plane, rather than being split to aid a viewfinder. This latter point means that I can use an incident meter without having to compensate for light loss to the viewfinder. Its film transport system is very stable. Not quartz crystal stable (that could be found on the PRO models, however) but very stable when compared to many, many other cameras. Only the Leicina Special rivals its stability, IMO. The 6008 S will read film stocks up to ISO 400. Finally, it comes with interchangeable lenses that can be used as truly manual lens, aperture ring and all. And these lenses are very, very nice. 

Anyway, those were some of the considerations that I took to heart when seeking a great Super 8 camera. The ergonomics took some getting used to, but I actually have adjusted to it really well. All these cameras have their idiosyncrasies I suppose. I've also started using some Single 8 cameras in the last several months for many of the same reasons outlined above. 

Oh that's nice.. I was going off of the popular zmii model. I don't care about any of the automatic features as I don't use film to shoot vacations etc.. It's far too costly for that.  

I am looking to adapt one of those cheap lipstick cameras and attach it to the viewfinder area with a clamp of some sort of a piece of black piece cloth with a hole for the camera to go through to make sure there is no light leak.. I would like to see s8 in some jib action - it doesn't even have to be a far reaching, maybe a 5ft Losmandy (?) Traveler jib. I wouldn't shoot a narrative on s8, though this one will be with sound design and everything.. I might as well, if I am spending money for processing and scanning, get something watchable and put together.. I would like to see how well I could incorporate s8 for some music videos when shot properly, or not... I never took s8 seriously so, I've only shot on this camera a handful of times. Now seeing the interest in the format pushed me into testing the format. I like to shoot at 2.8 regardless of format. I don't chase shallow depth of field with smaller gauge formats like s16 or s8, but instead, embrace the format for its deep depth of field. 2.8 on Minolta is 2 stops closed down on so I would expect a bump in sharpness. We'll see how it goes.

27 minutes ago, Scott Bullock said:

That's a nice setup. I had an NPR converted to S16 by George at Optical Electro House before he retired. It had an AZ Spectrum video tap also. I ended up selling it and bought an ACL II. Kinda wish I still had it as it was a trouble-free camera the entire time I owned it.

In reading your other posts, I hope you're not setting yourself up for disappointment with your Super 8 short, but if you are expecting Super 8 to give the same or comparable results to your NPR, I fear you're heading down that road.

I'm with you on the price of the Kodak camera though. I've tried to find a way to justify that price because I really enjoy Super 8 a lot. Like, a lot a lot. However, I just can't do it. I agree that that sort of money would be much better spent on a rig like you've described or, if one wanted to really pursue Super 8, then to buy a high end, freshly serviced camera and spend the rest on film, processing and transfer. But then, it seems anyone who can afford this camera may not be concerned about film costs.

Thank you. Of course,  I do not expect anywhere near 16/s16 quality but I just want to see how 7213 behaves in low-key situations when it's rated 1 stop over and how it is going to feel on its own when it's shot in a "cinematic" fashion, stabilized , cropped and lit properly. I would only shoot 7219 in situations out of my control like night exteriors; otherwise, I find it too distracticgly grainy - even on s16.

11 minutes ago, Shane C Collins said:

Well all I can say is you must be using junk cameras, and projectors because that has not been my experiences at all. I would not consider the Elmo Super 110 junk far from it. Nor would I say my Eumig projector was junk. Built from solid metal, and with precise gates, and removable sprockets for Standard 8 and Super 8. Dude you really are beating up on a format that is a joy to use, and view! I'm only stating my experience with it! Super 8 has lots of potential you just have to know what your doing to get good results. It sounds like your not using the format correctly. I honestly never heard anyone beat up on it as much as you sorry dude! It's not perfect but it's magical when you keep things in perspective. Super 8 was never intended to compete with 16mm or 35mm. But many of us love it for it's dreamy quality, and vintage look. 

I was actually interested in Elmo as I know they have a great lens. If I am not mistaken, that camera has 180 degree shutter angle at 24fps right? The narrow shutter angle is what I don't like about s8 cameras, in particular,  Beaulieus.. you lose a stop with that shutter angle.. I wish they were just standard 180..