Peter Woodford

Hi folks, I'm auctioning my GK Film metal Super 8 pressure plate. I found that it worked great with both my Nizo S80 and Canon AutoZoom 814 (old style) but it doesn't suit my working style because my girlfriend and I usually shoot at the same time with different cameras and we prefer our footage to match as closely as possible. (In an ideal world where our currency wasn't doing so poorly vs the euro I'd get a 2nd GK Frame Master...) http://www.ebay.com/itm/251589641155 Auction ends Jul 22, 2014 14:00:21 EDT

Thanks for checking Alessandro. Do full screen Vimeo vids usually play fine on your system? What would be the benefit of checking on a CRT (I'm still a bit of a novice)?

Yeah, I definitely think it helped. Vimeo in particular scolded in warning dialog that uploading a file with such a high bitrate could lead to playback issues. I have a lousy Internet connection so I can't really tell the difference. Can anyone tell if it seems to have slower or more stutter-y playback than usual for Vimeo?

Hi folks, Here are the results of my own tests, if anyone is curious. Screenshots of Vimeo at 720p my usual compressed upload (I deleted the original file but I believe I used H.264 w/bitrate set to minimum 9Mbps): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimRkJPZUZHRkNxR2M/edit?usp=sharing prores422(LT) quality=80: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimVkFveS10cHN1YlU/edit?usp=sharing Screenshots of Youtube SD my usual compression: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimbHNXWG42Nkw0Tnc/edit?usp=sharing prores422(LT): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-lCRsGpYuimWlhTQi1wRmFHd0E/edit?usp=sharing Final ProRes422 at Youtube Final ProRes422 at Vimeo (HD=720p)

That's interesting about HTML5. According to this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5845484/force-html5-youtube-video you can use the ?html5=1 parameter to 'force' html5 playback on compatible systems. Not sure if it still works (youtube seems to deprecate and change these parameters all the time).

Hi David, That's a really interesting discovery. I don't think my internet connection is up to the task of streaming 4K but based on stills, it looks like the grain survived really well. I also tried uploading Prores files to both Youtube and Vimeo and found it helped quite a bit. Long encoding time delay on Youtube though (and much longer upload times natch).

Thanks Josh. Even at 480 the grain looks pretty nice to me. It's a shame how lossy the compression gets for 360 and lower. Love it in HD! Great sound as well.

Hi folks, Thanks for the tips. And thanks especially to Carl for the very clear explanation. I'll definitely try ProRes to start (it's always music vids for really short songs so the file size isn't a huge deal for me). Does anyone have an example of a grainy clip that they uploaded to YouTube using ProRes? We're working on another vid, this time it's using relatively grainy Tri-X (you can see a few stills: here) so when it's done I imagine it'll be a YouTube SD torture test.

Thanks for the responses folks. I'm personally OK with either Vimeo or Youtube's HD quality. My suspicion, however, is that Youtube's HD option is too hidden away for the average viewer to notice. So if someone finds a vid by 'related videos' or by the search engine, I suspect they're most likely going to see it in SD. I've noticed some people on this board use Neat Video. I would much prefer the natural look of the grain at HD resolution but I'm curious if a reduced-noise vid would survive the Youtube SD grinder less scathed? Phil's comment was very interesting but way over my head. I really have to read up on this stuff! Also, I did come across a partial solution for the lack of HD playlists in Youtube--I learned that Vimeo lets you create 'albums'.

Thanks Josh, do you happen to know if there's a way to force 720 playback on playlists? I experimented and it seemed to ignore the tags. I can't seem to find any master Youtube url hack list that's up-to-date. The other thing that's a bit of a disappointment is that the 'related videos'/social component of the site will almost always lead to people seeing the lo-fi versions.

Hi folks, I'm a still a novice at Super 8 filming but I'm continuing to plug away and trying to improve my skills. The brick wall I've hit recently is the SD compression artifacts on Youtube vids. My theory could be totally wrong but it really seems as though its settings are fouled up by film grain and the compression ends up being very destructive--very blotchy/blocky. I've tried uploading the maximum quality file (since the videos are short) but it really doesn't seem to help much. I find the greens particularly bad: Here's the Vimeo version for comparison: Just wondering how others here have dealt with this-- does anyone treat the video slightly differently when it's destined for Youtube? I actually really like and embrace grain but if that's what causes the blotchiness, I'd consider having a separate version for Youtube (since the vast majority of people will see the SD version there).

Hi Tom, My Canon has slowed downed a little a fair bit a few times. It *seems* to only happen when the batteries are low, but I haven't used it enough yet to say that with certainty. The camera also seems to go through batteries more quickly (3 or 4 carts) than the manual would suggest it should (10 carts).

Thanks Mark. So does that mean the variance in filming speed has more to do with friction and/or the difference in take-up tension between the beginning and the end of a cart?

Oops, the topic should read 'Do Lithium AAs make for better film drive batteries?' Can't figure out how to edit my post.

Hi folks, Just wondering if anyone knows if Lithium AAs perform better than Alkalines in a typical super 8 camera? (I have a Canon AutoZoom 814 and a Nizo s80). I was thinking that their more stable voltage output might lead to more consistent filming speed throughout the life of the batteries. Better cold weather battery life would be nice too (I'm in Canada). It'd be great to know if anyone has done any testing.