Charles Doran

great work!

You have some great shots there, Tony! What camera -- 1014XLS? Excellent transfer.

Haven't posted here in a while...my short film, "Westsider" is now available on amazon.com as a DVD-R.

Westsider was shot using the following film stocks: Spectra's Velvia 50; K40; 7240; Kodak 64T; a one-off batch of Velvia 64T; 100D; Vision 2 200 T and 500T; and an old roll of 160G I found in an ebay camera.

This dvd contains both short and long versions of "Westsider"; my first film (also shot on super-8), "Ennui", actor's auditions; behind the scenes slideshow; trailer; plus behind the scenes video of the shooting of one scene...

Westsider on amazon

If you aren't happy with the Velvia 50D you can always get the 100D from Spectra (and I think Pro 8mm as well)...

Thanks guys. Charles..your work is excellent. Im afraid I was unable to get the Milnolta in the end I picked up a Bauer S 2035XL which is just by way of an intro...it should arrive in the next few days. I have some old K40 stock to try it out. If only I can figure out how it could cope with E64T...it does have manual aperture overide...If that helps?

Personally, I would only shoot with manual override. Having an external light meter was a great help.

If you need a good camera with an intervolometer keep a lookout for the Minolta 401 - it comes up on e-bay all the time. Got mind for around $50USD.

Hi All,

 

Im a complete novice with Super 8 although with some shooting experience in video, Im reading and learning and now looking for a simple film camera to get started and test some film stocks against various lighting scenarios.

I know its not the best, running at only 18frames and failing to properly recognise Ektachrome 64T but would the Minolta XL 401 do to gets started? Is the Lens any good? I know what the better camers are, but im not sure if Ill really need one in the begiining, with the cost of film and telecine so hi here in the UK, that would be something for the future.

Many Thanks

I used mine for some footage on a narrative short I made as well as bringing it to SE Asia for some vacation footage. It's a good little camera with an adequate lens and is probably the cheapest camera out there with an intervalometer. Here is a page of film clips I put together -- the second one from the left is footage entirely shot with the Minolta 401 ("kodachrome 40 clip").

http://www.westsiderfilm.com/clips.html

good luck on your shoot!

Searched the archives and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for.

 

Looking for a cheap and relatively decent place to get a DVD or Mini-DV transfer of some Super 8mm film. Just a one-light would be fine...unless someone knows some place with great deals. I'm in the Los Angeles area...

 

Any suggestions?

 

I've heard Walmart processes...can you get a transfer from them too?

 

Thanks,

 

John

Not sure about Walmart, but Dwayne's in Parsons, Kansas will process your 64T and do a transfer. Not too much as I recall.

A good, not-too-expensive transfer is the Transfer Station (or Film and Video Transfer) located in Reseda. They have one-light transfers for not too much as I recall.

Hello,

I have another question:

Does anyone puts lab/telecine info and logos in your credits?

I credited Spectra for film processing and telecine - added their logo as well.

Also listed each film stock but not sure if that was really necessary.

Has anyone done any "pro" transfers with S8 sound film? I have several rolls in the fridge and I'm tired of looking at them so I'm going to make a short film this summer but I don't want to do a home transfer. Anyone try any of the S8 telecine houses for sound footage?

Pretty sure this topic has been covered here. Do a search.

Hello,

any of you folks in the downtown LA area tomorrow night -- Westsider is going to be screening at the Downtown Independent theater (formerly ImaginAsian) at 6:00 PM as part of the new Zero Film Festival.

More info here:

www.zerofilmfest.com

Check it out!

www.westsiderfilm.com

My super-8 short, "Westsider" will be making it's LA premiere at the Echo Park Film Center this Saturday, 11/15, 8:00 PM along with several other short films (5 of them originating on S8) with Los Angeles as a focus.

More info:

Echo Park Screening

It's also screening in the UK at the Salford Film Festival the following Saturday, 11/22:

Salford S8

I think it's a great idea. I'm up for attending whether it's London or LA...

Aside from the talks maybe one idea would be to showcase films people shot in S8 -- maybe a separate screening room or monitors or something...just an idea...

I have a question about pricing for telecine transfers. I was just looking at Spectra's price sheet online... Does it really cost $265/hr to put your footage on a DVD? I'm a photographer and just wanted to start shooting super 8 films for fun as a hobby. But if that's how much it costs, there is no way I'll be able to afford it. Are there any much cheaper alternatives (that still offer good quality)?

 

Thanks!

-Lesley

Best bet is to talk with Doug or Jerry at Spectra directly.

This is what I was thinking of:

Super-8 Today

ISSUE #4 (MAY/JUNE 2006)

Ektachrome 64T Lab Test - Results of 7 different labs that were each sent a cartridge of E-64T are examined

Charles,

don't get me wrong but I think there was no E6 processing test with different labs inside Super 8 Today. I ve seen nothing about that topic inside the mag of Chris. smallformat magazine did such a test - indeed. It was an expensive operation anyway. We had to tell the companies that we were doing a processing test because we could not afford to pay for all the processing expenses. The costs for the test (buying 20 cartridges E64T, shipping them across the world) were about Euro 1000/US $ 1500. This was the maximum for us.

 

The "Great E6 Test" was published in smallformat 2/2007. You will find it here:

 

http://smallformat.schiele-schoen.de/119/1..._THE_WORLD.html

 

Further articles will not published for free in the internet anymore. The editorial work and the research is expensive and our subscribers subsidized the internet users with their free access to the informations. In the future, we only give short summaries of new articles. The main stories are inside the printed version of smallformat magazine only.

Hey Super8ers,

 

I just want to share with you the news that our film Shikashika won the jury prize for "best film" at Cambridge International Super 8 Film Festival. The generous prize includes 20 rolls of Kodak color negative film + processing and telecine services at Todd-AO in the UK. We are very excited to have this opportunity to make another small gauge film and very much appreciate this encouragement.

 

web:

http://www.todd-ao.co.uk/index.htm

 

If you are interested to learn more about our film, please visit our website:

 

http://www.shikashika.com

 

and of course the festival web is:

 

http://www.cambridge-super8.org/

 

...I know the directors are already planning for a 3rd annual festival so keep them in mind when your films are ready.

Congrats! I look forward to seeing this one day. Have you submitted to any of the LA fests?

What you are proposing is that the labs should not be able to show what they can do, or they should show us their middle of the road work, or we should see what their equipment can do with little human effort. which makes no sense.

That's not what I'm stating at all. You ignored what I wrote previously where I stated that part of the point of this testing would be to allow filmmakers who do not have access or funds to supervise scene-for-scene transfers of their work to see how well different labs would perform given similar footage and instruction. That's it.

The difference between us is that you seem to think the labs are basically not to be trusted. I think the lab is potentially my best friend and will do what I can to make that the case.

Not necessarily. I simply think that blind testing would be conducive for the filmmaker -- flaws and all.

I have far more experience dealing with all different types of labs than you do and can say with with total confidence that communication skills & style, experience, knowing exactly what you want, and budget are the most important aspects of getting the aesthetic results one wants from a lab.

<sigh> I understand what you are stating. I'm not an idiot. Go back to the OP and the follow-up posts. Not everyone is a pro like yourself who has the "communications skills &style, experience" etc., in dealing with these labs. There are many people who are willing to mail in their footage to a lab with the hopes that they can get a telecine which would match their needs. The original posters had different opinions on different labs based upon their footage. These are the people who I think would benefit from such testing.

In the end what its about is the aesthetic results. That is why I'm so vocal in saying your idea for a test is a poor one. As proposed it simply does not address the most important factors or help educate filmmakers as to the various potentials that are available.

But if the original posters are interested in getting information based upon the performance of a lab's services how can a magazine's test results be any worse than another poster's opinion?

You sound like Alex M. now.

I've been pretty civil and polite - no reason to be so insulting! ;)

Look I have about the same level of experience working on low budget non-professional as I do high budget professional project. However, working on such a variety of projects and having spent a good amount of time in different labs I have learned over time how to communicate with labs and I know what to expect from them in different situations based on the budget, and media in question.

Good. For. You. Again, not everyone who is seeking this information is a pro like you with time on their hand or the knowledge to know exactly what to say to each lab. Perhaps you should write an article for one of the mags which would help people with this.

You tone is so negative, you really act as if labs are out to get small filmmakers. You are willing to bad mouth two labs in one sentence! Are we to be surprised that you have gotten results that you were unhappy with?

While I may fail to have the Pollyanna-esque tone of your writing, my intent hardly reflects the Paranoid-brush you paint me with. I have written repeatedly in this forum and elsewhere of the positive experiences I've had with Spectra.

In the end we agree that an article or articles concerning labs and telecine would be a good thing for the mags to do.

Yes.

But I want the labs to show us great work and the readers / filmmakers to learn how to ask for it and get that level of work on their own projects. Where as you think labs are the enemy and need to be tricked, and won't give good work to small filmmakers anyway so what's the point.

<sigh> Again, you are missing my intent and appear to be running with the paranoid "if you don't agree with everything I state you are the enemy" attitude which is something more akin to the previously-mentioned Alex M. than the pro you've been in the past. Nothing would make me happier than to see great telecine work done by all labs. My only concern is that if a lab knows that there is a "taste-test" comparision the results may be skewed. This is why blind testing is done not only in products but in services. Nothing can possibly be 100% conclusive. All I'm stating is that it could be a good start.

best regards,

Not knee-jerk offense, I just think your perspective is not well informed, honestly beyond your work on Westsider how many color session have you supervised and at what different labs have you done them? I was forthcoming about my level of experience - I deal with labs almost daily- wasn't I? As for the 64T test, I think the labs should have been informed, its only fair.

I disagree. If labs are expected to be as professional to all as you claimed in a previous post then why can't viewers/readers judge a company's work in a blind test? As for my experience, I don't claim to be a pro -- I've had 3 short films and a wedding telecined. I guess in your world that makes me a lackey but as far as I know I'm still entitled to an opinion.

I know very well that these small labs have had many unhappy customers. At times I have been one of them. The mistake you are making is to simply blame the labs. To be sure there are some things that are the lab's fault. Customer service, roller marks on the film, dirty soup, and other problems are 100% the lab's fault, that is a no brainer.

As I stated before there is no way such testing could be 100% conclusive. It would only be a start to allow those without access or money for a supervised transfer to judge the merits of a telecine facility.

On the other hand many of the complaints I hear are often caused by the client's lack of knowledge, lack of experience, or lack of ability to communicate with a lab, or they shot crappy footage and the lab couldn't fix it. Folks end up blaming the lab because they just don't know any better. There are other complaints such as pricing and poor customer service but those are different issues than currently under discussion. I for one have gotten very poor front desk customer service (from a brand new staff person) and very good telecine treatment from the same lab on the same day.

I have never disputed any of this and I'm not sure how this would end up in any final testing. In my proposed article, I would assume we would get pro footage rather than "crappy" -- so that would not be an issue.

2) The second part of what you write does not make that much sense.

Really? This is what I wrote:

A lab can only put in extra effort if they have a well defined instruction from the client, further in many cases extra effort won't make any difference. If I take well exposed footage to a lab for an unsupervised session and the instructions are to time it down the middle for the greatest flexibility in a final color pass what extra effort do you think they are going to put in exactly? The results for the labs will be slightly different but its not the kind of thing that hours of tweeking will have much of an impact on.

Yet there are plenty of people who have written in to give horror stories about how wretched their telecine transfers are. I would like to think that most of these people who have written about their poor telecine jobs are not complete idiots. Scour the archives and you will find them.

If all the labs in our fantasy test do their very best, and a mag publishes those results. Then as a reader, If I see what a lab considers their own "best" work I can request that level / type of work from them in the future.

Let's try a different analogy here -- if Channel 4 brings in a car to different auto service stations to compare how well the mechanics work on their car do you not think that if the mechanic (or owner) knows in advance that this is going to be written up in the paper they would try their hardest to do the best job? That's why "blind testing" is done -- not just in products but in services all the time. Kaiser Permanente, for instance, actually polices itself by having an "anonymous" employee seek out treatment and testing to see how well the employee is treated, type of service, equipment used, etc. If the supervisor knew exactly which employee was going to be coming in, don't you think that they would be given better treatment?

IF the labs can show us their "best" work and then we know what to ask for because we seen the "best" work, that's the world we should be living in.

But do you honestly think that all labs would respond this way? Not to sound cynical but does stating "that's the world we should be living in" make it so?

next post, please...

1) Because as I've mentioned previously I don't think you are seeking to achieve the right goal.

You have a right to think what you like but the only goal I'm "seeking" is what would be the simplest way to achieve a comparison between labs. You don't comment on the Super-8 Today article comparing 64T -- that was a good -- though hardly perfect -- way to let the Super-8 community quickly ascertain which labs would do the best job in processing this specific film stock.

2) A lab is not a product like dishwashing soap. Labs are run by people, the results we get are based on individual efforts and relationships. As a Post Super (that's someone who works professionally in post production and works with labs on a daily basis) I think its its wrong to not tell a lab what you and doing and why you are doing it. That is something I would never do. But I'm just a professional what the hell do I know?

You seem to be taking knee-jerk offense that a lowly filmmaker like myself would dare to contradict you, Doug. Do you think it was wrong for Super-8 Today to not let the labs know that they were conducting a blind test on the 64T processing?

No its not the point, any lab worth its salt will do a great job for all its clients. The fact is that no lab wants to get the reputation of providing better service to some clients than others.

Really? then you obviously have been turning a blind eye to the unhappy results people on this forum and filmshooting.com have had with Pro8mm, Yale and other labs.

To do so is just asking for trouble and unhappy clients taking their money elsewhere. Why on Earth would anyone go back to a lab if they thought they were not getting that lab's best efforts? I sure as hell wouldn't darken the doorway twice of a lab that I thought didn't do a good job.

I think you are unaware of the fact that there are simply not that many Super-8 telecine labs out there. While I don't doubt that on paper many of the professional labs you speak of work this way, I think the reality of the situation is that there are Super-8 labs that would attempt to work harder on a telecine project if they knew the results would be revealed in an internationally-read magazine.

I speak from personal and professional experience that I have seen both small labs and the top labs in Hollywood give great service to tiny projects, to "joe blow." Now, what one could say and it would be correct is that a lab will try to live up to the expectations of the client. If a client does not know much, they will not ask much or communicate their desires very well to the lab. So at that point the lab / colorist will probably not do very much because they don't know what would be best for that client. This is why the educational aspect of an article would be important, if a article was published with many different stills of different looks, then a reader could refer to those stills as a way of expressing what they want to a lab. We could also say that the QC aspects of a lab can be quantified and that is an important aspect to consider.

Well I'm glad to hear that. But there is nothing in the above paragraph that contradicts what I have stated. Many of the Super-8 shooters out there are not able to be present for a telecine session. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a metropolitan area like ourselves. The idea behind the article would be to send in 200 feet to different labs with specific instructions for the colorist. I never said it would be perfect. I stated (again and again) that, of course it would be helpful if the writer were to be able to sit in on supervised sessions and communicate their goals directly to the colorist. The fact of the matter is that I seriously doubt that either editor/publisher would want to foot the bill for this.

Who me? Gee, let me think? Huuummmm . . . have I ever seen a colorist in action?

Obviously I've touched a nerve here..sorry to have offended a pro like you (no sarcasm intended).

The bottom line is that I feel you are equating far more professional-type projects (maybe I should state "larger gauge" projects) with Super-8 filmmaking. Not that Super-8 can't look professional or isn't being used professionally but, as stated before, in my observation and from reading and talking with others there are:

a.) far fewer telecine options for the S8-specific filmmaker -- hence the article that could be helpful

b.) some labs that do not take smaller clients as seriously as larger ones. That is my opinion and also reflects the observation from many S8-filmmakers I have interacted with. Obviously your Super-8-specific telecine experience differs. I am not contradicting it, only stating what I have experienced both personally (had a terrible experience with both Pro8mm arrogance and Yale incompetence) and from interactions with many other S8-specific shooters.

Not at all, its my opinion that if a Mag is going to do such a thing they should be totally above board with it and tell the labs whats going on.

Why? What is wrong with the idea of a "blind taste test comparison? Why do you think products get compared and tested all the time? While I am repeating once again that the results would not be 100% conclusive I can't think of any other way -- other than the editors paying an anonymous writer to fly out personally to get a scene-for-scene supervised transfer -- for a non-biased, impartial test.

As I understand it they only have one colorist, and as you know Spectra only has one colorist, same goes for Yale and just about all the Super 8 labs, so that's a moot point. Again, since it's a subjective test let all the labs treat the film in the way they consider "best", what ever that means for them.

But at "best" is not what is being performed for the average Joe Blow -- the point of my last post. Oliver Stone may get the "best" treatment but would you or I? That is the point. According to Doug at Spectra, Pro 8mm did have more than one colorist and I believe Yale does or at least did when I went there for my telecine two and a half years ago. But that's not the point.

Have you observed a colorist in action, Doug? Do you honestly think that Phil V. upon learning that this is a test being conducted for a Super-8 mag would allow one of his lesser-talented colorists to work on a piece of film knowing that the results would be published for all to see? Of course not.

My point is simple -- have a magazine mail out 200 feet of the same film to each lab with specific instructions for a scene-for-scene telecine. Publish the results. Super-8 Today did something like this with the 64T processing. This could be a valuable way to see how labs perform at random.

What I am getting at is the idea that there is no such thing as 100% conclusive comparison between labs. It is, and should be, a subjective evaluation.

Which is what I stated clearly. There is no way you can have a 100% conclusive comparison.

If a magazine editor were to send some film in I hope they would NOT do so anonymously. I would hope they would tell the labs what they were up to in a "show us what you can do" spirit. and let each lab create a variety of looks for the same scene.

You seem to be mistaking the word "anonymous" for the term "failing to let the lab know what you want."

By "anonymous" I simply meant that the magazine editor instruct the lab (using as much instruction as they can) on how to telecine a certain piece of film. And not let the lab know that it is being sent by Super-8 Today or Smallfilm. You cannot tell me that Pro 8mm, upon learning that the editors of a mag are conducting this test would not give a little extra effort to making sure that this piece of film be given the best colorist, the best care? In a perfect world, the best attention would be given to anyone, whether it's Oliver Stone or Joe high school student saving his pennies for a telecine. That's not the case -- hence the need for anonymous testing.

One of the things that mags such as Small Format and Super 8 Today seem to be into is educating less experienced filmmakers. Showing the variety of looks that can be achieved on a single piece of film and an interview with the colorists on how and why they did what they did would be good for the labs and educational to readers. It could help the readers learn what can be done and the proper language to use to describe different elements of timing.

I don't disagree with you there. As a matter of fact I'm going to be conducting an interview for Super-8 Today with Doug from Spectra within (hopefully) the next few weeks. Since Pro8mm had their say (in an interview/article conducted by the owner's wife!) I thought it would be cool idea to go thru the telecine process with Doug and talk about the various aspects of their lab. I learned quite a bit from the many sessions we did for my film.

Regardless, I still think there is validity in doing a "blind taste test" amongst certain labs regarding their telecine.

Several of the Super 8 labs advertise their gates, it seems to be a thing in the super 8 world. I admit to being a little clueless in that regard. I don't know how big a difference a gate can make in terms of the overall quality of a job. I see the gate as a bit of equipment that is working properly when you don't know its there.

Without someone personally flying out to each telecine lab, sitting with the colorist and the same piece of film I don't see how the results we seek can be 100% conclusive.

That's why I think the next best thing would be for one of the magazine editors to anonymously send in the same piece of film with specific instructions to the labs and request a scene-by-scene transfer. Even that wouldn't be 100% conclusive but the results would be interesting indeed.

The premise of the entire discussion is flawed in that almost no one can give a truely qualified, formally tested review of these telecine labs. All we can do is share experiences. Sending test patterns and color charts would be a good idea. Perhaps a Super 8 magazine will step up for the challenge and do a really scientific study along with several subject opinions.

This is true. With so many pro labs performing telecine I'm surprised one of the S8 mags hasn't looked into this. I know Super-8 Today reviewed processing by several of the labs in a past issue but testing out all of the labs for telecine quality would make sense. Jurgen? Chis? You guys around?

On a personal note, I think Spectra did a great job with my film -- but I've blabbed about them already many times.

For the film festivals brave enough to try this, why not set up a webcam at the back of the theatre and just stream the film festival as it happens?

Bumping this up as it starts tonight...let us know how it goes...wish I could afford to fly over...

Finally got around to finishing off my cart (started by James E, Chas and Pelle): decided to just mess around with shutterless shots of candles and lights since it's hard to get the right idea for a mere 10 feet.

 

And I only had 7 feet!!! So much for people shooting 10 feet to leave a buffer at the end!!!

 

I am really glad I didn't try to execute anything complicated (as originally planned) as I would have been really let down.

 

Anyway, I will get this processed here and get it off to Last Coyote.

 

Rick

That's odd...4 people shooting 10 feet each = 40 feet? :unsure:

Aright -- 'fess up someone -- who shot the extra footage?! Maybe one of you metric folk? ;)

Guess we will find out once the telecine starts!

Anyway -- sounds like you shot some great footage -- my surf stuff will be boring next to yours!