Jump to content

Why I like to shoot super-8 over 16mm.


John Adolfi

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
I'm not 'dissing' super8mm, but the only things I can think of that are beneficial to shooting on that format is that loading is super easy (pop in a cartridge and you're done), and that cameras can be very affordable. The problem with the latter is they can also be cheap.

 

Good points, Timothy. I shoot Super 8 instead of 16mm only when I want the classic home movie look. Otherwise, forget it. In my experience, Super 8 is too unreliable, too difficult to use and too expensive compared to 16mm. Not to get too off-topic, but here's why:

 

As of last month, my $750 eBay Beaulieu 4008 ZMII has cost me an additional $871 over the past four years and five trips to various repair people. And the footage counter broke again this weekend. It's going out to the shop tomorrow and the next bill will probably put me over the $1K mark in repair work alone. Other problems? The viewfinder is relatively dark and it is exceptionally difficult to focus. The 8-64 zoom breathes like crazy. It had a weird 1/87th second shutter speed at 24fps. It has a funky, double on-off switch and various other quirks. The only reason I haven't dumped this turkey is because the other choices--from Canons to Nikons to the Leicina Special--all have their own issues and spare parts and service are even more difficult to find than those for French cameras. At least there are plenty of spares for the Beaulieu, probably because the manufacturer knew they'd be needed.

 

Granted, I'm not trying to get a 16mm look from it, I only want it for the traditional S8 home-movie look. But, quite frankly, I can't really understand why more people on this forum who are chasing the "ultimate" in S8 (whatever that means) or looking toward a career in cinematography don't look seriously at some of the 16mm cameras like an Arriflex S/B. 16mm is worlds better in every important category: better viewfinders/easier focusing; more frame rates; more lens and film choices; more choices of labs and telecine facilities (and more/better colorists). In my experience, 16mm film and telecine costs can often be less than Super 8. There are tons of 16mm short-ends and recans everywhere. The cameras can actually cost less that Super 8, too. If you need something small and cheap and easy to use get a Bell & Howell Filmo.

 

I realize a lot of people have no interest in 16mm cameras, but after living with the Beaulieu and paying the costs associated with it, I'm surprised that working in the small-gauge world hasn't been the bargain I thought it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, did you shoot all that motor cycle stuff with the 4008? That looks fabulous!

 

I'm trying to get that look out of my DS8, but I don't have the chops (yet)

 

 

 

Good points, Timothy. I shoot Super 8 instead of 16mm only when I want the classic home movie look. Otherwise, forget it. In my experience, Super 8 is too unreliable, too difficult to use and too expensive compared to 16mm. Not to get too off-topic, but here's why:

 

As of last month, my $750 eBay Beaulieu 4008 ZMII has cost me an additional $871 over the past four years and five trips to various repair people. And the footage counter broke again this weekend. It's going out to the shop tomorrow and the next bill will probably put me over the $1K mark in repair work alone. Other problems? The viewfinder is relatively dark and it is exceptionally difficult to focus. The 8-64 zoom breathes like crazy. It had a weird 1/87th second shutter speed at 24fps. It has a funky double on-off switch and various other quirks. The only reason I haven't dumped this turkey is because the other choices--from Canons to Nikons to the Leicina Special--all have their own issues and spare parts and service are even more difficult to find than those for French cameras. At least there are plenty of spares for the Beaulieu, probably because the manufacturer knew they'd be needed.

 

Granted, I'm not trying to get a 16mm look from it, I only want it for the traditional S8 home-movie look. But, quite frankly, I can't really understand why more people on this forum who are chasing the "ultimate" in S8 (whatever that means) or looking toward a career in cinematography don't look seriously at some of the 16mm cameras like an Arriflex S/B. 16mm is worlds better in every important category: better viewfinders/easier focusing; more frame rates; more lens and film choices; more choices of labs and telecine facilities (and more/better colorists). In my experience, 16mm film and telecine costs can often be less than Super 8. There are tons of 16mm short-ends and recans everywhere. The cameras can actually cost less that Super 8, too. If you need something small and cheap and easy to use get a Bell & Howell Filmo.

 

I realize a lot of people have no interest in 16mm cameras, but after living with the Beaulieu and paying the costs associated with it, I'm surprised that working in the small-gauge world hasn't been the bargain I thought it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Wow, did you shoot all that motor cycle stuff with the 4008? That looks fabulous!

 

I'm trying to get that look out of my DS8, but I don't have the chops (yet)

 

It was either the Beaulieu 4008 or maybe one of Keslow's 435s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Didn't know that. Could you be more specific about this?

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

 

falling apart when projected? More specifically, I'm making reference to highlights in the image falling apart. The super 8 that I have projected on average LCD projectors looks pretty rough to my eyes. I'm suggesting that this might improve as HD projection systems become more common.... Don't get me wrong here, I think super 8 to HD workflow doesn't pass the cost/benefit test...

 

I agree with Fran. 16mm isn't much more expensive, you have more film stocks, more post production options, more lenses and if you want it to look like a home movie, you can do that too. Although, unlike Fran's experience, my B4008 has been reliable. I've shot 1600 ft with it in the past two months without any problems.... I've been lucky with the Beaulieu, but I've also owned a few lemons before I got this one. I also have a B&H Filmo and have recently shot a good chunk of footage with it. The Filmo has some stability problems and if the operator isn't careful loading it, the loops inside can get fu**ed up, but otherwise, I've found the Filmo to be a fine first MOS camera.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like doing a lot of off the wall stuff on super 8, using all the freedom to expose the film in so many ways. I seldom shoot S8 at a normal frame rate or shutter angle, I like doing stop motion camera moves... so the small size plays a huge part, especially filming around the city. With the little Nizo's I can compose shots quick, or setup a stealthy mount (I snagged a rare adapter so I can opperate with the handle folded up). And I like to work while being least hassled by people saying "what are ya doin? whats it for?" or staring at me... sometimes breakes my concentration and I make mistakes. But that's what puts the "G" in Guerrilla filming, and the payoff can be sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, 16mm film and telecine costs can often be less than Super 8.

 

As I said, the cost of purchasing, developing and doing a telecine transfer is less than half of that of 16mm, using the same stock, in central/northen Europe. So if you do have a family of 3 + children and a normal income and expences on housing and food (etc.), Super8 is often the only alternative for the amateure filmmmaker with a professional ambition. Then of course you want to have maximum use and benefit of the format (good cameras, Super-Duper8, good lenses, good stock etc). Most of the costs in filmmaking goes to filmstock, development and telecine. So its only natual that you do whatever you can to cut the expenses.

 

Today I only have a simple Russian Zeinit Quartz 1X8S-2, with wich I recently shoot my lost scene on the fortcoming first short using the WittnerChrome 100D.

 

I'm planning to buy a Beaulieu 4008 ZMII, widening the gate to Super-Duper8 and using a c-mount zoom lens for the 16mm format (to prevent vignetting with the wider gate), compendium, etc. Why being satisfied with any less just because the format is inferiour to 16mm (which I from time to time will shoot on also as I own a K-3 and a Kinor-16 SX-2M).

 

I love the 16mm format but my economy will force me to use Super8 most of the time, as I refuse to use DV-techology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I don?t want a windup silly camera.

 

Super 8 costs much less than 16.

Beautiful and much cheaper than 16. That is why to choose super 8.

It depends on how you define ?much cheaper?.

 

For me it?s about percentages. Whenever a camera is in my hands and running, I start thinking about how much it?s going to cost to transfer the film and if I?m getting something that?s actually worth transferring. So whenever I?m squinting through the Beaulieu?s foggy viewfinder, buzzing focus on that once-in-a-lifetime shot of my daughter?s birthday party, I wonder why I didn?t bring that silly, wind-up Filmo instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You are free for choice but why if it is home movies do you not pick an easy to use camera with big viewfinder or easier for last minute shots? Minolta Canon Nizo Bauer many many others better suited for home movies. They are good? Saving a lot of money, as well. I do not understand.

 

You know, Rodolfo, I think the same thing every time I use the Beaulieu. I started wondering why I ever bought it to begin with and not something from Canon or Nikon. It was because the Beaulieu seems like the only Super 8 camera that's set up with a bias towards manual operation. I don't like automatic cameras much because, as we all find out sooner or later, they simply make all the mistakes for you automatically. With the 4008, I thought I'd have a chance to keep some basic things like exposure and focus under control.

 

I'll try having the Beaulieu fixed one more time. I spoke to Bernie O'Dougherty at Super16 Inc. about it yesterday and I'm going to have him do that Laserbrite treatment to the ground glass so I may actually be able to focus the thing for a roll or two before something else breaks. At that point I'll likely have to get a Canon 1014-XL and hope I can find someone to service it. All this for home movies!

 

My apologies if this is too off-topic. Back to the original discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I choose super 8 because it looks beautiful. That is number one. In digital beta it is very beautiful at film festivals. All who have seen know that. Very much like projected film. In HD should look exactly like projected film.

 

Also the very best cameras cost possible US$500. Persons who want only the home movies can buy a US$50 camera. Good 16 cameras cost many thousands of dollars and much repair. I don’t want a windup silly camera.

 

Super 8 costs much less than 16. I have been researching and pricing. Anybody can. Here is a price list of Kodak: http://www.box.net/public/frmc4nl173 Here is a price list of developing and video transfer: http://www.cinelab.com/rates.php

 

As any person can discover with easy math super 8 costs for 2.5 minutes to buy develop transfer to video all included

 

s8 15.15 + 15 + 12.5 = 42.65

 

16 36.48 + 16 + 14 = 66.48

 

It is 36% cheaper than 16. so in a short movie making 80 minutes rough to edit super 8 save US$800 and the many thousands of dollars over the 16 camera which is more important. Or sell 16 camera when done?

 

Beautiful and much cheaper than 16. That is why to choose super 8.

 

Yeah, that's about right. 36% cheaper. But what does that 36% savings cost you in lost production value? It all depends on what you are up to. Saving $360.00 on a project with a $1000.00 budget is a good savings, but if your budget is 10,000 and 9,000 of that is going to non-image acquisition costs like actors and grip then saving $360.00 on film is totally unreasonable... It becomes a 3.6% savings and costs $$$ in lost production value.

 

Steve

Edited by steve hyde
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 8mm vs 16mm choice is the same as it is in everything we do. I am thinking of a small sprtscar for my next vehicle (Saturn Sky - Rdline Edition) but there are so many vehicles out there that are better suited to my life. Go for the speed and thrills or skip it and go for the practical stuff? If we always chose practical, we are going to miss a lot of fun in life.

 

Sean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As any person can discover with easy math super 8 costs for 2.5 minutes to buy develop transfer to video all included

 

s8 15.15 + 15 + 12.5 = 42.65

 

16 36.48 + 16 + 14 = 66.48

 

It is 36% cheaper than 16. so in a short movie making 80 minutes rough to edit super 8 save US$800 and the many thousands of dollars over the 16 camera which is more important. Or sell 16 camera when done?

 

Beautiful and much cheaper than 16. That is why to choose super 8.

 

Well lets see now.

 

Lets compare shooting 10mins MOS of Fuji Velvia 50D reversal in super 8 stock to shooting 11.6 mins. MOS of Fuji 64 D as 16mm neg.

 

Super 8

purchase & Process 200ft of film = $140

Purchase & Process total $140

30min telecine to digibeta (pro8mm) $172.5

Tape stock (bring your own32min) $17

 

TOTAL $329.5

 

16mm

Purchase 400 feet of film: $115.79

Processing 400 ft: $56

Purchase & Process total $171.79

30min telecine to digibeta(fotokem) $150

Tape stock (bring your own 32min) $17

 

TOTAL $338.79

 

the difference: Shooting 11.6 minutes of MOS 16mm (or super 16) is $9.21 more expensive than shooting 10mins. Super 8 in this comparison. And if you break it down by the minute, shooting 16mm is actually 3 dollars and change per minute LESS expensive than shooting super 8.

 

Obviously, the difference will change based on the products one compares but this is an apples to apples comparison of similar film stocks, using very simillar top of the line URSA SD SDI telecine technology.

 

I was about to say that the real cost differences occur when you want to shoot sync sound but even that is debatable. the sound gear is going to be priced the same on both formats, and the purchase price of a camera such as an eclair, Arri S or BL with a sync motor and a Beaulieu 6008 pro or a crystal conversion for a Canon 1014XL-s are often not that different, there is an Arri BL with crystal motor and 2 mags on ebay right now for $1500 which is a lot more camera that the $1000 you would spend to get a super 8 crystal camera.

 

So I'm not totally convinced that price in and of itself makes a difference (at least for the way I shoot). Of course I still LOVE the aesthetics of super8 and that can't be dismissed, or so easily quantified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Lets compare shooting 10mins MOS of Fuji Velvia 50D reversal in super 8 stock to shooting 11.6 mins. MOS of Fuji 64 D as 16mm neg.

 

Super 8

purchase & Process 200ft of film = $140

Purchase & Process total $140

30min telecine to digibeta (pro8mm) $172.5

Tape stock (bring your own32min) $17

 

TOTAL $329.5

 

16mm

Purchase 400 feet of film: $115.79

Processing 400 ft: $56

Purchase & Process total $171.79

30min telecine to digibeta(fotokem) $150

Tape stock (bring your own 32min) $17

 

TOTAL $338.79

 

the difference: Shooting 11.6 minutes of MOS 16mm (or super 16) is $9.21 more expensive than shooting 10mins. Super 8 in this comparison. And if you break it down by the minute, shooting 16mm is actually 3 dollars and change per minute LESS expensive than shooting super 8.

 

Thanks for quantifying this, Douglas.

 

I'm in total agreement with you and the rest of the people on the forum who love Super 8 because it is just a great look in its own right. But since I shoot both 16mm or Super 8, I've come to realize that once the camera is paid for, it seems to me there’s not much of a savings going with the smaller format. I think it’s in part because the percentage of good takes I get on 16mm blows my Super 8 batting average away. No struggling to focus through a tiny, dim viewfinder or fighting zoom motors while the shot slips away.

 

And times where I’d expect Super 8 to be less expensive, there always seems to be a catch. Example: the "prepaid" processing for Kodak negative films at Pro8mm. Don't get me wrong--I'm thrilled these Pro 8 guys went out on a limb and started spooling Vision stocks, but if I actually want to transfer a roll I have to add another $35 because that's the minimum they charge for prep. So if I shoot one roll, it's really $70 with process and prep. That’s 70 bucks! This is Super 8, people. Home movies, you know? So, at those prices, why not shoot 16? Especially since there are places everywhere just begging to unload 16mm recans and short ends at a fraction of the cost of Kodak or Fuji’s list prices. And with 16 you’re not stuck transferring film at one of the handful of places with an outdated Rank and a Super 8 gate.

 

And with all the cash I've dropped into repairing my Super 8 camera (and it's still broken, I might add), the cost of buying a 16mm camera (one that can actually be properly repaired by qualified professional service personnel using OEM parts) starts looking even more reasonable. My high-serial-number, showroom-mint Arriflex S/B, fully serviced by Arri Guru Axel Broda, cost me $2750 out-the-door with a Zeiss 10-1 zoom, three primes, two motors, a mattebox, filters, two 400-foot mags with motors and a battery belt. As of this weekend, I have over $2150 into my Beaulieu 4008 Super 8 (including money spent to re-cell two of the worthless on-board batteries) and have only managed to shoot eleven rolls with it between the five trips out for service.

 

I’m not saying all of this to discredit Super 8 because it is a fantastic format and I am glad I have the option to shoot it. It’s just that those who automatically think the cost of 16mm puts the format out-of-reach might think twice about investing in a smaller camera, especially if you are using the camera to learn the craft of cinematography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fran,

 

Drat! I forgot to put the prep and clean charges in there! not so bright. At that point 16mm becomes another dollar or so cheaper than super 8, all great points that you make.

 

When you're ready to sell me your Arri SB I'll be waiting with check in hand! That's 1/3 the cost of a Canon XLH1 for more camera!

 

-Douglas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, let me give you a european example then (prices are for non-european citizens).

 

100' (30,5 meters) of 16mm E100D plus processing at ANDEC = 76 EURO (amounts to 95.42 $)

 

15 meters of Super8 E100D with processing at Wittner = 28.16 EURO (amounts to 35.36 $)

 

Both these rolls approximate the same amount of film timewise.

 

Uppsala Bildteknik takes charges by 0.65 EUR per meter (including colour correcting) + a DVD for 16.2 EUR. This makes a total telecine-cost for 16mm of 35.65 EUR (44.76 $) and for Super8 of 25.93 EUR (32.56 $)

 

TOTAL COST 16mm = 111.65 EUR/140.18 $ + shipping

TOAL COST Super8 = 54.09 EUR/67.91 $ + shipping

 

Shipping is also somewhat less expensive for Super8 because of the lighter package.

 

For me that makes the costs for Super8 less than half compared to 16mm.

 

Maby you guys should start buying and developing your Super8 stock in Europe?

Edited by Tomas Stacewicz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

W

Obviously, the difference will change based on the products one compares but this is an apples to apples comparison of similar film stocks, using very simillar top of the line URSA SD SDI telecine technology.

 

URSA hardly qualifies as "top of the line" telecine technology in 2006 though.

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

URSA hardly qualifies as "top of the line" telecine technology in 2006 though.

 

-Sam

 

Its as top of the line as you can get in L.A. for an SD super 8 telecine transfer.

And fotokem seems to like what it does for their 16mm telecine. Maybe the have better telecine in New Jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Its as top of the line as you can get in L.A. for an SD super 8 telecine transfer.

And fotokem seems to like what it does for their 16mm telecine. Maybe the have better telecine in New Jersey.

 

...this raises some questions for me, since I'm not a telecine expert, what is the functional difference between a transfer made on URSA, Thompson Shadow, Thompson Spirit or Sony Vialta? All deliver high end SD transfers.

How are they different?

 

 

I suppose this question should be taken up in Telecine DI forum....., but since we are here....

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't tried a Vialta yet. Planned to this summer but I didn't have time. Maybe soon.

 

Also I've never personally telecined S8. I know DuArt has a S8 gate with their ITK Y-front, a modified Cintel URSA.

 

I've seen very good results from S8 transfers though from Flying Spot's Shadow and from what was The Post House (later Technicolor) in NYC's S8 gate on a Spirit.

 

I have no axe to grind whatsoever, just saying the older Cintel machines are not what I'd call top of the line..

noise wise etc.

 

If you're happy with an URSA Gold or Diamond then you are, don't let me interfere !

 

(A great 16mm > HD transfer I've seen recently was 16mm workprint projected and shot off textureless paper with a HDW750 ! So, "whatever does the job")

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...