xoct Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 If this has been answered in detail in another thread, I appologize in advance...Question one: Who provides telecine service for superduper 8, what kind of machine do they use, what are their rates and how can they be contacted? Question two: who services cameras to widen the gate, what is their rate, what cameras do they work on and how can they be contacted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Same Answer: http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca Also, anyone with a Workprinter can capture Super-Duper 8 footage as well. Last time I checked, the cost of widening was hovering around $50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Same Answer: http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca Also, anyone with a Workprinter can capture Super-Duper 8 footage as well. Last time I checked, the cost of widening was hovering around $50. In terms of telecine of Super Duper 8, any pro place can do it. Rank or Bosch or Spirit or Shadow can all "pull out" with there gates to capture the entire image area. Cost would be the same as if you did a normal telecine. Or at least it should be. Here in Boston, I am about to go into a Rank suite to transfer my very own Super Duper 8 stuff. I will report back with the results, maybe a clip or two. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 We convert cameras for $50 though not all models can be converted. We also do transfers for $10-15 per roll depending on the project but as mentioned by others lots of places can transfer the wide frame so it probably depends what you are looking for and where you are located. We are in Toronto. We just converted a camera for a shooter in LA and he is about to send us a bunch of rolls. I'll ask him to post his opinion of the results to help others judge what to expect of our work. Rick www.friendlyfirefilms.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Good Lord, can we stop using this "superduper8" title? UltraSuper8 sounds much more professional, and has been used for longer. Sorry to be so picky, but I just cringe when I hear this! Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Good Lord, can we stop using this "superduper8" title? UltraSuper8 sounds much more professional, and has been used for longer. Sorry to be so picky, but I just cringe when I hear this! Matt Pacini Actually we kind of like super-duper 8 and plan to continue using it (ultra super 8 doesn't do anything for me personally). It's one of those things that has been implemented by a number of different people so it seems to go by a number of names, though when I google ultra super 8 (or others I've heard, such as 8extra) I get nothing that would suggest it was in wide use, if used at all beyond these boards. Having said that, super-8-know-everything (and I mean that well) Martin W. Baumgarten informs me that: "It's also known as the Super 8-B format (B for the german word Breitwand, meaning Widescreen) as via its inventor Ruedi Muster of Muster Film & Video Technik in Switzerland. It's original inception is from conversion of the BOLEX H-8 and H-8 Reflex cameras, and then moved over to the cartridge loading cameras." So if there is any "professional" (i.e. camera manufacturer-derived) phrase for it it seems to be super 8-B, but in the meantime, whatever... Rick www.friendlyfirefilms.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VideoCowboy Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 We convert cameras for $50 though not all models can be converted. We also do transfers for $10-15 per roll depending on the project but as mentioned by others lots of places can transfer the wide frame so it probably depends what you are looking for and where you are located. We are in Toronto. We just converted a camera for a shooter in LA and he is about to send us a bunch of rolls. I'll ask him to post his opinion of the results to help others judge what to expect of our work. Rick www.friendlyfirefilms.ca <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can the Nikon 8X Super Zoom be modified for SD8 or S8-B? Thanks, Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Very easily. I've modified 4 Nikon Super Zoom 8's so far myself. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VideoCowboy Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 What are the dimensions of the super 8 b or super dupper 8 gate? Do you only widen the gate on one side or equally on both? I have a jeweler that widens 16mm gates for me, but not sure what to give me for the super 8 gates. Thank You, Hal Very easily.I've modified 4 Nikon Super Zoom 8's so far myself. Matt Pacini <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I wasn't very scientific with it on the Super 8 gates. I just eyeballed it, making sure to leave a bit left on the sides so there's something to support the film as it goes through, but it doesn't have to be much. Just make sure you buff it really smooth, because even a teeny, tiny burr can scratch the film. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted August 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 29, 2007 Hmmm, How about these alternatives: Great Eight? SDM8 (SDM = Size Does Matter)? Seriously, How well do 7008 PROII, Nikon R10, and 1014XL-S convert to SD8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adolfi Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Can we stop using this "superduper8" title? UltraSuper8 sounds much more professional, and has been used for longer. Sorry to be so picky, but I just cringe when I hear this! Matt Pacini Sorry Rick I have to agree with Matt. Max8 is cool and Super-8 B is sterile/professional sounding but acceptable, ultra super-8 seems a bit excessive but I like it. If it were up to me, which it is not, I'd pick Max8. Super Duper 8 is Super Duper Dumb. Long live Super-8! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ryan Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Hello All, Just to give Rick some support here, I like the name Super-Duper 8. It brings to mind all those great widescreen names from the '50s like Cinearama, VistaVision, Ultra Panavision etc. You know the old saying, "a rose by any other name..." How did they come up with the name eBay? Or Bluetooth or iPod. It's just a name and it sticks. Super duper Mike Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted August 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 29, 2007 Isn't widening of the gate only a real benefit for a wider aspect ratio, such as transfering to HD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Brady Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Remarks deleted. Edited August 30, 2007 by Glenn Brady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Hunter Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 By percentage, how much bigger is the SD8 image area than a S8 gate? Anyone measured it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Sorry Rick I have to agree with Matt. Max8 is cool and Super-8 B is sterile/professional sounding but acceptable, ultra super-8 seems a bit excessive but I like it.If it were up to me, which it is not, I'd pick Max8. Super Duper 8 is Super Duper Dumb. Long live Super-8! I've said it before: We think super-duper 8 is funny. Some people like it. Some don't. Either way, call it what you like. I'm not concerned. To answer some of the questions above: R10 and 1014XLS definitely convert well. Not sure about the Beaulieu's. I have heard there are issues but I don't know much about them. Pro-8 Converts them so it must be doable. File down the left-side of the gate, as that is where the extra emulsion (formerly sound area) is. Not much point in filing down the right-hand side as most gates expose up to the perforation anyway. The wider gate is about 13% wider. You don't need to transfer to HD to get the benefit. If the frame is 13% wider then during transfer it has to be sized down 13% to get the left and right edges in: grain tightens up noticeably. Our super-duper 8 feature Sleep Always is now avaiable at www.jaman.com where a trailer can be viewed (it's fairly low-res but it will give you a taste of the film). Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 The good thing about the title, although it makes me cringe, is it's adaptability. Calling it Super Duper 8 really fits in with those corny names for widescreen processes. Max 8 fits into to a fairly modern type of film. Super 8-B really works for a more conservative genre, such as a Disaster Movie, or a Horror. Can the viewfinder be modified to fit Super 8-B as well, Mr. Palidwor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Can the viewfinder be modified to fit Super 8-B as well, Mr. Palidwor? I don't know. I am not a techie. Depending on the camera I suppose it's possible that somewhere in the viewfinder path there is a mask to show the conventional frame, which could be manipulated to show the widened frame, but I'll leave the answer to the people who go inside their cameras. Personally I have never worried about it. I just double-check that side of the frame to make sure there is nothing unwanted there and when it comes to framing, if you want something centre you frame it slightly off-centre or if you want a "two-shot", the person on the right is framed so there head is slightly cut off, confident that it's actually there. Not very scientific, I admit, but it works for me. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted August 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 31, 2007 .......The wider gate is about 13% wider. You don't need to transfer to HD to get the benefit. If the frame is 13% wider then during transfer it has to be sized down 13% to get the left and right edges in: grain tightens up noticeably. Our super-duper 8 feature Sleep Always is now avaiable at www.jaman.com where a trailer can be viewed (it's fairly low-res but it will give you a taste of the film). Rick I seem to recall that the way the super-8 transfers currently work is the top to bottom of the entire super-8 frame is transferred and a slight amount is lost on the sides. If the sides get extended, the top to bottom is identical to before, so the only real benefit would be that one could "pan" left or right during a transfer to take advantage of the actual extra room. Now, if one wanted to "shrink" the top to bottom and actually leave a border on the top and bottom of a standard def transfer, then one could use the additional 13% and in the process the grain structure would shrink. Is that an accurate scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob thomas Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I seem to recall that the way the super-8 transfers currently work is the top to bottom of the entire super-8 frame is transferred and a slight amount is lost on the sides. If the sides get extended, the top to bottom is identical to before, so the only real benefit would be that one could "pan" left or right during a transfer to take advantage of the actual extra room. Now, if one wanted to "shrink" the top to bottom and actually leave a border on the top and bottom of a standard def transfer, then one could use the additional 13% and in the process the grain structure would shrink. Is that an accurate scenario? Sounds like you're forgetting that 16:9 is HD OR SD in which case that 13% extra width reduces the amount of frame area you have to crop off the top and bottom to get it (16:9). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Beaudoin Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I seem to recall that the way the super-8 transfers currently work is the top to bottom of the entire super-8 frame is transferred and a slight amount is lost on the sides. If the sides get extended, the top to bottom is identical to before, so the only real benefit would be that one could "pan" left or right during a transfer to take advantage of the actual extra room. Now, if one wanted to "shrink" the top to bottom and actually leave a border on the top and bottom of a standard def transfer, then one could use the additional 13% and in the process the grain structure would shrink. Is that an accurate scenario? Here are my toughts about his. The normal exposed Super 8 frame is 4mm x 5mm, a ratio of 1.25 , 20mm square of exposed film. A 16/9 ratio applied to a super 8 gate should then be 4mm X 7.08 mm wide. That is impossible, the sprocket holes are 2 mm wide. To achieve a real 16/9 ratio in Super 8 you have to widen the gate to 6 mm and crop to 3.375mm the height at transfer. Now this only gives you a total of 20.25 mm square film... a big 0.25 mm of difference from normal ! But you get the 16/9 ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Beaudoin Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Here are my toughts about his. The normal exposed Super 8 frame is 4mm x 5mm, a ratio of 1.25 , 20mm square of exposed film. A 16/9 ratio applied to a super 8 gate should then be 4mm X 7.08 mm wide. That is impossible, the sprocket holes are 2 mm wide. To achieve a real 16/9 ratio in Super 8 you have to widen the gate to 6 mm and crop to 3.375mm the height at transfer. Now this only gives you a total of 20.25 mm square film... a big 0.25 mm of difference from normal ! But you get the 16/9 ratio. Correction ! A 1.25 transfer to 1.33 reduces the gate to 3.76 x 5 mm = 18.80 square So the difference is really 1.45 mm square film of definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted August 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 31, 2007 :blink: Sounds like you're forgetting that 16:9 is HD OR SD in which case that 13% extra width reduces the amount of frame area you have to crop off the top and bottom to get it (16:9). But there is no additional area on the top or bottom of the frame to crop off when transferring to standard def, that was my point, it's all already being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Palidwor Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 At the risk of sounding flippant, I have never tried to work out the numbers. What I know for a fact is that more emulsion is exposed and there is more information to work with. Because the frame is wider than a traditional super 8 frame less cropping is required when transferring to a widescreen format. It's that simple. For a standard (4:3) transfer (which is all I have done to date) you now have the option of shrinking it a little (technically, enlarging it less) and the grain is tighter. Because the frame lines at the top and bottom would be visible a mask is required. The native frame is about 1.55:1 so a standard 1.66 mask would do it. We often mask at 1.85 because we like that aspect ratio. For those who have never checked any frame grabs from Sleep Always here's a link: http://friendlyfirefilms.ca/sleepalwaysframegrabs.html Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now