Super8 once again: My dream project may finally happen. But the world has changed!

[Matt Stevens]

Those of you know know me might have been aware that I left NYC 18 months ago and haven't shot any film in over two years. In fact, I sold all my film stock/camera/gear a few months back. I was done.

 

Whoops. It seems I may finally be doing something I have long wanted... Shooting Super8 for a feature.

 

Now it's not like we have the entire feature funded. Nope. But at this point I am tired of waiting and instead am funding (with a partner) the section of the feature that will be shot on film. Super8 film to be exact. The film essentially has three sections and each section has a distinct look.

 

We are looking at very late September for principle photography in Manhattan.

 

Needless to say, I will soon be looking at scanning options. While I want to shoot B&W we will likely shoot color and convert to B&W in post. Note I say "Likely." I am not yet certain. Tri-X shot right can't be beat. Look at this as an example...

Wow.

 

The project is an 85 to 90 minute film and around 20 minutes is planned as B&W film. I will be shooting on a Nikon R10 as well as a few other cameras that will be provided and manned by one of my favorite 8mm shooters (I'll announce who once this is all set in stone). It's going to be so cool to collaborate with this guy. He's an 8mm master.

 

Anyway, just want to let everyone know film is still viable. It's an option. You just have to work at it to make it happen. God help me in pulling this off.

[Matt Stevens]

Whoops... I forgot to ask: WHERE to develop Super8 film these days?

 

Pac-Lab in NYC closed (and their service had really gone to poop anyway).

 

I will not even discuss the crooks at Pro8.

 

Good grief, who is left?! I won't be able to afford sending my precious footage in only to have a machine shred it or some idiot accidentally push or pull it.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Cinelab is great, and does it all in terms of processing (besides reversal). 1 day via UPS ground from NYC.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Carl Looper]

Great news.

 

If you don't mind a much longer turn around time, due to the location of the lab being on the opposite side of the planet (Australia), there is Nanolabs:

 

http://www.nanolab.com.au/

 

Don't let the absence of glossy publicity in the website fool you. This lab has been servicing all Super8 processing in Australia for a decade and is handled personally by Richard Tuohy who knows everything there is to know about photochemistry and much more. The lab included 16mm processing as part of it's operations, but has recently become focused exclusively on 8mm and Super8.

 

C

Edited July 7, 2015 by Carl Looper

[christophernigel]

Hi Matt ,

Told you it was never over until it's over ! that being filmmaking . Why not learn to Dev your own film's , Works out way cheaper , and then its your own film from start to finish , Can't beat it .

[Robert Houllahan]

We have 2K data scans of S8mm at Cinelab now too...

 

We run B&W-Reversal and ECN Super-8mm

 

-Rob-

[Matt Stevens]

Hi Matt ,

Told you it was never over until it's over ! that being filmmaking . Why not learn to Dev your own film's , Works out way cheaper , and then its your own film from start to finish , Can't beat it .

No way would I ever risk the production to an at home lab development. We will want the absolute best possible outcome.

 

Rob, 2k is something I want to explore. I'll send you an email.

[Carl Looper]

One can get the best possible outcome in a home lab as much as anywhere else.

 

It does require that you know what you are doing.

 

But of course, that's the same requirement no matter where you build a lab.

 

C

Edited July 9, 2015 by Carl Looper

[David Cunningham]

Welcome back Matt!

 

I've always had fantastic results with super 8 negative processing at both Cinelab in New Bedford,MA and Spectra Film And Video (around the corner from pro8mm in Burbank).

[christophernigel]

One can get the best possible outcome in a home lab as much as anywhere else.

 

It does require that you know what you are doing.

 

But of course, that's the same requirement no matter where you build a lab.

 

C

That's right Carl , If you know what you are doing , you can do a even better job than a LAB . unknown waters , when you go there no going back .

[Richard Hadfield]

Here is another option you might want to test. The Dr5 lab in Colorado. They also process Super 8. They have two options regular and sepia. I have never use their services.

 

http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/cine.html

Edited July 11, 2015 by Richard Hadfield

[David Cunningham]

I understand why Dr5 for still film. But, why for cinefilm? They are charging nearly triple the same cost of regular b&w reversal processing at Cinelab or pro8mm. What would be the advantage?

[Robert Houllahan]

$1.35/ft for 16mm !! that's almost ten times as much as we charge!

[Andries Molenaar]

There is plenty choice if Vision stocks and Tri_X from Kodak. 200D or ADOX BW from others.

 

And there is even a new Super-8 camera out from Logmar.

Unfortunately only from your no so favourite retailer/supplier. :)

[Matt Stevens]

If anyone near or around the NYC area has a Logmar, I want to talk to them. We would LOVE to have access to one for this shoot.

[Robert Houllahan]

Here is a recent Gallery opening my friend Dave Cole had at Brown University in Providence:

 

 

Unedited and no sound just two carts of 500t

 

This is Vision3 500t shot with a Bauer 107XL camera manual exposure no external filters developed normal.

 

Data scan to 2K on the Xena Dynamic Perf scanner at Cinelab I graded it and rendered it to 720P h264 12KBs in Resolve 11.

[Andries Molenaar]

I doubt it will improve over the R10 :) Although the Logmar has some feature which aren't available on other S8 cameras.

 

The R10 has very very good optics. Even admitted by diehard Leicina Special users with their Cinegon or 6-66 Optivaron.

The R10 has a stop pin which keeps the film from being transported too early and also the filmgate has two small ramps (also on Nikon R8 and Super-Zoom) which force the film to the rear of the filmchannel and thus in the focusplane of the far superior Nikon lens.

[Matt Stevens]

The R10 is a beast. It earned my trust over every other camera I used. How it could stay so sharp at ridiculously low light is beyond me.

 

The Logmar would come in handy for two scenes we are shooting with sync sound.

 

We're likely going to use a beaulieu 4008 for those scenes, but way back and zoomed in so the camera noise isn't picked up.

[Perry Paolantonio]

Bear in mind that with cameras like the R10, Logmar, Beaulieu, Leicina, some Canons (and even the lowly Quarz) that have very steady transports, you'll either have to use a scanner like the ScanStation or do post-scan stabilization, assuming you use a scanner that does optical pin-registration. To my knowledge, the ScanStation is now the only one that properly handles Kodak's messed up perf placement on Super 8, which causes jerky back and forth motion on film shot on high end cameras, when the scanner uses the perfs to digitally pin-register the scan.

 

You can see an illustration of the perf issue here:

 

 

...basically, they're not consistently placed, relative to the edge of the film, but the problem only really shows up when the film is shot in a pin-registered camera like the Logmar, or a camera with a very stable transport, like the others mentioned above. That, in combination with a pin-registered scanner results in an annoyingly jittery image that requires post-scan stabilization, and that can have negative effects on the image quality if not done correctly (blur, pixel interpolation, etc).

 

The footage above was actually scanned on our ScanStation a while back. It's from one of the very early prototype Logmar cameras. Lasergraphics recently released a recent fix to address this problem in their scanner - the perf is still used for vertical registration but now the edges of the film are used for horizontal, and that all but eliminates the jitter problem. Now, you see the opposite effect, which is more representative of what's actually happening on the film: the film is steady (left to right), but the perf jitters back and forth in the pattern seen above). I don't think the Kinetta, Flashscan or others that use optical registration are doing this, so your mileage may vary with those machines.

 

-perry

Edited July 18, 2015 by Perry Paolantonio

[Andries Molenaar]

Sombody ought to attempt to take the lens of a dead R10 and fit it in a C-mount holder. Difficult as the rear lenses are fit in the camerahousing and possibly leave not enough space to have C-mount distance.

 

Then see how good it really is in comparison with other old and new C-mount suitable lenses.

 

The Angenieux 6-80 1.2 can be had in Beaulieu Reglomatic holder which can be easily be taken off.

The Schneider 6-66 from the same source.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Andries Molenaar

[Robert Houllahan]

In all fairness to Kodak I think it's pretty hard to get the kind of consistent perfs as they do on 16mm and 35mm. It's such a small piece of film to slit that I don't think the edge can be cut in such a way that it's a real reference for the edge on the perforator.

 

I think it's pretty impressive that LaserGraphics has implemented a fix for this.

[Carl Looper]

The so called "bad perfing" in Kodak stock is not bad perfing at all. Sprocket holes were never meant to be used for horizontal (left/right) registration in the first place. Camera's and projectors use the edge of the film for horizontal registration.

 

So the error has always been in the design of digital scanners. They should have been using, just like cameras and projectors, the edge of the film.

 

So it's not LaserGraphics fixing a problem for Kodak perfed film. It's LaserGraphics fixing a problem in the design of their machines in the first place. .

 

C