Investing In Super 8 Camera??

[Freya Black]

Yep and there in lies the biggest problem really. The expense to shoot an 8 minute short film in B&W is pretty high. Once you add gate wobble/weave and pressure plate focus issues of most camera/cartridge combo's, the end product looks very unprofessional. So you aren't using it on your demo reel and years from now when you look back, you may think twice about the decision to shoot super 8 IF you wish to be a filmmaker.

 

You are allowed to put whatever you like on your demo reel. There are no restrictions or rules other than the ones you invent for yourself.

 

Your concerns about what is "unprofessional" are your own judgements as we have discussed before. What is professional varies on the whims of the day, you might as well say it is "unfashionable". Meanwhile, while you worry about what is "professional", the worlds biggest video platform is making a fortune hosting cat videos shot on webcams and mobile phones.

 

It wasn't professional to shoot a movie on video not that long ago but now there are people shooting movies on Alexa's all the time and even Red cameras are getting in on the game.

 

Freya

[Tyler Purcell]

You are allowed to put whatever you like on your demo reel. There are no restrictions or rules other than the ones you invent for yourself.

 

It wasn't professional to shoot a movie on video not that long ago but now there are people shooting movies on Alexa's all the time and even Red cameras are getting in on the game.

Well, lets be frank here... modern digital cinema cameras are not really "video" cameras. So today, if you don't have any digital cinema material on your demo reel, if it's all 16/35, you may not get hired. Trust me I know because I came to hollywood with a 16/35 reel and didn't get hired until I put some digital stuff on there.

[Tyler Purcell]

So only shoot 18fps if you want that distinctive odd movement look for some reason.

Sure, and as a special effect Super 8 works great.

[J. Winfield Heckert]

 

 

That's a really odd way of looking at things. Yes if you look at the surface area of the film then you are getting a lot more for your money with Super 16 or even 16mm but then you don't have the look of Super 8 anymore which is a different thing. What you write sort of makes sense if you are coming at it from a quality per pence kind of outlook but Super 8 is never going to work at that kind of level because it also tends to have all the other funky aspects like weird vintage zooms and gate wobble and other things that might be quite filmic and different but are odd from a pure idea of quality like you seem to be coming at things from. I really believe that if you are going to shoot Super 8 then you have to accept that it is Super8 and work to it's strengths rather than trying to make it be 16mm or something. Yes you can probably mount high end Cooke S4's onto a Beaulieu camera or a lencina cine special but it doesn't really make sense. By the time you have paid all the rental costs for the lenses and the adaptors and getting the beaulieu up and running you have probably paid more that just to shoot 16mm and it isn't 16mm still.

 

However that is a nutty approach to Super8. There are a lot of Super 8 cameras that have loads of features and are cheap as chips. They have weird vintage zooms but people are fighting over vintage lenses in the high end digital cinema world so why not just go with it. You don't take into account the cost of the camera which is so low that you can afford a lot of film. Running costs are low with AA batteries too. My Canon 514XL only needs 2 and runs for ages! Very easy to find at short notice too unlike V-lock batteries or something.

 

50ft of super8 Negative is $26 and 100FT of 16mm Negative stock is $46. They are about the same run time so for the same time in your film, you are nearly talking half the cost. It would be better if it was half the cost but there it is. If you shoot Tri-X then I bet the numbers are even more favorable for Super 8. Processing 200ft of Super 8 might cost 3x what you pay for 100ft of 16mm but then it is 4x the running time, so again it is cheaper. As for scanning, it depends where you go. For high end scanning I tend to find it is only slightly cheaper per minute than 16mm or even 35mm as it's all about the time on the machine and the operator. However there are a ton of cheaper options for Super 8 and as the format is able to resolve less detail to start with then using such scanning isn't as much of a hit, especially if shooting B&W reversal.

 

Yes Super8 isn't 16mm. It can't compete on the resolution per foot side of things and if you try to force it to be things it isn't then you are just shooting yourself in the foot but if you work with it as Super 8 then you can get good results for a much lower price.

 

Freya

 

I don't think it's an odd way to look at it. I'm just pointing out the economics of it all. Yes you can find a Super8 camera that works for less than a roll of Super8 film, however the key is finding a good one, I've bought at least a dozen Super8 cameras, Some didn't work from the get go others worked for a few months and then died, ironically the cheapest one with no manual focus, exposure or frame rate controls is the one that produces the best results.

 

I have a Beaulieu 5008 which runs like a well oiled sewing machine but the multi coated Angueniex zoom which should deliver a really great Image, only produces completely out of focus footage despite, being sent out to be repaired twice! Not to mention all the test rolls I wasted checking to see if it was repaired correctly. As you pointed out this is what happens when you try to get fancy with super8.

 

The 100ft loads of 16mm I've shot deliver exactly 3mins of footage 2:59 or so. The Super8 carts Deliver 2m 30sec Why? I don't have that answer. So you lose 30 seconds in my experience shooting with Super8.

 

So say you want to shoot 15mins of film in either 16mm or Super8 B&W tri-x Reversal, process and HD transfer at Cinelab. It will cost you $320 for 6 rolls of super8 or $400 for 5 rolls of 16mm. Super8 is only $80 less than shooting in 16mm, its a negligible savings IMHO. I waived the lab minimums in this example.

 

Direct from Kodak:

6 rolls of Tri-x Super8 at $20.42 = $122.52

5 rolls of Tri-X 16mm at $38.04 = $190.20

 

Cinelab.com

6 rolls of Super8 processing 18.00 x 6 = $108

500ft of 16mm x .20 = $100

 

Cinelab HD transfer

300ft of Super8 x .30 =$90

500ft of 16mm x .22 =$110

 

6 rolls of super8 = 15mins of footage

5 rolls of 16mm = 15mins of footage

 

This example is based on my geographical location, worldwide results may very. It does not take into account any look or feel Super8 may provide over 16mm. I still like shooting super8 and will continue to use it for home movies and silent films but the price gap between Super8 and 16mm is far smaller than I recall it being years ago.

Edited February 11, 2016 by J. Winfield Heckert

[John E Clark]

Well, lets be frank here... modern digital cinema cameras are not really "video" cameras. So today, if you don't have any digital cinema material on your demo reel, if it's all 16/35, you may not get hired. Trust me I know because I came to hollywood with a 16/35 reel and didn't get hired until I put some digital stuff on there.

 

One of my biggest beefs on 'terminology' is the use of the term 'video' to include 'digital film' or 'digital cinema'. Even with my DVX100 I did not view it as a 'video' camera, despite that it clearly was... but for me it was a 'low cost' digital film camera, so I never shot anything in interlace mode, 29.97 frame rate, and did consider getting the grey market (relative to US sales...) PAL version so I could have a few more lines of vertical resolution @ 25 fps.

 

I also never worried about making NTSC values... such as the 7.5 IRE 'black', unless I was forced by the camera to do so...

 

There were other video specs that limited 'slew rate' or the like as well, based on the analog specs... in addition to NTSC 'legal' colors...

[Freya Black]

 

One of my biggest beefs on 'terminology' is the use of the term 'video' to include 'digital film' or 'digital cinema'. Even with my DVX100 I did not view it as a 'video' camera, despite that it clearly was... but for me it was a 'low cost' digital film camera, so I never shot anything in interlace mode, 29.97 frame rate, and did consider getting the grey market (relative to US sales...) PAL version so I could have a few more lines of vertical resolution @ 25 fps.

 

Funny because I feel the opposite. "digital film" is a really stupid name for starters, only invented to try and confuse matters. Thankfully it seems to have largely fallen by the way side. I am okay with the term "digital cinema" but it is still video, that is the technology that drives "digital cinema cameras" and all this nonsense about not calling it video is just a bunch more snobbery from people who feel weird about it's origins. It will get to the stage if it hasn't already, where only people over a certain age and with a certain disposition will have this thing about not calling it video.

 

As to interlace and 30fps (or therabouts) what does that have to do with anything?! Honestly!

Edited February 11, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

 

The 100ft loads of 16mm I've shot deliver exactly 3mins of footage 2:59 or so. The Super8 carts Deliver 2m 30sec Why? I don't have that answer. So you lose 30 seconds in my experience shooting with Super8.

 

 

Kodak claim only 2:46 for 100ft 26mm. However I seem to remember someone saying you actually get 112ft on a daylight spool so you have some leader so this may account for the discrepancy. I do wonder if you actually get exactly 2:30 from super 8 either or if there is a little more in the cart.

 

One tip if you are desperate to save on film was used by Carl Theodore Dreyer on the movie "Vampyr" where he actually added leader to the rolls so he could use all the film while still being able to thread up the camera properly.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Well, lets be frank here... modern digital cinema cameras are not really "video" cameras. So today, if you don't have any digital cinema material on your demo reel, if it's all 16/35, you may not get hired. Trust me I know because I came to hollywood with a 16/35 reel and didn't get hired until I put some digital stuff on there.

 

Of course they are video cameras!

 

As to whether you might get hired or not today with a modern video camera your anecdote would seem to just underscore the point I was making!

 

Freya

[John E Clark]

 

Funny because I feel the opposite. "digital film" is a really stupid name for starters, only invented to try and confuse matters. Thankfully it seems to have largely fallen by the way side. I am okay with the term "digital cinema" but it is still video, that is the technology that drives "digital cinema cameras" and all this nonsense about not calling it video is just a bunch more snobbery from people who feel weird about it's origins. It will get to the stage if it hasn't already, where only people over a certain age and with a certain disposition will have this thing about not calling it video.

 

As to interlace and 30fps (or therabouts) what does that have to do with anything?! Honestly!

 

No it is not snobbery, it stems, at least in my case, having worked with such specs as RS-170/170A, there is a world of difference between 'video' and attendant devices which capture and produce signals in that format, vs. what is being done with such cameras as the ARRI, on the high end, and DSLR or the Blackmagic cameras on the low end, which can capture motion picture sequences at popular frame rates.

 

Even such things as square vs rectangular pixel issues have been left in the dust for most capture work, and if required, along with 'interlaced' formats, placed in the final packaging phase of productions which would have been 'shot on film' in the past.

 

There are 'video' cameras of course which are ready to be plugged into a broadcast system, monitored with the usual 'video' equipment, and concern made for conforming material broadcast video standards.

 

While some cameras do capture relative to a 'video' spec, such as Rec-709 or the like, in many cases one need not capture in that mode, but rather such modes as 'raw' mode, or other non-broadcast format.

 

As for what 'interlaced 29.97' has to do with anything... that is a 'video' format, and shooting at 23.976 is a 'concession' to eventually putting something out at a 29.97 frame rate.

Edited February 11, 2016 by John E Clark

[Tyler Purcell]

To me Video is REC709 color space and "broadcast" standard frame/bit rate using a Tube or CCD imager(s) no bigger then 2/3's of an inch. Video cameras also have decent built-in audio recording, zoom lenses of some sort, integrated monitoring, Timecode I/O, Sync and Analog or digital output. They also have a Tally light and some sort of proprietary connection for CCU remote control.

 

Modern digital cinema cameras are literally camera heads, like film cameras and are pretty far from (video) broadcast spec. Most of them are 2k or more resolution, have huge imagers (bigger then 2/3"), use CMOS technology vs CCD, shoot raw color space (TRUE RGB), have 12 bit per channel and generally people tend to shoot "film" frame rate (23.98 or 24p). In fact, we even organize media like film with a "camera reel" and numbers that match throughout production built-into the camera's functionality.

 

I know Christopher Nolan calls modern digital cinema cameras "video" cameras and Quentin call's digital cinema "TV" which I get. But I'm not that much of a hater. Some digital cinema cameras are great and putting them anywhere near the "classic" definition of a "video" device isn't doing them justice. Grab a Sony F900 and a F65, do a back to back comparison and I think you'll find they don't work or look anything a like.

[Tyler Purcell]

One of my biggest beefs on 'terminology' is the use of the term 'video' to include 'digital film' or 'digital cinema'. Even with my DVX100 I did not view it as a 'video' camera, despite that it clearly was... but for me it was a 'low cost' digital film camera, so I never shot anything in interlace mode, 29.97 frame rate, and did consider getting the grey market (relative to US sales...) PAL version so I could have a few more lines of vertical resolution @ 25 fps.

The DVX100A was one of the first cameras that looked decent. I shot two short films years ago with one and am still impressed with the results today... for a video camera that is.

 

Yet... as you know... it's still VERY much a video camera. It looks NOTHING like a modern digital cinema camera.

[Freya Black]

Now we have "It's not video anymore because of the CMOS sensor".

I think you need to ask yourselves why you have this need to not call it video and why you get annoyed by that.

I would expect video to continue to develop as technology develops so it isn't surprising that it isn't based on vacuum tubes anymore.

 

A lot of what you guys seem to be pointing at is how video has moved away from older television standards but video has always had a life outside of broadcast television. The argument seems to be more that it's not television.

 

It's still video technology at the heart of modern video cameras tho.

so why feel this need to call it something else?

[Freya Black]

 

I don't think it's an odd way to look at it. I'm just pointing out the economics of it all.

 

Well from an economic viewpoint it's more the case that Super 8 is still cheaper, although you are making some good arguments for 16mm. The case for Super 8 vs 16mm really starts to fall apart when you get into shooting 400ft loads of course where 16mm can win the economic argument much more easily.

 

However the point you were making seemed to be less an economic argument and more of a value for money argument in the sense that you get more surface area of film for your penny than you do with Super 8. It's true but I find that a slightly odd way of looking at things. I guess it keys in to the current obsession with higher and higher resolutions tho, so a lot of people might agree with where you are coming from. My point of view would be that if you are concerned with getting a high resolution result then why on earth would you want to shoot Super 8? The whole point of it to me seems to be that it is the lowest resolution film format tat is easily available.

[Freya Black]

 

Direct from Kodak:

6 rolls of Tri-x Super8 at $20.42 = $122.52

5 rolls of Tri-X 16mm at $38.04 = $190.20

 

Cinelab.com

6 rolls of Super8 processing 18.00 x 6 = $108

500ft of 16mm x .20 = $100

 

Cinelab HD transfer

300ft of Super8 x .30 =$90

500ft of 16mm x .22 =$110

 

6 rolls of super8 = 15mins of footage

5 rolls of 16mm = 15mins of footage

 

For anyone following this the total comes to:

 

16mm: $400.20

Super8: $320.52

 

So they are closer than you might think on just the lab and film costs but the savings for Super 8 may mount up as you shoot more film and there are advantages to Super 8 that can also give it an economic edge. These are interesting numbers tho.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

I don't have time to work it out right now but if it's true that a daylight spool is 112ft long and you add extra leader Vampyr style then how do the figures work out?

 

According to Kodak 112ft @ 24fps = 3.06 minutes per roll...

 

Actually that's only 7 seconds more per roll, so the figures we already have are probably close and are almost certainly the 112ft effect.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Freya Black

[John E Clark]

Now we have "It's not video anymore because of the CMOS sensor".

I think you need to ask yourselves why you have this need to not call it video and why you get annoyed by that.

I would expect video to continue to develop as technology develops so it isn't surprising that it isn't based on vacuum tubes anymore.

 

A lot of what you guys seem to be pointing at is how video has moved away from older television standards but video has always had a life outside of broadcast television. The argument seems to be more that it's not television.

 

It's still video technology at the heart of modern video cameras tho.

so why feel this need to call it something else?

 

But... the digital cameras that were intended to replace those tube based analog systems used criteria and implemented features that were specific to analog video...

 

For example, the use of camera adjustments in terms of dB values rather than ISO values, was because it fit into 'video' camera people's way of thinking. Video cameras were and are still spec'd in terms of lux response, to indicate their sensitivity. The use of a 'light meter' was less used, if at all, for most 'video' productions, because the camera was hooked up to a signal processing and monitor system which had a waveform monitor and vector scopes to analyze the 'shot' and set the camera correctly for the situation... The field units that developed in the 70's and 80s didn't change this.

 

Electronics of course is the 'heart' of digital image capture... but the goals of digital cameras for either stills or motion pictures have been quite different from 'video'. For example to get something other than a Rec 601 or later Rec 709 out of a camera dedicated to the 'video' market, one had to tap in to the signal and use a separate capture device, as the manufacture designed the 'native' output to be in a broadcast television standard. The business about 7.5% IRE for 'black'(*), or the digital equivalent of a count of 16... is a 'video' requirement, not a 'film' requirement. (*But then one has 0% IRE for Black in certain Japanese NTSC systems...). And correspondingly, a limit of 236 for 'white', again due to how 'video' was limited to avoid the NTSC signal (don't have too much experience with PAL but presumably the same reason), since over driving the signal 'white' could cause older TV's to lose sync...

 

The D-SLRs were designed to replace film cameras, and so, while using 'electronics', the goal was to produce a camera which matched the former film based photographer's expectation and described in photographic terms. About the only term that has taken over the digital photography world is the use of the term 'dynamic response', which is a general electronic signals term (as well as being used in other areas of engineering...) but was not a typical Film photographer's term. That would have been 'latitude'... sometimes used ambiguously...

 

Red and ARRI developed their cameras specifically for replacing Film based motion picture capture... as opposed to reperposing an existing 'video' camera to that goal.

 

Here's the spec for the DVX100A on the topic of exposure adjustment and light sensitivity...

 

----

Gain

0, +3, +6, +9, +12, +18 dB (60i mode only)

Minimum subject illuminance

3 lux (F1.6, 18 dB gain, 50 IRE video output)

----

These are not specs that would make sense to a photographer or purely film based cinematographer.

Edited February 12, 2016 by John E Clark

[J. Winfield Heckert]

Its still a video camera even if Arri makes it or Panasonic. You can give a DVX-100A a ISO rating and use a light meter. Its about 640ASA. A camera may be built for creating dramatic fictional productions but it shoots digital video. It's the same school of thought that 16mm isn't suitable for a theatrical film production since it not a format intended for theatrical showings.

 

My camera takes SLR prime lenses, meters in ISO's and shoots at 24p, Some days its shooting "dramatic", "cinematic" material to be shown in a theater other days its shooting documentary interviews for a corporate video for a website. Either day its still a video camera. Just like a film camera is always a film camera.

 

I think the distinction people want is too have a degree of separation from live television, TV news, reality television, Interlacing, 60i and lower Dynamic range that classically define "Video". NTSC throws a lot of information away before recording the image, where digital cinema cameras record that information and more. The project and the person behind the camera can determine if its a cinematic production or something else.

[J. Winfield Heckert]

I don't have time to work it out right now but if it's true that a daylight spool is 112ft long and you add extra leader Vampyr style then how do the figures work out?

 

According to Kodak 112ft @ 24fps = 3.06 minutes per roll...

 

Actually that's only 7 seconds more per roll, so the figures we already have are probably close and are almost certainly the 112ft effect.

 

The video files I have are 3:06 from a 100ft load. I get about 3mins of useable exposed footage. I load and unload in total darkness, If you load in the light you may get less. quite a bit of work Splicing leader in to get an extra 7 seconds.