Developing Tri-X Super 8 Movie Film in Caffenol C?

<p>Not sure if I should be posting a question about Super 8 film processing on a photography forum, or if I should post it to a filmmaking forum, but...<br>

<br />I've been developing Tri-X 35mm still film in the Caffenol C-H recipe, and am fairly comfortable with the results I've been getting. I am thinking about shooting some Super 8 film (Tri-X Reversal), but the cost of sending it out to have it processed is out of my price range. so I figure, why can't I develop it at home like I do with 35mm film? <br>

Since the Super 8 Tri-X is a REVERSAL film, would developing it in Caffenol C-H make it a NEGATIVE? Would I need to convert the negative to a positive in an editing program like Final Cut Pro? Or would the whole process be different (like extra steps, etc.)? <br>

My process for 35mm is pre-wash, develop, stop, fix, rinse, wash. Could that same process pertain to the Tri-X reversal? <br>

Would it be easier to shoot Color Negative Super 8 Film then cross-process it in the Caffenol C-H? Whichever way I do this, the footage will be converted to digital files so that I can edit it in a non-linear editing system. <br>

Any advice/help/guidance is greatly appreciated. I apologize if this question is irrelevant to this website. If so, what is a good forum for Super 8 film developing advice? </p>

<p>It seems that there are black and white films called reversal, but it is the processing that makes the difference. You need a develop, bleach, expose to light (or chemical) reversal, rinse, then redevelop, and fix, to make it positive.<br>

So, yes, if you use the usual negative development process you will get a negative. If you are planning to scan it, instead of project it, that is probably fine.<br>

Color negative films with the orange mask are different from color reversal films without the mask. If you process E6 films in C41, you get a negative without a mask. </p>

<p>Thanks! Yes, I do plan on scanning it. Found a site that explains how Super 8 film can be scanned using a basic flatbed photo scanner. So that's what I'll be doing and then editing it in a non-linear system.<br>

(Now it seems obvious, since I scan 35mm negatives and the pictures show up postively on the computer LOL) </p>

<p>Reverse process it.</p>

<p>You can scan it just as easily and if you do ever want to project it you can.</p>

 

<p>JC,<br /><br />I worked quite a bit with Super 8 back in the day. I wrote about Super 8 for the magazine The Independent and was a judge in the natoinal Super 8 contest they used to have at Rutgers. <br /><br />Developing Super 8 at home is not easy and will not likely save you money. You have to have the right tanks, which are very hard to find now, and the drying racks, etc. If you were going to try developing as a negative, you would be better off at least using a standard developer like D-76. It would take a lot of time and effort and you're almost guaranteed to have trouble with the first couple of rolls before you get it down. Also, if you are doing it as negative, remember that dust and dirt are more of an issue with negative than with reversal since they show up as white specs rather than dark and are therefore more obvious. Developing and transfers of Super 8 negative are done virtually in a clean room atmosphere because of that. Difficult to duplicate at home.<br /><br />No, you can't scan Super 8 movie film on a flatbed scanner and turn it into video. Think about it. To start, flatbed scanners can't get as sharp an image as a dedicated film scanner even for 35mm or medium format still film. The Super 8 image is a tiny little fraction of the 35mm image and is going to look like mush scanned that way. Second, there's no way to keep each frame in proper registration so that they would line up one after the other for the thousands of frames involved in a 50-foot roll. To say nothing of the days or weeks that it would take to scan frame after frame. Given that Super 8 is around $20 a roll now, I would highly recommend that you bite the bullet and pay for developing and a proper telecine transfer to video. Even a do it yourself transfer with an ordinary projetor and video camera would work better.<br /><br />If money is an issue, I would recommend staying away from Super 8 altogether. I love Super 8, but it's chief advantage back in the day was that it was the cheapest and easiest way to make movies. Today that's no longer true. It's expensive and difficult, especially considering all the cheaper ways to shoot video and get better image quality out of the box with far less effort.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response, Craig. I've seen some examples of people scanning Super 8 on flatbeds and they have gotten good results. I realize the amount of time it will take, but that is not really an issue for me because there is no deadlines I have to meet since I am doing it for myself, and I want to do it. There's software that can extract the individual frames, and if I'm scanning bits at a time, I can keep track of them.<br>

I'll probably go with something like D76 rather than Caffenol, although I may do a test. When I went to develop my first roll of 35mm in Caffenol, I was worried because I read a lot of other people's experiments and many people said they did not get a good negative, but I ended up getting results I was happy with. I'm not too worried about it having dust and dirt and looking girtty and unprofessional. In fact, I am aiming for a look reminiscent of a home movie that's been projected a hundred times over the years and stored in hot attics, thrown around, scratched, etc. <br>

I like experimentation and I understand where you are coming from, having had much experience working with Super 8, but at the end of the day if it doesn't work out, I will either keep trying or move on, but I would regret not attempting it. </p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't all motion picture film require slightly different processing than still film?</p>