Using Super 8

Hi, I have actually never gotten around to using Super 8, I guess Double 8 was always cheaper...

 

But I'm going on a roadtrip through the American southwest and decided to just bring an automatic super 8 camera that my friend is going to be in charge of using to film the trip.

 

The camera is an automatic Canon 310XL (thankfully automatic exposure so that my friend doesn't accidentally ruin a shot due to under/overexposure (I've reading that the film, Ektachrome Color Reversal 100D/7294, is very unforgiving when it comes to exposure))

 

I just bought a test Super 8 roll from Spectra Film/Video (the bundle roll+processing deal), in order to see if the camera even works.

 

My main question is, (sorry in advance for my naivete when it comes to Super 8), is if it's labelled a daylight-balanced film, why does the Super 8 box instruct me to set the camera switch to the "lightbulb" symbol instead of the "sun" symbol? It seems counter-intuitive! Shouldn't it be set to the "lightbulb"symbol when using tungsten film?

 

Thank you for all your help.

Never used Super 8 but read.

Lightbulbs are weaker than daylight. Filters eat light (at least an f-stop); for that reason Super 8 material used to be tungsten ballanced and the cameras have a conversion filter built in for daylight. *Lightbulb* = no filter, "*Sun* = filter (KR 12 or such?) to convert tungsten film for daylight shooting.

Your manual makes sense.

Never used Super 8 but read.

Lightbulbs are weaker than daylight. Filters eat light (at least an f-stop); for that reason Super 8 material used to be tungsten ballanced and the cameras have a conversion filter built in for daylight. *Lightbulb* = no filter, "*Sun* = filter (KR 12 or such?) to convert tungsten film for daylight shooting.

Your manual makes sense.

 

Thank you so much, I'm sure that Kodak WOULD know best. Hopefully it'll work out when I test out the camera tomorrow.

Never used Super 8 but read.

Lightbulbs are weaker than daylight. Filters eat light (at least an f-stop); for that reason Super 8 material used to be tungsten ballanced and the cameras have a conversion filter built in for daylight. *Lightbulb* = no filter, "*Sun* = filter (KR 12 or such?) to convert tungsten film for daylight shooting.

Your manual makes sense.

 

I might even remember cameras that would switch filter when you put a movie light in the shoe.

 

If you wanted no filter, you had to put something in the shoe.

 

I believe now you can get either daylight or tungsten balanced film.

(You can also get black and white film. In that case, it is your choice.)

What's the attraction of shooting a bootlace of film, when any current smartphone will shoot better quality and longer-running movies?

And are you really going to drag out a projector and darken a room in order to view the film?

It doesn't seem so much different from reasons for using still film cameras now.

 

As I understand it, the main use of Super-8 now is filmmaking courses.

 

It seems like either dragging out a projector, or scanning to DVD, are possible.

I look forward to the results! I'd get the best scan you can afford, if your budget allows. Ideally you'd get a bunch of nice HD PNG files that you put together yourself.

I wrote, I forget in which forum, that I have an Estes Cineroc, which is a

camera that uses Super-8 film in its own special cartridge, and

about 10 feet long, meant to be launched on a model rocket.

 

I presume I can cut a 10 foot strip out of a Super-8 cartridge, but then I

don't know that I would find a place that would develop it.

 

As well as I remember form 40 or 50 years ago, a Super-8

cartridge price was about the same as a 135-36 roll, but now

the Super-8 seems much more expensive. I don't know

about processing costs.

I found one lab that seems to be able to develop Super-8 film, Vision,

Ektachrome, or Tri-X reversal, for $25/cartridge. I don't know if that

is a good price or not.

It looks like Dwaynes does it for $12/cartridge plus S&H.

It looks like Dwaynes does it for $12/cartridge plus S&H.

 

That's pretty reasonable compared to other places. I shot some Super-8 a few years ago and used Pro8mm to process it. Between the cost of the cartridge, the processing, and the shipping it back and forth it was just way too expensive. I decided the only way I could make the costs justifiable was to process it myself but to do a quality job is pretty difficult without a decent tank. And the only decent tanks around are old Bakelite Russian things that cost an arm and a leg. So I've abandoned my Super 8 dreams for now. :)

 

There's a smaller version of those Russian tanks that would be fine for 10ft strips and they're not as expensive.

What's the attraction of shooting a bootlace of film, when any current smartphone will shoot better quality and longer-running movies?

And are you really going to drag out a projector and darken a room in order to view the film?

 

I don't know, - there's a dreamlike quality to Super 8 and I think it's best projected in a dark room. But it can be scanned and you can even do a passable job at home.

I think you can ask the same question about slides vs. watching scans on a big HDTV screen.

 

I suppose you also should compare to projecting scans with a DLP projector.

 

Some years ago, I bought 3in and then 2.5in lens (on eBay) for my projector,

so I can see big pictures in a small room. I have only used them about twice.

But it can be scanned and you can even do a passable job at home.

Ah, hahahahaha! ROFL!

Shooting a strip of under-sized film only to convert it to a digital video.

 

Maybe you could get still clips from it by snapping the TV screen with a 16mm Minox as well.

 

I wonder if 'Super 8' would be enjoying its pitiful and unfathomable revival if it was more realistically called 'Slightly-less-crappy-than-Standard 8'?

 

Or if there weren't a couple of mainstream movies called Super-8? Neither of which had any part of them shot using the stuff.

Edited August 17, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Ah, hahahahaha! ROFL!

Shooting a strip of under-sized film only to convert it to a digital video.

 

Maybe you could get still clips from it by snapping the TV screen with a 16mm Minox as well.

 

I wonder if 'Super 8' would be enjoying its pitiful and unfathomable revival if it was more realistically called 'Slightly-less-crappy-than-Standard 8'?

 

Or if there weren't a couple of mainstream movies called Super-8? Neither of which had any part of them shot using the stuff.

 

Whether it's less crappy than standard 8 is an open question. :)

 

Super 8 cartridges have the pressure plate built in, - and it doesn't always work so well. Plus there are only sprocket holes on one side of the film which lead to poor registration in many cameras. So in spite of the larger frame size of Super 8 standard 8 movies often turned out better.

 

But Super 8 film cartridges were a lot easier to manage than the 8mm spools which needed to be flipped over half way through. Plus film and camera lenses got faster so you could film indoors without a giant set of lights and associated extension cord, - so it did what Kodak wanted it to do. Allow them to sell more film.

Edited August 17, 2019 by tomspielman

8 Tips For Shooting Modern Super 8 #2 The 85 Filter

 

Yes, old super 8 cameras were designed to use tungsten balanced film. If you use daylight film, and set your switch to "sun/daylight" you will have a very orange result. So, set the filter to "lightbulb/tungsten". Be warned that this might also effect the auto exposure as the camera might assume ISO corrections depending upon whether the filter is in place or not. The built in 85 / orange filter cuts exposure 2/3 of one stop. So, you might need to make some adjustment of the ISO setting, if the camera allows manual ISO setting. Or, it could set the ISO according the the film cartridge inserted.

 

Testing is in order before you take this camera on your trip. You might be safer to buy tungsten balanced film and shoot with the orange 85 filter in place when shooting in daylight, as the camera was designed. This also has the advantage of allowing filming in tungsten light if the situation arises.

I still have my regular 8mm turret camera (spring, wind up) from around 1958. It uses the 25 foot reels that you turn over to get the other 25 feet. I have switched over all the film I shot years ago forst to VHS tape, then to digital. In any case, the camera appears to works running it without film. Is there any 8mm film around that I could use in this camera?

Fomapan R100 Black and White Transparency Film (Double Standard 8mm, 32.8' Reel)

This one says 16mm double perf. I don't know if there is more than one way to

make it, other than double super-8, which I also see that some make.

 

Kodak VISION3 500T Color Negative Film #7219 (16mm, 400' Roll, Double Perf)

This one says 16mm double perf. I don't know if there is more than one way to

make it, other than double super-8, which I also see that some make.

 

Kodak VISION3 500T Color Negative Film #7219 (16mm, 400' Roll, Double Perf)

16 mm double perf has only half the perforations that 8 mm does--they need to be closer together for 8mm to work properly, one perf per frame, so this wouldn't work. Also, I'm not aware of any 8 mm cameras that accepted 400' magazines although there are many 16 mm cameras that do.

16 mm double perf has only half the perforations that 8 mm does--they need to be closer together for 8mm to work properly, one perf per frame, so this wouldn't work. Also, I'm not aware of any 8 mm cameras that accepted 400' magazines although there are many 16 mm cameras that do.

 

That sounds right, but then what is the use for double perf? The 16mm projectors that I know have the sound track on the other side.

 

As for 400 feet, I was assuming one would respool to the appropriate sized spools, assuming one could get longer

lengths of the right film.

You're right about projectors, of course. I'm not sure how the double perf convention got started, but it is possible that there were 16 mm cameras that had an intermittent movement that used both sets of sprocket holes in the film, similar to 35 mm professional movie cameras and projectors. There were also Super 16 cameras that were modified to use single perf film and also use the area used for the sound track to increase the width of the picture so that you could shoot a wide screen theatrical movie with 16 mm film and eventually blow it up to 35 mm for release prints.

What's the attraction of shooting a bootlace of film, when any current smartphone will shoot better quality and longer-running movies?

 

If he wants to shoot film, why jump on his case? (OK, I still use a reel to reel, a turntable, and fountain pens)

but then what is the use for double perf? The 16mm projectors that I know have the sound track on the other side.

 

As for 400 feet, I was assuming one would respool to the appropriate sized spools, assuming one could get longer

lengths of the right film.

 

"Back in the day" 16mm was considered an amateur format and nearly all cameras were silent. Long ago I had a B&H that took 50 ft mags and the film was double perf. Perhaps it was considered a bit more stable than a single perf film. That, and it may have gone through the feed sprockets more smoothly. My first projector was a double perf, too, What I have now is an optical sound single perf.

 

As for a 400 ft S8 film - NO, but back in the late 70s or early 80s, Kodak introduced a 200 foot cartridge. I don't think Canon cameras would accept it, but some Chinons would.

 

PS - Not sure, but I think Bolex is the only current 16mm maker. There were several single system sound cameras used mostly by TV stations, but most, like the Bolex are double system sound (use of a separate sound recorder).

Edited August 20, 2019 by chuck909

(snip)

 

As for a 400 ft S8 film - NO, but back in the late 70s or early 80s, Kodak introduced a 200 foot cartridge. I don't think Canon cameras would accept it, but some Chinons would.

 

(snip)

 

Being used to loading 35mm from bulk rolls since I was about 10, it seemed obvious that one should be able to load Super 8 cartridges the same way.

It seems that there is a Double Super 8, intended to be used the same way that regular 8 is used. I suspect that with the proper equipment, one could slit the film before processing and use it as Super 8. I don't know if loadable cartridges are available.