alexx

<p>Because of the combination of high contrast, pretty terrific resolution, and small frame size, it is hard to create a do it yourself telecine transfer system that will work with all types of film density situations. I would like to add a nice concise section about do it yourself systems to my super-8mm.net website, does one exist?</p>

Indeed, keep the film rolling. It really is a treat to shoot the various Super-8 film stocks that

are currently available.

 

Kodak Vision 200T and 500T negative, Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X, Kodak Ektachrome 64T, and

Fuji Velvia.

Craig, the "no economic sense" comment is a bit surprising to read. A super-8 camera

bought in 1980 could still be used today with very acceptable quality. How many people

are still shooting with their 1980 camcorder, how about their 1985 camcorder, 1990,

1995...???

 

That's quite an expense in camcorders over the years, no? The answer I believe is that

both formats have their time and place and even if Super-8 is only used 1 percent of the

time, that 1 percent would still be a magical diversion to the 99% of the video we all shoot.

Plus, has anyone discovered how much easier it is to edit an hour or two of family home

movies versus the hundred hours or more of home video we all have acquired over the

years?

 

In the past few years, a company that shoots wedding videos on FILM has risen like a

phoenix and they are doing phenomenally well and have now expanded to several cities

offering their weddings on films services.

I just shot a short super-8 film and we used six different Super-8 film stocks. I loved the

results. The six film stocks included Fuji Velvia, Kodak Plus-X & Tri-X, Kodak Vision 200T

and 500T, and Kodak Ektachrome 64. Each contributed it's own unique look.

 

Spectra Film and Video did the film to video transfer.

I shot the 500T last October. Spectra Film and Video did the transfer to video. I was

extremely pleased and also surprised at how good the film stock looked. Not only were

the colors fantastic, the grain is very tight. It's completely different from the older higher

ASA reversal film stocks such as Ektachrome. The Grain is a lot tighter which seems to

give more resolution and truer color rendition.

 

I actually like the grain structure better on the 500T than I do on the Ektachrome 64T.

Shooting at 18 frames per second with a 220 degree shutter and one can shoot in many

situations previously considered unshootable.

 

For even more latitude, shooting at 9 frames per second and transfering at 9 frames per

second gives one the equivalent of over a 1000 ASA negative.

If a scanner cannot do a top notch job on a 35mm slide, then it will be worthless scanning

a super-8 frame. Likewise, if a scanner cannot do a top notch job on a 16mm frame of

film, an 8mm film frame will likewise be unnacceptable.

 

It's almost backwards, aka bizarro world, the scanner has to be better than 35mm or

16mm slide scanning technology just to get an acceptable super-8 image. As scanning

technology improves, so will the quality of a super-8 frame onto a scanner.

 

I have taken an entirely different approach with decent results. I do a high quality super-8

film to video transfer on a rank cintel system. I master onto betacam sp video but mini-dv

would also work. I then use a Sony DPP MS 300 stand alone color printer to capture one

video frame. It resolves the color video image at 306 dpi and outputs a 4 x 6 inch color

video image. The printers are considered old and outdated and I don't know how hard it is

to get the paper & color ribbon but the 306 DPI is pretty darn good for what was once a

video image. You can probably find one on eBay for well under a hundred bucks.

 

I'll include an image that was created with this workflow.<div></div>

That particular project was done on Kodak Ektachrome 125 stock. My total film costs and

processing costs was around 30-35 dollars. Um, I probably spent more on gasoline and

junk food. However transfer to video turned into an interesting dilemma. If I were to

color correct each and every frame in a facility that charges between 150-250 dollars an

hour, yes you are right.

 

But creating the original film images sure was a blast. Here are a couple of links that

explain what I was attempting. http://super-8mm.net/3.html & http://super-8mm.net/

7.html

 

Keep in mind my goal was to create a progression of images that worked off of each other

and to a music track, the actual size of a super-8 frame is 12 times smaller than a 35mm

frame, so there are trade offs.<div></div>

Those of us who love shooting Super-8 film in single frame mode are in essence shooting a series of still

frames. Add on those of use who enjoy shooting in time-exposue mode along with those who shoot

Super-8, Single-8, Double-8 and Regular-8 and are using several film stocks used by still photographers.

 

Fuji velvia 50, Ektachrome 100D and 64T, Plus X and Tri-X Reversal, and the Vision 200T and Vision 500T

color Negative are all available in Super-8. I shot one in-camera edited film that consisted of 3600

individual time-exposure frames. One of the reasons fuji brought back fuj velvia 50 is because of the

combination of comments from both the still photo community and the small format motion picture

community as well.

 

Fuji Reps actually visited Spectra Film and Video in North Hollywood California and were quite impressed

with the quality of Fuji Velvia in the super-8 form. The transfer of this film stock from super-8 high to

resolution video looked stunning, and could only help influence in a positive way the continuation of the

format.

I've also now have two websites devoted to super-8 filmmaking, http://www.super-8mm.net

and http://www.super-8mm.com websites as well.

I just wanted to connect with other film users who LOVE shooting with

film. Super-8 filmmaking has been resurrected because of ebay and

computer editing.

 

If you want to reconnect with your past when you actually shot Super-8

film, please feel free to reminisce, ask questions, or share expertise

on my Super-8 Filmmaking in the Digital Age Forum.

 

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=405

 

Thanks in Advance.

 

-Alexx<div></div>

I think Evan is right on. There is a great dividing line when it comes to the Internet...Many over 50-55 years of age may never get on a computer, let alone learn all that it has to offer.

 

Not because they don't want to, but because someone has to teach them.

 

Many people in the film processing world grew up without on-line computers, and they may not have incoporated it into their daily routine as effectively as their younger peers.

 

And don't be too hard on them, these are the same people that invested more money starting their businesses back in the 70's and 80's, before the internet existed, then you may spend on computers in your entire lifetime.