Thanks, I'll try the hi8, for dvd and vhs output. I'm sure the quality will be ok for use in those formats. I'm actually going to use three cameras for the shoot, one dv, two hi8. I'll shoot the master and the coverage simaltaneously in one take with the only sound used from the dv cam connected to a shotgun. This way the sound will cut better during all the exterior scenes especially the street, beach, park and restaunt scenes.

". Right offhand, I can't think of anything that is lower quality than 8mm, can you?"

Yeah ,VHS

If you're shooting 3 cameras, here's an (unsolicited) tip that will make your life WAY easier.
You HAVE TO SYNC all three cameras. Saying we'll match in up in post will prove to be a nightmare.
Here's the quickest couple o' tips that I have developed thru the years.
1. Easiest for multi camera - get a flashlight that you can take the reflector off of, so you have a bare bulb (360 degrees). Everyone points at the flashlight at the start of each scene - flash two or three times - easy sync.
2. Even easier, but not as slick - have the cameras all point to the front of the lens of the "Main" camera. The camera man covers his lens with his two hands and does a "wipe reveal" by opening his hands. Not as accurate but easy to at least get you into the ballpark.

If you think you are going to sync up three cameras from the sound track - plan on wasting a weekend of aggravation. :)

v.

I'll be using a digital Slate (sticks) to slate the sync point at the beginning of each scene. also I'll have the audio from the other two camera's in the timeline to match to the master audio of the first camera. then I can mute those audio tracks and delete them after the scene is cut. The only problem I can see is if one of the cameras is faster or slower recoring the scene, for some reason, than the others, then that would be a nighrmare, so if that were the case I would just shoot with one camera. I'll do a test and cut it week before to make sure all this will work.

". Right offhand, I can't think of anything that is lower quality than 8mm, can you?

Yeah ,VHS"

--And dont forget about the wonderful invention of VHS-C

You've brought up a good point - camera drift.
I belive that any of the Digital media will hold sync better than any of the analog media.
So I'd seriously reconsider regular 8.
Testing will tell, of course, and if you do, would you post the results here?

Actually, well shot Super 8mm can look really good and can have higher resolution than video ( up to almost 900 lines from what I've read). Using Pro8mm negative stock, you can get up to 800 ASA. This is exactly the same stock that is used in high end 35mm (that's how it started before it was trimmed and loaded into Super 8 cans. you can get this stock telecined on a Rank Cintel and color corrected with a DaVinci before mastering to DV, BetaSP or Digibeta over at <www.super8sound.com>.
These guys also sell Super 8 camera packages and accessories. You can get ton's of lenses (Angenieux, Schneider Variogon, Switar, etc) in anamorphic1.85/2.35:1, 16:9, 4:3 varieties for cheap on Ebay. The camera's sold by Pro8mm can be crystal synced to a DAT at 24fps.
I would say that 8mm is not dead, just overlooked. I am having them send me some footage on MiniDV so I can see how it looks after running it through Vegas. From what I've seen in their demo on the web, it looks really good (and keep in mind, it's compressed for streaming)...
It's not as practical as video....or as cheap...$1545 for one hour of footage (includes the price of the film, processing, clean and prep, telecine, DaVinci color correction...they can push or pull the color as requested and you can supervise...and master to DVCAM)....It has it's place though and I'm considering it for a short film I've written...
Check it out for yourself...you'll be pretty amazed at what you'll find out...

James Green

Oh yeah, BTW they do restore and master old 8mm film (negative and reversal)...

Nonkjo,

It's not as practical as video....or as cheap...$1545 for one hour of footage...

That definitely eliminates it for me. A few decades ago I used a Bauer Super8 camera, and found that I couldn't afford to take much footage and the short taking time per camera load was really inconvenient in a sporting event. Something exciting always happened while changing film.

-- Seeker --

"...taking time per camera load was really inconvenient in a sporting event..."

You've got a point there...Still, I think when you realize that the Super8 stock available today it the exact same stock used to the top motion pictures, you have to look at it differently than most people remember...One needs to remember that 35mm can be scanned at up to 6k resolution...the same stock you would be using for modern Super8!!!...Super8 is about 23 percent the frame size of 35mm. If scanned to maintain the same quality image as the 35mm counterpart but proportional to the smaller frame size you get approximately 914x514 lines of resolution (approximately 23 percent of a 16:9 4096x2304 4k image.). That's awesome and remember top of the line film scans go all the way up to VistaVision 6k....
There's quite a bit of headroom if you want to shoot a film on super8 and it's going to look good if you do it right. Combine that with Vegas' new HD/MPEG/24p abilities and it makes for a very interesting proposition for the guy who wants to shoot film but can't afford to go all out. Considering you can get a Bauer/Braun Nizo/Bealieu Super8 for dirt cheap, it fits into a nice niche if you can't afford to shoot HD but don't want to look like the other DV filmmakers at the next film festival...Of course, like you mentioned..it's not for everything...but it's nice to know it's available....

James Green

Actually this thread started with 8mm video and drifted into 8mm film.
Well, not to shoot down great ideas and super dreams, but...
I have shot close to a million feet of 35mm film in my career, and nothing else comes close, when it comes to film.
Sorry - I guess I'm a bit of a "film size snob", but I had my tries (about 10 or 12 films and spots) with 16mm, and it just ain't the same. I can't imagine what 8mm would yield. Certainly nothing to give credance to VistaVision dreams.
Here's why...
1. Grain and sharpness - 8mm is not 23% of 35mm, it's way less. I'm not a math whiz and there are bunches in this forum who are, and can supply the math but I remember clearly that 16mm is 25% the size of 35mm. It has something to do with placing 4 - 16mm frames within a 35mm frame. All of this was very important to young film makers (which I was one of), back in the sixties, when the cost of 35mm was simply impossible. So, in fact, you are dealing with a teeny weeny original image, in 8mm.
2. (And this is the REAL problem) - as you shrink up your film image size, you accordingly size down your lens size. In 35mm film, your "normal" lens is about 50mm. In 16mm film, your normal lens drops to 25mm. The problem here is one of depth of field. What makes the 35mm film image so delicious is the complete control you have over depth of field. In a professional situation, the cameraman seldom does his own focus. You set up the shot, and measure and mark off the various points of the move, and your Assistant Cameraman rides the focus, while you (the cameraman) watch all the rest of the crap going on. If you look at most tv commercials and feature films, you will begin to see that in any kind of medium close up or definitely in any tight close-up, everything but what the director wants to be sharp is out of focus, to a greater or lesser degree. We know this in advance. We plan for it. We make it happen.
In 16mm it just doesn't happen. In order to limit your depth of field (getting that great look) you have to shoot "wide open" at f1.8 or so. But it still isn't the same. So I tried 16mm with the highest of hopes and eventually refused to shoot in it, at all. It was just too discouraging. Now I have no idea what the "normal" lens in a 8mm camera is, but it's got to be wide. And depth control has got to be miniscule.
3. Cost and aggravation - $1,500 to shoot??? Yikes - and then the fear of dust and scratches - plus film matching - syncing sound - camera noise - and so much more that I am still trying to put behind me.
All this versus the exquisite technical imagery available in DV?
If you want to avoid the "DV look", learn to compose and light your shots. That's the major problem that I see.
A beautiful film has hours of pre-production - professionals at every step, thinking, planning and executing. Art directors lay out scenes. Production designers plan colors. Lighting directors spend hours, with teams of technicians, and the Director of Photography is a skilled artist. It ain't the film that gets the look - it's the brains, talent, experience and care.

Now I say "Good Luck" to anyone that has the patience to play with 8mm film. I won't put you down for your energy, or your dreams. I have been a dreamer my whole life. But in the next breath I say... well, I'm only shooting DV now, and I'm editing on Vegas. I love what my little cameras give me. I love not having to deal with all the fear (yes, even the biggest DP's in the world don't sleep until the lab calls, and sez, "It all came out". And my stuff is still winning prizes, and I'm still working for the Fortune 100.

hey vicmilt, I agree lighting is everything. I'm an actor by trade so I know how much time it takes to set lights just to make things look good let alone great. I would like to learn the basic principles to start from with lighting is there a book or something you could suggest so I could test some of the techniques. for VD lighting not film And also what kind of DV camera you using. thanks