ot: super8 quality

dreamlx wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:04 AM
I am currently in progress of transferring super8 films to dvd. For this purpose I modified a Bauer T82 projector. I replaced the lamp by an LED light source, changed the lens, and bypassed all internal electronics, and powered the motor directly by a regulated power supply 0-30V, 5A in order to archive 16.22fps for flicker free transfer. I am capturing the images with a HDR-HC3 in HDV and trimming, cropping and resizing using avisynth (projector lens to little for using and FX1). I watched the results in our projection room blowed up to 2x2m. To my surprise the image quality was almost the same as footage shot with an VX-2000 (apart from the stutter due to the 16.22 fps), but of course worse than compared to an FX1.

So I decided to by a cheap Nizo 6056 camera (super8 was before my time, so I don't know if this is a good one or not, at least it seems having lots of functions) in order to do some super8 experiments. I shot some super8 footage today that will now be sent to the processing lab. I will post the results in a few weeks, if the camera worked correctly.

Today at least, you see what you are recording, so most camera defects will be noticed immediately. Also there is the possibility the something goes wrong during processing. And there are the film costs, $20 for about 3 minutes at 18fps. I find super8 interesting for experimentation but for works for customers, where the first shot must be perfect, I really prefer the technology of today. Also how did people do for manual exposure, I suppose, they used light meters as I can't imagine how they did otherwise.

Comments

farss wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:45 AM
Well, if you want to shoot sprockets on the cheap look into Pro8. I believe you can buy most Kodak emulsions in it and there's a range of camera available, new.

Yes, we just used a light meter, funny how simple things were back then. Not funny how expensive it all was.

Super 8 was used to shoot TV programs as well as news. But it was done at 25fps locally for PAL compatibility, I've transferred some old 25fps Super 8, even after all that time it still looked pretty good, much better than the stuff shot at lower fps.

But I think the end of the film era is somewhere on the horizon, certainly not this decade though. The big question will be who gets to shoot the last frame of it, that'll be a name engraved in history.

Bob.
Serena wrote on 8/12/2007, 6:33 AM
There were, of course, cine cameras with auto exposure for the point and shoot users. The best exposure determining technique was to measure the intensity of light falling on the subject and make adjustments appropriate to the situation. One expected to get that right every time and I aimed for no more than 1/3 stop error with colour reversal. There is more latitude using the negative/positive process. Processing errors were extremely rare, almost to the point of non-existent with a reputable processing plant. Get some 16mm negative for a real taste of quality (but you will need a camera).
JJKizak wrote on 8/12/2007, 6:57 AM
The last time I checked (I think it was 1976) 16mm 5247 print film was about $30.00 per 100 ft, the processing was about the same, and the options were outrageeeeeeous. Let's see that's about $100.00 per 2.4 minutes of viewing time and that wasn't even widescreen. Available light shooting was a dream at that time and then sound was a nightmare. And editing? I think I will take my Z1 to bed with me.
JJK
Serena wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:15 PM
>>>I think I will take my Z1 to bed with me.
JJK<<<

Last 16mm I shot cost $1 per second with work print. However in the context of this thread the matters you raise are irrelevant. Actually I did shoot widescreen (2.35:1) when required and sound wasn't a problem at all; in fact there are a lot of advantages in double system sound with a sound-guy looking after that side. Available light? Of course 5247 is rated at 125 ISO, but if you want to do available light
EASTMAN EXR 500T is about a stop faster than your Z1; and it can be pushed and has a much greater range. There are reasons features get shot on S16 rather than your Z1.
JJKizak wrote on 8/13/2007, 6:06 AM
I am in wonderment how you found widescreen lenses for 16mm. I had to kind of put mine together using projection lenses (1.66 x 1) coupled to an angenieux 17 x 68 mm zoom. (1972). It worked better than I thought even with the double focus.
JJK
Serena wrote on 8/13/2007, 11:56 PM
Just as you did. The standard approach was anamorphic 2:1 attachment to a prime lens, even in studio production until 35mm anamorphic primes and zooms were developed. Just as now you can buy (hire) anamorphic attachments for shooting 16:9 on 4:3 video cameras. There wasn't enough commercial demand for 16mm integrated anamorphic optics and they were never available, S16 meeting most needs.