Shooting "Old School" style
 

I am going to preface my question by saying I know the whole idea of this forum is to help people with their DIGITAL video needs. But I have learned so much from this you great people that I hope someone can help me with a little older technology.

Okay so nowadays in most film schools (including the film school I am attending) the teachers choose not to teach “old school” approaches to making films. There is no mention of celluloid or cutting by hand on something like a Moviola with analog audio tracks. I want to learn how to make a movie this way and it seems like the only way to learn is do buy all the equipment and doing it on my own. So I am wondering what kind of equipment should I buy?

I want to shoot on super 8mm (for budget reasons), cut on celluloid and do all my sound “old school” (I don’t know how to do sound “old school” at all). So some requirements for a CAMERA are..

1) I want to shoot at 24fps and a faster speed for slow motion,
2) Have a manual exposure
3) Have a 180 degree shutter and
4) Have it be super 8mm

EDITING
1) Play back at 24fps
2) Has to be super 8mm
3) And basically fairly easy to use

SOUND
1) It has to work and be pretty cheap

I have cut stuff on celluloid before but not much and it was a long time ago, so I am not a nooby at this stuff. I don’t want ANYTHING digital to come into the production, again, “Old School” style. If anyone can help out with any suggestion that would be GREAT.

Super-8 isn't a good format if you want a final print with a soundtrack on it. There is no Super-8 print stock, so you'd be shooting color reversal stock instead of color negative and cutting the original for projection with splices. You'd have to somehow get it mag striped (I don't think there are companies anymore that do this for Super-8) to be able to even put sound on the final cut, and you'd have tape splices all over the original which would create bumps in the audio.

These days, if you want to make a sound Super-8 project, sync-sound with dialogue, music, sound effects, etc. you have to transfer the Super-8 to video and do the rest of the work in video (editing and sound editing, mixing, etc.)

If you want to learn "old school" and take something all the way to a projectable print with a soundtrack, you need to shoot in 16mm negative and edit workprint, etc.

David is of course exactly right. I own and shoot with several super 8 cams, and have cut and spliced plenty with the old school super 8 viewers... and it's really limiting. Satisfying, but limiting.

And truth be told, shooting the Super 8 Neg stock, telecine to video and editing THAT is much more akin to current movie practices... you just don't get a print stock.

Sixteen millimeter will allow you to go all the way back to razors/tape, and you can pick up the gear fairly cheap.

But I have to ask, what is it that you are striving for? The 'experience' of old school, the 'yeah, I've done that' bragging right? (I can't believe film schools don't at least spend a semester on this.) You can probably rent enough gear to gain that experience, without too much trouble, or expense.

The reason I want to do this is to gain the experience, not just for bragging rights. Amongst my friends I am known as the guy that knows everything about movie making, but the truth is I have very little experience with celluloid.

My plan is to shoot two short film that somehow tie into each other (although I haven’t written them yet) and shoot one on celluloid with minimal digital equipment coming into the production until I telecine the final print. The other film will be the opposite. It will be shot digital on a green screen stage and EVERY shot will have a digital effect of some kind added, which I have done many times before. “Old School” meets “Ultra Modern”.

I mostly want to do it as an experiment. I’m planning on this not making any money so I can only speed a few hundred dollars setting up the “Old School” system whereas the digital system is all ready in place. Both will be shot at 24fps, both will be in widescreen, both will have sound, and I would like to be able to shoot parts of both in slow motion. Aside from that I don’t have many requirements, I just need it done cheap. I’m looking for recommendations of a SPECIFIC camera, editor, and sound recorder. I don’t need the best stuff I just need pretty good stuff and I can only spend a few hundred total on the celluloid system, including film stock. Thanx for the help.

Okay, I hear you now.

I have two cameras that I really like for my Super 8 work. One is the Sankyo EM-60Xl It shoots at single frame (for animation) 18,24 and 36 (for a moderate slo-mo) Also has an EXCELLENT intervalometer built in. I love this camera so much I actually own two of them.

The other camera I use a lot is my ELMO 612s-xl. It's a 'sound' camera, although Kodak doesn't make Super8 Sound any longer... it's very quiet nonetheless for shooting double system sound. shoots single, 18 and 24, but no slo mo.

I picked up all of these for under fifty dollars each.

Just a follow up.

If you plan to shoot double system, then you'll either need a really quiet 'sound' version of a Super 8, or you'll have to plan on 'blimping' the silent version. My Sankyo is pretty quiet, even for a 'silent' camera, but if I were in close, I would definately hear it on an audio track. So plan on blimping a silent camera. You can do it with some judicious work with a matte knife and some high density foam.

The problem with actually "Cutting" together the final work print on super 8, is that the splice tape actually shows up in projection or telecine. Most brands cover two frames at least, so you'll have a very tiny flicker of focus on every cut if you're not carefull.

If you plan to go forward, I would recommend getting a good SUper 8 camera, a good LIGHT meter, and shooting negative stock. You'll have to make the adjustment in camera to the ASA on the meter, cause the old super 8 cartirdges won't be notched for the new negative stock. But when you get the DV tape back of the transfer, it will look much cleaner, and give you a lot better image to work with in the editing suite.

HAHA I have no idea what you just said about the sound and what double system means (that’s why I’m doing this though). I have no knowledge of celluloid editing systems at all (other then how they work) so I don’t know what to get and what I will need. If its not to much to ask could you make me a list of cameras, editor, and sound recorders to look into that will do what I want and be inexpensive. I want to keep the “Old School” movie out of the digital arena as long as possible and if possible only transfer the final print. If I could I would like to maybe even get a super 8mm projector and some means of playing my sound back to screen the film and then, screen the digital on a digital projector.

Top of the line “Old School” Prosumer vs “Ultra Modern” Prosumer. Analog vs Digital. Celluloid vs DVTape. You get the idea. What will I need and please please be specific cause I don’t know much about older technology.

Thanx for all the help.

Just FYI - "double system" and "single system" relate to the way pictures and sound are recorded when shooting, whether you are shooting on videotape or shooting film. 'Single system" means you're recording the sound in the camera on the same media as you record picture - Super-8 Sound is single system as the sound is recorded on a magnetic stripe running down one side of the film alongside the pictures and DV video is usually the same, with the sound and picture being recorded together on the same tape. "Double System" means that you're recording the pictures in one device, either on film in a movie camera or on videotape in a camcorder, and at the same time recording the sound on a separate audio recorder, then picture and sound are married together in sync during postproduction. Film is almost always double-system - in the past there were a number of sound Super-8 cameras on the market and I think there were some single-system sound 16mm cameras made as well, marketed mainly for filming news coverage, but as film has fallen out of favour outside of theatrical features and network TV dramatic work and been replaced with videotape, the magnetically stripped filmstock the single-system cameras used has disappeared from the market. Video can be either single-system, recording sound in the camera on the same tape as the picture, or double-system, recording the sound on its own dedicated external recorder. The designers of video cameras have often seemed to treat sound as an afterthought and many cameras, even some pretty expensive professional ones, have had relatively marginal audio compared to purpose-built audio recorders. As a result, many workers consider double-system the way to go when the absolutely highest quality sound is desired. In reality it's a judgement call whether the benefit gained is going to be worth the additional cost and aggravation.

Alan,

IF you are intent on shooting super 8 and double system sound, you'll need to do a WHOLE lot of research.

First of all, re-reading your posts, I can see you're up against a few problems.

FIRST: Super 8 shoots 4:3 format, UNLESS you can find an anamorphic adapter for the particular camera you wind up shooting with. Remember, just about any camera you find is going to be used/rebuilt from the 70's.

SECOND: You say you want to do this for a couple of hundred, including film stock. Not knowing what your production plan is, or what you hope to achieve in terms of a shooting ratio, realize at twenty four frames per second, you're only going to get a little less than three minutes out of each fifty foot cartridge. Depending on film stock and lab, figure anywhere from twenty to thirty dollars for film/processing. Call it ten dollars a minute. How long is your super 8 short? Five minutes? Multiply that by, say a three to one shooting ratio and you have fifteen minutes of film to shoot. You're up to about three hundred dollars in film stock right there. NOT counting purchasing your camera and editing gear.

THIRD: You keep speaking about NOT using digital, but you have to shoot double system sound, since I'm pretty sure single system Super 8 can't be had anymore. IF you don't want to take advantage of the great sounding digital recording devices out there, then you'll have to make do with a reel to reel. CHEAP super 8 cameras won't have crystal synch, some of them will have a synch port attached to the side for the old school cassette decks... but you'll have a harder time finding those than a Super 8 camera.

FOURTH: If you intend to PROJECT the film you shoot, you'll have to have the film STRIPED with the magnetic tape to lay your audio back down on it.


I'm not trying to disuade you from shooting super 8. I LOVE Super 8. I like to use it to teach kids the basics of FILM MAKING. This means framing, planning, using a meter, and yes, editing and splicing. But to marry synch sound to super 8, you are MUCH better off doing it inside an NLE. So if your're going to import the footage, may as well shoot NEGATIVE stock, (Which, after all is more 'old school' than shooting reversal) And simply import and edit the Digital telecine they send you, synching it with the audio you recorede on the nice mini-disc recorder your audio guy was using.

Start here for some basic info

http://www.super8aid.net/faq.html

http://www.kolumbus.fi/puistot/S8Manual.htm

And Richard, even FINDING tape stock for a reel-to-reel audio recorder is going to be a headache. Quantegy (Ampex), one of the last manufacturers, just announced they're discontinuing production of all 1/4" audio tape next month.

Even "Older School?"
 

I respect what you are trying to do and it is quite a challenge. But, how about going just a little “Older School” and make it MOS, without sound. That would challenge your movie making ability even more.

Making a short film that way will show your talent at writing, directing, shot composition, lighting, etc…. Whether you make it a drama, a comedy, or whatever, it will show off you skills. Maybe have some simple music playing in the background, without the need to synchronize it. You know, kind of like having the piano player in the old theaters.

Anyway, just a thought, and would give you much of the experience you are looking for at a much lower cost and a higher challenge level.

Good Luck---Mike

Again, not trying to overwhelm you, but just trying to figure out how to meet your 'needs'... without knowing what EXACTLY your needs are.

IF it's to shoot a short on 'film'... then fire away. Super 8 will be great fun, and it's a good way to get a little of that 'film discipline' that is so sorely lacking in the DV age. When every minute is costing you somewhere in the neighborhood of ten dollars every time you pull the trigger... suddenly, 'planning the shot' and 'shooting the plan' becomes much more urgent.

While your depth of field won't be much different than shooting on Mini_DV (The image size is roughly the same, after all) You WILL get the experience of shooting with greater lattitude (depending on which stock you use), the wonderful quality of grain, and the chance to work with 'celluloid'.

Again, if what you want is to 'emulate' the work-flow of film, than really - shooting on negative stock, telecine to DV for editing IS the modern workflow. Sure, ultimately there's a negative comform and print out, but if you're cutting your 'film' together with your 'video' anyway, then you're not going to be doing a film-out.

As for working with/out sound. I shot a fifteen minute 'film noir' on super 8. It has a great sound track, a terrific voice-over (what would a film-noir be without it?) some great 'foley' effects and even a bit of ADR. (Looped in dialogue, which is TRULY old school). I recorded the sound WITH my DV camera as an 'audio deck' because it has such high quality and imported it into the system. Today's modern NLE's with waveform and timelines make for easy synching.

There IS a lot of satisfaction to be had from cutting the Super 8 together with a viewer and splicing tape.(Well MORE satisfying to work with 16 or 35mm.) It's a great experience, and proves exactly how NON-LINEAR cutting with film is. When the four or five different takes of a shot are litterally hanging from hooks next to you, and you pick them up and move them around in the 'space' of your editing station... suddenly the concept of trimming, splicing and editing becomes - quite literally - 'concrete. In fact, if you've ever actually CUT FILM, you'll understand why AVID has the workflow and terminology it does, and why it varies from the newer NLE's. (AVID was designed to cut and conform negative film stock, not 'move around digital bytes'. This mindset has it's advantages and disadvantages...too deep to go into here.)

And it's really fun to get a roll of film back from the lab, set up 'the projector', dim the lights, and 'roll film' to see what you've got. It's a real sensory experience all right. But maybe that's part of my age - fifty - and not so relevant to the 'younger digital' kids on the board.

I definately understand and ENCOURAGE your desire to work in the FILM WORKFLOW. I'm not certain you can get the WHOLE experience for under a couple of hundred dollars... is what I'm saying.

DO a search on Ebay. Pick up a nice camera for under fifty bucks. Pick up a viewer/editor and a projector. I THINK you can probably get it all for under two hundred. Better still, haunt your thrift stores and yard sales, or your RELATIVES garages and attics. Granpa might have a nice Bolex sitting in the back of the closet gathering dust, you never know.

Buy a roll of Ektachrome, and a roll of TRI-X. (Yeah, shoot some black and white, it's beautiful). Put the reels on and watch the lights flicker.

If you're NOT bitten by the bug, you can sell it all and be out the cost of the film - a cheap education.

Keep us posted.

Richard, super 8mm is 16X9 not 4X3 that’s what makes it super. I BASICALLY know what to do I just wanted some outside opinions. I’m gunna ask a sound guy I know about my sound situation and sync them up by hand later. Ill get a clapper and clap the beginning of the shot and where I see it clap and where I hear it clap will be my sync point. I’ll also probably make 2 film noirs and see which is better. Ill defiantly be sure to keep you guys posted.

Don't think so! They made both dimentions larger but still the same ratio. Super 8mm is still has about a 50% larger image.


Standard 8mm: Aspect Ratio 1.36:1, dimensions 0.182 x 0.134 inches (4.6 x 3.4 mm)

Super 8mm film: Aspect Ratio 1.36:1, dimensions 0.215 x 0.158 inches (5.5 x 4 mm)

Mike

Alan,

Super 8 is NOT 16:9, and depending on your telecine process, you may or may not get the whole frame.

Yes, of course you'll need to slate the takes. But you must understand, these cameras are THIRTY YEARS OLD. They are NOT CRYSTAL SYNCH motors. Their frame rate, WILL DRIFT... especially as batteries wear down.

But, since you basically know what to do already, I won't bore you with the details.

Alan - I cut my teeth cutting Super 8 - double system - in the early 1980s. I have used all manner of 8mm cameras, sound systems and even 8mm flatbed editors. I could cut a music video on Super 8 in perfect sync in 12 hours - so I got pretty fast at it.

Just to take the steam off this "old school" thing with regrd to super 8 / double system - there is no school - old or otherwise - that did this. Yes you could get a crystal sync 8mm camera - yes you could dub Nagra rushes to 8mm mag film - but in the 1980s the gear was esoteric to say the least - and people had access to processing, a full rnage of film stocks and spare parts for this stuff.

You are unlikely to assemble a super 8 sync setup because they were really pretty rare - and these days even getting film processed is a complete pain.

Super 8 was a format that took over from standard 8 - and often the "soundtrack' was actually recorded onto a mag strip on the side of the film. Basic tape "crash" edits were all that most people used and the sound jumped each time you did this.

Systems that used double system [and flatbed editing systems] were developed - but really - people used 16mm if they could bear the cost.

So should you.

If you want to learn to use film, and mag stock - there are planty of 16mm Steenbeck [or even Moviola style] editing systems around. Crystal cameras are available - sync sound is easy - hell get a mag tape Nagra and really re-live the past!

You will get a reasonable picture - a choice of filmstock [unlike super 8] - there will be someone who can transfer your rushes to mag stock for the audio - and some film school will have a 16mm Steenbeck in a closet you can use to cut the film with.

Why Super 8 WONT work:

The splices are really delicate. It's a toy format that was well adapted to other purposes - but there is about 1/8 the area in a super 8 splice holding the film together compared to 16mm. [They pop easily]...

If you want to shoot Neg and neg match [which is what the celluloid process is all about] you can't - you need to shoot reversal and cut your work print. It gets very dirty and is harder to clean & resplice.

There is no way to "put a kit together" out of stuff that people recommend. Sure you can hire a cool looking Beaulliau from some rental place - and you can probably buy a Mag tape Nagra for the price of rental - but getting super 8 mag film for sound - good luck. And a flatbed? Unlikely - people here aren't going to rattle off a few quick names and placed to get them from - they barely existed 30 years ago. People chucked them out.

If this does not make complete sense - let's make it really simple:

"Parts there are not".

So use 16mm if you have the urge - you can get a really old Sync CP 16 if you want ot wear a tweed Beret and plus-fours while you bark through the conical megaphone - but I'd say use a bolex if you want a really old school experience - and stick to stuff that makes it easier to shoot sound.

The idea even of calling a film shoot "old school" is using the language of a hip-hop / sneaker afficionado and applying it to what is essentially an industrial process - if you want to learn about film - I think it is more than a nostaligically fashionable notion - it's going to be a bit of a pain in the a##.....

People dont keep developing new techniques and equipment for the hell of it - there's a reason why Super 8 is a bit of a fetish item :-)

I thought that super 8mm have smaller perfs and thurs had a wider image, making it 16X9. I also thought Super 16 and Super 35 are both 16X9. Am i wrong about the whole thing? and if so, what is the difference between super 8mm and standard 8mm? (and super16 and super35 vs standard)

From the Wikipedia listing for aspect ratios..


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_

See List of film formats for a full listing of film formats, including their aspect ratios.
1.19:1: "Movietone" - early 35 mm sound film ratio used in the late 1920s and early 1930s, especially in Europe. The optical soundtrack was placed on the side of the 1.33 frame, thus reducing the width of the frame. The Academy Aperture frame (1.37) fixed this by making the frame lines thicker. The best examples of this ratio are Fritz Lang's first sound films: M and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse. This is roughly the frame size used for anamorphic photography today.
1.25:1: Commonly used computer resolution of 1280x1024. Native aspect ratio of many LCDs. Also the aspect ratio of 4x5 film photos. The British 405 line TV system used this aspect ratio from its beginning in the 1930s until 1950 when it changed to the more common 4:3 format.
1.33:1: 35 mm original silent film ratio, common in TV and video as 4:3. Also standard ratio for IMAX and MPEG-2 video compression.
1.37:1: 35 mm full-screen sound film image, nearly universal in movies between 1932 and 1953. Officially adopted as the Academy ratio in 1932 by AMPAS. Still occasionally used. Also standard 16 mm.
1.43:1: IMAX 70 mm horizontal format.
1.5:1: The aspect ratio of 35 mm film used for still photography. Wide-aspect computer display (3:2). Used in Apple PowerBook G4 15.2" displays with resolutions of most recently 1440x960.
1.504:1: The aspect ratio of some digital SLR cameras, such as the Nikon D70.
1.56:1: Widescreen aspect ratio 14:9. Often used in shooting commercials etc. as a compromise format between TV 4:3 (12:9) and Widescreen 16:9, especially when the output will be used in both standard TV and widescreen. When converted to a 16:9 frame, only a small portion of the picture is lost, and when converted to 4:3 there is only slight letterboxing.
1.6:1: computer display widescreen (8:5, commonly referred to as 16:10). Used in WSXGAPlus, WUXGA and other display resolutions. This aspect ratio has been chosen for many modern widescreen computer displays because of its ability to display two full pages of text side by side. [1]
1.66:1: 35 mm European widescreen standard; Super 16 mm. (5:3, sometimes expressed more accurately as "1.67".)
1.75:1: early 35 mm widescreen ratio, since abandoned.
1.78:1: video widescreen standard (16:9). Also used in high-definition television One of 3 ratios specified for MPEG-2 video compression.
1.85:1: 35 mm US and UK widescreen standard for theatrical film. Uses approximately 3 perforations ("perfs") of image space per 4 perf frame; films can be shot in 3-perf to save cost of film stock. Also known as "flat".
2.00:1: Used primarily as a flat format in the 1950s and early 1960s by Universal-International, as well as Paramount for some of their VistaVision titles. Also used as one of the variable anamorphic ratios with SuperScope. Used as the aspect ratio for the DVD release of Apocalypse Now.
2.2:1: 70 mm standard. Originally developed for Todd-AO in the 1950s. 2.21:1 specified for MPEG-2 but not used.
2.35:1 : 35 mm anamorphic prior to 1970, used by CinemaScope ("'Scope") and early Panavision. The anamorphic standard has subtly changed so that modern anamorphic productions are actually 2.39[1], but often referred to as 2.35 anyway, due to old convention. (Note that anamorphic refers to the print and not necessarily the negative.)
2.39:1: 35 mm anamorphic from 1970 onwards. Sometimes rounded up to 2.40[1]. Sometimes referred to as 'Scope.
2.55:1: Original aspect ratio of CinemaScope before optical sound was added to the film. This was also the aspect ratio of CinemaScope 55.
2.59:1: Cinerama at full height (three specially captured 35 mm images projected side-by-side into one composite widescreen image).
2.76:1: MGM Camera 65 (65 mm with 1.25x anamorphic squeeze). Only used on a handful of films between 1956 and 1964, such as Ben-Hur (1959).
4:1: Polyvision, three 35 mm 1.33 images projected side by side. Only used on Abel Gance's Napoléon (1927).

And to answer your question about super 8 and reg 8 - Yes, they made the perfs smaller, and moved them outside the frame, allowng the frame size to increase in BOTH directions.

What film school are you enrolled in?

The best way to shoot a sync film is not to use super-8, while I admit I used to own 5 super-8 cameras myself, it is a very dead format to use in any serious application that requires sound synchronization. It is just plan complicated without modern digital equipment to accompany it, i.e. a portable DAT, High Quality Telecine, and then have to do post synchronization, not mention finding (I've seen a few for rent) a crystal sync Super-8 that will keep speed like Richard mentioned earlier. Now if you intended to shoot MOS (silent) and add ambient sound in post that would be a hell of a lot easier. I've done it many times and was very pleased with the results. The reason no one (armatures especially) shoots film is because it's so damn expensive, which totally bites. I personally started out filming with a 70 year old 16mm MOS camera and shot with b/w reversal when I was twelve and couldn't have been happier with it at the time. Your best bet is to rent a Bolex EL Package (or the cheapest one you can find, good luck), a DAT Package, light meter and grab a few 400ft rolls. No matter what you're going to have to spend at least a $1000 bucks or so depending on how long the shoot is. I don't mean to discourage you at all, in fact I hope that you do end up making a "real" film, that way you can be called a FILMMAKER and not a just some moviemaker (DV), there's a difference if you ask me, but hey thats just my opinion. I personally refused to buy a DV camera for six years and just stuck with 16mm,super-8 and Dbl. 8 (I prefer Double-8 over Super because I absolutely love threading film).
Keep Fighting The Good Fight,
May Film Never Be Dead,
(Although We All Know It's Coming) :(

Best of Luck
-Russ

According to this site:
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~cksm/Formats.html

Super-8 frame: .228" x .163" = 1.40 : 1
Regular 8mm: .192" x .145" = 1.33 : 1

Super-16 extended the frame horizontally by eliminating the sprocket row on one side, just as 16mm sound prints did in order to fit the optical soundtrack. So the aspect ratio is wider than regular 16mm (about 1.37 for regular 16mm versus 1.68 for Super-16).

Super-35 just means using the Full Aperture width rather than the sound aperture width where room is made on the left side for the optical sountrack later, meaning that the lens is centered (or offcentered) with this in mind. So Super-35 involves re-centering the lens for Full Aperture (sprocket row to sprocket row on each side.)

Technically, 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is what was used in the Silent Era and is 1.33 : 1 (4x3), so "Super" doesn't really mean "wider", just that the main reason one uses a camera with a "Super-35" gate is in order to get a little more width than the sound aperture allows -- the extra height you get from going to 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture isn't used although exposed. Within this bigger Full Aperture area, usually a widescreen image is composed for cropping later. Truth is that most 35mm cameras set-up for standard sound aperture formats (1.85 or anamorphic or Academy) have a Full Aperture gate and expose all of it, just that the lenses aren't centered for Full Aperture and some might even be vignetting outside of the sound area to be used. I learned that years ago when I was visiting an editing room cutting a standard 35mm 1.85 feature I shot using workprint -- I picked up a trimmed piece of film and noticed some flags in the shot on the left edge, outside the area I was framing for 1.85. That's when I learned that the Panaflex was exposing Full Aperture even though it was not set-up for "Super-35". Another shot made on an Arri-III however showed that the camera had a 1.37 Academy sound aperture gate.

3-perf 35mm Full Aperture is close to 1.78 : 1 (16x9).

You also have to separate the notion of a camera gate versus a projector gate as well -- even though Super-8 might be 1.40 : 1 and regular 8mm is 1.33 : 1, most Super-8/8mm combo projectors have one gate for both formats.

Super-8 film workflow unfortunately has centered around tape splicing and projecting your original, usually silent. Sound was always problematic because of the fact that the splice point is not the same point where the sound exists for that filmic moment since the sound head in the projector is a number of frames offset.

16mm film workflow for going from neg to print with an optical soundtrack, however, is more or less the same as it is for 35mm.

I’ve got to tell you guys that I am learning so much about shooting on celluloid just from this thread alone. I can’t imagine how much I will learn once I get my hands on all the equipment and start working.

Richard I apologize, I jumped to a conclusion about the wider frame area and thought it went from 1.33 to 1.78 when it didn’t change that much.

Okay so I written my story and am looking for a camera. I wont have to film with sound because I am making a Film Noir and the only dialog is voice over. Because of the cost and hassle I wont be able to edit on film, I’ll have to do it in a computer. Now I have a few questions. I am going to have to add visual effects to a couple shots, so I’m going to need to scan the film in as an image sequence, not telecine to mini dv. What is the “resolution” of super 8mm and where can I send it to get it scanned. I would imagine that it’s 1K film (I know 35mm is 4K, 16mm is 2K, so it seems reasonable). How much will it cost to scan in 8mm? More or just as much as a telecine? Thanx for all the help.

Alan,

Start here.

http://www.moviestuff.tv/

There's lots of other choices... but I think peole learn better when they don't get too much help with their homework. GOOGLE is your friend.

Oh yeah yeah I looked that up already. I’ve been searching google and just can’t find any places that do what I want, I already understand the process. I’m just asking what places you guys use that are not to pricy and do a good job. I don’t want the film transferred to video, I want all the frames scanned in at 1K and I want to get a hard drive sent to me with just thousands of images on it that I can transfer over to my server, import into After Effects and output a dv video with timecode. If I need to do visual effects I can always go back to my original images and not have any compression artifacts. I don’t know but it seems like this SHOULDN’T cost that much more then just having the celluloid telecined, because they are about the same base resolution and compression. Anyways I’m just looking for a location I can call to ask about pricing, about quality and about turn around time.

I'll call them but I also want some other places if you guys know of any.

Thanx