To me, those light-exposures, blurry shots, technical errors are the point.

A professional super-8 shoot from the 1990s wouldn't have those errors. An -amateur- super-8 shoot from the 1970s would.

Really enjoyed the look and feed of the film, great couple too!

Question how did you record the audio. Have you transfered the video to DV to go to editing?
Very unusual and inspirational piece, for authenticity!

I;m also one who has enjoyed this wedding film and when you look at film's from hollywood you also see errors which they try to hide but as a pro when we look at them, we see the errors.
There is no perfect film out there and i think this was a great job done.

So I missed the point
 

OK, so I'm out-voted!

Like I said, interesting film, lots of hard work, good shots but edit style not for me.
Thanks for posting, Joe, and look forward to seeing your next work.

I loved it. I hope to add this to my package eventually.

Excellent! I don't know what Collin was going on about.

Since the thread has been revived, I'll just comment I'm entirely with Colin. Could be that those of us who used to shoot 8/Super8 long ago and have moved on just don't get it.

Joe...


Uhhhgg,,, Now I want to take my 814 out of the case and use it on my next wedding.

1 question... what was it like during the ceremony. Mine is pretty loud and I would think that the camera rolling could be a little distracting during the quite times.

Steve

Joe, I'm sorry to be another dissenting voice but I fail to see why "errors" like film burns are considered acceptable even desirable when almost every amateur NLE includes the device. Frankly, transferred to video for editing and the application of silly effects isn't a film any more. My thought when watching was why didn't he throw in the "Old Film" filter for good measure.

I am surprised that the film transfer introduced imperfections. I thought the general image quality was good enough to have been done by telecine chain - unless the telecine operator is a klutz

I was a very keen amateur film maker - 9.5mm, Super-8 then Single-8 for in-camera dissolves - from the mid 50's my first camera (Pathe Baby) cost me £1 in 1953. I never aspired to an 814 though before I went over to Fuji's Single 8 I had a Canon 518 with the huge chunk of telephoto extender which was actually very good and with which I won some amateur awards.

But I also had a tripod and disdain wobbly cam under any but the most expert circumstances. Hill St Blues made it look easy but any pro knows that it is exactly the opposite and this film certainly isn't pro.

More to the point, the content was to my mind mundane and amateur. Sideways shots from cars only work in dramatic clips, wheels close the edge etc - to portray the view it simply doesn't work, in film or video or stills.

Sorry Joe, just my 2c and not intended to be unkind. I'm pleased you have a strong following of admirers but I can't be one of them. I agree that the circumstances under which we all worked then were more demanding - imagine being the cameraman filming an unrepeatable event and not knowing what you got until the film came back from the lab - but the work we did then, even as amateurs, was better than Brian suggests.

How old is this thread? Almost two years. I really don't think any of this is relevant anymore, not to mention Joe has since become recognized as one of the best in the business since he posted this.

What seems amateurish is to come on a necro thread and criticize a piece of work from somebody that was posted years ago!

This horse died loooong ago. I seriously doubt Joe even comes on these boards anymore.