You missed nothing; it can't be done.

I don't know if you guys are getting caught up in semantics or technical details, but the HVX200 has offered the ability to shoot frame rates under 24fps for quite some time now.

I don't know if it qualifies strictly as "undercranking" but it's an option, although I think the limiting factor is that playback of 18fps shot on one isn't at 18fps unless someone has figured out a way to do that.

You need to do some research. Many cameras over & undercrank, including Sony (EX-1 & others).

Panasonics will do any even frame rate, 2, 4, 6, 8 FPS, etc. Of course there is no sound recorded until you hit 24 FPS.

There are a lot of people shooting 2 to 6 FPS for effect.

Canon 814 Auto Zoom Electronic
Canon 1014 Auto Zoom Electronic
Canon 814 XLS
Canon 1014 XLS

jones

So any one of these cameras will do the job

Jeff, I'm well aware that camcorders have been able to shoot at very slow shutter speeds and my TRV900 from 11 years ago did just that. I was more concerned with the synchronisation problems that occur when three-bladed shutters in Super / Standard8 projectors meet camcorders. I must admit I didn't know that you could select 16.67 fps on a modern camcorder - mine have never offered this option.

tom.

So since we're talking about a viable film solution anyway, I was curious what advantages and disadvantages I might face using 16mm instead of super 8 (apart from the film being more expensive)?

Generally speaking, 16mm cameras will also be more expensive. Of course, they will also be of a higher build quality, and you can buy brand new ones today! Still, you can pick up used Bolex for good prices on Ebay if you're carefull.

You get a larger format frame, more film choices, longer 'run time', and interchangeable lenses (except with the Canon Scoopic - a great little 16mm camera that was becoming popular for newsgathering about the time ENG kicked in.) Most of the older ones will NOT have any sort of light meter, so you'll have to own and know how to use one. Wider choice of frame rates, even a variable shutter on some of them. They can be a little noisier than Super 8 Cameras, so that might be an issue if you are shooting right next to a DV camcorder for coverage purposes.

Deciding to go 16 or S16 opens up a LOT more options... and your wallet. Basically, people decide to go with Super 8 because its closer to the form factor of a small video camera - point and shoot, a meter built in, one zoom lens, easy to load in broad daylight - just like the DV cameras they are familiar with. Shooting 16 is going to require more maintenance, more attention to loading the film, cleaning/checking the gate, etc. etc.

Re: Cant decide which super 8 camera to buy
 

Sorry to resurrect an old thread. Was thinking of picking up a cheap super 8mm camera off of ebay to play around with film. Was looking for some advice on the following:
-looks like film runs about $10 and $10 to process. I guess only specialty shops will process the film (costco doesn't do anything super 8mm processing)?