Cant decide which super 8 camera to buy
 

Hey Guys

I don't want to spend a fortune and i don't want rubbish

I have been looking at the canon 814xls and 1014xls and nikon R10 but they are expensive

what can i get for around $200

I would love to incorporate the footage into my work

and do they shoot widescreen

thanks

Rob

Just curious, but why on earth go to the cost and hassle of running a completely different camera format when you can pretty much replicate the Super-8 look digitally in post? Easy enough to add weave, instability at splices, grain, progressive scan, emulsion damage and anything else that takes your fancy.

Yes, any Super-8 can shoot wide-screen, and of any aspect ratio you choose. There are anamorphics from 1.33:1 up to 2:1. Or you can simply mask down the frame of course.

I wouldn't bother with the S versions as you can't buy pre-striped film any more. The R10 is a goodie, as too is the Canon 1014E. This will offer you proper 60fps slo-mo that the 814E can't match, and allow you to shoot multiple exposures when you rewind the film.

tom.

Rob,

Since film is expensive, I recommend getting the best refurbished model for your budget instead of trying to purchase a higher-end model at that price off ebay.

I recommend the Canon Auto Zoom 518 for $250 here at Du-All Camera (click on 'cameras' in the upper left) or the one right below it on the page, the 518 SV.

As far as shooting widescreen, I've never done it but Joe Simon (who frequents this board) has performed an HD transfer with Cinelicious and the footage looked great!

You're going to lose resolution transferring to widescreen, and the Cinelicious web site has a nice chart that explains how much right here.

Good luck!

jones

For around $200 you will get rubbish. I suspect if you are only willing to spend $200 on the camera that you are not nearly as committed to the idea as you will need to be.

I too looked into Super 8 much as you are talking about it. Among the things I learned:

It is expensive and complicated.

In my market there are few that will pay for it.

Shooting Super 8 properly is extremely difficult and will take months if not years to master. If you are willing to learn a whole new art form, go for it. if you are thinking you just want to shoot a little here and there and mix it in with your current work, I don't think it is feasible, but I could be wrong.

I disagree with Tom about replicating Super 8. I don't think top-notch super 8 movies can be replicated using digital means. And if I'm wrong and it can be, it would be criminal and wouldn't be fair.

I remember the first great wedding video I saw done in Super 8. I was devastated with it's beauty. In the hands of an experienced shooter it is amazing.

I think getting your camera from a reputable company is the best thing to do as Chris has suggested. You might also look at Home - Spectra Film & Video. Doesn't look like they have many currently available right now. I purchased my first Super 8 on Ebay (814xl) for a little over $200 but I also asked LOTS of questions. They had several critical photos that helped too.

what about this model

Canon 514 XL-S Super 8 mm film camera cine 24fps 8mm - eBay Movie Cameras, Vintage Cameras, Vintage Photography, Photography. (end time 24-Nov-08 18:55:03 AEDST)

Very plastic-y - not as solid and reliable as the others that have been mentioned in this thread.

jones

I have one more

Canon 814 Professional Super 8 Motion Picture Camera - eBay By Type, Cameras, Vintage Movie Photography, Cameras Photo. (end time 26-Nov-08 04:41:02 AEDST)

Ok...

I've done some searching around on google, and I'm missing something. Why would you want to shoot a wedding on a super-8??? All the footage I have come across has been blurry with flat color, and often harsh vignetting.

Will someone please point me to some super-8 footage that will help me understand why I would even consider this format for non-repeatable events?

Thanks!

Super-8 cameras from Leica, Minolta, Beaulieu, Canon and Nikon produce the most wonderful footage Chris. My Kodachrome 40 films from 35 years ago look like they were shot yesterday. Sharp, bright, no vignetting and true slo-mo, none of this video interpolation nonsense.

If you can afford a flying spot transfer the results on HDV show what each and every frame of Kodachrome holds. The frame size of 5.7 x 4.2 mm is just slightly shy of the EX1's ½" chip, and I have Cibachrome prints from single frames that even now wow the audience.

Super-8 cameras were remarkably mechanical things, and as such continue to work long after the camcorder has breathed its last. My 1014E still whirrs happily. It has full manual control of the focus, iris, shutter speeds and even white balance (with the in-built A/D filter). It's a thing of beauty. And better than a lot of modern camcorders it has a non-ramping 10x f/1.4 lens.

I did smile at Jeff's line saying, '... wrong and it can be, it would be criminal and wouldn't be fair.' I know what he means, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that most Super-8 films were shot at 18fps. However we digitally manipulate todays 25fps PAL footage, that slow rate of progressive scan and 54 Hz replay is hard to replicate.

tom.

I don't think there are any narrow rules for shooting Super 8, like anything else we use, it's another brush for our palette and how we decide to use that brush is up to the artist. You don't need to spend a ton of money on a Bolex or Beaulieu, a $100 camera may work fine, it just depends on what you're going for.

Some companies do an amazing job shoot really slick beautiful Super 8. Check out Paper Tape Films - Super 8mm Wedding Films - Wedding Cinematography to name one company that's doing it amazingly well.

Other companies are using cheaper cameras to shoot grainy, high contrast broll to cut in with their HD video. That's more the approach we've been taking.

What I like about Super 8 is that the texture contrasts with the slicker, saturated color of HD or HDV. Super 8 conveys a sort of timelessness that many still equate with the home movies of our youth (or our parents). For, me it captures the French New Wave look of filmmakers like Francois Truffaut. It has an inherent romantic feel that I like.

And, (IMHO) while video can be treated through After Effects and other things to simulate the look, it doesn't really look exactly the same as the real thing.

Good camera. Sounds safe. 14 day guarantee if not satisfied, so that's no good - not enough time to get film back to know if it's really working.

jones

So where would be the safest place to buy a super 8 camera from i guess ebay is always a risk

Your neighbourhood probably has a Super-8 camera in every second house. Put up a 'wanted' ad in the sweet shop window.

Brides looking for 8mm Weddings
 

I got an email from the Bridal Network, they are experiencing a lot of search for 8mm wedding shoots lately and would like to get an article from a videographer who shoots on 8mm. What the brides need to know about 8mm, etc, etc.If anyone is interested I can give you their email address.

The bride needs to know

1) That she won't get the original footage
2) That it will be shot mute
3) That it will add greatly to the package cost (stock, processing and transfer)
4) That a lot of viewers will wonder what the hell's happened to their TV
5) That it probably won't be in 16:9
6) That the colours and sharpness won't match the rest of the film

tom.

Tom makes some interesting points. The most important thing is that the bride SEE what she is going to get. She needs to understand exactly what to expect from the footage. This means someone selling super 8 is going to have to have a demo reel to let them see what they are buying. It's no good to say "Here is what someone else has done, I think I can do that."

"Not getting the orgininal footage" - Well, I don't know about that. You COULD sell them the original tapes of all the footage you shoot I suppose. Sure, you can sell them the stock - if they want it. Most people get their copies of the final product, not the original tape or filmstock. Hell, you COULD offer to shoot reversal and turn over the original stock so they can thread up dad's projector and watch it in the garage - if that's what the client wants.

Shot "mute" - Well, sure the camera is not going to capture sound to the film stock. Doesn't mean the scenes will be 'mute' when they are presented. It just means you'll have to shoot double system, OR indicate that those scenes will have a wild track laid behind them. This is fine for a music montage or such. Again, the photographer has to be able to demonstrate what is possible.

"Add greatly to the cost of the package" - Many 'add ons' add to the cost of a package. Extra shooting, extra crew, extra trasportation, extra copies - Adding super 8, will be another 'add on'. If they want it, they can buy it. The more you shoot, the more it will cost. Its up to the Videographer to scale the package.

"Probably won't be in 16:9" - May or may not be in 16:9. It certainly is available, again it depends on how the photographer packages the product. Cameras that shoot 16:9 are available. HD scans are available. Many different filmstocks are available.

"That the color and sharpness won't match the rest of the film" - Looked at a lot of HD super 8 footage have you? Wow, I saw my first footage on a 42 inch screen a few weeks ago, and was completely blow away by the images. Color saturation and lattitude of the fujii stock was far superior to any 'film preset' I've seen on a prosumer camera. Sure, there was some grain there, but it was more like 16mm than Super 8. Remember, the filmstock is far superior to the old stuff from the 70's. Though, as others have pointed out, KODACHROME has an amazing quality, that holds up over half a century. Too bad its gone. But the new Vision stocks are particularly impressive.



Look, shooting film is a different skillset than shooting video. Its going to require some investment in time AND money for someone to get into it, and feel comfortable enough to offer it as an additional product. How much? Hard to say.


It is POSSIBLE to buy a decent camera for a hundred bucks IF you know what you're looking at. I've got a half a dozen super8 cameras I used to teach film with. I would buy them at thrift stores, take them home, cleanup the battery terminals and fire them up. I had a 'test roll' of film. I'd shoot a couple of feet in this camera, swap out the cartridge, put it in another camera , test that one, and so on. Get the film back and project it - watching for exposure and weave/registration in the gate.

The quality cameras from the 70's hold up remarkably well. If you want to buy a refurbished camera from the people who rebuild and regate them to 16:9, then you know you're good to go from the outset. You either have to KNOW film cameras, or pay someone who does.


As others have pointed out - there are plenty of 'old film' filters available in most NLE's if all you want is the nostalgic look of damaged film footage. Like sepia toned still photos, it evokes a particular feeling. May not want the whole wedding package done in Sepia, its just another 'look'.

Super 8 film, properly exposed and shot creatively - IS FILM. FILM has a different 'look' from video. Different filmstocks have different looks as well. People spend enormous ammounts of time trying to get that organic 'film look' (Aside from Depth of Field) - and nothing quite matches the look like actual film.


Its just another tool, another product to offer. If you're not good at shooting it, if your clients aren't asking for it, if you don't have/can't work out the workflow - don't do it.

But don't be surprised if someone else does.

(Disclaimer: I don't work for any of the super 8 processing and transfer facilities - I don't even shoot weddings. I'm just a guy who has a lot of super 8 experience, and enjoy shooting it.)

I'm with you all the way Richard - I think you took my 'won't match the rest of the film' in a derogatory way, but I was saying quite the opposite. My Super-8 blows up to 6' wide easy, and looks good.

Of course the couple could be sold (given?) the original processed reels of film, but presumably they'll be watching a transfer of that film onto their DVD.

Now a lot of the 'film look' has to do with projection, where the progressive scan original was probably shot with a 180 degree shutter at 18 fps. Projection is generally at 18 fps but at 54 Hz (3 bladed shutter) and this look is certainly lost when viewing off DVD into a plasma or LCD TV.

And I said 'shot mute' in case the couple thought they could have lip-sync Super-8 at the touch of a button. Of course it is possible, as is anamorphic shooting. It's just money and experience.

tom.

Thanks for info Richard very entertaining where can i buy a refurbished rebuilt to 16:9 camera

Rob

yeah where?

Pro8 in Burbank sells refurbished Super 8 Cameras with custom 16:9 gates on them. I think they call it "Max8" or something. PRO8MM | BURBANK CA | CAMERAS | FILM | LAB | SCANNING

If you do a little googling, and some digging around on the Super 8 forums (yes, they exist) you can find various places that will modify Super 8 Camera gates. It's an expensive retrofit - but if you want it, you can have it. Another solution is to shoot the really fine grained negative stock, then transfer in HD and crop to fit in post... or during the transfer.http://www.pro8mm.com/pdf/taking_super8_to_hidef.pdf

At some point, there is a 'cross-over' in cost benefit and you should think about shooting S16 though... so due dilligence is in order.

Okay, found a link on the "Max8" modifications - http://www.pro8mm.com/pdf/weva_shoot...widescreen.pdf

I get mine from Du-All Camera and Super 8 Camera Shop.

jones

which cameras did you buy?

Dude, 8mm is 8mm, you are going to have black bars at the sides. You could crop the digital capture in the NLE, but what's the point?

What are you smoking? The best 8mm ever shot looks like a stomped turd compared to a good HD camera.

You saw your first footage a few weeks ago? I shot 8mm in the 70s and 80s and was happy to throw those cameras in the trash bin 20 years ago. I captured all my 8mm stock to HD a few years ago. It's great stuff looking at stomped turds in HD.

Dude,

Yes, you can get the gate recut to "Max8" - No dude, it won't have letterboxing dude, it will be 16:9.

Dude, did you LOOK at the links?

Dude, I saw my first FUJICHROME and VISION200 NEGATIVE transferred at HD last week dude, not old 8 or super8 reversal stock transferred. Not the same thing dude.

You didn't shoot Vision 200 negative stock in the 70's, did you dude?

I'm guessing you've SEEN the Fuji 40 shot at 16:9 and transferred on HD right?

Or are you smoking something instead of reading posts and checking links dude.

Yeah, I was shooting film in the 70's too dude. For a television station.

ownt.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the process is for converting an 8mm gate to correctly shoot 16:9? I'm sure it's a high-tech process I shouldn't tackle, I'd just like to know what's involved in case I grow big enough cojones to attempt a DIY project on the s8 I don't even own yet.

=)

I certainly wouldn't attempt to modify the Super-8 camera gate Chris as the v'finder feed is ahead of the gate (a prism within the lens elements usually) and this will still be 4:3.

Much better to mask the v'finder to show the safe image area. You'll lose 25% of the Super-8 emulsion area, but the aspect ratio will look far nicer. Of course the film you shoot will still be 4:3, so you'll certainly need to mask the projector's gate, or only have the 16:9 rectangle transferred to video.

tom.

Chris the white papers on the Max8 modifications are in the links I provided. These modified Super8 cameras shoot a 16x9 frame, and the transfer is accomplished in house in telecine. This would NOT be acceptable for shooting and projecting on an old super 8 projector, as the projection gates are - as Tom mentioned - not going to match.

The use of Super 8 or Max8 footage is going to be a stylistic choice. It's not for everyone's workflow. Its much more xpensive and demanding than shooting video. (It is, after all is said and done - FILM.)

But if you want to incorporate it - if your clients are asking for it - (And apparently there is some demand in the Wedding Biz) then it's important to understand the cost/benefits of retrofitting with rebuilt/modified Max8 gear with the new NEGATIVE film stocks, having those negatives professonally color corrected and transfered to HD - versus grabbing an old camera at a yard sale, throwing in a roll of reversal, and videotaping the results off of your grandfather's torn up and yellowed antique screen.

And the difference is HUGE.

(EDIT) - FYI if you search the forums for DIY telecine, you'll find posts about HOW to shoot footage directly off a screen.(Many of them by me) It IS possible, and you can get some interesting results - but it's NOT the optimum way. There are a number of transfer options available, make sure you know which one the transfer house is using. This can vary from - quite literally - shooting off of an old screen - to rank/cintel - to wetgate - to frame by frame digital capture with OPEN GATE technology, so the entire frame, edge to edge is captured. Do your due diligence.

Dudes:

For anyone shooting Panasonic cameras, there are some tutorials and scene files available to get an old film look from the cameras on the Panasonic Pro website.

If you already have the camera, it's an easy option. You could undercrank down to to 18FPS and the scene file will give you the look. You would have to add any blemishing in post.

Making your captures from your current equipment look like film seems a lot easier than getting another camera and learning and lugging it.

Are you talking about panasonic video cameras? I wasn't aware you could undercrank a video camera to 18fps. Maybe I missed this feature on a camera or two??

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)?