Thanks for reviewing Regular 8mm. I shoot it, develop it, slit it, project it and copy it digitally. Lots of experimentation. New film is used from Orwo or from Foma or from FPP. It runs much longer than 16mm, being twice as many frames slit in half doubling again the length, and is much quieter to project. It IS more difficult to expose than Super 8 since most cameras are totally manual and most light meters on R8 don't work any more or never changed the aperture. There are some rare examples. Super 8 is all about automatic exposure and you never learn how to do that if it is all you shoot. My Super 8 projector was so good it died from stiff grease while the regular 8mm ones just keep on projecting. I load R8 in the dark and nothing is wasted, the extra film provided for the daylight film loading wasting is added to my roll. It was easy to get used to using a bag outside. Nowhere as easy as jittery super 8 cartridges. Not for everyone, regular 8mm, but I wouldn't want my old Auricon Pro 600 16mm optical sound on film camera again with 1200 foot reels again either. Cool as it was. Way to expensive. Now, double Super 8 in a 100 foot loading Bolex would be great if there was a great projector for it.
One of the biggest problems with Super8 has always been the sound. Originally, when the format was used, it was all reversal stock, and the camera film itself was to be projected. The fact that the magnetic sound was recorded 18 frames ahead of picture made editing it a nightmare. At standard 18 fps speed, it is a one second difference. Also, no crystal sync - this makes external sound recording nearly impossible. Theoretically it is possible in digital post, but doing the sync by manually correcting all shifts is really not worth the effort. There was also the optical sound, but it was used for commercial movies copied into Super8 stock. They were originally shot with 16 mm or 36 mm. Of course, it is possible to modify a Super8 camera for crystal sync, but you might ask why not shoot 16 mm instead. That said, the home video formats of the time were crappy, but the ease of using these camcorders made them popular, when their prices reached a level a regular consumer could afford. Any Super8 film, even if shot with the cheapest fix focus camera exceeded the 1980´s VHS picture quality by many times. This was very obvious after editing any VHS footage - even knowing the limitations of analog TV.
Yea, the way we got around that was just not making the cuts as tight. I did a bunch of cutting on super 8 and I was never happy. It's part of the reason why we moved to video so quickly, that and of course super 8 projection was the only way to watch in any quality, which sucks. Most people have TV's and wanted to watch what they shot on it. That's what drove people away from film. Once people had VCR's the super 8 business was over. :(
I shot Super 8 sound film at 24 frames per second. With an Optasound cassette recorder And a GAF ST/1002 film camera. The editing of the sound film was a little difficult but I used a guillotine splicer with markings on it that showed you where to cut a sound film.
I don't know...you say Standard 8MM is an inferior format but I will tell that for one example, the Zeiss Movikon 8 and 8b will beat super 8 in sharpness every time. The 8b has filming speeds of 8,16,24,32,48,and 64. Also for us that are shooting Standard 8MM today, don't really have problems loading the cameras. The Film Photography Project, has many emulsions available in standard 8mm.
Howdy, thanks for the info. I was referring to new stocks made directly from film manufacturers. Film Photography Project uses cut down ORWO film for their B&W products that was in many cases, made years ago. Nobody makes a 40 ISO color negative, so I have no idea what they're using for that and of course the Color Reversal is just cut down Kodak Ektachrome 100. The problem with "cut down stocks" is that they're generally not made in a clean room environment and the quality of the perforations and general stock cleanliness can be lacking. Also, you never know the actual age of the stock, it could be many years old. So when I say the stock isn't made anymore, I'm referring to manufactures making new stock from the factory in the particular gauge. In terms of the camera quality, I mean I'd love to see some high res scans of your 8mm sharpness. I have a few American made 8mm cameras and none of them have any method of holding the film laterally in the gate, so there would be consistent gate wobble. So you'd never be able to really achieve decent sharpness with an 8mm camera simply due to gate weave. Not saying super 8 is a lot better, the poor pressure plate really doesn't help. However, and the point of this video, is to decide which is an over-all better format. Considering there are far superior super 8 cameras technology wise (reflex, fast lenses, zoom lenses, decent focusing, manual and automatic aperture control, motor drive with sync sound capabilities) it's a clear winner considering that Kodak makes fresh/new stock that can be processed in regular machines throughout the world. With that said, if you are a hobbyist and you process your own film and quality doesn't matter, then maybe there is some validity to 8mm. I just feel most people aren't doing that and if they did, they wouldn't be watching my videos anyway.
@@CinemaRepository Do you know if there is some place online where I could find more info on cutting down stock? I assume you mean getting larger film(16mm or 35mm) and splitting it down to 8mm or super 8. I'm from Brazil and I'm involved with some people who run a colective lab for super 8 and 16mm and recently we have considering experimenting with that. We have plenty of 35mm motion picture stock and 135 bulk film to go around here but super 8 is getting very expensive and hard to find. Thanks!
@@TheVefIt Edward Nowill on facebook offers a service to cut down to 8mm but he said he needs to get his perforator fixed or something like that. Send him a message
I would agree that early super 8 commercial releases didn't have the best image quality, but companies like Derann released on super 8 stereo sound, film prints that looked like GOOD 16mm library prints, where video, VHS and such, looked OK on TV, but would look like absolute c**p projected.
Hi. I have a question that I have been looking for a very long time. How to do a shutter streaking effect on 16mm camera. Which I know Arricam / 435 extreme can be done easily with timing shift box. But, I have seen some example using standard 16mm camera.
The streaking effect can only be achieved when the film is running through the camera when the shutter hasn't closed. The 435 can't do it without some sort of 100% manual control, like what they did with Saving Private Ryan. 16mm cameras have mostly direct drive shutters, so to do it, you'd have to physically re-calibrate your shutter, which means your camera would be useless for any normal shooting. So if you had a cheap camera that you didn't mind destroying or setting up for that look only, then you could do it. Cut down or shift the shutter a bit so the film is moving when being exposed and you'd be all good to go. Super easy to do with a Filmo or Bolex.
@@CinemaRepository Thanks, I know the basic theory, but I have no ideal how exactly I can do it for example on Bolex rex5? some people talks about modify the belt on super16 camera can achieved the similar result. well I do have access to my Aaton A-minima and bolex rex5, If you know how exactly I can do it on them I 'd love to know.
@@xiaoyangjin2655 You’d basically have to disable the cameras ability to shoot normally. If you want to do that, never be able to shoot normal images, than it’s easy. No the super 16 converted bolexes on the far edge have a slight blur hut only slight. The shutter does cover it nearly entirely. You simply just re time the shutter, which is easy to do, but again once you do it, all of your shots will be blurred.
Awesome video as always! Well I was there during the transition from film to video as an amateut format, back in the early 1980s. Amateur film magazines in my home country dropped the film part, so "Film und Video" became "Video". Video was terrible, terrible regarding image quality. It was very frustrating: Super 8mm (I owned a Beaulieu 6008S at the time, doesn't get better than that) just wasn't sharp enough for my taste (MUCH sharper than my previous camera, an Agfa Movexoom), you couldn't edit sound separately unless you bought ridiculously expensive equipment by boutique brands you knew about from expensive magazines, and the editing and adding sound added scratches, wear and tear to your precious camera original. So with Super 8 you had that wonderful film look, but severe insurmountable technical limitations. Video looked horrible until way into the 1990s. I always found it unusable and absolutely the opposite of what film is all about. A window to a world where everything looks gorgeous. That held true for Kodachrome. You probably have never seen the Derann film releases on Super 8mm. I owned a few. They looked stunning. They were all full length, Scope films were in Scope, most had great stereo sound and the image was super clean and usually at least as sharp as your average trashy, dupey 16mm color print: prints were made from 16mm internegatives that in turn were made from the 35mm intermediate. So you had the exact same color and contrast as a theatrical release print. Most package movies from the 1970s were trash indeed, often taken from a 35mm print, cut down, then a new 16mm neg was made. And of course it was all 1.37:1, severely cropped just like tv at the time. I remember a Super 8mm festival back in 1981. The film that won really looked great. It was made with a Canon Double Super 8 (I asked the guy) on Kodak Tri-X and the sound was just music, so not dozens of passes with voice over or attempting ADR and foley (I did all that and it was great fun). But that was the exception. Thanks for reading and thanks for making these videos. Loving it!!!
Yea I mean you saw how good some of that super 8 stuff from the early 90's looked in this video. Nothing I shot on video from that time period looked anywhere near that good. It was so sad seeing film go away and video basically take over because it was "easier" not cheaper. I may actually do a fun video discussing the different cameras I owned, but I was very late to the video party, too expensive! I have no idea how Derann films are made. I've seen a few of them in person and they're not bad. Obviously nowhere near 16mm, but still not bad for what they are. I'd be scared to own one because I'd not want to destroy it with my old projectors! EEK! I just scanned a film that was one of those super 8 festival films and it looked really good. It's called Game of Survival, we're doing the restoration on it. No soundtrack on film, so it must have had sync sound audio separately. Glad you like the video!
@@CinemaRepository Always great reading your responses. Derann explained exactly how their Super 8 prints were made in their catalogs. Yes of course a good 16mm print looks way better. It's just that a lot of 16mm prints, at least here in Europe, were dupes, adding two more generations on top of a 35mm print. The black and white prints, usually on ORWO stock, always looked excellent though. So much so, that I would pay to watch, say, one of the classic noirs on a nice old 16mm print with optical sound. I know I'm not the only one. 4K is all fine and dandy until you watch a real beautiful projected film print. I did own a couple of good 16mm prints and of course compared to Super 8, the first thing you noticed is that there is depth to it and they "breathe" (I know you will understand what I mean). Yeah, those old projectors are grinders and sending a super precious film print through these doesn't sound like a great idea. The 1990s Super 8 footage in your video is indeed very beautiful. LOVE that steam locomotive crossing that timber trestle bridge! Looks like one of those geared sidewinders, such as the Shay or Climax, but with passenger cars as opposed to transporting timber. And I couldn't agree more: video was always about cheaper, easier and more convenient, never better. Looking forward to your upcoming videos. Thanks, as always, for taking the time to share your knowledge!
Thanks for reviewing Regular 8mm. I shoot it, develop it, slit it, project it and copy it digitally. Lots of experimentation. New film is used from Orwo or from Foma or from FPP. It runs much longer than 16mm, being twice as many frames slit in half doubling again the length, and is much quieter to project. It IS more difficult to expose than Super 8 since most cameras are totally manual and most light meters on R8 don't work any more or never changed the aperture. There are some rare examples. Super 8 is all about automatic exposure and you never learn how to do that if it is all you shoot. My Super 8 projector was so good it died from stiff grease while the regular 8mm ones just keep on projecting. I load R8 in the dark and nothing is wasted, the extra film provided for the daylight film loading wasting is added to my roll. It was easy to get used to using a bag outside. Nowhere as easy as jittery super 8 cartridges. Not for everyone, regular 8mm, but I wouldn't want my old Auricon Pro 600 16mm optical sound on film camera again with 1200 foot reels again either. Cool as it was. Way to expensive. Now, double Super 8 in a 100 foot loading Bolex would be great if there was a great projector for it.
Great video! I'm very happy to have found your channel! Great to see more and more people helping to keep film alive! Greetings from Brazil!
I actually have 2 Kodak Sound 8 projectors and have been collecting standard 8mm sound films on E-Bay
Awesome! I’ve collected lots of super 8 movies over the years as well.
One of the biggest problems with Super8 has always been the sound. Originally, when the format was used, it was all reversal stock, and the camera film itself was to be projected. The fact that the magnetic sound was recorded 18 frames ahead of picture made editing it a nightmare. At standard 18 fps speed, it is a one second difference. Also, no crystal sync - this makes external sound recording nearly impossible. Theoretically it is possible in digital post, but doing the sync by manually correcting all shifts is really not worth the effort. There was also the optical sound, but it was used for commercial movies copied into Super8 stock. They were originally shot with 16 mm or 36 mm. Of course, it is possible to modify a Super8 camera for crystal sync, but you might ask why not shoot 16 mm instead.
That said, the home video formats of the time were crappy, but the ease of using these camcorders made them popular, when their prices reached a level a regular consumer could afford. Any Super8 film, even if shot with the cheapest fix focus camera exceeded the 1980´s VHS picture quality by many times. This was very obvious after editing any VHS footage - even knowing the limitations of analog TV.
Yea, the way we got around that was just not making the cuts as tight. I did a bunch of cutting on super 8 and I was never happy. It's part of the reason why we moved to video so quickly, that and of course super 8 projection was the only way to watch in any quality, which sucks. Most people have TV's and wanted to watch what they shot on it. That's what drove people away from film. Once people had VCR's the super 8 business was over. :(
I shot Super 8 sound film at 24 frames per second. With an Optasound cassette recorder
And a GAF ST/1002 film camera.
The editing of the sound film was a little difficult but I used a guillotine splicer with markings on it that showed you where to cut a sound film.
I don't know...you say Standard 8MM is an inferior format but I will tell that for one example, the Zeiss Movikon 8 and 8b will beat super 8 in sharpness every time. The 8b has filming speeds of 8,16,24,32,48,and 64. Also for us that are shooting Standard 8MM today, don't really have problems loading the cameras. The Film Photography Project, has many emulsions available in standard 8mm.
Howdy, thanks for the info. I was referring to new stocks made directly from film manufacturers. Film Photography Project uses cut down ORWO film for their B&W products that was in many cases, made years ago. Nobody makes a 40 ISO color negative, so I have no idea what they're using for that and of course the Color Reversal is just cut down Kodak Ektachrome 100. The problem with "cut down stocks" is that they're generally not made in a clean room environment and the quality of the perforations and general stock cleanliness can be lacking. Also, you never know the actual age of the stock, it could be many years old. So when I say the stock isn't made anymore, I'm referring to manufactures making new stock from the factory in the particular gauge.
In terms of the camera quality, I mean I'd love to see some high res scans of your 8mm sharpness. I have a few American made 8mm cameras and none of them have any method of holding the film laterally in the gate, so there would be consistent gate wobble. So you'd never be able to really achieve decent sharpness with an 8mm camera simply due to gate weave. Not saying super 8 is a lot better, the poor pressure plate really doesn't help. However, and the point of this video, is to decide which is an over-all better format. Considering there are far superior super 8 cameras technology wise (reflex, fast lenses, zoom lenses, decent focusing, manual and automatic aperture control, motor drive with sync sound capabilities) it's a clear winner considering that Kodak makes fresh/new stock that can be processed in regular machines throughout the world.
With that said, if you are a hobbyist and you process your own film and quality doesn't matter, then maybe there is some validity to 8mm. I just feel most people aren't doing that and if they did, they wouldn't be watching my videos anyway.
@@CinemaRepository Do you know if there is some place online where I could find more info on cutting down stock? I assume you mean getting larger film(16mm or 35mm) and splitting it down to 8mm or super 8. I'm from Brazil and I'm involved with some people who run a colective lab for super 8 and 16mm and recently we have considering experimenting with that. We have plenty of 35mm motion picture stock and 135 bulk film to go around here but super 8 is getting very expensive and hard to find. Thanks!
@@TheVefIt Ya need a perforation machine and a film slitting machine. Not difficult to do but not easy to find.
@@CinemaRepository Thanks! We'll look around!
@@TheVefIt Edward Nowill on facebook offers a service to cut down to 8mm but he said he needs to get his perforator fixed or something like that. Send him a message
I would agree that early super 8 commercial releases didn't have the best image quality, but companies like Derann released on super 8 stereo sound, film prints that looked like GOOD 16mm library prints, where video, VHS and such, looked OK on TV, but would look like absolute c**p projected.
Yes the format is still very limited. I mean what’s the source? Probably a DVD or something. You’d never know since the format is such low quality.
Hi. I have a question that I have been looking for a very long time.
How to do a shutter streaking effect on 16mm camera. Which I know
Arricam / 435 extreme can be done easily with timing shift box. But, I have
seen some example using standard 16mm camera.
The streaking effect can only be achieved when the film is running through the camera when the shutter hasn't closed. The 435 can't do it without some sort of 100% manual control, like what they did with Saving Private Ryan. 16mm cameras have mostly direct drive shutters, so to do it, you'd have to physically re-calibrate your shutter, which means your camera would be useless for any normal shooting. So if you had a cheap camera that you didn't mind destroying or setting up for that look only, then you could do it. Cut down or shift the shutter a bit so the film is moving when being exposed and you'd be all good to go. Super easy to do with a Filmo or Bolex.
@@CinemaRepository Thanks, I know the basic theory, but I have no ideal how exactly I can do it for example on Bolex rex5? some people talks about modify the belt on super16 camera can achieved the similar result. well I do have access to my Aaton A-minima and bolex rex5, If you know how exactly I can do it on them I 'd love to know.
@@xiaoyangjin2655 You’d basically have to disable the cameras ability to shoot normally. If you want to do that, never be able to shoot normal images, than it’s easy. No the super 16 converted bolexes on the far edge have a slight blur hut only slight. The shutter does cover it nearly entirely. You simply just re time the shutter, which is easy to do, but again once you do it, all of your shots will be blurred.
Awesome video as always! Well I was there during the transition from film to video as an amateut format, back in the early 1980s. Amateur film magazines in my home country dropped the film part, so "Film und Video" became "Video". Video was terrible, terrible regarding image quality. It was very frustrating: Super 8mm (I owned a Beaulieu 6008S at the time, doesn't get better than that) just wasn't sharp enough for my taste (MUCH sharper than my previous camera, an Agfa Movexoom), you couldn't edit sound separately unless you bought ridiculously expensive equipment by boutique brands you knew about from expensive magazines, and the editing and adding sound added scratches, wear and tear to your precious camera original. So with Super 8 you had that wonderful film look, but severe insurmountable technical limitations. Video looked horrible until way into the 1990s. I always found it unusable and absolutely the opposite of what film is all about. A window to a world where everything looks gorgeous. That held true for Kodachrome.
You probably have never seen the Derann film releases on Super 8mm. I owned a few. They looked stunning. They were all full length, Scope films were in Scope, most had great stereo sound and the image was super clean and usually at least as sharp as your average trashy, dupey 16mm color print: prints were made from 16mm internegatives that in turn were made from the 35mm intermediate. So you had the exact same color and contrast as a theatrical release print. Most package movies from the 1970s were trash indeed, often taken from a 35mm print, cut down, then a new 16mm neg was made. And of course it was all 1.37:1, severely cropped just like tv at the time.
I remember a Super 8mm festival back in 1981. The film that won really looked great. It was made with a Canon Double Super 8 (I asked the guy) on Kodak Tri-X and the sound was just music, so not dozens of passes with voice over or attempting ADR and foley (I did all that and it was great fun). But that was the exception.
Thanks for reading and thanks for making these videos. Loving it!!!
Yea I mean you saw how good some of that super 8 stuff from the early 90's looked in this video. Nothing I shot on video from that time period looked anywhere near that good. It was so sad seeing film go away and video basically take over because it was "easier" not cheaper. I may actually do a fun video discussing the different cameras I owned, but I was very late to the video party, too expensive!
I have no idea how Derann films are made. I've seen a few of them in person and they're not bad. Obviously nowhere near 16mm, but still not bad for what they are. I'd be scared to own one because I'd not want to destroy it with my old projectors! EEK!
I just scanned a film that was one of those super 8 festival films and it looked really good. It's called Game of Survival, we're doing the restoration on it. No soundtrack on film, so it must have had sync sound audio separately.
Glad you like the video!
@@CinemaRepository Always great reading your responses. Derann explained exactly how their Super 8 prints were made in their catalogs. Yes of course a good 16mm print looks way better. It's just that a lot of 16mm prints, at least here in Europe, were dupes, adding two more generations on top of a 35mm print. The black and white prints, usually on ORWO stock, always looked excellent though. So much so, that I would pay to watch, say, one of the classic noirs on a nice old 16mm print with optical sound. I know I'm not the only one. 4K is all fine and dandy until you watch a real beautiful projected film print. I did own a couple of good 16mm prints and of course compared to Super 8, the first thing you noticed is that there is depth to it and they "breathe" (I know you will understand what I mean). Yeah, those old projectors are grinders and sending a super precious film print through these doesn't sound like a great idea.
The 1990s Super 8 footage in your video is indeed very beautiful. LOVE that steam locomotive crossing that timber trestle bridge! Looks like one of those geared sidewinders, such as the Shay or Climax, but with passenger cars as opposed to transporting timber. And I couldn't agree more: video was always about cheaper, easier and more convenient, never better.
Looking forward to your upcoming videos. Thanks, as always, for taking the time to share your knowledge!