Miscellaneous Links and Resources

Is Super 8 Dead This is an article Scot McPhie wrote for the QPIX newsletter in February 2000. It contains an overview of many of the issues facing Super 8 film makers, a list of useful links, and a description of the shooting stocks available

Super 8 Sound synchronisation methods Martin Baumgarten sent an email in July 2000 discussing how this can be done

Steve O'Sullivan's thoughts This is an email Steve O'Sullivan sent in January 2001 on the issue of acting and directing

Matt Pacini's advice This is three emails Matt Pacini wrote in March 2001 giving advice he had gleaned from his experience of making a feature film on Super 8

Jet Benny Scot McPhie asked Roger Evans, the maker of the cult hit Jet Benny for some information on the making of it - this is what Roger had to say, along with some follow up information (October 2001)

Lighting notes from In My Image David Rusanow, the DOP of In My Image has written this description of his approach to lighting the film. Some additional notes are supplied by Scot McPhie (October 2001).

Comparing Super 8 and 16mm Something Scot McPhie wrote on the Shooting 8mm forum comparing the practicalites of shooting on Super 8 and 16mm (reproduced below)

Papua New Guinea A selection of links on Papua New Guinea

Other Super 8 Feature films Just that!

Frame size comparison Thoughts on the best format for low budget film makers

The Heroes Journey Comments on this kind of writing by Scot McPhie

Is Super 8 Dead?

Once the favourite of all burgeoning film makers - has Super 8 disappeared in the video age, or is it still alive and well ~ and if so where? Scot McPhie investigates.

In planning an ultra low budget feature I want to shoot later in the year I’ve been faced with exactly those questions, and the results I’ve found have been surprising. Far from being dead I would have to say Super 8 is alive and well - just hiding under cover, and in not nearly as many exotic locations as you may think.

Chiefly using the internet to scour what resources I could, I found there is plenty of support, interest and information out there about shooting on Super 8; however a decision to do so I don’t think should be solely based on that - there are a lot of practical considerations about the stock and the results themselves that should be weighed up first in their own right.

The most obvious question for someone with a shoe string budget is why shoot on Super 8 when video is so much cheaper? And of course there is no right or wrong answer to this - it comes down to personal preferences. The advantages of video is that if you make a mistake you can stop and rewind the tape and shoot back over it - make a mistake with Super 8 and you’re paying for the development of it (unless the whole roll is useless and you can discard it - but then you still had the purchase cost), and the possibly costly reorganisation and reshooting of the scene again. But this many people say is actually one of the advantages of Super 8 - the fact that it is more costly and more risky - because it teaches you to take more care and treat it more seriously; just as you would have to if you were shooting a big budget 35mm film. Another advantage of video is that you can have immediate play back of what you just shot - and check for unseen problems; however with Super 8 there is no possibility of a video split from the camera (or at least I’ve never heard of such a camera!) and, sadly, there is no such thing as dailies - more likely weeklies or possibly even monthlies! - so again you could get into reshoots, but well after the scene was originally shot, which could be an issue for the availability of personnel, crew, locations etc.

So what are the advantages of Super 8, apart from having to take it more seriously if you see that as an advantage - well the primary one is the fact that it is film and not video - whether digital or analogue - which means that it has greater colour saturation and more pixels than video. This is because everything is happening on a molecular level on the film, the pixels are actually crystals on the film surface - so hence the resolution is much higher than video. However this is offset by a number of things - firstly the gauge being so small means that when it’s projected to a large screen it becomes very grainy, and secondly like all film when you shoot with faster stock in lower light levels the grains become bigger - as the crystals on the stock are bigger in order to catch more light.

This is where the key purpose of your film comes in - what are you making it for, and what are you going to do with it - how and where is it going to be shown; and I think if you know the answers to that the choice of shooting format right for you will become clear - as will the method of finishing it.

Super 8 can be edited and finished in a number of ways - firstly the traditional way of editing and splicing the film - but remember unless if you've got a lot of money to spend you'll be cutting up your only copies of the film (optical transfers and negative stock is available but pricey) and hence you run the risk of errors; but one advantage is like most Super 8 equipment an editing bed can be found relatively cheaply second-hand (or hired from QPIX). Another alternative is editing it in the video domain - which would require a telecine to video which again adds significant amount to the cost, but the advantage of this is mistakes aren't a problem, you have more flexibility with what you do with the sound track and improvements to the colour and exposure can be made.

Sound and Super 8 can be a bit of a problem - Kodak no longer manufacture sound striped film for Super 8 (though some stockists may still have it) - which leaves you with the option of seperately recorded sound. This however then leads to two problems - firstly in the original recording, unless if you have a top of the range camera with a crystal synch motor - the motor may vary how long it thinks a second is, and hence your film may not always be at the set frame rate - which would make lip synching a problem (and the issue is doubled when you consider possible vagaries in the motor of the taper recorder as well). And secondly, assuming you get both these right, the exact tieing in of the two when projecting if the sound is on a different source is also a problem

One method developed to solve this though is a German invention in which the soundtrack is recorded digitally onto a CD with a time code, which is then linked to a projector which is slaved off the CD player and which can output a synch pulse every frame. In mixing the sound track this method involves counting the number of frames per scene and matching the soundtrack accordingly.

If you're not wanting to project the end result but have it all on video your options are a little bit better I think - particularly if you're editing in the digital domain. You can tie the sound track directly to the scenes, however if there was variability in the running rate of the camera lip synching would be a problem and would involve delays and time stretching of the sound track which can be done quite easliy through software though it would be a painstaking process if it had to be done a lot; and this I think is something that would be best done to each scene individually before they're married together consecutively.

Another problem with sound is in the actual location recording itself - Super 8 cameras can be fairly noisy and there is a good chance of sound bleed on to the soundtrack. the best way around this I think would be to get as good a distance as possible between the camera and the microphone, use a directional microphone and baffle the camera - maybe with a sponge type fitting that can be wrapped around it without interfering with ability to operate the camera.

These have been the basic questions facing me in my decision or not to shoot it on Super 8 - at the moment I'm leaning towards doing it on Super 8 purely because it is film, but the proof as they say is in the pudding - and I'd like to see a few end results of what can actually be achieved before I finally committ to it. To this end I'm going to get an old roll I've already shot and get it telecined over and see what it looks like - and then fool around with it a bit on my computer to get a feel of the editing aspect with it. Another thing I want to do is watch the film Bleak Future - this is a feature shot in America entirely on Super 8 and finished on video - it has become a bit of a cult film in sci-fi circles and is availble at Amazon.com - the makers even have a web page which runs through some of the technical details in the production of it (see below). I'll approach QPIX to see if they'll buy it to add to the library so everyone can judge the results for themselves.

As I said earlier there are no right or wrongs - just what suits your particular requirements and aims - sort them out and the best format for you will become clear.

I think it's be true to say I've found more resources on the net than I would actually need, but here's a summary of some good ones; as well as a list of all stock that I've been able to find. I'll put this essay on my web page at http://www2.one.net.au/~scot/index.htm so that all of the links will be hot links.

Internet links

Kodak's Super 8 section
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/super8/
This gives a good overview of their support for the medium, including stock dealers, press releases and tips (though they're pretty basic).

Mike Brantley's Super 8 Film Making Page
http://www.dibbs.net/~brantley/super8.htm
This is quite comprehensive and a good overview of all facets of Super 8 filmaking

Super8mm Film Making by Michael Nyberg
http://www.super8filmaker.com/index.html
Much like the previous one - a good overview, but perhaps not quite as comprehensive

Melbourne Super 8 Group
http://www.cinemedia.net/super8/
Ideal for us since we're in Australia - they're a support group with a good web page including a great question and answer section - they also hire equipment, have regular screenings and an annual festival (which I noticed they show Super 8 finished on video in - though I imagine most Super 8 festivals would really) - they also offer members a monthly newsletters - but if you're a real tight wad like me you can just read them in the State Library.

Widescreen
http://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/home.html
This is London camera and optics store which have a specialist section in Super 8. Their Super 8 section on their web page includes an FAQ list.

Super 8 Sound
http://www.super8sound.com/
An American company that stocks their own film, developes it and does telecine as well. They offer packages for all of these services, but they seemed a bit expensive to me. Their stock is soon to be available directly in Australia through http://www.cannboys.com.au/index.html

Through the Lens E-zine
http://www.cwo.com/~ashlin/ttl/ttlens.htm
An on line magazine about Super 8 - some good articles, but I notice it hasn't changed for a fair while.

8mm Meta directory
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/
Exactly that - a massive list of Super 8 and small gauge links

Super 8 Ring
http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=super8ring;index
A web ring with 40 odd sites on it. This is the home or join address, but you can go to any of the sites from here.

Super 8 Discussion newsgroup
alt.movies.cinematography.super8
Probably one of the most useful sites - there is a good amount of serious information availble through here

Bleak Future AnARcHy 101 Productions presents
Bleak Future!

Bleak Future: The Super 8 Feature of the Decade!

Dawn of the DMF's
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dmfs/
An Australian low-budget Super 8 sci-fi feature film that took ten years to make? You better beleive it baby!
Quite an extensive site which includes quicktime clips from the film

Dark Castle Filmed Productions
http://www.darkcastleproductions.freeservers.com./
Phil Fitzlaff's Production company who are currently making The Oracle on Super 8.
Phil has also written a book on Super 8 film making which can be found online at http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/filming/

Film stocks

I've only had personal experience with Kodachrome, so I've relied on reports from manufacturers and stockists for most of this information.

Kodachrome 40	Colour Reversal	40 Tungsten balanced	The cheapest and most widely used Super 8 film, it is a fine grain film with good colour saturation but poor exposure latitude. It's slow speed makes it ideally suited for out doors use, but only in doors if there is alot of light. It is balanced for artificial lighting (colour temeperature of 3400k) but as virtually all Super 8 cameras have a built in colour conversion filter it can be used out doors, and under these conditions the ASA is 25. Generally not reccomended for proffessional use (but you can weigh that up against your budget and aims). It has proven archival qualities. Kodak now carry out all their processing in Switzerland (purchase includes cost of development), though other labs will do it for extra but may not conform to Kodak's standards.	Widely available, from many stockists, also check with Kodak
Ektachrome 7240	Colour reversal	125 Tungsten balanced	Kodak says "This new film has moderate-speed, good sharpness and moderate grain. Its high speed makes it a good choice for low or available light situations. Independent laboratory processing is required for this film. Balanced for Tungsten light or Daylight with an "85" filter. NOTE: When used in bright sunlight, care must be taken to avoid overexposing this film due to its high speed. For critical use, an 85B filter will provide slightly better color correction. For most purposes, this is not necessary, and the camera's built-in filter will suffice." One competitor says it has "softer color, some grain, but very poor [exposure] latitude"	Not widely available from stockists, may involve ordering in large quantities - it is available from Super 8 Sound in California and Widescreen in th UK - also check with Kodak
PRO 8/45	Colour negative	50 Daylight balanced	The manufacturer says:" This stock has the finest grain structure available in negative Super8 film. This EXR stock has beautiful color saturation over a 7 stop exposure range. 8/45 will produce the sharpest picture when bright daylight is available. Since Pro 8/45 is a daylight film, caution must be used to remove the 85 filter found in most Super 8 camaras when using this stock.	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/48	Colour negative	100 Tungsten balanced	The manufacturer says:"48 has a similar grain structure to 45, while being balanced for tungsten light rather than daylight. This EXR stock will produce the same sharp color saturated look as 45 when bright tungsten light is available."	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
Surveillance	Colour negative	200 Tungsten balanced	This is the EXR200T film from Kodak, now available in Super 8 format. It has a good exposure latitude and sharpness of image, but the supplier reccomends that it is only used in cameras that are in good condition.	Available from Widescreen in th UK
PRO 8/93	Colour negative	200 Tungsten balanced	The manufacturer says: "This EXR stock is a better general purpose film producing excellent results under general lighting conditions. It can be used in indoor situations or outdoor situations with an 85 filter. It is perfect for mid-range lighting situations. 93 is an EXR stock with 7 stops of exposure latitude."	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/74	Colour negative	200 Tungsten balanced	The manufactureer says:"Vision« film has superior grain and color saturation to EXR film with an improved 10 stops of exposure latitude. Vision« 200, when properly exposed can resemble the grain structure of PRO 8/45. As with 93, 200 ASA film is the best choice for mid range lighting situations. Best General Purpose Film.	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/46	Colour negative	250 Daylight balanced	The manufactureer says:"8/46, also a Vison« stock is similar in structure to 74, but in daylight balance. As with 45, caution should be used to remove the 85 filter found in most Super 8 cameras.	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/77	Colour negative	320 Tungsten balanced	The manufactureer says:"Similar to 74, with a slight improvement in the grain structure.	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/98	Colour negative	500 Tungsten Balanced	The manufacturer says: "Best low light film in the EXR stocks."	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
Pro 8/79	Colour negative	500 Tungsten balanced	The manufactureer says:"Pro 8/79 can produce images in over 10 stops of latitude in low light situations. Although having some grain consistency, it is a vast improvement over Pro 8/98 stock.	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/640	Colour negative	640 Tungsten balanced	The manufactureer says: "Pro 8/640 was designed to be used in low light situations with mixed lighting sources. The film color layers of this stock have great flexibility when transferred to video tape. Uncontrolled lighting situations such as fluorescent lighting mixed with daylight and tungsten balanced light can often be corrected."	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
PRO 8/89	Colour Negative	800 Tungsten balanced	The manufactureer says: "8/89 is the newest addition to the Pro 8 series of Super 8 films. It is the fastest motion picture film ever developed, capable of rendering a proper exposure in less light that ever imagined. Best Low Light Film Stock	Available from Super 8 Sound in California
Plus X	Black and white Reversal	40	Kodak says"This is a low-speed black-and-white Panchromatic film. It is characterized by excellent sharpness, fine grain and good tonal reproduction. If exposed without the built-in filter, the film has a daylight ASA of 50. In Tungsten light, again without filter, the ASA is 40, due to the difference in spectral quality of the light. With the filter in place in Daylight, the ASA becomes 32. (Automatic cameras will usually expose this film as ASA 25 with the filter, at ASA 40 without the filter, which is satisfactory)." It has high contrast and reasonable exposure lattitude, but as it is quite slow it is best suited for daylight work. It can be pushed one or two stops in development if desired, however it is a non-processed paid film (and Kodak do not process it themeself) so you will have to find a lab that will.	Check with local stockist, also available through Super 8 Sound in California and Widescreen in th UK - and also check with Kodak
Tri X	Black and white reversal	200	Kodak says"This is a high-speed black-and-white Panchromatic film. It is characterized by good sharpness, moderate grain, and excellent tonal reproduction. As with the Plus-X above, there is a slight difference in ASA based upon the type of lighting - without the filter, Daylight ASA is 200, Tungsten ASA is 160. Daylight ASA with the filter is 125. NOTE: When used in bright sunlight, care must be taken to avoid overexposing this film due to high speed." It is grainy with medium contrast, has excellent exposure lattitude and can be pushed in development.	Check with local stockist, also available through Super 8 Sound in California and Widescreen in th UK - and also check with Kodak
Quuarzchrome	Black and White (Reversal?)	50	Russian made with a coarser grain structure than Kodak Plus X	Available from Widescreen in th UK

Sound synchronisation methods - Martin Baumgarten

---> SUPER 8 Sound Recording/Synchronizing Methods <----
by Martin W. Baumgarten (c) 2000

-----> You can record sound onto the film's stripe with many many different projectors. Although only the GS-1200 is fully equiped for double-system sound (sound recorded onto a tape recorder using a separate track for pulses. As I may've explained before (I write so many letters it's hard to keep track!), you can record the sound onto a tape recorder separately using either crystal sync (in which both camera and tape recorder are modified for crystal and so is the projector; this method requires no pulse wires, or you can use pulse sync; in which a pulse track is recorded using either a pilot-tone sync method or a pulse-sync generator that emits a pulse every time the camera advances one frame...often connected to the flash sync terminal....OR you can record "wild", in which you use a good accurately running camera, and a good tape recorder....and keep your lip sync scenes under 30 seconds for extreme accuracy, and do your best on longer scenes.)

With the "wild" method, no connecting wires are needed unless you have a start/stop socket on the camera designed to start and stop the tape recorder (such as on the Beaulieu 4008 series cameras etc). Most methodology is similar to double-system except you don't have or use the expensive resolvers, pulse generators and assorted hardware. If done carefully it works very well! It does take a bit of practive to get it right, and it helps if you have a variable speed tape recorder or projector...so you can "ride" the sync a bit should it begin to drift, by either speeding up or slowing down the tape recorder or projector just a tiny bit....preferably a variable speed tape recorder as it's easier on this end to do.

-----> Well, the slate image and sound is intended only to help you find you starting sync points. Remember that the sound will still be 18 frames ahead of the picture when you transfer it to the film, there's no way around that except a sync-shift method...I'll explain that later. The recording head in the projector is physically 18 frames ahead of the picture for various reasons...so the sound will never be next to the corresponding picture.

Anyhow, when you get ready to transfer the sound to the film, you line up the starting frame in the projector gate, the frame where the slate is closed thus where it made the sound. Then you line up that part with the sound clap in the tape recorder....a bit tricky but you can find it and then pause it right on the mark. Use the preview and review keys to inch the tape back and forth until it's right on the head. Often the image of that start frame is X'd with a permanent marker to make it easier to see. You inch the film around, or do it manually if your projector has no inching method, until that frame is in the gate. Then you zero out the projector's frame counter....then run the projector back to 9980....this is to allow the projector to come up to speed, and then when the frame counter hits 0000, you release the pause switch on the tape recorder. If your projector doesn't have a frame counter, or the sync keeps slipping on you...just try starting them together at the same time...and see how that works...it takes a moment for the projector to come up to speed accuracy, but the tape recorder will come up to speed almost instantly since its capstan is direct driven, and the projector's capstan turns when film is passing between it and the pinch roller...thus the reason for using the method I just outlined.

You will have to try this a few times to see how quick you have to release the tape recorder etc...and see how the sync holds...if the sound is ahead of the picture, you need to start the tape a moment or so later, and vice-versa if the sound is behind the picture. A variable speed tape recorder will allow you to speed up or slow down the sound to "ride" the sync and or catch up to the picture. Years ago folks used reel-to-reel tape recorders and just used an index finger gently rubbing on the supply reel to slow it down ever so slightly.

Editing: you will of course have to cut out the slate scenes, and pay attention to where the sound is as well...in this respect that part of it is very similar to editing single-system sound. If you want more precision you can use the sync shift method (better done using a top end projector like a GS-1200), or edit the sound double-system. This will be more involved...but I'll outline them for you below.

(1). Sync-shifting editing: this is where you record the sound onto the film, but have the film exactly 18 frames out-of-sync, so that the sound is recorded right next to the picture....you then edit your film as you want since you don't have to worry about the sound....it is next to the picture...but of course, out-of-sync technically for showing. When done editing, you now transfer the sound from your edited film back to the tape recorder, then you line the film up in the beginning and then re-record (transfer) the sound back onto the film, but this time correctly with the picture trailing behind by the normal 18 frames separation. This entails that the sound will be the fourth generation from the original recording, so use high quality tape and make sure your recordings are well done. This actually works quite well if done right...and best done using a GS-1200 for the sync-shifting part since it will be exactly the way it should be due to the projector's internal sync capability. But, it has been done on other projectors. What many do is record the original sound onto the balance stripe which isn't sync shifted, sort of serves as a protection copy of the sound.

(2). Wild sound sync edited double-system: In this method you can transfer the sound track from the film (after you have transferred it to the film) OR transfer it directly from your tape recordings (but you must maintain all the slate points on both tape and film until ready to edit)...the sound is transferred to either Super 8 Fullcoat (Super 8 film that is covered with magnetic recording material) or record it originally onto this using a reel-to-reel set up for it, OR transfer the sound to some scrap Super 8 sound film (doesn't matter if it has images on it or not....this film is intended to only hold the sound portion. Then using hopefully a double-system sync-block to edit the sound film and the picture film right next to each other. You edit both with splicing tape, right next to each other. On the sound film you have to remove the slate parts now (except the very first one which is used to line up the film and sound again later for transfer), and also remove the slat parts on the picture film. Using a sliding magnetic playback head or make a unit up yourself cannibalizing an old tape recorder....you will be able to find the slate marks on the sound film by listening for them.
Your sound film will be identical in length to the picture film, frame for frame. You then use either a two-projector method (the sound film is in the master projector which has a once-per-frame switch in it to emit a pulse to the 'slave' projector, usually a GS-1200 which will project the picture film and stay in sync frame-per-frame with the 'master' projector so that the sound is transferred in sync). Or you can transfer the sound using a fullcoat recorder that is designed to do the same thing as the two projector method. OR lastly, the poor man's method, where you use two projectors, but one is at least variable speed, and you manually 'ride' sync while watching the picture....slowing it up or down every so slightly to maintain sync. This last method can be a real pain on a long film...but it can be done and has been done by many.

Hopefully this answers your questions.....get a book out of the library on professional filmmaking....the techniques for double-system are the same regardless of the film-gauge used. The only exceptions are the Super 8 unique amateur techniques outlined above. You have to use trial and error and practice to see how things best work with your equipment.....remember...you have the sound on the tape...you can record it over again if you mess up...several times if need be.

Happy Filmmaking!
Martin W. Baumgarten

Reproduced with permission

Steve O'Sullivans thoughts

Scot,
I have had a look through your web site and I applaud your drive to get your project up. Believe me, I know what it's like.
If I may be so bold, I would like to offer a suggestion, which you can do with what you like:

" DO NOT ACT AND DIRECT"

I understand how hard it is to "let go of your baby" .....but, as you mentioned in one of your articles, " there is no use having a crap calling card"...and if you decide to act and direct, that is what you will probably get.

First, you have to decide where you want your film career to go...do you want to get work as an actor, or a director? If it's acting...concentrate on it, and employ a Director...if it's directing, get another actor to fill the role you were going to play.

Two things will make your film stand out ( for better or for worse) ... the story and the performances. Forget production values or fancy shots, if it's a great story, well acted...your home and hosed.

STEP 1.
I haven't seen the script, but you are obviously working on it with your script editors....don't start shooting until it's the best that you can get it. You'll kick yourself later if you know that you could have spent an extra month and really got the script sparkling.

STEP 2.
You talk of planning the shots etc and then letting the 1st AD do the rest....wrong...the shots are a very minor part of directing...the directors primary role is to get the best performance from the actors. He/she is their one and only AUDIENCE. While technicians tighten bolts, load film, dap on pancake etc, the Director is watching the performances, providing feedback and, most importantly, providing encouragement and support to the often paranoid actors.
To put this responsibility on the 1st AD....whose real job is to supervise all the other technicians, keep everything on time, prepare day sheets etc...would be a real mistake. he just won't have the time, or even the ability, to spend the appropriate time with the performers.

Your further dilemma , if you decide to hand over the Director's reins, is handing over the creative control. The story is obviously a very personal vision of yours and to hand that over to someone else must seem unthinkable...but do it you must. No Director worth his salt will take on the project, subject to you dictating the creative decisions...that's not directing. My advice is to find a Director who broadly shares your vision for the film and then trust him/her to put a great piece of cinema together. That is the great Writer/Director compromise. The writer has to let go...he has provided a blueprint...now it's time for another to build it... with the knowledge that he is able to build it using materials and techniques of his choice.

So, in summary, I believe you have to make a choice .....either act, or direct. I know you will end up with a better product for making that decision.

Regards

Steve O'Sullivan

Reproduced with permission

Matt Pacini's advice

Hi.
Thanks for you interest in my film.

I'm working on a website, but it may be quite a while before it's up & running.
My film is LOST TRIBES.

It's a full feature (75 minutes) and I shot it on Super 8, did a first cut on film (not recommended for reasons of sanity!), and did a second cut on the computer, using Premier & Cakewalk Pro Audio. It took me 5 years to complete the film!
It was quite a learning experience. I'd be happy to give advice or answer any questions you may have.
There are many, many things I would do differently if I had it to do over again, let me tell you!
Tell me more about your film, & how it's going. I just looked at your website.
I shot mine on S8, Kodachrome & Ektachrome(bad move), & telecine'd it using a Rank system. (Sunset Post in Glendale California.)
You are definitely better off shooting on Super 8 than DV if you're really serious, but you will have to be very careful if you don't want to make some of the same fatal mistakes I did, and let me tell you, I'm really hating my film now because of it!
I'll give you my short list of absolute things that you MUST or MUST NOT do!

1. DO NOT shoot with a noisy camera! Find a way to silence it, make a good barney if there is not one made for the camera. I have over 20 years experience in audio recording, and I'm telling you, YOU CANNOT TAKE OUT CAMERA NOISE LATER USING DIGITAL AUDIO TECHNOLOGY, or whatever. I have killer audio editing software, and I was not able to get rid of all the camera noise. I made this mistake, and not only did it ruin the fidelity of my dialog, making it hard to understand what people were saying, but it made me move the camera away from the actors, which made the film much less personal: not enough close ups! So remember, if you can hear it when you're shooting, it's going to be even MORE noticeable in your film. Try to completely deaden the camera. Other things that help, but do not negate what I've just said are: directional mics, (a must) bring sound deadening blankets (those nifty moving furniture padded blankets work best) and if you're shooting indoors, put them on the floor if it's not already carpeted, gaffer tape them to walls, windows, or any other hard surfaces. Hang them on bars attached to light stands close in to the actors, but just off screen. I'm telling you, if you don't heed this advice, you will be plenty sorry.

2. Shoot nothing but Kodachrome. Do not listen to anything anyone else tells you, trust me. Kodachrome is the only Super 8 film that has fine enough grain to be able to make a decent film in super 8. The Pro Neg from super 8 sound is a great concept - except it just doesn't work! It's too grainy! Also, if you do a blowup to 16mm or 35mm later, the quality will suffer greatly if you shoot on Neg stock. Here's why: when making prints (or blowups) you can't go from negative to negative, you have to go neg-to-pos, or pos-to-neg. So, if you're blowing up from anything to 35mm, if you shoot using reversal film (Kodachrome) you can transfer to 35mm negative, which is what they need to get to, to make the print to project in the theater. If you shoot on Negative, they have to make an interpositive, THEN make a negative, THEN make the print from that. So it's an extra generation copy, and this is a significant degradation in quality when using Super 8. It's fine when they shoot on 35mm, because the frame is so much larger than Super 8 that they don't have to worry about it. So only shoot in Pro Neg stock if your sure you will never screen on anything other than a TV set or through the internet.
P.S., you can buy your film directly from Kodak for about $11 American (I don't know if this is cheaper than what you're paying). Get on their website to find out how. http://www.kodak.com.sg/US/en/motion/super8/products.shtml

3. Shoot a focus chart and a gray card on about 1 minute of film, & put that on the front of your footage when you send it to be telecine'd. I didn't, and I ended up with a slightly out of focus transfer, which I didn't know until I shot 2 extra scenes & had it transferred by someone else, who told me that the first guy didn't focus the gate properly! So 99% of my film doesn't look as good as it should. So make a chart with thin lines & circles on it, etc. so they can be sure to focus it exactly. And then shoot a person holding an 18% gray card next to their face. That way the transfer tech can dial in the color exactly using the gray card & the flesh tones. These hints will save your film in the long run.

4. Underexpose Kodachrome by 1/2 - one full stop. Kodachrome (on any format, even 35mm) looks best underexposed. That "home movie" look is from the way it looks at, or above exposure. If you underexpose a little (I tried for 3/4 stop - a stop) it looks beautiful, sharp, with nice contrast & color saturation, without the highlights blowing out. I will attach a frame from my film to show you what I mean. It looks like at least 16mm, if not 35mm!

5. Shoot close ups. Not only is this a good idea from a dramatic standpoint ( the audience is more involved in the characters emotions if they can clearly see facial expression, etc.) but in Super 8, sharpness falls off dramatically with distance. Partly from film grain, but also because of the size of the image. Don't make this mistake, I did, and it's a big deal. Also, it makes for a nightmare of editing, trying to match continuity on 2, 3 or more people in the frame from cut to cut. When you have someone in a close-up, it doesn't matter if the person off camera crosses their arms, etc. but when they're all in frame, it does matter, and forces you to cut in places that are not optimum for pacing, etc. It usually results in over long scenes, bad pacing, and a boring watch for your audience.

6. Learn how to light properly! Buy books on lighting. Here are my quick lighting tips: Keep the light off the walls. Start with lighting objects in your scene, preferably somewhat from the side, to highlight the depth. Then light your actors (a little more from the front, but not dead on). (Use soft, diffused lighting). Then set up your fill light on the room for ambient light. A good, quick cheap way to do this is to aim a nice bright light at the ceiling. Even the pro's do this. (American Beauty for instance). Try to keep all light off the walls until this last step, and don't light from the direction of the camera. Flat lighting in Super 8 looks amateurish, and lots of light on the walls, or big flat objects & spaces will show the grain like mad! If you have to light a wall, try to hang a painting on it, or light only part of it, and make it a stop or two under the rest of the scene. If you just throw light all over the place evenly, it will look really stupid and non-movie like. I call it K-Mart lighting! Flat is boring! This is not a home video, its a movie! Take your time, and be careful about blasting out any one part of the scene, especially the actors. Super 8 has a very limited latitude, so what you see, is NOT what you get! The highlights will blow out, and the shadows will drop off to black much more dramatically than what you're looking at with the naked eye, so put your camera up to your eye, zoom all the way in, and look around your scene & see what the light meter is telling you. You have about 3-4 stops in Super 8, so if the dark areas are showing 5 stops under the bright areas, you're in trouble! (Unless you want it that way) I'd say that it looks better to have the shadows go black, than to have your highlights blow out. (Another benefit of underexposing). In shooting negative stock, the opposite holds true, you overexpose.

7. Shoot one scene as a full test of everything before proceeding on the rest of production. Shoot it, transfer it, digitize it, edit it, & show it to people involved in the production, AND regular people not involved at all. (Preferably strangers, NEVER friends or family members who will be biased). This is to make sure that all everything is going as it should. The worse thing you can do is assume that everything is going to be great, and find out that your entire film suffers. If only you had known! This way, you WILL know! Use this test to make sure your actors are up to par, your audio is good (no camera noise?), how to best prep for your telecine session, and so on. Someone gave me this advice early on in my production, and I figured it was too costly to do this. Big mistake! There are things you are not going to know until you actually shoot and edit, so it's best to be able to correct at the beginning. This is also a great way to audition your cast & crew. Like a dress rehearsal. If you are on the kind of budget like I was, that means you're using friends and relatives as volunteer crew. This is when you will find out that your buddies that have wanted to be involved in making a film for years, are not as committed as you thought. When you talk about making a film, everyone wants to do it. When you ACTUALLY BEGIN SHOOTING, you will find that so and so can't show up, because their college roommate is in town this weekend, or they have a hot date, or they promised their aunt they would help them build a fence, or God knows what other activities that you assumed would be way down the priority list, compared to actually making a film. Believe me, if you are not hiring a professional crew, this WILL happen to you. Better to find out on this test shoot than 1/2 way into the film, when you will have to shitcan footage that you shot. (I had 4 actors move on me during the production, & I had to re-write, & re-shoot) Of course, you think I must be an imbecile, and this will NEVER happen to you! Just take this advice, do the test shoot, and whoever can't make it, FIRE THEM RIGHT THEN! It will save you countless amounts of money & time later!

8. 3:1 ration is just too low. If you don't get enough coverage, you will want to commit suicide when you edit, and your film will suffer. Get lots of close ups, cutaways, reaction shots, etc. I made this mistake. Don't make the same mistake! It's not worth it. Super 8 film stock is pretty cheap, & it's so difficult to set up a shoot, that once you're there, you might as well get the best footage you can. You don't have to shoot a scene 5 times, just a few seconds of random close ups on actors for reaction shots, etc. will make a huge difference in the quality of your film, your choices in editing, and it won't take that much more film. Shoot CU's of hands, feet, (only if their actually doing something relevant, of course, even if it's opening a door, taking a drink, etc.). Even a minute of this per scene is going to really help, and that's not even 1/2 a roll of film!

9. Storyboard EVERYTHING! Even if you abandon the boards, at least you know where you're going, and have a clear idea of how each shot will edit into the next (VERY important). This will save you tons of time, and tons of film stock. If you don't storyboard, everyone will be standing around while you go "hmmm, let's see, maybe I could put the camera there, no, that won't work" etc. And you will be in editing finding out that there is all sorts of footage that you can't use (wasted film $$$$) because someone walks into the scene the wrong direction, or there are continuity errors, or all sorts of other crap that you won't notice until you are editing!

10. Mark EVERY roll of film with a unique number. While shooting, have a someone writing on the script which roll numbers you are shooting. That way, when you are editing, you can know exactly which roll of film is covering which part of the scene, etc. Then when you send them in for processing, put that number on the little tag that gets mailed back to you, & when you get the developed roll, have a log that you enter them into. Always label every roll throughout the entire process. You do not want to try to figure out this stuff later. It's impossible to tell from what people are doing. Sometimes you will not be able to read the slates on film, especially if you have volunteer crew who have not done this 1,000 times. ALWAYS use the slate though. Very important. Trust me. Also, shoot at least 5-10 seconds of the start of every roll of either black, or just let it roll, but don't need that few seconds of footage. I got back quite a few rolls from Kodak that had the first few seconds or so fogged. This happened quite frequently. It was a big problem.

I hope this helps. Feel free to email me with more questions if you have any. I'd be glad to send you a copy of my film if you'll give me your address. Are you guys NTSC over there?
Thanks!
Matt Pacini
==============================================================

Hi. Glad you can use the advice. It's very difficult to shoot a film, and I only wish I knew some of this stuff when I started! A lot of advice out there is tainted with personal bias, or meant to get you to buy something, sign up for some course, etc. And much of it is written from people who have not even done what they say they have! And it's really rare to find someone who has shot a feature on Super 8, and there are considerations that do not apply in 35m or even 16mm. It's much harder, actually, but it's cheaper, and more rewarding in some ways. (Especially when you hear "wow, that's Super 8? It looks at least as good as 16mm!" Of course, I only heard that about the shots I made after learning the hard lessons. Some of my film looks bad, bad, bad! So take heed!

You can post any or all of my advice wherever you want. I guess I would hope that you would maybe credit me for it, but I'm not going to be mad if you don't. I like having my film mentioned though, & when I get my website up & running, maybe we could each put a link to each others site, eh? (That's my Canadian impression...)

One thing I forgot: Shoot your actors about one stop over the rest of the scenery. In other words, meter correctly for them, then let the background go slightly darker. It won't be noticeable (as in, a mistake). Stories are about people, not things, and if you don't do this (which I only learned late in my production), your characters will be competing visually with the scenery. It's a subconscious thing, no viewer is going to actually realize this is happening, but as they are watching ,their eyes will be scanning the picture for things of interest, and you want to make sure that your actors are what they are concentrating on! Sounds like a minor point, but it's not!

thanks, & good luck! Feel free to use me as an unpaid remote consultant if you run into problems or questions during your production. I'm glad to be of assistance. Who knows, we may even end up on the same production someday! (I would LOVE to go to Australia someday... Just hide all the snakes before I get there, OK?)

Matt.....
==============================================================

I think I should add one more thing, or make it more clear.
When shooting Super 8, try to get as much light as possible, THEN stop the camera down 1/2 to one stop underexposed..
When I said to underexpose one stop, I didn't think about the fact that some beginners may think I mean to put less light in the scene..
Just the opposite. The sharpest area of the lens is at around F4.5 to F5.6. In super 8, this is extremely important to make images as sharp as possible to make up for the problems inherent in having such a small frames size, namely: lack of sharpness..
I've found that even up to F8 it is sharp as a tack. However, you need ungodly amounts of light to get that F-stop on Super 8 using Kodachrome 40. (Like the sun!) Don't make the mistake of getting faster speed film to balance this problem out, because the grain will be unacceptable. So, get as much light as you can afford to, watch your lighting ratios (between the darkest and lightest areas of the scene, trying to keep them within 3 F-stops, unless you want very black areas in the scene), THEN stop down 1/2 to 1 stop. You have to get used to thinking about the fact that what it looks like to the naked eye, is not what the film is going to look like finished. A camera lens and film is not an eyeball. They are completely different optical devices. It will of course look much too bright to the eye. I always bring a pair of sunglasses to the shoot, just to get a closer idea of what it may look like after developing the film. Crude, but it works..
When filming indoors, I reflect sunlight in through the windows to get as much light as possible..
If you want soft light, then keep the curtains closed, especially if they're those wispy white things. Or hang gauze over the glass..
If you can't afford nifty photo reflectors, then get some of those circular sunshades for car windshields with the foil reflecting surface. And if you can't afford the light stands & arms to angle the reflectors, you can use those wooden easel things they use to display paintings. They do exactly the same thing for a fraction of the price...

God luck!.
Matt

Reproduced with permission

Jet Benny

I had been working for years with a local theater group called Main Street Theater in Houston, Texas. One of its more talented members was a guy named Steve Norman that bore a funny resemblance to a sort of characture of Jack Benny, one of my favorite comedians. Benny had made a variety of low budget, theme based movies like "Buck Benny Rides Again" etc.

I thought, what if Benny had lived into the Star Wars era and had done a science fiction film? Thus, "The Jet Benny Show" was born. We shot it across several summers and keeping everyone interested in the project (including me) was tough. The guy that played Rochester (the black android co-pilot) actually quit after shooting a variety of key scenes. Unbelievably, he had never heard of Jack Benny or Rochester and was surprised to find that his part was less than flattering to his constituency, even though it was all in fun.

We wrote in a silly plot device about a rubber mask to cover the change in personel and kept hacking away at the film, piece by piece. We had originally envisioned shooting it in 16mm Kodachrome, for that super saturated 50's look. Then decided that super 8 K40 would be cheaper and would add to the over 'panache' of the movie.

I cut the original using a Ciro splicer and then transfered to 3/4 inch video using a non-telecine Elmo HD 1200. The flicker didn't matter because I was just using video to work out the sound. I fed a tone through the contact switch of the projector and recorded the resulting pulse on one open track of a 3/4 inch tape along with the picture. Then I made dubs and worked out my sound. Later, I ran the original 3/4 inch tape with the pulse on one track and sound effects on the other in synch with another 3/4 inch tape containing voice on one track and music on the other while mixing it all down to a Super 8 Sound fullcoat recorder. This would later be transferred to a sound stripe print.

I finished the mix only to find that Kodak had stopped making my beloved Kodachrome super 8 prints! I poked around the Kodak directory until I got hold of the head engineer of the Kodak lab. He checked and they had just enough stock to print the movie but not enough to do any tests! I told him to take his best shot and sent him the film. Jet Benny was the last Kodachrome print that Kodak ever produced, as far as I know.

Later, I won the Lawrence Kasden Award at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. That was my second win there. I had won two years previous with a short film called "Chains". The sponsor of the festival called and said they wanted to keep Jet Benny for midnight movie showings. It played there evey week for about three or four months. There was even a Jet Benny fan club that I used to get mail from. Weird.

Later, I read about a company called United Entertainment in Tulsa Oklahoma. They had pioneered the direct to video low budget feature market and I checked out some of their movies. Jet Benny has many flaws but made some of their stuff look like "War and Peace". I hopped a plane and went up unannounced to meet with them.

I sat in their lobby for the entire day. Finally, just as their receptionist was closing up her purse to leave, the head of the company finally had pity on me and let me set up my Elmo projector (yes, I took it with me) in their conference room. I even came prepared with a briefcase that I had put a speaker in and a small screen cut from illustration board velcroed to the side of the brief case. (yes, I was a nerd in grade school)

The boss watched only about five minutes and then said, dryly,"Okay. That's enough." And then he left the room. I felt pretty rejected and began the slow process of rewinding the film. I had started putting away the briefcase/screen assembly when the boss reappeared with about a half a dozen department heads. They all sat down and proceeded to watch the entire film.

I left there with a contract to direct one of their horror films and a distribution deal for Jet Benny. There was no one Ranking super 8 that we could find, so Michael Hinton at Interformat in San Fransico blew up the entire film to 16mm negative, which was then Ranked like normal.

I was written about in two different articles in American Cinematographer regarding super 8 production and later sold the rights for Jet Benny to Super 8 Sound. I still get mail and email from Jet Benny fans. Up until about a year and a half ago, there used to be a Jet Benny website.

In all, my epitaph will probably read,"Here lies the man that made Jet Benny." All of my other efforts will probably fade to obscurity. Life's funny that way.

Roger

On being asked how to get that old '50's variety show look:

We just shot on Tri-X and kept the camera at eye level on a tripod and wide, which was common to the style of those shows back then. The lighting was pretty flat with a couple of 1000 watt Totes to each side.

Nothing fancy.

This is odd:

When my family was traveling though the Smokey mountains years ago, we stopped in an obscure little country grocery store that had a video rack and there was Jet Benny.

The owner saw me looking at it and said,"Dat der's one damned fine movie. Me and da misses watch dat ting all da time! Ever-body 'round dees parts come in heah and rent it most all da time. Dat's my second copy. Plumb wore out da first one."

I told him who I was and he literally called in the neighbors to meet me. It was both flattering and a little scarey. We were treated like celebrities and got free bar-b-cued SOMEthing (I'm not sure what) and I even signed autographs. It was really, really weird.

Reproduced with permission

Lighting In My Image

Lighting “In My Image” part 1

To start with there are several things I should point out about the production and the equipment I had at my disposal. Scot (the Director) wanted the lighting to be very natural and coming from obvious sources, so for 1930’s Papua New Guinea this meant natural sun/moonlight and candle/oil sources. This meant a lot of amber candlelight, hot daylight, and blue moonlight (which had a touch of green). We were shooting on Tungsten balanced Kodachrome colour reversal which had a very tight ASA reading of 40 in Tungsten and 25 in daylight. Taking into account my lighting equipment consisted of three red heads a 2K a 250 w household flood a series of home made reflectors boards and the odd C - Stand, f2.4 was a very popular f-stop on the lens. The film being its most sensitive under tungsten lighting I generally tried to light interiors with tungsten balanced lamps only. The low ASA in Daylight was actually helpful as we had no ND filters for the camera and were mainly shooting in very bright sunlight.

Nighttime exteriors where a very touchy situation as the only light I had with reasonable punch was the 2k, and even that needed to be quite close to the background to get close to a reading. The night exteriors where mainly lit with amber candle/oil light and complemented with blue green moonlight. Most of the night scenes fell off to darkness in the backgrounds due to most of it being shot in Scot’s backyard and other tight locations.
The Daylight Interiors where lit from obvious window sources, this usually involved the 2K through a window trying to compete with the sun. Inside I used the redheads to fill in the opposite side and if justified a little bit of backlight, the remaining redhead was generally used to light the background.
Daylight exteriors where usually filled in with our homemade reflectors, these where only really useful close up. A lot of the daylight exteriors was shot as is, for that real natural look (there’s no backlight on a bright sunny day!), check out the beach scene with David and Stu that was shot at sunset with only one reflector to add an overall fill.

===============================================

--- Two things David forget to mention, of a more general nature, is that there was no flat front on lighting and virtually no instance of light bounced off the roof to give an overall fill or ambience. In the second instance bouncing the light off the roof would give almost a three dimensional version of the front on lighting - in that it would be a fairly uniform light distributed evenly in the space, without much variation. The only instance that I can reacall that we did this was in the vestry scenes which was shot in a very small store room with no window or natural light - light was bounced off the roof to give some fill, but more direct lighting was applied over it to shape the space.

The other point worth mentioning is that we were aware of the the exposure lattitude of the stock - ie one stop over and one stop under your set level - and the rest burning out or falling to black. All the scenes were metered with a handheld meter and the various levels of what was in focus, and surrounding it gauged and adjusted if necessary. I know David went to some trouble to make sure in dark scenes that what wasn’t needed (and we didn’t have enough light for!) definately fell to black, and wasn’t caught in in some grey and grainy half light. Overall this worked quite well, there are some grainy scenes, but not many. Off the top of my head I can’t remember which scenes they are, so can’t provide too much information there.

We also had the use on one weekend of a 650watt theatre profile light, which was great with it’s hard edge and focussable beam - it was used to replicate light through a window with branches in front of it too - there’s a photo on one of the behind the scenes pages()

Hope all of this helps - one problem I know we had, which will come into play when editing is that some scenes were shot over different days and the light levels won’t cut seemlessly! - and in some scenes where we shot till too late in the day (my fault!) the lit areas are more noticeable, with the lower natural light levels -- all something we’re going to have to try and deal with in post - but a good lesson to learn.

Also (and I might be wrong David will answer this properly) I don’t think we allowed for the loss of light in the lense (one stop I think) which would also account for the darker sometimes underexposed look as well -- but I might be wrong so don’t take that yet!

Scot M

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the ambient daylight levels in Australia are quite high - particualrly where we filmed this - South East Queensland. This will effect not only the daylight shooting, but also the ambient light levels indoors (though there is a colour correction issue there). I know alot of people who read this are from the USA and I've never been there but I have been to Britain, Ireland, France and Germany and it's alot brighter than these places and I imagine similar lattitudes elsewhere are the same. It might seem like a little thing but when you're working with only 25 ASA it can make a big difference. The only other light I've seen that seems similar (and I haven't been there, but our cameraman is originally from there and agrees) is Africa. I guess we're just lucky from the Super 8 perspctive - it's a different colour too - I think it's actually more mauve in the northern hemisphere! (Just seems that way! this is not a scientific assessment!) But at any rate the extra light levels I think helped us alot too. The shot of me and Joseph on the balcony is a good example of this - that was undercover just with alot of really nice natural light coming in http://www.users.bigpond.com/scotandjenny/balcony1.jpg

Scot M

Comparing Super 8 and 16mm

Taken from http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2391

This is my answer to Eric’s question about my experiences in the thread about selling my camera – I thought I better make it a new thread:

A very good and big question Eric - I'll try and answer it - firstly I should explain our basic process of making the film - and then get into the respective merits of Super 8 and 16.

Firstly we shot K40 for the whole film (except Roger's SFX which I think he used K25 on DS8 - and one 3 second miniDV shot!) - so essentially 99% of In My Image is K40 - I think it was about 230 rolls all up that we shot. We shot mainly on the weekends over about 3 months and at various points I put all of the film that we had shot up to that point in for processing. It was all processed in Switzerland and it was all processed paid as well.

Now rather than send it over in the mailers (remembering I was sending in about 100 rolls at a time) I sent it over by FEDEX - just for safety - I wasn't going to trust all that to the postal service, but this meant I paid a fortune in freight charges. I bought my rolls for about $15.50 AU each (including processing) but then probably paid about $3000 AU in freight. I found KODAK Switzerland quite good - I could ring them up and talk to them - and generally I'd get my film processed and returned in about 10 days from when I sent it here in Brisbane. I couldn't of course get any reports or feedback from the lab on the film when it was developed and had to wait till it came back. And being able to get it back in ten days and track it on the net was also a factor in sending FEDEX rather than by the post and waiting a month or so. But remember that wasn’t ten days from when it was all shot that I got it back – just ten days from when the last in that batch was shot – the first could have been shot a month or so earlier – unfortunatley I could only afford to send it in a few batches – I had to accumulate it all up, and couldn’t send it all individually as it was shot.

Once it was back I tape spliced it all onto 400 foot reels and sent it down to Sydney for telecine to miniDV - and then when I got it back from there I put it on the computer to start editing. It wasn't all as simple as that of course because I was still putting together my editing gear, learning alot and borrowing cameras to capture it from - but that essentially is it.

So up to this point I’d probably spent $2500 in stock and processing $3000 in freight and $3000 in telecine (all Australian dollars too) – so that’s about $8500 to get 230 rolls or just under nine hours of film shot, processed and telecined.

So what am I getting for the money – or the quality? – firstly it’s film – the picture is beautiful and craps all over video in most cases (although being a first film there were a number of learning areas/mistakes made – eg not enough light in some situations – being such a low ASA stock – it looks beautiful outdoors and too dim indoors – we really needed more lights). The look and feel of it being film really suits the peiod and subject matter too. The other pluses too – just being film it’s a great medium to learn in – you just have to be careful – and I’m so glad that I did this on film not video – just for learning how to work with film – before I shoot bigger and better made things on 16mm. What else is positive – it’s easy to load the cameras – you can use the Super 8 to your advantage – down play the scope of your film – “it’s just on that old home movie format” – and get in to shoot in places for little or no cost. But apart from that I can’t really see too much more that is that great about Super 8 – not that I hate it – just that there is better film standards than it.

So some of the problems then – firstly jitter – ordinarily you wouldn’t get this – but of course we were all cursed with it – I got 40+ rolls with jitter – they refunded the money but I can’t go and reshoot it all – some of it we’ve been able to correct with image stabilisation software – but I’d say 25% we can solve 50% we can dramatically improve and 25% we can’t fix – now this has been a major souring point for me with Super 8 – hopefully the problem is fixed now. Other problems? – well it’s Super 8 – you end up with a tiny frame that looks great on tv or dvd – but you can’t realistically blow it up for a cinema – and if you really want to try and get your money back for a big project your viewing options are limited. Also at 25 fps you get 2mins 20 per roll – this can cause concerntration problems for your freebie/volunteer crew and loss of artisitic momentum for the actors when you are continually stopping to reload the camera. This also chews up more film as you often get cut off half way through something and have to reshoot it – picking it up just a bit before the point where you cut off – and also burning more film by reslating it as well. It’s only a bit but definitely adds up.

Also the Super 8 images breathe or move a bit anyway and aren’t as solid as 16 due to one claw or pin or something (I’m not an expert on this!) – but this does create a problem for any compositing into a Super 8 originated image.

And then there’s just the whole process – sending it overseas at a huge cost – and then having to send it to another city for the telecine – and all this for something your are only going to see on a tv screen.

But what’s the 16mm alternative? – I can get 100 foot short ends for $16.10 – about the same cost and running length as a Super 8 cartridge. I can drive them to the lab about 80 kilometres from where I Iive and get them developed over night at 33 cents per foot and then get them telecined in my home town as well. So the figures on that - and these will be rough not exact – if we shot In My Image on 16mm – let’s say we had nine hours of footage to do.

Using the film calculator at Kodaks site http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/filmCalculator.html

9 hours of 16mm at 25fps is 20,250 feet

20,250 at $16.10 per 100 feet is $3260.25

then developing is $0.33 x 20,250 = $6682.50

now this gives me $9942.75

So what have I got at this stage:

First of all it’s not telecined
But I do have a much bigger better image, that won’t breathe and is therefor good for any compositing and it is viable for a distributor to blow it up if they want to to 35mm – and plus my camera can take 200 foot loads which gives me 5 mins 20 uninterrupted – which will give a better artistic result and save me money.

So what about telecine? – that of course is a small fortune – enter Rogers 16mm Workprinter – I’ll most likely buy one of them for a couple of thousand , absorb that cost spread over a number films and have something that I can use to edit the films to a good enough standard to show distributors, or release by myself on video or DVD. I haven’t worked it out but I think one of his Work printer units will be less than the telelcine I would have for such a film.

So will I spend ten grand on my next feature for film and processing? – No – because – firstly I’ve learnt heaps from In My Image – so that will reduce the shooting ratio – starting with the script – we cut down 2 hours of raw assembled scenes to one hour 40 in the final cut – most of which I’ve got to say could have been done in the script editing stage – and not shot at all – and also just having the longer 200 foot runs will mean we’ll reduce the ratio again by not having to reshoot stuff – and just generally anyway we’ve all learnt which I think will be reflected in it.

I’m still writing the script at this stage – but I’m hoping it will work like this:

90 minute film at 4:1 gives 360 minutes or 6 hours

6 hours of 16mm at 25fps is 13,500 feet

13,500 feet at $16.10 per 100 feet is $2173.50

13,500 feet at $0.33 per foot for developing is $4455

$2173.50 plus $4455 is $6628.50

Now we’ll probably shoot a bit more than that and even if you throw in a workprinter it still comes out pretty favourable compared to Super 8 – for something which has a lot more post production and release options than it .

The way I made In My Image of course isn’t the way everyone has to use Super 8 – I mean freighting your film to the lab by FEDEX and paying for a top quality telecine but trying to come up with a top quality result these are the choices I felt Ihad to make. I don’t think the Workprinters were out when I first got the telecine done – but if they were, and I wanted to stay with Super 8 then I would have bought one of them – but I think the freighting to the lab was the right thing to do – you think of all the work that goes into those images – you don’t want them lost or damaged.

So anyway this is kind of where I’m at now – it’ll probably be fully revised once I’ve shot more on 16 – and to answer at least one of your questions (the one I remember) Eric – I dont’ think there was much variation between the picture quality of the rolls– so that wasn’t a problem - with the exception of the jittery ones – and one that jammed and one that came out blank (which I don’t know why it did).

Anyway it seems I’ve written a post longer than one of yours ;-)

I’d be interested to hear anyone’s comments on my observations (save that last one!)

Scot
_________________
http://www.mango-a-gogo.com

Papua New Guinea Links

Papua New Guinea Online

Papua New Guinea country guide

The Official Papua New Guinea Search Engine

There are alot more features shot on Super 8 than you might readily realise - below is a small selection of them - you can find more by doing a search on them on the net, or checking out this list as well.

Title: Bleak Future
Director: Brian O'Malley
Writer: Brian O'Malley
            Steven Darancette
Shooting stock: Kodachrome (ASA 40) Sound Striped
                          Ekatachrome(ASA 160) Sound striped
Camera: Chinon Pacific 12smr (sound) 6-72mm (f1.8)/18, 24, & 36 fps
                Elmo 1012SXL (sound) 7.5-75mm (f1.2)/18 & 24 fps/200ft magazine capability
Web page: http://www.anarchy101.com/films/bleakfuture/

Title: Appleseed Lake
Director: Peter Hearn
Writer: Peter Hearn
Shooting stock: Pro8/45 (50ASA Daylight) and Pro8/74 (200ASA Vision Tungsten)
Web page: www.appleseedlake.com

Title: Dawn of the DMF's
Web page: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dmfs/

Title: I Am Josh Polonski's Brother
Director: Raphael Nadjari
Shooting stock: Kodak 200T
Web page: http://www.mk2.com/josh/lesite.html

Title: Lost Tribes
Director: Matt Pacini
Web page: www.blackforestentertainment.com
More Information: http://www.indiefilmsonline.com/Super8/Matt_Pacini.html
The film is often for sale on eBay

Title: Jet Benny
Director:Roger Evans
More Information: imaglink.htm#benny

Title: Sleep Always
Director: Mitch Perkins and Rick Palidwor
Web page: http://www.friendlyfirefilms.ca/index.html

Frame Size Comparisons - the best low budget film option

Taken from http://www.filmshooting.com./scripts/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10972

I've been doing a bit of maths lately on frame sizes - based mainly on the figures here this is what I found:

8mm frame size
width: 4.87 mm
height: 3.68 mm
total: 17.92mm sq

Super 8 frame size
width: 5.68 mm
height: 4.23 mm
total: 24.02 mm sq

Super-dooper 8 frame size
width: 6.41 mm
height: 4.23 mm
total: 27.11 mm sq
(based on extra 13% width - quoted here )

16mm cropped to 16:9 frame size
width: 10.26 mm
height: 5.77 mm
total: 59.20 mm sq

Ultra 16mm frame size
width: 11.8 mm
height: 6.23mm
total: 73.5 mm sq
(based on this comparison of 16mm formats )

16mm frame size
width: 10.26 mm
height: 7.49 mm
total: 76.84 mm sq

Super 16 frame size
width: 12.39 mm
height: 7.49 mm
total: 92.80 mm sq

there seems to be some conflicting figures on frame sizes from various sources on the net - so any comments/corrections appreciated - and if there are any mathematical errors - but anyway what does all this mean?

Well for me in no budget land (which is why I started looking at this) I think the cropped 16mm is the best option as it gives you a decent frame size but in a really easy way to get it.

* the cameras are cheaper to buy than Super 16
* no modifications necessary (as in super-dooper 8, or ultra 16 )
* no centreing issues (as in super-dooper 8, or ultra 16 )
* no anamorphic lenses necessary
* steady registration - no Super 8 carts!
* great selection of film stocks
* little or no grain (the sessions I've seen of this in a telecine suite with some of my footage showed no grain using V2 250D)
* the option of a regular print if necessary (though the framing might look funny!)

so anyway there you go - food for thought :-) - I'm going to start shooting regularly in this

The Heroes Journey - and that kind of crap

- taken from http://www.filmshooting.com./scripts/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10719

I personally think the whole heroes journey's stuff is crap and try and chuck it out of my mind as much as possible - in fact I'd be happier if I was never aware of it to begin with because it creates too much formula. I try and think of themes, then characters and situations to explore those themes. I think the heroes journey is a by-product of the human psyche and even if you chuck it out you will probably always come up with some form of it if you are trying to make a story - but if you are more explorative in your approach you can come up with absurdsit brilliance which is totally realistic like Godot - or less structural more slice of life pieces which can be just as compelling but less resolving than the heroes journey/mythic structure pieces. - I guess what I'm saying is it's more important to concerntrate on the themes and the characters and settings and situations and have that direct your film - and create whatever it's structure will be - than to worry about the structure itself. Worrying about the strucutre first is like putting the cart before the horse and why they keep making the same film over and over again in Hollywood. That's just my opinion - I know some will disagree.

Return to Main Page

This site is Copyright Mango-a-GoGo Productions Pty Ltd, 2001.
It may be reproduced for the purposes of private enjoyment, study, criticism and distribution only. Best viewed with Firefox.