Jump to content


Photo

THE NEW 8MM WAVE!


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 20 October 2006 - 06:51 PM

Hello All,

OK, so I haven't thought about regular 8mm for a very long time. And if you thought that Super-8
was dead....I thought regular 8mm was frozen along with Cro-magnon man.

Now, out of the blue, all I see and read about is regular 8mm. It's almost every where. My dentist was
talking about it and this is a guy that believes the world begins and ends with an '07 BMW.

What's the deal? Why is this super old format turning us on and turning our heads?

I just picked up a Yashica 8T with 3 primes and a YashicaScope anamorphic lens (this was made for this
regular 8 camera). An anamorphic lens that was actually MADE for a home use camera!! How cool is that?
I'll let you guys know later.

Just wanted to hear yours thoughts on the big wave which looks a lot like regular 8mm.

Mike
Cold in Toronto

Read SUPER 8 TODAY www.super8today.com

Check out Chantal Kreviazuk's new album GHOST STORIES and her new short film PRETTY BROKEN
which was partly shot on Super-8
  • 0

#2 Joe Gioielli

Joe Gioielli
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 October 2006 - 11:09 PM

Regular 8 is something of a cottage industry. Kodak pulled the plug on it years ago. Every foot I have ever shot has come from John Schwind. He buy 16mm film, reperfs it, and packs in those cute little tins. As long as there is 16mm film, there can be reg8mm film.

The image is a bit smaller, but the camera has a real pressure plate so that is a trade off. Give a little, take a little.

I think the real advantage that Reg8 has over Super 8 is that Reg8 cameras work more like real movie cameras. You have to thread the film yourself. And, as most of the decent cameras are manual, you have to learn what an f-stop is and get a lightmeter. I went from my bolex to a K3 and didn't miss a beat.

The real downside to regular 8 is that they are almost all spring wound. So every 20 seconds or so you have to wind it up again. Also, there are some really crappy 8mm cameras out there that offer little to no control over the image. You really need to stick with better cameras. (You can still get a decent bolex for 20 or 30 bucks, so why bother with the $5 stuff anyway.)

Joe
  • 0

#3 Glenn Brady

Glenn Brady
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 October 2006 - 09:47 AM

I own and use two late series Bolex H8 RX cameras, and, while I?m unaware of a great resurgence in the format, I do find the results achieved with these cameras very good, considering the small frame size. Virtually all mechanical, with no electronics to go out of kilter, these cameras, unlike a lot of Super 8 cameras, will always be repairable and, in my own view, always worth repairing. Since they share the same chassis as the H16 RX series cameras, the H8 RX cameras can be fitted with many of the same accessories, including electric motors, intervalometers, matte boxes, and various grips. The availability of such accessories, combined with the camera?s unlimited backwind capability, variable shutter, wide range of speeds, pressure plate, and capacity to accept 100-foot rolls make the Bolex H8 RX camera superior to almost all Super 8 cameras. The H8 RX is heavy, but that?s an advantage insofar as it helps hand-held stability. Although prototype DS8 cameras built to a standard as robust as that of quality 16mm cameras exist ? the Arriflex DS8 and Beaulieu Professional come to mind ? only the Pathé BTL Reflex DS8 camera and Canon DS8 camera approach the build-quality of the Bolex H8 RX among small format cameras actually produced.

The weakness of the H8 RX is the exceedingly small and dim reflex viewfinder image. Already pretty bad on the 16mm Bolex cameras, it?s really challenging on the 8mm. If ever there was a camera in need of an integrated video tap (or light magnification technology), this is it (even if it contradicts my stated preference for no electronics). Currently available reflex taps for this camera of which I?m aware are very large and would appear to subject the eyepiece assembly to too much stress. Wouldn?t it be possible to design a compact ?video viewfinder? that could be swapped for the easily removed original viewfinder?
  • 0

#4 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 21 October 2006 - 03:32 PM

Thanks guys,

Glenn, have you ever had any of your 8mm telecined to miniDV? If so what were the results?

If anyone else has had experience with 8mm and telecine results, let me know.

Thanks,

Mike
Today it's just a little warmer in Toronto


Read SUPER 8 TODAY magazine. www.super8today.com
  • 0

#5 Glenn Brady

Glenn Brady
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 October 2006 - 08:49 PM

Hi, Mike

I have had some home movies from the 1960s transferred to DVD for distribution to family members and found the copies no worse than the original, which was well worn from being run through a cheap projector those forty years ago. I do not know what equipment the fellow who made the transfers used. Since my education in filmmaking occurred long before the development of the technology you mention, all the transfers I've done personally have been film-to-film (and I had a lot of fun with a Jaakko Kurhi K103 optical printer I owned many years ago).

Keep warm.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn Brady, 21 October 2006 - 08:51 PM.

  • 0

#6 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 22 October 2006 - 09:00 AM

Can someone give me some links to decent Regular 8 sites, please.
  • 0

#7 David W Scott

David W Scott
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Director
  • Toronto

Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:19 AM

The weakness of the H8 RX is the exceedingly small and dim reflex viewfinder image. Already pretty bad on the 16mm Bolex cameras, it?s really challenging on the 8mm. If ever there was a camera in need of an integrated video tap (or light magnification technology), this is it


Sounds like a job for Bernie O'Doherty. His "Laser Brighten" is supposed to double the brightness of your viewfinder/ground glass. Prices aren't crazy either. The web site says $175 for 16mm cams, so your H8 should be comparable.

Laser Brighten
  • 0

#8 David W Scott

David W Scott
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Director
  • Toronto

Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:39 AM

Can someone give me some links to decent Regular 8 sites, please.


8mm Film Format Metadirectory

SmallFormat magazine

Filmshooting

These aren't dedicated solely to Regular 8 -- but have great info about it, alongside Super 8, 16, 9.5, etc.

Remember that when you are looking for information, Regular 8 can also be called:
- 8mm (no other descriptor was needed originally, because it predated Kodak's Super 8 or Fuji's Single 8)
- Double 8 (refers to the fact that you flip the roll of film over half-way through). (Not to be confused with DS8, or Double Super 8.)
  • 0

#9 markb

markb
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:57 AM

Can someone give me some links to decent Regular 8 sites, please.


I've got a very basic Standard8 site with some links on regarding film stock etc, but been so busy filming haven't had time to add very much. There is a new Standard 8 site coming called Classic8 so watch out for that.
  • 0

#10 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:22 AM

The Beaulieu MR 8 is a really sweet little camera.Looks like a baby R 16.You can find some high end regular 8 cameras out there for really cheap,so if you're looking for a film toy to play with and not have to invest alot of $$ in hardware,the higher end R8's are usually cheaper than their S8 couterparts.

Someone mentioned that R8 would be suitable for expanding the image (and therefore the gate) and coming up with yet another subformat..."ultra 8"??
  • 0

#11 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:01 PM

Someone mentioned that R8 would be suitable for expanding the image (and therefore the gate) and coming up with yet another subformat..."ultra 8"??
[/quote]

Hello Marty,

I'm not sure if you were thinking about my original post. The lens I bought (an anamorphic
YashicaScope) has a 1.5 compression ratio. I believe that this give it an aspect ratio that
would fit well on a 16x9 widescreen TV.

This would be different than an Ultra 8 camera. I almost bought a Kodak K-100 that was adapted to Ultra 16, but I couldn't find a place that would transfer it.

Mike
  • 0

#12 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:03 PM

...Every foot I have ever shot has come from John Schwind. He buy 16mm film, reperfs it...


Actually only some old dude in England is reperfing 16mm to 8mm. John buys it in large quantity from Kodak on long rolls with already 8mm perforations. Reperfing is very critical if having the image hopping up and down on projection is to be avoided.
  • 0

#13 Joe Gioielli

Joe Gioielli
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 October 2006 - 12:23 PM

Cool, Clive, I didn't realize that Kodak still perfed 8mm. So I guess big K is perfing the 100d.

There is also another benny to regular 8, you don't have to worry about getting those "blue lines" from the carts.

Joe
  • 0

#14 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 25 October 2006 - 12:32 PM

MarkB, you know your Standard 8 site, (http://www.standard8.org/), at the top of the page there's a row of pictures, what is that cool camera on the far right (the one with the mag on the top).

Thanks very much,
Matthew Buick.
  • 0

#15 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 25 October 2006 - 03:12 PM

Hello Clive,

Clive, if you are still out there, I have a question for you.

When you are having regular 8 film telecined I would take it that the image quality would be the same
as a Super-8 image that was telecined?

You would only notice a difference if the image was projected onto a screen because the Super-8 is larger?
Is this a true statement?

Thanks,

Mike
  • 0

#16 Glenn Brady

Glenn Brady
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 October 2006 - 06:42 AM

MarkB, you know your Standard 8 site, (http://www.standard8.org/), at the top of the page there's a row of pictures, what is that cool camera on the far right (the one with the mag on the top).

Thanks very much,
Matthew Buick.



The camera appears to be an Elmo C-300 Tri-Filmatic. Of this amazing instrument, Martin Baumgarten writes:

The TRI-FILMATIC actually accepts 4 different magazines encompassing what is basically the 8mm and Super 8mm formats in their various versions (FUJI's Single-8 silent magazine, KODAK's Super 8mm silent Cartridge, Kodak & others' 25ft Double 8mm Film Spool, and sometime later they introduced the Double Super 8mm 100ft Magazine with its own built in drive motors for the camera. Along with the Double Super 8mm Magazine, you needed the optional longer viewfinder tube, and there also is a larger top body carrying handle, and also a custom pistol grip to hold this massive camera more comfortably. It actually isn't much larger than carrying around a Bolex H-8 camera in use. The viewfinder had markings for the Regular 8mm format, and the camera has the following features: electric remote release capability, F-Stop scale in the viewfinder for auto and manual exposure, 9mm - 36mm zoom lens F/1.8, mounting ports for the movie light bracket, the Elmo Deluxe Fader Device (which uses opposing Polarizing filters), and/or the Elmo 3-D Filmmaking Attachment, the running speeds are Single Frame, 18fps & 24fps, there is a small battery meter which shows the power level of both the motor batteries and the light meter batteries. The zoom is powered or manual, and the camera can run in reverse mode; for either double exposure or lap dissolves (using either an aperture fadeout or the Elmo Fader Device), or for filming in reverse. The reverse mode operates ONLY with the FUJI SIngle-8, Double 8mm, and the Double Super 8mm magazine backs. The motor drive and power zoom power pack of 4-Double AA 1.5 volt batteries, is rapidly interchangeable.....for warming the batteries and/or for exchanging it for a fresh one (if you bought an optional second or third extra battery packs!). The system is similar to that of the Agfa Movexoom Super 8mm and the Leicina Double 8mm and several others using a similar small two-piece battery container that has to be screwed apart by the retaining screw. The builtin #85 Daylight conversion filter is moveable via a small chromed removable knob on the operational side (Right) of the camera. The viewfinder tube has diopter correction for eyesight and it's also lockable. The trigger is under a flipup cover to prevent accidental exposure, and also has a cable release port there for remote use. both cameras can be powered by a remote power pack...but this is for the drive motor system only....the meter battery cell is still required to operate the light meter, for BOTH automatic and manual modes. Focusing is via a 45º split-image rangefinder in the reflex system, and minimum focus is approximately 3.75 feet(1.2m) The magazines change quite rapdily, with the exception of the Super 8mm one...in which you first have to open the back of it in order to grab the two release tabs....guess they figured if you're changing backs...you're probably done filming. The camera really is a marvel of engineering! Unfortunately the idea never caught on and these cameras nearly bankrupt Elmo.
  • 0

#17 markb

markb
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2006 - 08:42 AM

MarkB, you know your Standard 8 site, (http://www.standard8.org/), at the top of the page there's a row of pictures, what is that cool camera on the far right (the one with the mag on the top).

Thanks very much,
Matthew Buick.


It's an Elmo 8-TL6 comes with a detachable 100ft magazine. Unfortunately mine died so i don't have it anymore. :-(
  • 0

#18 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 26 October 2006 - 08:47 PM

...When you are having regular 8 film telecined I would take it that the image quality would be the same
as a Super-8 image that was telecined?...


Well, no, only the correct projection area is normally telecined. The 8mm standard projection aperture of .129 x .172" is slightly smaller than the super-8 projected area of .158 x .211" though the difference is not really very great.

There might actually be more difference because of the stock being used. Most 8mm was shot on real daylight balance film which had finer grain, with tungsten only used for indoor filming, while all super-8 was normally tungsten balance and not as grainless.

I suppose someone with a rinky-dink setup might adjust the magnification for 8mm and throw away more of the super-8 picture.
  • 0

#19 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 28 October 2006 - 09:54 AM

Hello Clive (or anyone else that can answer),

I'm not so much talking about old film, but shooting the new stocks.

Would it be a true statement that if you shot a roll of new 100D film and it was exposed correctly and
shot with a good Super 8 and good regular 8 camera, than the image quality should be about the same
for both? (not projected, but telecined).

Mike
  • 0

#20 markb

markb
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2006 - 12:48 PM

Hello Clive (or anyone else that can answer),

I'm not so much talking about old film, but shooting the new stocks.

Would it be a true statement that if you shot a roll of new 100D film and it was exposed correctly and
shot with a good Super 8 and good regular 8 camera, than the image quality should be about the same
for both? (not projected, but telecined).

Mike


I've been working on a short film recently, all shot on 100D regular 8, with a slight over exposure there is hardly any grain and the colours really rock, better than any Kodachrome i would say!
  • 0


Opal

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Abel Cine

CineTape

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

CineTape

The Slider

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

CineLab