Jump to content


Photo

Canon 518 and C-8 tele lens


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Matthew Burns

Matthew Burns

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student

Posted 02 November 2007 - 12:11 AM

I recently got my hands on a working Canon Auto Zoom 518 and a C-8 lens. The current project I am working on calls for about an equal amount of indoor/low light shots and outside shots (albeit winter overcast outside shots). I'm wondering what film any of you recommend and why.

It seems to be the general consensus that negative stock is better than reversal stock, but I'm not sure which would work best in this situation or with my specific camera.

Also I know the BASIC difference between negative and reversal stock (negative isn't projector-ready, yada yada...), but I'm wondering if there's a topic covering the specific differences someone could point me to. The basic questions I have are like "do you have to edit negative stock digitally via getting the reels scanned?/do you only use viewers and splicers with reversal stock....etc."

(Yes I realize I'm an inexperienced newb, but would be very grateful for some guidance.)

Thanks
  • 0

#2 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 02 November 2007 - 04:44 AM

For my attempt to assist, I shall assume that you intend to shoot in colour and not in B&W (unless you want to develop the X-series films as negative, which is possible)

Depending on the way you are setting light for the indoor sequences, and the degree of sunshine that reflects on the upper (atmosphere) side of the overcast cloud cover, which then filters through the haze down to earth and sets the light level outdoors, I believe that Kodak Vision2 200 T (7217) should be alright for both situations. 7217 provides the widest portfolio of usability from my view, as you can exposure it quite densly at EI 100 to 160 and thus visibly reduce grain (which in the Super 8 format would yield to more sophisticated looking results as opposed to the unfortuante coarse-grain association with 1970s home movies).
Kodak Vision2 500 T (7218) I heard as being visible more grainy and less easy to work with when you want less grain-oriented results. But you might need it for interior shoots if have to rely on available light (I don't know your resources, set-up and intend with the film, hence the sketchiness of what I can say).
That is what I gathered from the late John Pytlack ( :( ) ? I myself havn't shot with 7218, so others must help in greater detail. But I recommend 7217. Intercutting both I would only do in order to separate indoor/outdoor sequences, as ? based on 16mm viewings ? a slight difference might be noticeable in the smaller 8mm format.
Again, that might be something you may actually want. In today's filmworld, everything is filmrethorically possible.

Kodak Ektachrome 100 D (7280) sold through Spectra (US) or Wittner (DE) is probably the best in/out option when shooting reversal. But indoor shots would definitely need plenty of light then.

You have more choice in film stock if you leave the "made by Kodak" range and entrust your project companies like Pro8mm or Kahl. But their track record in quality is under dispute here, which is a shame considering their many film stocks ( Giles Perkins' OnSuper8.org Current S8 Affairs Resource , go to films menu)

Workflow-wise, negative-to-nonlinear (HD, both telecine and hard disk ;) ), and reversal-to-linear with a Hamann or Zeiss-Ikon and some Viewer/Schmidt table is pretty much established (of course, you can also telecine reversal for nonlinear, or make an optical print of neg to pos at Andec in Berlin, if you fancy).
I would not recommend cutting the negative at the editing stage of your post. The greatest enemy of S8 neg is dust and dirt, and even superb processing houses like Todd-AO here in London work hard to keep the film clean. And yet some occasional dust is visible even when the film goes out of the cartridge into the tank, and then straight into the Rank. So I would not recommend putting a negative original into your Bauer F20 viewer and edit it with a Bauer K20 splicer...

I never get tired to recommend "newbies" to read through this multi-resource thread that guides you through the accumulated knowledge of this forum: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=26088

Edited by Michael Lehnert, 02 November 2007 - 04:48 AM.

  • 0

#3 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 02 November 2007 - 04:51 AM

sorry for doublepost, hyperlink didn't work :huh: and editing period already expired <_<

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=26088
  • 0

#4 Matthew Burns

Matthew Burns

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student

Posted 02 November 2007 - 03:00 PM

So I take it that negative stock is better for the light I'm interested in utilizing and better for the image quality (which I am definitely all for). Also having to cut up reversals is a little scary when it will be my primary copy.

The only thing that might hold me back from going with negative stock is the notion that I would only be able to edit digitally. I have absolutely no experience with this, and some experience with the more physical linear editing. Would you know of any helpful tutorials or beginner-friendly software?

The other main issue I have is telecine. I understand what it is on the most basic of levels, but I am a little unclear about how much this would cost. Right now I see it as getting my film back from the lab and sending it back out to someone to do the process. It seems like this could become extremely expensive extremely fast. Don't get me wrong I'm willing to pay for it as this is a labor of love, but it's all a little daunting.

I guess my very last issue would be that of projection. If I shot on negative stock would there be no reason for me to need a super 8 projector (I was kind of looking forward to getting one as I'm all about the aesthetics I guess)? Is it not possible to make a copy of negative film onto projector-ready film, allowing me to edit it by physically splicing the copy and in the end using a projector? This seems like a possible service some companies could offer in my mind.

Once again I'm sorry if my questions are just completely ridiculous.
  • 0

#5 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 02 November 2007 - 09:02 PM

Difficult where to start to give you an accurate and wholesome reply...

So I take it that negative stock is better for the light I'm interested in utilizing and better for the image quality (which I am definitely all for). Also having to cut up reversals is a little scary when it will be my primary copy.


I would subcribe to that summary. But having cut Super 8 film reversal originals, they are much less sensitive to scratching and dirt than negative, so there is no point to be scared. And although non-linear editing with negative is a workflow I will probably see myself working predomiantly in the future for personal projects, cutting reversals and projecting them is an experience to have made at least once in one's cinematic lifetime.

The only thing that might hold me back from going with negative stock is the notion that I would only be able to edit digitally. I have absolutely no experience with this, and some experience with the more physical linear editing. Would you know of any helpful tutorials or beginner-friendly software?


Well, (me being an Apple User), you could cheaply telecine from Super 8 to miniDV, input that into a Mac and edit with iMovie, which is a simple, free-supplied and intuitive application. Don't expect great quality, thoough, but I guess this would be a good first-trial config with editing. The step up to Final Cut Pro or FInal Cut Studio is a logical continuation. As regards literature, I have to pass on that, as I use German-language literature (i like the layout and didactics of a Swiss Macintosh publishing house and stick to that).

The other main issue I have is telecine. I understand what it is on the most basic of levels, but I am a little unclear about how much this would cost. Right now I see it as getting my film back from the lab and sending it back out to someone to do the process. It seems like this could become extremely expensive extremely fast. Don't get me wrong I'm willing to pay for it as this is a labor of love, but it's all a little daunting.


If you are in the US: Spectra has an excellent reputation and packages for film+telecine.

If in the UK: Todd-AO

If in Continental Europe or the UK (let's not be insular, shall we ;) ): Andec Filmtechnik

I guess my very last issue would be that of projection. If I shot on negative stock would there be no reason for me to need a super 8 projector (I was kind of looking forward to getting one as I'm all about the aesthetics I guess)? Is it not possible to make a copy of negative film onto projector-ready film, allowing me to edit it by physically splicing the copy and in the end using a projector? This seems like a possible service some companies could offer in my mind.


If you only shoot neg and go to digital media for post and presentation (onto whatever video format), then owning a projector would no be worthwhile. But it is satisfying to have the possibility to just buy a reversal cartridge, test-shot a cartridge to check the camera, and run it through a projector. Let alone edit, sync, dub and project a full-reversal-based Super 8 or Normal 16 film project. And actually, I think this will come back into fashion as Super 8 gains traction among film students and yields its "coolness factor": "Look, dudes and girls, home cinema completely true to the word!"

Andec (link above) exclusively offers the service you are asking for, namely to develop S8 neg, and make a one-light optical print onto either polyester (can only be edited physically with tape) or acetate (can also be edited "wet" with film kit, as you surely know already) printfilm. That one can then be striped for commag, edited, dubbed, and projected. As 16mm and 8mm high-end projectors are very inexpensive today, and offer even great post-production means (Bauer T 600 or Eumig S 940 spring to mind), this is something I will check out at some time in the future (after my current projects wrap) to see the quality of the printfilm positive. Someone on this forum did it a year+ ago, and was awestruck by the quality. It is pricey, however...

Once again I'm sorry if my questions are just completely ridiculous.


They are anything but ridiculous! I wish I had a resource like cinematography.com when I set out. It was learning-by-doing then.
Check out magazines like Super 8 Today. I wrote an article about workflows in the current issue, and will publish that same article for free in December on my website ('til then, it's Chris Cottrill's exclusive).
  • 0

#6 Matthew Burns

Matthew Burns

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student

Posted 13 November 2007 - 04:05 PM

Thank you very very much for the timely answers, you have helped me so much. This is such a great community and resource and I will definitely utilize it very much in the future.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Glidecam

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

The Slider

Tai Audio

Opal

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

CineTape

CineLab