Jump to content


Photo

Pro8mm finally admits to making S8 from Re-cans!!!


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Crane

Mike Crane
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 June 2009 - 10:38 PM

Just got the usual Spam-mail from Pro8mm dealing with a number of topics. Of particular interest was the section admitting to making super 8 from re-cans and short-ends. Here it is:

"Several Internet sites (including Filmshooting.com and Cinematography.com) insist we use ALL recans or short ends which has not been true for 3 years now. (Let's keep up to date and accurate chat room people if you are advising filmmakers.) Short ends are used only for the Pro8/05, Pro8/17, Pro8/18 and Pro8/12. "

Years back (beyond 3 years), I had asked the people in charge at Pro8 about this and was assured the all film made by them was "fresh from Kodak". Now, after years of dealing with mysterious damage and defects (including X-ray damage), I get to hear the truth... possibly. I think this is total BS and feel that a full refund should be offered for their defective products and deceptional business practices They should have never repackaged cheap re-can film as new product to begin with! I am sure this has caused grief to many filmmakers - pushing them away from film forever.

Sadly, it appears they still continue to sell re-cans as some films they offer (at new film prices). I hope they at least plan to clearly mark each box that the film is "not fresh" and "made from recans and short-ends of undetermined age". It might give a DP a fighting chance!

As for their claim that they now make many of their other film products from fresh film... how do I know I am hearing the truth this time around? How do I know they will start feeling cheap again and stuff their carts with junk to save themselves a dime or two? Of this I am certain - all my future production plans will not be including Pro8mm!
  • 0

#2 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:12 PM

It is what it is.

Just go into it knowing what you're getting. Caveat emptor.

Too bad they weren't forthcoming before, but at least they are offering a huge range of stocks which can still help artists achieve what they are looking for.
  • 0

#3 Adam Garner

Adam Garner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX

Posted 25 June 2009 - 10:25 PM

They've always been forthcoming with me, as far as I know. I always knew that Kodak stocks were re-cans and Fuji were new. They explained that to me a few years ago. ??? Maybe only some of the people are forthcoming...
  • 0

#4 John Hyde

John Hyde
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:42 PM

Ha! I Knew it!!

They have always been wishy-washy about revealing the truth! I myself asked them numerous times and was unable to get a forthcoming response. Others either writing film articles or from the forums have also gotten misleading or no response.

Only now do they admit the truth publicly. I notice the announcement seems to make it a point to mention "3 years". They probably had to wait for some 2 or 3 year statute of limitation law to kick in to avoid getting sued.

Pro8 is just the worst when it comes to fair and honest customer relations!
  • 0

#5 Steve Daniels

Steve Daniels
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 June 2009 - 01:26 PM

What's the appeal of Pro 8 anyway? It's Super 8. If people don't like the look they get with "regular" super 8 film, why even shoot with it? Perhaps I am naive, but it seems like a waste of money.
  • 0

#6 Alessandro Malfatti

Alessandro Malfatti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Other
  • Barcelona, Spain

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:53 PM

What's the appeal of Pro 8 anyway? It's Super 8. If people don't like the look they get with "regular" super 8 film, why even shoot with it? Perhaps I am naive, but it seems like a waste of money.


I completely agree with you, I've never bought and will never buy anything from them, all one gets to hear is about their bad business practices and their prices are ridiculous. They're just ripping off people who apparently think that spending those amounts of money on Super8 will make their movies look better.
  • 0

#7 Marc Oberdorfer

Marc Oberdorfer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hong Kong

Posted 25 July 2009 - 09:06 AM

I completely agree with you, I've never bought and will never buy anything from them, all one gets to hear is about their bad business practices and their prices are ridiculous. They're just ripping off people who apparently think that spending those amounts of money on Super8 will make their movies look better.


Double that. Prices are inflated, especially for their made over cameras.
I inquired about mailing film internationally and about my worries of film getting exposed by xray, they just replied me a generic, should be fine. After another question I didn't even get any reply anymore, I wouldn't want to do business with them.
  • 0

#8 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:37 PM

What's the appeal of Pro 8 anyway? It's Super 8. If people don't like the look they get with "regular" super 8 film, why even shoot with it? Perhaps I am naive, but it seems like a waste of money.



The scanner they now have is a rather sweet one. I know there are other folks out there doing Super 8 to HD, but Pro8mm's Millennium is quite good.
  • 0

#9 John Hyde

John Hyde
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 28 July 2009 - 10:17 PM

The scanner they now have is a rather sweet one. I know there are other folks out there doing Super 8 to HD, but Pro8mm's Millennium is quite good.


Pro8 may have a somewhat decent scanner, but the people behind it are cheats and liars who could care less about a struggling film maker and their project.

Besides, Pro8 uses old tube technolgy for their HD machine because they are less expensive to buy. Tube machines produce noisier, softer pictures compared to CCD based Spirit Datacine telecines. If someone else in LA were to get a Spirit to run affordable 16 and super 8 transfers leaving Pro8 behind forever would be an absolute no-brainer. They better hope that never happens.
  • 0


Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Tai Audio

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

The Slider

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal