New to Super8 (I've got a few Qs)
Posted 22 June 2005 - 04:08 PM
I recently purchased two super8 cameras on ebay for about $15 combined (very cheap!). They are both Canons (518 and 310XL). When I bought them I didn't realize that there were super 8 cameras that actually shot 24fps. Now I'm beginning to rethink the 18fps cameras I have. I know there's a huge difference between 16 and super8, but I want it to look as much like 16mm as possible. If I do end up shooting with the 18fps cameras, is it going to look really choppy? Also will I have troubles with that frame rate when I transfer it to video for editing? If so, can someone recomend a good cheap camera ($50 or less) that will do 24fps.
My second issue deals with processing. I know that I can send it directly to dwaynes in Kansas for $9 a roll. However, I've heard that you can take it to walmart and just write "K-14 Processing for Super 8 Film" on their little drop-box envelopes and it only cost $4.88 (or something really cheap) per roll. I think they just send it to Dwaynes then. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor?
My last issue deals with sound. Before I've always ran my mic straight into the XLR jacks on my XL1. However, you don't record the sound onto the film with super8. Will everything sync up fine if I record into a minidisc or ipod?
I know I've asked a bunch of questions, and probably stupid ones at that. I've done a fair amount of research, but I'd like some expert opinions from people who've already gone through the process before. I'd appreciate any help!
Posted 22 June 2005 - 05:24 PM
There are lots of cameras with 24fps; however they tend to be the higher end of each product line.
IThere are a lot of sleeper cameras out there that will produce good results, with the right amount of work. Look at Elmo or Minolta--prices aren't as high as the Canons or Nikons or the European stuff.
As far as Wal-Mart, YES IT IS TRUE. I've had almost 7 rolls processed this summer. I write "Kodachrome process K-14 super 8mm movie film" on the bottom of the envelope in the special instructions box. It costs 4.80 and takes about 7 days. They send it to Dwyane's.
Quality seems no better or worse than when I used to use Kodak premium processing., but some people have reported results.
As far as sound, there have been several posts on how to do this without crystal synch.
Edited by filmo, 22 June 2005 - 05:26 PM.
Posted 22 June 2005 - 05:43 PM
18fps is aok so long as you're not doing optical blowup I've found.
As for sound, check the archives, lots of solutions on here, including using a minidisc recorder.
Posted 22 June 2005 - 06:05 PM
Posted 23 June 2005 - 01:31 AM
Doing the transfer @ 18 fps, you would get normal speed (if you have shot @ 18 fps), but if the camera doesn't have cristal sync... then the image may drift in relation to cristal sync audio.
Not a real problem with short takes, and for long takes, you there are useful tools in audio post-production, like Time Compress / Time Expand that can succesfully help you to post-syncronize the audio your hace recorded through on-field recorder device.
Edited by Daniel Henriquez Ilic, 23 June 2005 - 01:36 AM.
Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:49 AM
I doubt you will find a a camera any better than what you have for under $50.00. I would just use them at 18fps. But, consider testing the negative film if you intend to transfer it to video.
Posted 26 June 2005 - 01:13 PM
Re: 18 fps, not a problem under most situations, as others have said, but re: sound, be aware that with many film-to-tape transfer set-ups, you cannot transfer at 18 - it must be ramped up to 20 fps to avoid flicker. Maybe there are scanners out there that do true 18fps to video, but look into it first. If shooting sound at 18, and then transferring at 20, good sync is near impossible. I have done it, but mainly in situations where we were re-recording all the dialogue anyway, so it was just a reference, but as an out of sync reference it created a lot of extra work for the sound team.
Regardless of the filming speed, without crystal sync I recommend keeping the takes short and consider a tail slate as well as a head slate to make it easier to measure (and correct) speed aberrations.
Posted 29 June 2005 - 08:35 PM
Posted 15 July 2005 - 02:30 PM
Posted 15 July 2005 - 08:13 PM