|
Author
|
Topic: Much needed advice for a newbie!
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted January 22, 2008 07:28 PM
Honestly, Eugene, you can do a lot better than that camera if you want to shoot film. If his description is accurate, it might be rather hard even finding 8mm (standard 8) film. I'm not even sure if it is made anymore.
However, Bolex, Bell and Howell and Eumig cameras, (preferrably
sound) are very good. There are some extremely good Super 8mm cameras out there that can literally give you close to 16MM in image quality and there are a number of places that still develop Super 8mm.
Just remember, if your filming fast action, film at 24 frames per second instead of 18 frames per second. 18 frames is adequete for stationary shots, but 24 frames per second, (which is the standard sound speed)is best. Uses up more film, but well worth it. With a background in still photography, you ought to have a ball with film!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan L. Hitchcox
Film Handler
Posts: 47
From: Willoughby, OH, USA
Registered: Apr 2006
|
posted January 22, 2008 10:39 PM
Hi Eugene,
I imagine you'll get a lot of different opinions on this one.
I first started shooting 8mm as a teenager 40 yrs ago. One big advantage to 8mm is that the film is on spools, so you can back it up and shoot double exposures. I even made a trick shot where I covered up 1/2 the shutter, shot a few feet, backed up the film, then uncovered the first side of the shutter and covered the other side. It was a fun and successful experiment.
I later switched to super 8 cartridges. The cartridges are convenient, but they are more limited. I think Fuji still makes a super 8 film mounted on spools, giving you the best of both types. Of course, if you'll be doing special effects, you'd probably be better of doing it on the computer.
As far as 16mm, I think it's awesome because the image size is at least four times that of 8mm (twice as wide and twice as tall). However, the size of films makes 8mm more practical, in my opinion.
As far as scanning, you need to choose carefully because of the wide variation in quality. the raw MPEG is the way to go for editing, but it takes up a huge amount of computer space -- I think about 100 MB per minute. I have a digital camcorder and have had success storing the footage on digital tape, then uploading the footage as MPEG video when I need it.
One of the most important decisions will be the type of film. I know of only one lab that still processes Kodachrome. So before you commit to a particular type of film, make sure you can get it processed.
Good luck.
-Alan
--------------------
Alan Hitchcox
Willoughby, Ohio USA
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted January 23, 2008 11:26 AM
Eugene,
Don't get me wrong about standard 8mm. It does have some good points, and you can get a decent sharpness to it, but I personally think it's best to stick with Super 8mm, as you have far more options for developing and such.
Some years ago, I took the scope lense that i was using on my projectors and shot in cinemascope, and the Super 8mm was incredibly sharp. I was amazed by the image quality.
If your looking for commerical use, you could go with 16MM.
Another great selling point with 16MM, is that it is still used for theatrical work, (Robert Rodregiz made a film "El mariachi"
and Columbia pictures bought it from him for a million, his price to make it, approx. 30,000 dollars, and it started a whole career in films)
So, if you chose standard 8mm, it's okay, but why start at the bottom, go with the film that still, to this day, has some incredible cameras available ... Super 8mm, that is.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
