8mm Forum: Weddings filmed on Super 8

This is topic Weddings filmed on Super 8 in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009345

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on August 05, 2014, 06:29 PM:

I have no link to this but a wedding filming service in the UK that offers (in addition to digital) a choice of Super 8 or 16mm surely deserves a plug! www.shutterboxfilms.co.uk/
The perfect gift for any couple with a wedding coming up!

Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on August 06, 2014, 08:24 PM:

There are a couple of companies in Los Angeles, Ca. that specialize in high priced super 8 weddings. Among their clients include many celebrities that want the "film look".

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 07, 2014, 04:29 AM:

I am once again confused with English language. Why is it "celebrities that..." and not "celebrities who...", as "who" is supposed to refer to people and "that" to things ?

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on August 07, 2014, 04:48 AM:

Dominique,
You are quite right: the language that you refer to is ENGLISH. The crimes that are committed with English are generally in the language that is referred to as "English" by other nations that have "adopted" and bastardised it to suit their own requirements.

As Lerner and Lowe, the celebrated American writers of My Fair Lady, observed when composing a song about the misuse of the language ...... "In America they haven't spoken it for years".

Tongue in cheek, my colonial cousins from across the pond; no offence intended!!!!
Martin
P.S. All spellings above are from the original, and best, English.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on August 07, 2014, 07:50 AM:

I'm thrilled when the subject of a thread turns to proper pronoun usage! The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage allows for the use of either "who" or "that" in this circumstance. True, the use of "that" has fallen out of favor, however you could also make the case that the term "celebrities" refers to a class rather than a particular person. The use of "that" is valid.

Doug

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 07, 2014, 08:26 AM:

Thanks for both answers. Doug, maybe I should have asked that in the general yak section, sorry.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on August 07, 2014, 08:51 AM:

Dominique,

No need to apologize! Martin is correct about the many differences between British and American English. Often what is acceptable in standard American English would be considered incorrect in the UK. I find preposition usage to be quite different.

Speaking of prepositions, we now return to our topic of "Weddings filmed on Super 8".

Doug

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on August 09, 2014, 08:38 AM:

If you're so intent on absolute pronoun-ciation...

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on August 09, 2014, 11:46 AM:

Funny, Shorty.

Back to 8mm weddings......While in college, I once shot a wedding in Super 8 (There were 3 cameras rolling). By the time the film was edited, they had gotten a divorce.

Doug

Posted by Fabrizio Mosca (Member # 142) on August 09, 2014, 01:00 PM:

I shot some footage at a friend's of mine wedding at the beginning of June. Unfortunately only outside the Church as we had no proper light inside and the priest didn't want too many people taking pictures and shooting.
Now he has to transfer on digital and edit, if he wants. Nice and particular footage, it would have been better with location sound.

BTW, I also shot my own wedding in 16mm [Big Grin]

(the article was also published on Small Format #3/2008 - title "The crazy wedding")

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on August 09, 2014, 01:11 PM:

quote:
While in college, I once shot a wedding in Super 8 (There were 3 cameras rolling). By the time the film was edited, they had gotten a divorce.

Doug

Doug, I did'nt know that it takes you 15 years to edit a film! [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 09, 2014, 01:22 PM:

I went through this dry spell from about 1990 to 2000 where I didn't have a movie camera and I didn't really do a lot with film.

We were married in 1992, and I had this nagging thought I really should find a camera and equip my friend with it and a couple of rolls of ektachrome.

With the pre-wedding crazies ("Honestly: I really don't care which centerpiece we have!") I never got around to doing it. (I'd say it was actually harder to scare up a movie camera in 1992 than today.)

-consequence being our wedding "film" wound up on VHS! (with just a touch of Super-8 transferred into the introductory part!)

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on August 13, 2014, 05:17 PM:

I prefer film, however VHS or any video is best for capturing weddings.

In 1982, I do not believe that there were many videographers,

and I had someone film my sisters wedding with Super 8 Sound Film.

The camera did not work during the ceremony.

Only a few scenes were filmed well, during the banquet and out of 250 feet, ony 75 feet were acceptable.

The banquet lighting when my Sister and Dad had their dance together was poorly lit

and the footage was very dark. You cannot see them and they used a camera light.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity and an event as this must be covered and backed-up to avoid any problems.

Film presents many problems.

Cameras are old and not reliable.

It needs simplicity.

People do not know how to thread a projector and everything today is DVD or download.

Many people can capture video on their cell phones.

The wedding and photography industry here on Long Island is dying.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on August 14, 2014, 08:07 AM:

Have to agree with you, Michael, as I experienced the very same thing. Out of 50 feet, maybe 25 feet was useable. During that same time frame, I was working in broadcast television, and was shooting with broadcast-quality video cameras (e.g., Ikegami) for work -- after viewing the results of shooting with Super 8, I really wished I had shot with an Ikegami which handled low-light situations very well, even 30 years ago. (Of course, my iPhone's video quality is even better than broadcast cameras that I shot with some 30 years ago -- we're fortunate to be living in amazing times.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2