8mm Forum: Standard 8 v Super 8 image quality.

This is topic Standard 8 v Super 8 image quality. 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=010239

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on October 03, 2015, 12:21 PM:

I have been doing quite a few cine transfers for friends and family recently. These have been home movies of course not commercial prints. I have noticed that some of the image quality of standard 8 has been better than Super 8 ones. I think there were a lot of crappy Super 8 cameras around with poor quality optics. I believe this is because standard 8 cameras were always manufactured to a much higher standard because of the tiny image recorded. You get what you pays for I guess!! Ken Finch.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on October 03, 2015, 12:35 PM:

From what I readed, Super 8, although a larger picture, was not at its beginning of better quality than standard 8. The cartrige is probably the reason. It took some time, again from what I readed, to improve the mentionned cartrige. The first cameras, were of poor design, the first good super 8 camera is reported to be the Beaulieu one. It seems that the size difference between double 8 and super 8 is not enough to make the difference if the other elements are neglicted. Super 8 benefited latter from good material (included improved filmstock). But who knows how a standard 8 film would look on a Beaulieu 708 or a GS 1200 projector ?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 03, 2015, 12:43 PM:

Quite true Dominique ...

I'm still holdinh onto most of my earlier Blackhawk Laurel and hardy and Chaplin shorts, (like "Big Business") in that the standard 8mm versions were incredibly sharp, quite amazingly so, while the super 8 shorts left a little to be desired.

Super 8, of course, improved to the "Derann" level. Also, the optical sound super 8 features had the same story. Most of the earlier releases (67 to about 75), had quite variable quality, but as a general rule, the super 8 optical prints improved to the point that you'd swear you were watching a good 16MM print!

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 03, 2015, 01:15 PM:

As I said in a previous post, Super 8mm cameras designed to use double super 8 roll film in metal camera gates, combined with superb Bolex Kern lenses, would have resulted in awesome quality images with Kodachrome film.
In tems of projecting prints, I think by and large, super 8 prints on super 8 projectors are a huge improvement over standard 8.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on October 03, 2015, 02:31 PM:

Well, Std 8 prints came from 16mm reductions, if not originals - Std 8 was introduced in 1932, and had a far-long exposure to sharp image before the Super 8 revolution of '65 - Taking nothing away from the Bolex Lens, Most Std 8 prints are sparkling in and of themselves

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on October 03, 2015, 02:38 PM:

I would have to agree that all the Standard 8 home movies that I have seen look a lot better than Super8. I wonder as Ken says its down in part to the optics. The thing was with the Standard 8 camera, they never had a "zoom lens". I can only guess this in a way was the down side with the Super8 camera.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 03, 2015, 03:01 PM:

Zoom reflex lenses are versatile and easy to use, but the many optical surfaces in these lenses inevitably results in some degradation of contrast and sharpness compared with a simple prime lens. Most Standard 8mm films were probably shot with cameras with prime lenses, often in a cluster of three lenses on a turret, and they were typically not reflex lenses or auto exposure lenses. So you really had to know your stuff to get the best results. Super 8 brought automation of loading and taking of home movies, however this was often at the expense of picture quality.

Posted by Janice Glesser (Member # 2758) on October 03, 2015, 03:07 PM:

I'm in agreement here too that Standard 8mm looks better. The tail of the tape for me shows up in the telecine work I've done. My early family standard 8 films from 1954 are superior in image quality compared to the 1979 - 1985 super 8 films I shot of my sons when they were little. Color...contrast...sharpness...standard 8 far superior!

Posted by Douglas Warren (Member # 1047) on October 03, 2015, 07:20 PM:

My late Father's standard 8 mm movies (shot in the 1956-1971 time frame) still have great color to this day.I just recently finished cleaning and splicing all the footage and have been very pleased with how well the footage has held up.My Father used a simple Kodak Brownie standard 8 movie camera to film all his footage.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on October 05, 2015, 03:30 AM:

Probably a great deal to do with lenses Ken. Our cine club members back then favoured the Bolex K2 in the main. Mind you my old Quartz used to turn out some sharp images as well. [Smile]

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on October 08, 2015, 06:57 PM:

Horses for courses. I can show you better and worse in each format, typically due to optics or film stock differences. Actually, a faded Standard 8 Disney extract had me just about fall out of my chair the first time I saw it because it was so pin sharp. Did Disney sometimes do continuous reduction from a 16mm neg? I digress.

Anyway, you can make the same comparison between Super 8 and 16mm. A S8 print made with excellent lab work from a 35mm source (and maybe 16mm) can look much sharper than (for example) some 16mm classroom films shot originally on 16mm stock, particularly if that stock was a higher ASA and grainier. That's remarkable considering the 16mm image is 3x larger on the film.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2