8mm Forum: Making text in-camera on 8mm for movie title

This is topic Making text in-camera on 8mm for movie title 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=008487

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 20, 2013, 06:00 AM:

Hi,

For a zero budget short I am making for the fun I would like to record the name of the movie at the beginning of the film. I have seen threads about people recording titles by recording a computer screen but would prefer to do it more diy without computers. I could just film a white board with the name written on it but I was wondering if anyone had any other methods? For example I see in the feature film Nekromantik that was shot on 8mm they use hand written text somehow for all of the introductory text.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 20, 2013, 06:19 AM:

You could look around for a Presgrip Cine Title set.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 20, 2013, 06:27 AM:

It is maybe old fascionned but you can use magnetic letters (on a magnetic board or a fridge for example) and make them appear one by one (if your cam has a frame by frame facility). Of course, your camera has to remove steady (there are release cables to action the camera). You can also ask someone to write the title on a board while you're filming or use existing texts like a road signal if you make a documenatary of a city, a poster of an event you want to shoot and so on.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 20, 2013, 06:39 AM:

Robert Crewdson: Thank you that sounds interesting.

Dominique De Bast: Very interesting ideas thanks - it does not have a frame by frame function but I will be doing a scene doing stop motion where I will just press the shutter release button very quickly, its not ideal but it will work. Filming someone write the title is quite a nice idea too.

Since it is just a point and shoot type camera I can never be sure what is in focus or see the edges of what is being captured and cut off by the lens. I saw with one of my still cameras that I could use a glass lens as a diy macro lens, I would do the same for that with this camera in order to focus on a close up of the title text, but the way the camera is made I could not really easily do that, because the film gate etc is in the way so I cannot test with a lens to see when the image inside the camera is now sharp or not etc. I'm using to cameras like twin lens reflex/slr still cameras where you always know what is sharp and not, and what is cut off by the camera. I inherited the camera though so I want to use it specifically rather than buy a different one.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 20, 2013, 09:42 AM:

I assumed that your camera was a super 8 reflex one but from what you precised it looks like being a standard 8 (double 8) with the paralax problem (what you see throug the eyefinder is not exactly what you will see on the screen because of the distance between this eyefinder, or maybe it's called viewfinder in English, and the lens). It is not really a problem while you shoot from a certain distance but is not convenient when you shoot someting close. So, except if you are prepared to make tests to find exactly at which position and which distance you will see what, I would advide you to use only big letters (that you could for example put on a wall with the small rubbers that are used to hold photos or posters). Talking about a wall, if you know someone who is going to repaint one, don't hesitate to use it to make titles with paint (of course, take the opportunity to make several ones at one time, like "The End" titles for example). You can also, put letters on a big glass or a window (with the rubbers I mentionned) and shoot the title sharp and the rest not. If your camera is double 8, you can make surimpression by filming a white title on a black support and then rewind the film (in the dark of course). This is not as easy as it seems as you don't know exactly how many lenght of filmstock you should rewind and as the double exposure makes the picture a little bit darker. The time of cheap filmstock is over so trial and errors may be not a jouyfull option. A last thing, the focus depends on three things 1) the lens you use, the higher the number is, the more care you have to take for the focus 2) the distance, the further from the camera what you film is the less you have to care 3) the aperture, generally it goes from 1,8 to 16 or 22, the higher the figure is (and of course it needs more light), the deeper the focus field is and the less you have to care about. I don't like to post technical messages like this one as English is a foreign language for me, if anything is not clear, I appologize for it.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 20, 2013, 10:02 AM:

Welcome to the forum Matthew; my first camera was a point and shoot, non reflex, but it gave superb results, but when sound came out naturally I wanted to get into that.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 20, 2013, 11:50 AM:

Dominique De Bast: I appreciate the detailed reply. Yes I should have said, it is a kodak "brownie movie camera" with a f1.9 lens, which is just point and shoot and takes the older standard 8mm film yes. Yes you have to just look through the viewfinder and aim rather then looking directly through the lens. The only things that you can change is the aperture.

It will have parallax yes, though kodak added a little adjustable feature to the viewfinder so that if you are quite close to the subject you can compensate for that. I have a lot of experience shooting still film cameras, but I almost always use slr/tlr type cameras where you see what is in focus, though I have used box cameras where you also have only fixed focus and an adjustable aperture. The window/wall idea is very good thank you. I do not know anyone who is painting walls but I'm sure the other idea will work well. The film I am using is around iso 6 so it is incredibly slow, so the window method might be best for the light.

No problem I understood everything perfectly [Smile]

Robert Crewdson: thanks. I see, yes if I have a choice I prefer slr/tlr type cameras when doing still photography as you know once and for all what is sharp and what is not, but I do appreciate fixed focus cameras like box cameras and my brownie movie camera, you just cannot comfortably shoot to the very minimum focus distance without risking making a blurry image. It would just be a big bonus if I could improvise a portrait/macro lens from a magnifying glass lens like you can easily with reflex cameras, so that I could do very close up scenes. I thought about doing some tests by putting some lenses over the brownie camera lens and hoping that one of them end up making a sharp image of close up subjects on the developed film, but it could become wild goose chase since theres so many factors that could go wrong. The easiest way to do that is maybe to disassemble the camera so that I can remove the lens and do manual tests like I would with a still camera, though I have a film in right now.

I thought about recording sound alongside the silent film I will be making but I'd like to keep it as traditional as possible, so it would seem wrong mixing digitally recorded sound with an old 8mm silent film, but I might consider it in the future if I really want the sound too.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on August 20, 2013, 11:57 AM:

I like using a black background with white letters, it seems to be easier to read when it's projected. With Kodak negative film stock still being readily available I wonder what it would look like to soot it with black letters and a white background and then just project the negative. You may want to use an entire cartridge for just titles.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 20, 2013, 12:04 PM:

Bryan Chernick: ok thanks for the tip. I did see that these two short films was shot with the same camera, and they apparently used white letters on black cloth for the introductory text. I was quite surprised as it looks so sharp and contrasty. It is very legible though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXK-Tm0WClc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE52kJButCg

Though the second one is not so legible, its maybe because the letters are so thin.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 20, 2013, 12:32 PM:

Matthew, A Presgrip cine title set wouldn't be any use with your camera. You need one with a zoom lens, or a reflex capable of using close up filters. The camera I had (super 8) was in focus from around 6 feet to infinity. Do you have rewind on your camera? if so, you could film white letters on a black background, rewind the film and the letters will be superimposed over the image. Good luck.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 20, 2013, 12:34 PM:

You can add sound on your film on a traditionnal way. You need to send it to a lab to add a strip and then you can record on the strip with a sound projector (of course, it's an investment, so you may consider it when you have a little amount of films). To get back to the titling, whatever you will do, it will have to be in bright light with a stock like this (of course, you can also use a faster stock later and shoot your titles then and splice them). As, in your case, big letters seem to be the best option, you can also use what you have close to you and linked with the film. It can be sand if it starts at the beach, it can be dust and so on. I mentionned a wall but it can also be someting written with chalk on the pavment. I don't know if it could help you, but it is possible to add (I don't know if it is on your camera) a close up lentil on the lens. Before you open your camera with all the risks that could lead to, try to see if you cannot find something like that if you think that you really need to shoot close (with the parralax problem). About the linked you gave, I think that the problem with the second title is that there was an exposure problem. It was probably automatic and the aperture was too high (because the background was dark).

Posted by Gerald Santana (Member # 2362) on August 20, 2013, 12:34 PM:

You need a titling set like Hernard or use sticker lettering on glass.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 20, 2013, 12:39 PM:

Here's an interesting little advert for the Kodak Brownie 8mm cine camera from 1957.
http://archive.org/details/1957CommercialForKodakBrownieHomeMovieCamera

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 20, 2013, 01:11 PM:

Robert Crewdson: Ok I see, I thought about how it could work from the information I could find, and I thought it must perhaps work that way. My camera's minimum focus distance is 2ft at f16, though with my incredibly slow film I will not be able to film at f16, maybe if I shoot directly into very strong light though or push process the film. It cannot rewind unfortunately, though because the film is so slow you can use it with a darkroom red light so I could open the camera and manually rewind it inside the camera, thanks for the idea I understand now how that method must work, that sounds great for a professional look. I think Dominique mentioned that method earlier but I realize now that I must have misunderstood what he actually meant. Ah yes I've seen that advertisement, it was nice to see. Mine is the "model II" so it has a f1.9 lens and the viewfinder is unfortunately plastic rather than that one's metal one. Exactly like this one: http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img/item/952/824/75/6gaeSjekwZUVoED.jpg

Dominique De Bast: Ah yes I've read you can add a sound stripe, it is a possible option for the future yes. Great ideas thanks. Kodak did apparently only make a wide angle and telephoto lens for the camera. The camera looks quite simply mechanically but I would be very careful in disassembling it, it does have big obvious screws though and looks in general like it would not hurt it to take it apart. I understand now what you meant about rewinding the film with white letters on black and superimposing the text, I misunderstood originally, this idea sounds very good so I may try that. Though my camera does not have a rewind function, because the film is so slow I can open it in a darkroom with a red light and probably manually rewind it myself to do this.

Gerald Santana: alright thank you.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 20, 2013, 01:35 PM:

I may not have been clear enough about what I called the close up. Maybe someone can give the correct name in English. It is a filter looking special additionnal lens that you screw on the existing lens of your camera. (lentille d'approche or bonnette in French) It doesn't has to be made by Kodak, it has to have the same diametre as your lens (and your lens must have of course a screw possibility). From the picture I cannot see if your camera has variable speed. If it has, in your case because you need a as small as possible aperture, and only for any shooting of fix objects (like titles) and (as you see it is restrictive) only if the camera is completely steady the slower you shoot, the better it is. Again, it is an advise for this particular situation as otherwise it would be recommanded to shoot at a faster speed to have a steadier picture.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 20, 2013, 01:47 PM:

Matthew, I tried this method of titling twice, neither was perfect. I was using a Super 8 with auto exposure and manual override. first I exposed white letters against a black background. I had a Craven Super 8 rewinder. When the film was processed the background was great but the white lettering was very pale: 2nd time I overexposed by 1 stop, the white lettering burnt the emulsion. On developing, the lettering was great, but the background looked a bit pale. I never tried it again, had I done so I think I would have overexposed by half a stop.

Focusing down to around 2 feet is good; a childs blackboard would be useful. Keep the group informed how you get on with this.

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on August 20, 2013, 03:51 PM:

Matthew, for my super 8 films shot in the 1980s I used a box called the "Cinegraphica" that enabled me to create superimposed titles by projecting a background film (that I wanted the titles to appear over) with a projector on one side of the box, while filming the titles over the background film with my super 8 camera from another side of the box, The titles were applied to art paper attached to a movable revolving window section on a third side of the box. It worked well, but it was a lot of work attaching the small stick on letters to spell the titles. The last film I used it for I just used a white felt marker on black paper, and printed them with that...much easier!

Posted by Bruce Wright (Member # 2793) on August 20, 2013, 04:13 PM:

The lettering on glass I have used many times. In fact we
have one glass with black letters and one with white. The real advantage is you have the option of infinite back grounds.
Usually it is best NOT to use fancy style lettering. Block lettering works almost any time. There is just nothing like watching your own creation on the "BIG SCREEN". Remember it's
LIGHTS--SPEED--ACTION !!

Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on August 20, 2013, 09:30 PM:

I love the opening titles on Napoleon Dynamite.
http://vimeo.com/5524216
Think outside the box like that and you could make something very cool.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 20, 2013, 11:38 PM:

Use the computer (or TV screen). The today's LCD and LED panel is bright enough to be taken by super 8mm camera. Good screen will not create flickers.

I did this once and not bad.

Here is my posting regarding this:

Filming titles from a computer screen

Good luck...!

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 21, 2013, 08:51 AM:

Dominique De Bast: I think I understand what you mean, just a lens that you add onto the existing lens. The default lens that comes with the camera cannot be screwed off anyway, I have tried, it is meant to stay on like a point and shoot camera. The lenses they sold work the same way you describe, you are meant to put them onto the existing lens, but it seems they only made a telephoto and wide angle lens. It can only shoot at one speed unfortunately, it is about 1/35 of a second/16fps. It does have a screw in the lens for the addon lenses, but it I don't believe any other company made addon lenses for this model camera. But maybe you can buy a non-kodak close up lens and fasten it yourself to make it work.

Robert Crewdson : Thanks for the tips. Maybe if you underexposed the background a bit it could also help. I don't have a blackboard have a large piece of black plastic and cardboard lying around that could work. I will make a post about it once I see the results yes.

Joe Taffis : I see yeah sometimes the low-tech method is the easiest and best. If I try using cutout letters I might try blutac as someone else suggested.

Bruce Wright : Ok, I was tempted to make the title in fancy style but I also realized its hard to make fancy lettering without thin parts, as the thicker the letters the clearer it will probably end up on the film, so I will probably stick with very basic letters. thanks, I am looking forward to seeing the results. It will be in splatter horror comedy style and if it turns out well I will be very pleased.

Pete Richards : thanks that is a good example yes, you don't often see more creative diy titles like that in modern tv/film which isn't done digitally.

Winbert Hutahaean: I read that thread yes when I was searching for alternative methods, but I would like to do something more DIY/low-tech. thanks.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 21, 2013, 10:02 AM:

Matthew, Cokin make close up filters from 1 - 4 diopters, and you can screw one in front of another, unfortunately, I don't think they make them that small. Bell & Howell used to make close up filters for their lenses, which were probably about the same size (I'm thinking about the filmo 70s from the 1930s). You would probably find it difficult to find a filter smaller than 49mm, which is a popular size for SLR.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 21, 2013, 01:38 PM:

Thanks Robert, yes the thread section on the end of the lens for addon filters/lenses is around 23mm in diameter. I have some random plastic/glass lenses so I can test with them in the future when the cameras empty if I am able to remove the lens so that I can manually figure out if I can make a makeshift close up lens.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 21, 2013, 06:36 PM:

Robert, small close ups exists. The 9,5 Pathé Baby had this as accessory. There was also a tittler and, as it was specially made for this camera (wich was the only one), you knew were to put the camera to avoid paralax default.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 21, 2013, 07:41 PM:

OK, this is just a little computer based!

Microsoft had no idea when they brought out Word that they were actually creating a wonderful movie titler. (I'm guessing they had no idea how useful Excel is for creating a cut list for editing either...)

I take a blank document. I format it "landscape". I insert any picture I want full page sized. I put a text box anywhere I want on the picture (clear, no border) and choose text from multiple typefaces, sizes, effects and colors.

I print it 8.5" by 11", surround the picture with a black border and film it on the floor with a camera on a tripod pointed straight down and zoomed until the title fills the frame.

This is from a film I just finished about my son and me spending the weekend at CineSea 6. This title comes just before our trip to Wildwood starts, and fits the "film about film" theme this one was about.

I drove, so I guess that makes me "Ollie".

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 22, 2013, 03:38 AM:

That looks nice Steve; unfortunately with Matthew's camera it doesn't have a zoom lens, and at the moment focusing down to around 2 feet or so is not close enough.

I will remember your tip for when I shoot any more film, better than messing about with plastic letters.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 22, 2013, 05:09 AM:

Dominique De Bast : I have this toy 8mm projector which I cannot use which I thought about using its lens, but I know very little about the science of how lens optics work, so I have no idea if I could possibly use it to improvise a close up lens, but I may try once I've used up my first film.

Steve Klare: thanks for the details. Like Robert said though unfortunately I cannot focus so near, though it could work if I had a very large printer. Though since films are old fashioned technology I would like to keep it as low-tech as possible, using print outs or lcd screens for the title would seem wrong somehow. If I can I plan to test some magnifying glass lenses I have lying around to see if I can diy a close up/portrait lens though. You got an extremely sharp image though.

Edit: I have now seen close up lenses on ebay, the one says "to fit Lens Mounts 22- 25mm" and the other "to fit lens mounts 22.5 – 25.5mm" - the diameter of the thread on my camera's lens is about 23mm, Though it says these are push on so they would not be threaded, if they fit well then I could manually attach them somehow when using them, I wonder.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 22, 2013, 05:17 AM:

Depending on the focal length of the lens that may still work. Barring that the thing to do would be to print on a larger sheet, but that depends on what kinds of printers are available.

-I can print up to 3 feet on a side, but my boss would get pretty torqued off about that, so I keep it at home!

"You're making titles for WHAT?!!"

Years ago this process caused me to find a camera that was friendlier to it.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 22, 2013, 05:23 AM:

haha, yes I cannot do such sizes but I could print out the letters and cut them out and put them on a large white/black surface to get the same effect, though it would be more time consuming. Yes the camera is not ideal and I would love more functions, but I inherited it so it means a lot to me and the movies I have seen which were shot using the camera look more then good enough for me.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 22, 2013, 05:48 AM:

Matthew, if you can reduce the focus to half (1 foot) that would probably be OK. I used to use close up filters on my 35mm SLR for copying photos, etc, but focussing was critical. My Super 8 camera, which I don't use now, focuses down to 2 inches.

I once bought a 2nd hand Standard 8 camera which turned out to be faulty, but I wanted to try my hand at single frame trickery. I shot a roll of Kodachrome and the colour seemed better than my Super 8 camera, must have been something to do with the inbuilt orange filter. I have a Bolex B8SL, boxed, which I bought about 4 or 5 years ago, and put a B&W film inside and never got around to using it. Need to do it while the weather is still reasonable, and hope the film is OK.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 22, 2013, 06:06 AM:

Ok thanks. After reading an obscure kodak user guide book I may have found close up lenses for the camera on ebay.

The two films I got are also black and white, I am also waiting for a sunny day for shooting as they are very slow. I might try push processing the second one and seeing what the results are like since they are cheap but a bit slow, I want more around iso100 at least ideally though, and I think thats too far to push since they are about iso6.

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 22, 2013, 06:40 AM:

Matthew, have a look at this website, they have Kodak telephoto convertors that fit the Brownie. Don't know anything about them, maybe you do.
http://www.camcentre.co.uk/stock-list-cine-equipment-i-10.html?phpMyAdmin=zAm8dwhDoWL7060EJXYcsdaZdmc

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 22, 2013, 06:53 AM:

Thanks, I think I've stumbled onto that website in the past but they do not seem to have any kodak lenses in stock, thanks though. I did find one on ebay, I can't get it right now but it looks like a good option, as the book I read recommends no.250 lenses for the specific model II that I have, so it looks like a perfect match. Its apparently "good" condition, but hard to tell from the photograph, reasonably cheap though so hopefully it is truly in good condition if I end up getting it.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 22, 2013, 09:21 AM:

You don't need to shoot the titles with the filmstock you will use for the film. You can wait until the next film (when you will buy another filmstock which will be faster) and then splice the titles. A film takes time to be made, the purpose is not to see it once it is shoot, it is to keep it for many years. About the size of the titles, there is also the (not ideal) solution of printing them with your printer and to enlarge with a photocopier in a shop. Of course, that will cost and there is a risk of loosing quality (not to mention it can only be done in black and white to have acceptable results).

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 22, 2013, 10:06 AM:

Before I came up with the method above I messed around with printing really small fonts (4 point?) on transparent printer film and then sandwiching the film on a 35M slide, projecting the slide on a screen and filming this image.

It was complicated, expensive (as in a whole roll of 35mm slide film just for title backgrounds), I was stuck hauling along a second camera, the quality was unreliable and the results were no better than "nice". I did this only once.

-but a lot of the fun of this is experimenting and improving.

Strange: if you go through my digital still camera you keep finding shots of the sky surrounded by trees or lakes with forests at the edge.

-Not great photographs but wonderful backgrounds for movie titles.

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 23, 2013, 11:33 AM:

Dominique De Bast : Ok.

Steve Klare : yes, also if it was possible to print incredibly small letters you could print onto those transparent sheets, push it over where the negative gets exposed in the camera and just expose the camera to light to create sharp easy text effects, but you cant print so small. I have seen like on the movie nekromantik clearly handwritten text in the film but they must have used a specific device or machine for that since they must have had a bigger budget and good equipment even though it was pretty low budget.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 23, 2013, 01:12 PM:

What you start to run into when you print as small as I did is even with a laser you are running up against the resolution of the printer. (-and this was to cover a 35mm frame, never mind 8mm.)

The print gets a little odd looking: corners become rounded and lines aren't uniformly thick. Looking at it with the naked eye it looks fine, but then you blow it up a few thousand times and it's not so good!

How I fixed this on the one film I did is describe it as "the natural outcome of the artistic process" and swear to myself never to do that again!

Titling is about the least rewarding part of making a film, the lights are hot, the opportunities to mess up are abundant and it's genuine work

The best you can say for it is what doesn't work out at least you can try again!

Shooting film is much more fun! All you need to do to prove this is look at the roughly 5 films I have unfinished right now, some of 'em at least 5 years old too.

[ August 23, 2013, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Steve Klare ]

Posted by Matthew Smith (Member # 3859) on August 26, 2013, 09:15 AM:

I see, thanks.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2