8mm Forum: Standard vs. Super 8

This is topic Standard vs. 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=011151

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on December 10, 2016, 02:09 PM:

Has anyone noticed that for some peculiar reason standard 8 prints of something also available in Super 8 seem to have sharper pictures?

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 10, 2016, 02:32 PM:

Brad, my understanding of this is due to the various reduction processes, master material and printers used by the lab printing domestic 8mm material, be it Standard 8 or Super 8.

Some Standard 8mm could be printed direct from 35mm sources as I understand; by the time Super 8 arrived, the norm was using 16mm to print to super 8, even if that meant a 16mm reduction from a 35mm origin.

Good subject and one which I for one would love knowledgeable members to add to...

[Smile]

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on December 10, 2016, 02:41 PM:

Std 8 was intro'ed in 1932 - By then we had 16mm (1923) and of course, 35 - Std 8 prints are sharper and quite sought-after because of reductions from choice 35's and 16's - Consider Super 8 was given to us until 1965, that is a long time between gauges, and there are alot more Std 8 prints out there still, so seek them out - Shorty

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 10, 2016, 04:01 PM:

All things being equal, Super 8 prints have to be sharper than standard 8 prints. So it all comes down to source material and lab quality control.
One thing that is nice about standard 8 is that the mono magnetic sound track is much wider than super 8. But unfortunately there is no balance track for stereo.

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on December 11, 2016, 03:55 AM:

Also, I believe, some Super 8 prints were done from double super 8 negatives giving another stage of reduction/generation loss than direct reduction from 16mm negatives. The best prints from my experiences were when the 16mm negatives used originally for 16mm prints were used for Super 8 printing. (The Sound of Music, Hello Dolly, The Fall of the Roman Empire, El Cid, etc).

I suspect the best Standard 8 ones were the Derann rental prints that were direct reduction from 35mm to Standard 8 Kodachrome.

Posted by Clinton Hunt (Member # 2072) on December 11, 2016, 11:01 PM:

I too have often felt that a lot of my standard 8mm prints are sharper than super 8mm.
However as said before it must depend on the source material as I also have some standard 8mm prints that are really soft!
As for standard 8mm sound - I noticed it was a wider sound strip that gives a great sound.
What's the purpose of the balance strip on Super8 sound films?

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on December 12, 2016, 02:01 AM:

The original purpose of the balance stripe was to keep the film flat in the gate to ensure even focus over the whole frame.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on December 12, 2016, 05:50 AM:

Brian's diagnosis of the use of the balance stripe is not its prime purpose.

Without the balance stripe (note the word "balance") spooled film would pile up on one edge. Stripe and balance stripe keep adjacent layers of base and emulsion apart, retarding wear.

Eastman Kodak claimed that this would prolong film life up to four times.

It also helps to keep film in focus from edge to edge in cameras and projectors.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 12, 2016, 10:27 AM:

And of course, though not it's original intent by Kodak, projector manufacturers and film collectors soon found out that the balance stripe could be used for stereo recording (with varying degrees of success!)

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 12, 2016, 12:01 PM:

I've noticed the superiority of the standard 8mm, especially with the Laurel and Hardy blackhawk prints and the farther back in the standard 8mm, the better.

However, super 8 really did evolve in nearly every department and by the 1980's, we had super 8 print that at least equaled the best of standard 8mm, if not excelled. I man, i would still, to this day, argue and prove that super 8 is a good as some 16MM prints, when it came to those wonderful ole super 8 optiocal sound features, (yeah, there goes OSI on the super 8 optical sound features again! [Smile]

)

Posted by Joseph Randall (Member # 4906) on December 12, 2016, 07:25 PM:

I have found that the Laurel and Hardy Blackhawk prints are generally better in Super 8 than Standard 8. That being said, at least a couple are superior in Standard 8.

It seems ironic that Super 8 was invented to get bigger and sharper pictures than Standard 8, yet the quality was undermined by the process used to actually make a print.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 12, 2016, 08:15 PM:

And not just prints. The quality of standard 8mm Kodachrome double 8 roll film, on a Bolex C8 camera with an all metal gate, with Kern Switar Prime (non-zoom) lenses, is just stunning. The problem with super 8 is the awful plastic Kodak cartridge, and the predominant use of zoom lenses.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 13, 2016, 11:20 AM:

What I like about this discussion is the relevance to today's technologies; just because a new format has the potential to be better, doesn't mean it always is! [Wink]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 13, 2016, 11:30 AM:

Good point, Rob.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2