What's your PET PEEVE regarding super 8?

[Shane C. Collins]

Then it wouldn't have been Super 8! It would have been 9.5mm. Oh wait, that already existed!

But yes the sprocket holes are too small, and we've all had projectors that won't run a certain print because of aligment of the holes to the pin on the claw because of it.

Deciding to make Super 8 the same size as the existing 8mm was a bad design, if only for the fact that the they decided to make Dual-8 machines. I know there was a least one machine made that took both 16mm and 8mm, but it was a conversion process like the Eumigs.

It was obviously cost and convenience that Super 8 was 8mm wide -- it was easier to adapt the equipment they already had, which started with 16mm film and was then slit for 8mm. Now they only had to adjust punching the sprocket holes.

So when did they first have cameras that took pre-striped film and recorded onto it while filming? Lipton spends so much time on discussing how to sync sound from a tape onto the film, and people came up with Rube Goldberg-esque ways to do it by connecting 2 Eumigs with belts connected to their inching knobs. Sounds like a lot of jumping through hoops to me. He does talk about the sound cartridge, though, so I'm thoroughly confused. The "double-system" perhaps was so people didn't have to buy a new sound camera.

https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/f...band-projector

I never knew anyone who took sound home movies, and all the home movies for sale on the bay are 99.99% silent. (Why would you want to buy someone else's home movies? I can't even watch the ones my family took 50 to 70 years ago because they are mostly boring scenery and little shots of family. I pull them out every 20 years expecting something wonderful and they're not.)

The quickest way to get rid of guests overstaying their welcome after dinner back in the 60s and 70s was to say you were going to show them home movies of your last vacation!!!

I agree, lots of home movies on Super 8 were shot showing too much scenery, and not enough with actual people. I have made it a habit to always shoot family, and friends in every scene I do on modern Ektachrome. I only show a quick scenery shot, if it relates to the place we were at while on vacation. For example, this past August we took a boat ride around the island we were staying at in Virginia. I shot a few seconds here and there showing a bridge we past under, or maybe a lighthouse in the distance. The rest of the footage is family hamming it up in front of the camera. It all works pretty well when I play these back for everyone on the projector. I'm also not afraid to cut scenes out, when the films return, that don't flow well once all the movies have been added to my larger 600' reels.

[Brian Harrington]

So what did sound add to people's home movies? Did they dance and lip-sync to music playing?

[Steve Lee]

I have so much footage that I shot over the years all with live sound. From christmas vacations in Austria and Switzerland, visiting christmas markets with christmas music being played on street dance organs, children's christmas choirs and going on a real sleigh ride with reindeer.
You could never re dub this, as it adds so much to what would normally be a boring home movie. Having live sound changes this into something worth watching.

I also have some footage shot in New York during the filming of the opening sequence of "planes,Trains and automobiles". where Steve Martin and Kevin bacon are running down the street, and John candy stills the mini cab. I have my own version of this scene. Also the three of then sitting down between takes, and talking to the public. I have it all captured on super 8 with sound.

Personally I think it was a stupid idea that Kodak stopped producing pre striped stock, as it had so many uses.

[Shane C. Collins]

So what did sound add to people's home movies? Did they dance and lip-sync to music playing?

I actually prefer silent home movies over adding sound. The reason being, people can sit around the projector, talk, laugh, etc without worrying about what was being said. I remember in the 90's when we all shot crappy looking VHS stuff, everyone would say shh can't hear what people are saying. That, and the fact most of that VHS camcorder stuff was endless amounts of the same scene, LOL. With modern Super 8 your making a 3 minute and 20 second short film. It really makes you think about your shots, and scenes as your camera is whirring away! I'd much rather watch home movies this way. Plus, the modern Ektrachrome 7294 has really nice, lifelike colors, and sharpness if shot properly.

[David Hardy]

This is a very interesting thread indeed with some interesting points raised . While i agree there is a slight advantage in the overall picture frame area when compared to Standard 8mm film my pet peeve with Super 8mm like some others on here is the small perforations . They can be a right old pain in the butt when manually threading my Fumeo 9119 machine . Also those tiny perforations are very fragile on acetate stock but less so on polyester stock which i have never really liked handling . Unlike good old standard 8mm acetate stock which i prefer projecting . Yes film chatter can be a problem too . Personally i have always had a preference for manual threading projectors but that's another topic . I started out my film collecting on Standard 8mm in the mid 1960's and when i did start buying Super 8mm package films i noticed that the image was not as sharp or as well defined as the smaller Standard 8mm copy i owned . I often wonder how good 'state of the art' Standard 8mm sound projectors with very good master print source material Standard 8mm copies with it's larger and less fragile perforations would have looked like when compared to what came later on Super 8mm . It's a pity that Kodak and others decided to dump this gauge when there was really no need to do so for domestic use . Oh wait profits and marketing hype may have played a large part in that decision to do so .

[Brian Harrington]

Depends on the title and/or company if 8mm version is better than Super 8. For Blackhawks, some 8mm prints were printed dark, I have found. Sometimes upgrading the title to Super 8 was an improvement, sometimes not. One thing better with Super 8 is you dont need to blow the pic up as much so you will get a brighter picture all else being equal.

More nitpicks:
Auto threaders often have the film intake chute so close to the lens that I often knock it out of focus or out of zoom.

Elmos mounted the film trimmer on the side of the projector with the lens. Not too bad for the 1200HD because of how the trimmer works. But for their silent dual-8s, you need to press it hard and hold onto the other end of the machine so it doesnt move.

My solution? I trim it with scissors!

Some like Eumigs allow you to mount it where you want unless previous owner did so. The trimmer should be mounted so you press it in the direction of gravity so the projector doesnt move.

[David Hardy]

Yes i agree i have also found the same with Castle Films in the past . Sometimes the Standard 8mm Sound copy was better than the Super 8mm Sound copy . The Mummy in my case for instance was an example of such. The Super 8mm print was much lighter and a bit washed out looking compared to the Standard 8mm print . Regarding overall screen brightness from either Standard 8mm or Super 8mm prints the thing is not to try to project to large a picture for 8mm and Super 8mm in a domestic setting such as in an average living room . I am like Shane C Collins i tend to prefer a sensible screen width of around 3' 3 inches when using a machine with around 100 watt - 150 Watt light output . With say an F1:1.3 or F1:1.1 Lens . My living room is only small and around 18 feet x 11 feet . I found with a throw of around 15 - 18 feet this is more than adequate for any domestic environment . Many years ago when i gave away from the home shows in small church halls and at children's birthday parties i just used an Elmo ST1200 HD projector with the normal 3 bladed shutter and the F1:1.1 lens projecting on to a 5 foot wide screen with very acceptable results and no complaints . That is providing of course you have proper room blackout and good prints to begin with . With a good print Standard 8mm in my sitting room even my vintage Standard 8mm silent Bolex M8 projector performs great with it's Swiss made Paillard-Bolex Hi-Fi F1:1.3 / 20mm prime lens . Screw focus lens of course gives a really sharp and bright bright image with great contrast , focus and definition onto a 3' 3'' wide screen from a throw about 15 feet . I am cheating a bit here though as i it has been converted to it using a Wotan Bellaphot 24V 250 Watt Quartz lamp with external transformer .

[Osi Osgood]

I LOVE to project big. Not all prints are up to that, but the new releases especially, are so sharp, that they look really good projected large. It's so awesome to have this modern Kodak Vision film stock, which these new prints are struck on. I hope it'll be around for many a year, beats the heck out of that yellowed with time acetate stock that new prints used to be struck on. 😠

[Steve Klare]

When I was a teenager I heard tales that Super-8 could not be projected larger than about 3-4 feet diagonally. Maybe this is so with images shot with a cheap camera and shown with a cheap projector with a plastic lens and a dim bulb. Maybe it comes from the size of a typical tripod screen and the false idea that maybe this is the speed limit.

At CineSea we see 35mm, 16mm and Super-8 one after another and even going toe to toe with the big stuff, Super-8 really holds its own! Yes, 35mm really is stunning, but it certainly doesn't blow a nice quality S8 print out of the water by comparison.

[David Hardy]

Projecting a big picture is okay if that is what you wish do in a domestic situation . However i like to scale things to my room sizes for the best overall picture in that room . Just like they used to do in proper film cinemas in the past . Remember that when projecting the likes of Super 8mm even with a good best quality print that the nearest seat should be placed at least two and a half times the screen width and the farthest seat no more than around six times the width . So for a projected screen width of say four foot the nearest member of the audience should be seated no nearer than eight feet away minimum . Sit any closer you see the faults with the prints , lens abberations , projector mechanism and print unsteadiness defects regardless of how good the print , light output , lens or film projector is . That's the reason in the old days the cheapest seats in a Cinema was always near the front stalls . Later on they just decided to charge the same ticket price no matter where you were seated . Too large a Super 8mm or Standard 8mm projected image in a small to average sized sitting room only magnifies all these faults and the limits of the format more so . Hey Ho and Ho Hum that's just me ! Maybe i have spent too much of my working years in the projection box as Cinema Projectionist aware of the inherent limits and defects of 35mm and 70mm prints and the equipment .

[Steve Klare]

Agreed: at home I'm limited to about 5 by 9 feet, which rolls up nicely behind the the curtains of the living room window. (That's plenty in that spot.)

One of the nice things in getting together in a group is we can have a much larger screen than at home in a much larger room than at home, and also have a lot bigger variety of films than usual.

-at home you'd be pretty hard pressed to project ten films and see maybe seven or eight for the first time.

[Paul Adsett]

Very good advice David! I have found that I can project blue ray discs to the full size of my 10 ft wide screen, and at a viewing distance of about 12 ft the picture looks fantastic. The same cannot be said for super 8, and as you have said you either need a smaller picture or a larger viewing distance to do S8 justice. So for academy ratio S8 I mask the screen down to about 6ft wide with the same 12 ft viewing distance. When projecting super 8 scope I do go out to the full 10 ft screen width, otherwise the picture looks much too small in height and actually has less visual impact than a 6ft wide academy picture. Talking of scope prints, you really do need all the light you can muster up when projecting scope prints to the same vertical size as academy prints (constant image height system). Not only is the projected picture area about 2,5 times greater (60% reduction in screen brightness) but you also have additional significant light loss and contrast loss in the anamorphic lens. That is why my GS1200 has been modified with a 2 blade shutter, 250 w ELC lamp powered externally, and uses the Elmo F1,0 lens. It really is a screen scorcher, but even so with scope prints I could still use a little more light! But what is the point of scope if you don't project it wider than academy?
Super 8 technology is now 60 years old and we have to recognize, and work within, its design limitations. If you do that then I think projecting good quality S8 prints can be a wonderful and unique experience, both for the projectionist and the audience. It really is a different look than digital projection, and very definitely a different experience.

[Brian Fretwell]

Yes, projecting 'scope films too small is why the term "letterbox" poctures was coined. They said it lwas like looking out at life through the letter box in your front door.

[Ken Finch]

With regard to screen sizes, I have always done the same as David. That is scaled down in my home cinema the same as they used to do in the cinemas. CinemaScope and other wide screen processes simply added periphial vision, the main action taking place in the centre of the screen. Therefore the size of the screen depended on the size of the room. In my current home cinema the academy picture is about 5ft wide and the front row of 4 seats being about 10ft eye distance from it. A “full house” is 20 seats, although I have had to add a couple more at times, but most frequently it is just a few members of the family. “Fings ain’t what they used to be!”😏

[David Hardy]

Thanks Shane , Steve , Paul , Brian , Ken and others for your comments . I suppose i did go off topic a bit but my intention was just a reminder of the limits of both the 8mm gauges and how i have tried to get the best viewing experience out of both of them within a domestic situation and smaller rooms . It was good to read that others have adopted the same principles when projecting in the home .