Examples of Super 8/8 transfers that are beautiful

[Todd Kitchen]

I can't say enough about this one. Had they not put "Super 8" in the description, I would have assumed it was a mixture of super 8 and 16mm. But it's all Super 8. It helps (always) that this was obviously done by a professional crew. They got tons of coverage for editing. The editing itself is great--no shot goes on too long. The pacing is phenomenal--this may be one of the best pieces of film I've seen in any format. It's just so purely about color and motion.
Enjoy:

[Todd Kitchen]

I'm going to add this: If you're going to shoot super 8, don't be afraid to get up close to people. Make those faces fill the frame. That's where the format really shines. Also--don't pan and zoom or otherwise make unnecessary camera moves unless they make sense to the narrative.
Tracking shots are great, but don't pan and track at the same time.
That being said, you can break those rules if you have lots of good, steady coverage where you let the people move and keep that camera still. But if all you have is footage where the operator treats the movie camera like a paintbrush, you have very few cutting options (if you want to make a film that people will want to watch).

[Osi Osgood]

The editing is OK, but I would have liked a little more footage per edit. I'm not a fan of lots of quick cutting, unless it is, of course a high action sequence, and then you pour it on, but calming down and letting the viewer rest and taking in moments. Moments going by too fast do not allow you to "record" in your brain, pertinent information, or, the brain is still trying to take in what it has just seen, ignoring the next shot or two. Good overall photography, though.

[Douglas Meltzer]

Todd,

Thanks for posting this. It is nicely shot & edited, although I'm not a fan of the flash frames. Nice match of subject & style. The transfer, as you said, is exceptional.
I agree with you about camera movement. It needs to motivated by what's happening on screen. Movement for the sake of movement works well in dance, rarely in film.

[Todd Kitchen]

[Kim Trampus]

Rank Cintel?

[Todd Kitchen]

Rank Cintel; Wetgate 4K scan.

[Graham Ritchie]

I wouldn't say they are beautiful, very shaky camera work, sorry for being a bit negative but really didn't think much of most of it.

[Todd Kitchen]

Graham, the examples I'm posting are about good-looking transfers more than overall filmmaking (although I do think the basketball one is very good). One is modern neg stock and the other is Kodachrome. The reason I like both is that the colors aren't garish and unnatural, nor are there a lot of digital artifacts.

I'm currently researching where to transfer all the Super-8 I shot between 1990 and 2005(almost all Kodachrome with some Plus-X and Tri-X in the mix). I'm trying to determine if it's worth the extra money to get 4K or higher scans.

I'm looking for an alternative to pro8mm. I believe their default one-light transfers are a bit odd looking--oversharpened maybe?

The 70's Kodachrome transfer by CinePost looks to me like what decently exposed and focussed Kodachrome looks like when projected. It just looks "right" to me.

the idea of this thread is for others to post examples, too. I'm always interested in what other forum members think!

[Tim Gillett]

Hard to be 100% sure without comparison with the film but to my eye the Cine Post scan seems pretty good. A bare scan like this isnt necessarily the last word in final presentation. It just has to capture the image off the film with as much fidelity as possible, which this one seems to have managed. I regard a 4k scan of the tiny 8mm image as pointless. 2K should be more than enough.

Far more important is fidelity to the full brightness range of the image especially reversal film like Kodachrome. Many digital cameras cannot cope with the range of Kodachrome unless the scanner can do High Dynamic Range capture (HDR). So rather than asking the vendor: "Can you do a 4K scan of my 8mm films?" better to ask: "Can you do true HDR scans of my 8mm Kodachromes?"

[Ken Finch]

I agree with Tim on both points he has made, particularly regarding 2k versus 4k. A 4k scan is applicable to 35mm and larger gauge cine film to be displayed on huge screens. not on a computer monitor or even a domestic tv.