Anyone doing 8mm film?

[Mark W.]

Oven Master 8mm film has never disappeared it most likelike only became unavailable where you buy film B&H photo the largest mail oder photo dealer in the USA if not the world offers:

Kodak
#7217 Vision2 200T Super 8 Silent Color Negative Film Price : $ 18.95

#7265 PXR464 Super 8 50' Eastman Plus-X Reversal Silent Price : $ 13.95

#7266 TXR464 Super 8 50' Eastman Tri-X Reversal Silent Movie Film Price : $ 13.95

#7280 Ektachrome 64T Color Reversal Super 8 Silent Film Price : $ 17.50

they also sell 16mm film.

Processing is available from a number of labs around the world

Here is an info site on 8mm and small format movie film

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/#

As to the idea of scanning a frame of 8mm film and producing a print

The image is only 3.5 X 5mm or .137795" x .19685" at 4000dpi (like my Canon FS4000US scanner at max setting) that's = to 551 X 787 pixels. Even printing at 1/2 the normal std of 300 DPI you could only end up with a very very burly print of approx 3.5" X 5.25"

And if you scan 8mm film at 4000dpi the grain will look like SUV's I would be glad to scan some and show you It sucks. I worked one day for almost 6 hours trying to produce a print of my wifes mother from some old home movies (her mom passed away when Audrey was just 12) and I have to say using everything I have learned as a very advanced amature photographer for over 30 years. I only made a print of 1" x 1.5" and even at that small of a size The results SUCKED.

the only reason it can be transfered or even viewed on a screen and look decent is the movement from one frame to the next (the flicker factor) keeps the eye from actually seeing any one frame long enough to see details.

It is also one of the reasons the format is still being used to day as that look is almost impossible to recreate any other way. And for things like advertising or art films that look has a following.

[dr.ido]

Obviously scanning it isn't as practical as I thought. The results I got scanning a few frames were usable for web page screenshots, but I wasn't trying to print them. I had thought my results were limited by my cheap scanner, not the film itself. Still, at the time it worked better than trying to shoot projected frame with me digital camera.

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by Mark W.

the only reason it can be transfered or even viewed on a screen and look decent is the movement from one frame to the next (the flicker factor) keeps the eye from actually seeing any one frame long enough to see details.

Actually, the human eye can do a remarkable job of integrating successive frames so you see more detail and less grain - and that can't be captured by printing one frame. If you have a projector with a still frame mode, you can see the decrease in quality immediately when you go to still mode.

[ozmoid]

Originally Posted by dr.ido

I suppose you could always scan it frame by frame and then reassemble the frames in software. It might take a while though.

I've scanned individual frame before to make still images, but I've never actually tried to do any number of frames in order and reassemble them into a movie.

In the past I've wondered how viable it would be to somehow automate this process, but I've never actually done anything with it. If it could be done the resulting transfer would be a lot better than anything done with a projector and a camcorder.

There are two (most commonly used) basic ways to get the film image into a video/dvd/digital format:

1. Project the film a frame at a time onto a large lens (like out of an opaque projector) and capture it with your camcorder from the opposite side of the lens. Flip the image in software and encode it at the original frame rate of your projector (probably 15 fps). You CAN build a rig to do this, but you need the software skills to code some camera control software (and the hardware skills to build the interface) to capture 1 frame every (x) interval, and you need a projector with an adjustable frame rate and a low-wattage bulb to prevent burning the film. (In addition, of course, to the "rig" that aligns the projector, lens, and video camera).

2. Most pro facilities that provide a frame-for-frame transfer use a device that scans the film at high res a frame at a time, and assembles it in software at the correct frame rate. In this system, the flim is actually pressed against a CCD and each frame is captured as a still. Very expensive gear, I would not WANT to try and build it from scratch. Expect to pay a premium price for this service, but you can expect exceptional results.

Both of these methods eliminate the "flicker" that occurs when your projector and video camera frame rates don't match.

[ozmoid]

Originally Posted by Mark W.

the only reason it can be transfered or even viewed on a screen and look decent is the movement from one frame to the next (the flicker factor) keeps the eye from actually seeing any one frame long enough to see details.

It is also one of the reasons the format is still being used to day as that look is almost impossible to recreate any other way. And for things like advertising or art films that look has a following.

That is another problem with film/video transfer - Progressive VS. Interlaced frames. Film is Progressive, there is a complete still image for each frame. Video is Interlaced, each frame is a series of "stripes" of each frame before and after it (very simplified explanation). Modern DV cameras can record in a Progressive format and yield a much more film-like image. High-end video editing software (like Final Cut Pro) support progressive video formats for editing. Definitely the way to go if you want to try and make your own conversions.

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by Kamakiri

Yes but the goal here is to actually use the medium. I'm not looking to transfer it over to anything

Well, there is a lot to learn to accomodate the deficiencies of the medium. You can usually see all these when you look at typical 8mm home movies:
The low frame rate makes all but the slooooowwwwwest panning nearly useless.
The low amount of time per reel pushes people to make entirely too-short scenes with terrible choppy cuts.
The low resolution, grain, and long shutter time (motion blur) means that the result is only tolerable in motion -you can pretty much forget using stills.
[edit - I meant when the film is in motion it looks best - using a single frame is what looks really crappy]
Video camcorders, with their long and inexpensive recording time and high frame rate relieve most of these sins, although amateur attempts usually suffer from far too much camera motion. Much less camera motion is one of the hallmarks of professional video and movies compared to home stuff. As far as the choppy shooting goes, once you roll film, count out six seconds minimum before stopping. It's really tempting to shoot shorter clips when the amount of film on a roll is small, but the results are terrible unless you are deliberately looking for an effect. In that case, you should still shoot long and cut when editing.

(Well, that's my 2 cents worth of nothing, anyway)

[old_tv_nut]

By the way, why isn't this thread in the photography section?

[ozmoid]

Originally Posted by old_tv_nut

Well, there is a lot to learn to accomodate the deficiencies of the medium.

The big attraction of 8mm is that "film look". Higher contrast, more "realistic" rendering of light and color than video. You can make your video look more like film, but it requires jumping through some hoops in your software, and spending big $$ for a progresssive capable recorder.

There's just something about FILM, for both stills and movies, that is appealing and enticing to the eye.

Our studio (photography) moved to an all-digital workflow a few years ago. I still miss that "look", and I probably always will. My daughter (age: 3) will never really get it, she has already been weaned on the internet and digital media.

What I DON'T miss? Waiting a week to find out if the wedding shots came out OK, wondering if THIS roll is the one the processor will eat, or catching my breath when someone drops an un-sleeved neg. Don't miss any of that at all.