super 8 friendly discussion

>>2899205
It's ridiculously fucking expensive. 3 minutes of film costs around $50 to buy and develop. Just do the effects in post, it'll be easier and way cheaper

File: 2694777_140803182641_IMG-20140802-03156.jpg (21KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x375px

>>2899205

I have a few Canon 814 cameras, it is fun to shoot.

>I wasn't confident enough to buy it because I
have no idea how to tell if it's working or not

check the AA battery compartment
check the light meter battery compartment
put batteries in it
press trigger and it will work or not.

>nor where to get film and where the cheapest place to get it processed is

expired film off ebay is cheap
B&H has reliable stock - (last time I checked)
Super 8 sound - expensive but custom and they dupe it to DV for you when they develop it.

A handfull of labs around the US still develop it - youll have to google it.
you can develop it yourself in a bucket, it gets really scratchy and gritty but I kind of like the look.
if you do a reversal bleach for B&W be careful, it can burn your skin quite badly.

>>2899215
it can be done cheap but you have to do a lot yourself and settle for expired film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Research In Motion
Camera Model	BlackBerry 9360
Camera Software	Rim Exif Version1.00a
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:08:02 15:26:28
Exposure Time	0 sec
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash Function
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1944

File: kodaksuper8head.jpg (42KB, 640x513px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x513px

When is the Kodak meme 8 coming out? It was announced in January and then nothing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2155
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:06 08:26:32
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	513

even 16 mm film looks like shit.

What kind of retard not simply going for le retro asthetics would spend so much for 8mm?

>captivated by
there's nothing to be fucking captivated by unless you're a faggot who uploads trite poorly filmed and edited documentaries of farmers or whatever the fuck with shitty le inspirational music in the background.

>>2899205
Super 8 truly looks like fucking garbage
All of the cameras for super 8 are fucking garbage
All of the super 8 videos are fucking garbage
16mm is one step up if you want to do film recording, something still commonly used for some modern tv shows
Super 8 in the past was marketed to poor families that just wanted to record parties, it has no positive qualities

>>2899205
There's nothing to be captivated by, you hipster. Super 8 was meant to be affordable and usable by even the dumbest poorfag in the past. The frames are as small as a pinky nail, so the quality isn't very great. I like the look, because I spent a very long time digitising my grandfather's old films, bit I recognise that this is merely nostalgia.

Filming with super 8 now, for any serious application, is a pure waste of money. It's fun, but it's not even barely feasible to use. Even if you wouldnt edit *at all*, a 1 hour documentary/movie would need 20 cartridges + development, so it would cost you around $1000 just to make a shitty piece of moving image no one is going to look at with pleasure. Save that money, buy a digital camera and add le hipster effects in pp. Just buy a single cassette and use it for fun and put all this stuff to rest.

>>2902311
>I like the look, because I spent a very long time digitising my grandfather's old films, bit I recognise that this is merely nostalgia.
I mean

you might literally find it aesthetically pleasing?

not to endorse the ridiculous waste of money that it is, but I think you're being a bit dense about appreciating a look or style here.

are there any good super8 cameras that shoots proper 23.9 frames/second

>>2902033
>16 mm film looks like shit
your mom looks like shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd-81VRVQXw

>>2902033
>even 16 mm film looks like shit.

But it doesn't unless you're using a fucking painters bucket to develop it.
16mm is expensive coming out the ass since many ameatuer filmmakers go to professional labs but if you have the Dongs quality of footage isn't hard to achieve.

>>2902314
Yes I find it aesthetically pleasing because it fits the timeframe. Old things look old because everything in it is old. I saw footage of a long dead great aunt in her 40s driving in a 60s car, on film. It makes sense, it all fits. But filming 2016 people and things on film just doesn't look right. Sure you can do it for the whole contrast between old and new thing but that has been done countless times already. Don't get me wrong, it's fun as hell so go ahead and have fun with it, but it doesn't really have a place in serious applications.

>>2902323
Black Swan was shot on Super 16? Interesting!

File: arri416.png (241KB, 715x400px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 715x400px

>>2902554
yes

>>2902383
>>2902383
>But filming 2016 people and things on film just doesn't look right
maybe to you.

I said, in that post itself, that it can be a formal taste rather than one tied to time.

such applications are as serious as you choose to make them

you really limit yourself.