I Think you only got acetate in super 8, but that Fuji made their own
single 8 cassettes and also super8 but both were Polyester. That would
explain the fact that there were some super 8 films in the other material,
it all came from Fuji.
The very small sprocket holes in super/single 8 I was surprised ever had
enough grip to move the film. Of course it was done to increase the picture
area and also there was a much finer gap between frames as well.
Normal 8 mill was in fact slit 16mmm with extra holes in it.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" wrote in message
...
"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" wrote in message
...
I used to have one of those with a back projection screen etc. It did
switch between formats, but you did have two splicing blocks with it,
one for 8and the other super 8/single8, the latter having facilities for
taped splicing as well as solvent since Single 8 film was polyester. I'm
not sure what happened to that after I lost my sight to be honest, I
assumed nobody wanted cine stuff when video was all the rage.

I hadn't realised that the distinction between acetate base (which can be
spliced with cement that dissolves the base) and polyester (which can only
use tape because the cement doesn't dissolve it) was a distinction between
formats. I thought it was a difference between film manufacturers - Kodak
(acetate) versus Fuji (polyester). That means my dad must have bought or
borrowed a Single 8 camera (Super 8 film but in a completely different
cassette) before he bought the Super 8 camera that I remember. I'd assumed
that all Super 8 film (as in sprocket holes and frame sizes) was available
from a variety of manufacturers, but it looks from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-8 as if Super was Kodak and Single
was Fuji.

It's interesting looking at modern telecine scans of his Standard and
Super 8 films from when I was little. The Standard 8 is definitely grainer
(you can almost count the grains! *) but the pictures appear sharper than
the Super 8 with a larger frame and therefore less optical magnification.
I wonder if it's due to the fact that a random noise pattern overlaid on a
slightly blurred picture can make it appear sharper. Or maybe the Nikon
Super 8 camera had a slight focussing error and the "infinity" setting of
the lens actually focussed "beyond infinity" or slightly closer than
infinity. I remember the mirror fell off the backing plate in my first 35
mm SLR still camera, and after I'd glued it back on, there was a slight
focussing error so something that looked pin-sharp on the ground-glass
viewfinder screen was actually slightly out of focus on the film.


For ultimate grain-the-size-of-footballs, Ektachrome 160 (with normal
cassette-operated blue filter for use outdoors) was *very* much grainer
than Kodachrome 25. The last film my dad shot with the cine camera, before
he got an 8 mm video camera, he experimented with Ektachrome and low light
or fast motion (the ball on the "Swingball" that my sister and I were
playing was less blurred than it would have been with slower film and
therefore longer shutter speed.