|
Cine Editors
Hi All, I am considering purchasing a second hand Cine Editor (viewer). Some listings state that they are dual (8mm and Super 8),some just say 8mm. Is it the case that they would all work with both formats? TIA Chris -- Chris |
Cine Editors
Chris Holmes wrote:
Hi All, I am considering purchasing a second hand Cine Editor (viewer). Some listings state that they are dual (8mm and Super 8),some just say 8mm. Is it the case that they would all work with both formats? TIA Chris Its possible an editor that only claims to be 8mm wont show the full frame. The films are the same width but the frame in Super 8 is larger by virtue of only having sprocket holes down one side. Also an 8mm player may have twin sprockets that wont work with Super8. Youd really need to check with the sellers. A Super8 editor would be a safer purchase as it will play both formats I think. Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls |
Cine Editors
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. 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.! "Chris Holmes" wrote in message ... Hi All, I am considering purchasing a second hand Cine Editor (viewer). Some listings state that they are dual (8mm and Super 8),some just say 8mm. Is it the case that they would all work with both formats? TIA Chris -- Chris |
Cine Editors
"Tim+" wrote in message
... Its possible an editor that only claims to be 8mm wont show the full frame. The films are the same width but the frame in Super 8 is larger by virtue of only having sprocket holes down one side. Also an 8mm player may have twin sprockets that wont work with Super8. Youd really need to check with the sellers. A Super8 editor would be a safer purchase as it will play both formats I think. The two film format have the sprockets in different places and (I think) different spacing along the length of the film. To edit accurately and avoid slippage, the editor needs to grip the film by its sprockets not just by friction. So a Super 8 editor will not be backwards-compatible with Standard 8. Some Super 8 editors may be supplied with two different gates with sprocket lugs at different pitches - but you can't rely on that. |
Cine Editors
"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. |
Cine Editors
On 11/04/2021 09:11, Tim+ wrote:
Chris Holmes wrote: Hi All, I am considering purchasing a second hand Cine Editor (viewer). Some listings state that they are dual (8mm and Super 8),some just say 8mm. Is it the case that they would all work with both formats? TIA Chris Its possible an editor that only claims to be 8mm wont show the full frame. The films are the same width but the frame in Super 8 is larger by virtue of only having sprocket holes down one side. Also an 8mm player may have twin sprockets that wont work with Super8. Youd really need to check with the sellers. A Super8 editor would be a safer purchase as it will play both formats I think. Standard 8 was produced as a cheaper alternative to 16mm for home movies. It was made by splitting 16mm film down the middle and doubling the number of holes. Thus, it only had holes along one side. -- Colin Bignell |
Cine Editors
"nightjar" wrote in message
... Standard 8 was produced as a cheaper alternative to 16mm for home movies. It was made by splitting 16mm film down the middle and doubling the number of holes. Thus, it only had holes along one side. Just like Super 8 does. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...and_super8.png compares the two formats and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nd_super16.png shows 16 mm - and also the single-perforation Super 16 format which has a wider frame size (for widescreen) and is what is usually used nowadays if film is used for TV. You can often tell Standard 8 film when it's projected, because as it is returned from the processing house, there is almost always a tell-tale light-coloured flash half way through where the last bit of the film has got fogged when the camera was opened to turn the film over. I remember my dad knew someone at work who had a 16 mm projector, and he borrowed it once so he could project his old Standard 8 film (Dad only had a Super 8 projector) - because the sprockets of Standard 8 matched 16 mm (with an extra sprocket which was ignored by the projector). OK, you see two consecutive frames, and one half of the projected image is white (no film on that side!) but it's a lot better that nothing as a quick-and-dirty solution |
Cine Editors
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. |
Cine Editors
On 12/04/2021 16:10, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
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 One difference that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that super-8 could have (or maybe always had) a magnetic sound stripe. Standard-8 didn't. If you had sound it was on a separate tape. |
Cine Editors
"Andrew" wrote in message
... On 12/04/2021 16:10, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote: 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 One difference that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that super-8 could have (or maybe always had) a magnetic sound stripe. Standard-8 didn't. If you had sound it was on a separate tape. Super 8 didn't *always* have a sound stripe. I think it was possible to buy film stock that already had a mag stripe onto which synchronous sound could be recorded in the camera. It was possible send away a completed and edited film, to have a stripe coated onto it. You could then record your own soundtrack and commentary onto it: many projectors such as my dad's Eumig could record as well as save sound. Editing film with sound track is not very successful because the sound head has to be spaced some distance from the gate in order to damp out the intermittent motion of the gate: dad's projector had a heavy flywheel on the take-up roller by the sound head. Because of this separation, if you cut the film and rejoin it, there will be a gap of a couple of seconds between the cut in the picture and the corresponding cut in the sound. I hadn't realised that Standard 8 couldn't have a sound stripe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_...and_super8.png (which may of course be wrong!) shows areas on both Standard 8 and Super 8 where a stripe could be placed. |
Cine Editors
NY wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message ... Standard 8 was produced as a cheaper alternative to 16mm for home movies. It was made by splitting 16mm film down the middle and doubling the number of holes. Thus, it only had holes along one side. Just like Super 8 does. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...and_super8.png compares the two formats and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nd_super16.png shows 16 mm - and also the single-perforation Super 16 format which has a wider frame size (for widescreen) and is what is usually used nowadays if film is used for TV. You can often tell Standard 8 film when it's projected, because as it is returned from the processing house, there is almost always a tell-tale light-coloured flash half way through where the last bit of the film has got fogged when the camera was opened to turn the film over. I remember my dad knew someone at work who had a 16 mm projector, and he borrowed it once so he could project his old Standard 8 film (Dad only had a Super 8 projector) - because the sprockets of Standard 8 matched 16 mm (with an extra sprocket which was ignored by the projector). OK, you see two consecutive frames, and one half of the projected image is white (no film on that side!) but it's a lot better that nothing as a quick-and-dirty solution Thanks everyone. As usual, much useful info! -- Chris |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter