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

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

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

No the real difference is that on both formats the sprocket holes are down
one side, but on super 8 they are smaller holes allowing for more picture
space, No all will not do both. You have to have a device that either can be
switched or has a replaceable sprocket and gate assembly.
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.!
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
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


It's possible an editor that only claims to be 8mm won't 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 won't work with Super8.

You'd 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

"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.

"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.

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

"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

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.

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.

"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.

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