Talk:Super 8 film/Archive 1

Archive 1

Point

Is there really any point in this article. It seems the content should be merged with 8 mm film. There is lots of overlap already. -- Egil 14:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of overlap, but all of the formats should eventually get a proper technical specifications section (see my addition on 9,5 mm film), so the page on 8mm film which includes the 3 subtypes of Super-8 may get a little unwieldy. Also, although standard 8 is the same film width; Super-8 was quite an advance technically and certainly was in terms of consumer acceptance, so it probably does deserve its own page. Maybe it would be best to decrease the sections on Super8 which appear on the 8mm film page. bignoter 06:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the articles should be kept separate. This format is quite different to Standard 8, despite them having the same width. Also, merging the two articles would tend to increase the possibility of confusing, say Double (standard) 8 and Double Super8. Wiki-linking the 2 articles makes the differences much clearer.

---What's up with that super 8 guy link? It seems there's no info on that page, only a few pictures... (or maybe there's a problem with my browser or something...)

--- They should certainly not be merged, it's a totally different format from standard-8!

I edited the following out of the article as it is based soley on a rumour/hoax by an anonymous poster on a german messageboard, followed by a lengthy thread, discussing the possibilities and trying to verify the truth, on www.filmshooting.com. This thread reached no real conclusion as of dec 2005 and no image or definite info on the film was found.

There were rumours of Super 8 cameras and films being manufactured and sold in North Korea and indeed this has been confirmed by North Korean embassies, but the only way to buy such products is to visit the country itself.

- the paragraph goes from identifying the info as a rumour to implying that you can actually buy such film in NK which is NOT at all verified. As I remember the only conformation from NK embassy was that a film manufacturing company exists which supposedly made the rumoured stock, but there's been no real evidence that super-8 specifically is or ever was made there.

It would be great if it were true, but at the moment it remains totally unverified and shouldn't be mentioned in the article as this will just confuse people and spread rumours. Best treat it as a piece of cyberpunk fiction for now. :) 81.158.54.181 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maaan this article is not much good on further examination! :) Double Super 8 was referred to as Double 8 for some reason? I have fixed that...

Also I can't be bothered to rewrite now, but this is pretty hilarious:

and it appears to have made something of a comeback in both the art and experimental film world. Oliver Stone, for example,

Uh, what!? 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)81.158.54.181

Formats for cameras versus formats for projectors

The formats of catridge described in this article confused me, and I think it may be because no distinction is made between cartridges made for shooting in a camera, and reel-to-reel playback on a projector.

The article implies that the only two formats are the Kodak and and Fujifilm cartridges, which made me think that my dad's reel to reel home movies were somehow a completely different format. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me could explain this. Is playback just reel to reel? Or are there cartridge-based projectors? Or is there another completely different format that I am getting confused by?

Most super and single 8 film was used on reels for viewing. SIngle 8 is the same format after processing other then it comes on a thiner Polyester base filmstock, which cannon be cement spliced.

The sound film was the same format except having the soundtrack.

There were some projectors that took special cartriges, and even the "technicolor 8" continuous loop cartriges sold in teh educational market. No cartrige for projection ever got any major market share that I am aware of. It was quite common for users to splice films together onto larger 200 and 400Ft reels.cmacd 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi there, Super-8 unexposed film comes in a Super-8 film cartridge which then goes into the film camera. When the 50 feet of film has been exposed (but it never actually leaves the film cartridge) the cartridge is brought to a film lab, the film is taken out of the cartridge while in a darkroom and the film is then processed. When it is given back to the customer it is now on a small 50 foot plastic movie reel. At this point the now processed super-8 film can be either transferred to video and then edited on a computer or it can projected directly onto a wall, or it can be edited with a movie viewer and splicing tape, all of those scenarios actually require two movie reels, a supply reel (where the film currently resides) and a take-up reel (where the film ends up after traveling past the projection point).

The Oliver Stone comment was not from me but it's reference comes from a picture of Oliver Stone holding a Super-8 camera while on the set of his JFK movie. Super-8 was used extensively in Stone's JFK and since then it has actually been used fleetingly in several feature films. Usually Super-8 is used to create a flashback effect, or handheld to illicit a feeling that the world is caving in around the protagonist. Super-8 is used more in Music Videos than in feature films.

I spent a bit of time trying to tidy up the Super-8 page. The Super-8 community is not that large and many in that community know that it's probably just a matter of time before a corporate bean counter axes motion picture film in pre-anticipation of the day when it won't be as profitable as it has been in the past. I believe the Super-8 community loves wikipedia but when you stamp the super-8 stalwarts, (aka those who put up a super-8 website knowing they will never make back their costs) as spammers not only is it demoralizing but I think Wikipedia is not acknowledging that at some point wiki actually takes away hits from the few super-8 sites that do exist.

I commend Wikipedia for following the original Star Trek series credo of not trying to influence any community in either a positive or negative way, but Wiki takes away hits from all other Super-8 sites by being Wiki, aka the gentle giant that is tops on most if not all search engines. The external links section is the one area that equalizes the fact that Wiki will usually be at the top of any Super-8 search. Wiki is able to equalize what they have taken away from other Super-8 websites by having one section where there are links to other super-8 sites. I can vouch for about 75% of the links as being more about Super-8 than profiteering. There is a constant stream of misinformation on the net that Super-8 film is no longer made or necessary, and the links section helps set the record straight.

If you are concerned that if you make an exception here than you would have to make it all over wikipedia there is a distinction with a difference that can be made. No new Super-8 techology of note is being made in the Super-8 format and it usually is new product in any industry that creates the overt commercialism that wikipedia trys to avoid. With no new Super-8 cameras being made, the Super-8 format would actually be hurt if Wikipedia had no links that would go to other super-8 sites. Yet if Wiki made no mention of Super-8 at all, then there would be no place to get third party observations. The primary reason I don't sign up is I am involved in the Super-8 community and I just don't know if I could be impartial enough or if I would agree with a stiff interpretation of Wikipedia protocol. I can check back periodically if you have questions about specific links. 72.129.88.30 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording change

I changed the wording of the fourth paragraph under the heading "Kodak Super 8 System" a little because I thought that it might have been non-neutral in tone. Feel free to revert my edit if I'm wrong, though. ::Travis Evans 03:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

super 8 example loop

Please eliminate the Super 8 example loop. What's the point of it? It doesn't demonstrate anything. It's also very distracting. It makes it harder to concentrate on reading the text. Furthermore, you can't tell anything from it. There is nothing about it that gives any real feel for what Super 8 looks like. You can't do that on a computer monitor. You may as well show the loop on the radio! There isn't any such example for the TV or (motion picture) film articles. Why here? (And one doesn't normally show Super 8 films forwards and backwards in a loop! One possible improvement would be to make it play only when you click a Play button, e.g. But it would still be useless and pointless.)

So basically, it's pointless, useless, distracting, and annoying. betaneptune 71.251.41.51 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--- This looping image gives an example of colour, texture and grain associated with Super 8 mm film. It is useful for a reader who is unfamiliar with the visual feel of the format. Most people have seen Super 8 mm, but are not familiar with its name and this image helps people develop an awareness of the the film without searching for it on Youtube. A 'real feel' for Super 8 (pretentious) would require a projector, not at most peoples disposal. As for it being 'distracting', I think most people with relatively normal attention spans can deal with the shiny colours.

Jesse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam jesse (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not at all representative of the look of the format and needs to be changed. Super 8 is not renowned for washed out colours, a huge yellow hotspot in the middle of the frame and that amount of jerkiness. A clear still image would be much more useful to this article than this poor loop. 90.211.239.197 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses

Perhaps some citations to actual productions that used Super 8 might give weight to having a separate article being maintained on Super 8, and not having it merged with 8mm. For example, I know that many news stations were using Super 8. The non-Los Angeles scenes of the documentary An American Family were filmed in Super 8, and it was a favored medium of independent filmmakers, notably Stan Brakhage. Sorry I can't provide citations at the moment. -- kosboot (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In Europe, video taping is widely unknown, so they continue using Super 8. --91.62.186.76 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro8mm

Clearly uses this page for advertisement. I have removed the hyperlinks from all but the first mention of the company. I suggest a partial rewrite to remove spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.243.247 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect name for article

The title makes it appear as if the subject were a mm film named "Super 8". In reality, of course, it is 8 mm film named "Super 8". The article, to be correctly titled, should be either "Super 8 motion picture film", "Super 8 8mm film", or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.18 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But Super 8 is a motion picture film, or shall I say, movie. So much irony.. LOL - M0rphzone (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the movie should be titled Super 8 (movie) to prevent any possible chance of confusion. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, this is a film and there is a film featuring it. They're both the same names as well. And didn't the camera film lead to the movie word, "film"? lol - M0rphzone (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi, why the date get changed

There is a fake "Super 8" video floating around that is a hoax that preports to show Obama's birth in Kenya. These same people are trying to change the invention date for Super 8 since they apparently overlooked the fact that Super 8 wasn't invented until well after Obama was born. Check this page: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/29/obama-birth-video-hatched/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.10.74 (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the image does not enhance a reader's understanding of Super 8 film – which would be the only legitimate reason for its being here – I am going to remove the image from this article.--Jim10701 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Super 8 was introduced in 1965 not 1960, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.211.169 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad, not good Comment

I have probably read thousands of Wikipedia articles. This one stands out for being one of the worst edited, and one with the least amount of content in the most amount of space. This needs work!! I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are all the Photos stealth advertising for Pro8mm?

Photos should be uploaded with the Pro8mm logo blurred out or different photos uploaded. Even the section on MAX 8 is Pro 8mm advertising. MAX 8 is their name. It has also been known as Super 8 Max. After all, the only difference is the expanded exposure area. It still uses standard Super 8mm film. 2604:2000:6A52:500:A9E4:54B4:A612:9786 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Kodak not offering processing for super8

I may be compleatly be reading Kodak's site wrong, but from what I see on their super8 revival site is that purchase of super8 film includes Kodak processing and digitalization. http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/Super8-camera/default.htm (yellow section about halfway down page). Rhinorulz (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC) That is that in the first section after the intro it says Kodak no longer offers processing for super8. This seams to be conflicting. Rhinorulz (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, maybe Kodak changed their business strategy for some time, that is something not clear to me, because some times I see Kodak 135 films (35mm) sold in photography stores, also developers/paper and sometimes other brands.

I have not used film long time ago, I am not looking for such products, just when I casually visit the remaining photography stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.103.27 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Kodak closed their US processing labs many years ago. I am not sure about other countries. It might be that they offered processing while sending it out somewhere else. For the last days of Kodachrome, I believe that Kodak was sending film to Dwayne's. Gah4 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Super 8 vs. 1080p quality comparison

It would give an idea of the quality of Super 8 films if they are compared with actual non professional digital video cameras or the semiprofessional called prosumer equivalent to those range of Super 8 cameras all automatic or more sophisticated for professional Super 8 film makers. Film kind, ISO sensitivity vs. Sensor size, pixels resolution and digital ISO sensitivity, can be the parameters. Anyone can write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.103.27 (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is hard to make a good comparison between film and digital. For digital, one always gives the actual pixel resolution, though to satisfy Nyquist it must be less. Film has MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) which describes the effect of increasing spatial frequency. If one takes a cut-off value for the MTF curve, it should be possible to make a comparison. Gah4 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)