I recently received a Keystone Super-8 movie camera in a box of old cameras my dad bought. I'm really interested to try it out, but I've discovered that 50 feet only has about 3 and a half minutes of footage. Considering the cost of the film itself, and then development, and then digital transfer into Final Cut, is it worth it?

I'd like to get into actual film movie production for fun and away from mini-DV, etc. Are there any other processes that are significantly cheaper?

Posted by ndillon31 I recently received a Keystone Super-8 movie camera in a box of old cameras my dad bought. I'm really interested to try it out, but I've discovered that 50 feet only has about 3 and a half minutes of footage. Considering the cost of the film itself, and then development, and then digital transfer into Final Cut, is it worth it? I'd like to get into actual film movie production for fun and away from mini-DV, etc. Are there any other processes that are significantly cheaper?

Super-8 is worth it if you're super rich or have access to a super lab. Otherwise, stick with DV. It's super cheap and the editing software is super easy (for the most part) and you can run the media through a bunch of super filters to achieve a super-8 effect.

Film records light once. You cut a negative once.

You record DV as many times as it takes to get it right. Point and click editing means you can undo your cuts.

DV is cost effective. Simple math.

Now get to work.

Posted by ndillon31 I recently received a Keystone Super-8 movie camera in a box of old cameras my dad bought. I'm really interested to try it out, but I've discovered that 50 feet only has about 3 and a half minutes of footage. Considering the cost of the film itself, and then development, and then digital transfer into Final Cut, is it worth it? I'd like to get into actual film movie production for fun and away from mini-DV, etc. Are there any other processes that are significantly cheaper?

I've shot rolls and rolls of Super-8 as well as its predecessor Regular 8 and Double 8 which is 16mm film on a reel (no cassette). You shoot one 8mm track, then turn the reel around and reload in subdued light and shoot the other track. The processor then slits the film right down the middle, splices the ends, giving you one continuous length of 8mm movie film. You can see why it took the advent of the convenient Super-8 cartridge to make home movies so popular in the '70s. Super-8 also had a bigger frame size. But even in the '80s, it was getting too expensive to mess around with it. I only was able to because I snapped up depleting stock of Double-8 film which was going for $2 or so a roll. But even then I remember those Super-8 cartridges going for $15. I can't imagine what they are selling for today!

I still shoot super 8 and my last movie is on a directors' super 8 anthology available for sale and rent at various places around my city as of a month ago.

You don't have to be super rich to shoot on it. I'm not. Compare a thousand bucks for a decent digital camera that gives you that 'America's Funniest Home Videos' look or a $6.00 (SIX DOLLAR) camera that looks like real film because it is real film.

You can transfer your film to digital or DVD, and DV tape wears out. It's a matter of preference.

A cartridge of super 8 goes for $17 - $25 a roll and there's processing on top of that. It's not cheap, but you don't have to be rich to shoot it by any means.

It is an incredible tool for learning how to shoot efficiently because every frame counts, whereas video teaches one to be very sloppy and lazy because it's so cheap in every sense of the word.

Them's my two cents.

That all said, I'm shooting a lot more on 16mm film these days anyway.

Very true.

When shooting 8mm, you make damn sure you get the best 3 minutes of footage possible out of that $20 roll. There's no room for screwing around.

When shooting videotape or dv, there is a tendancy to produce hours of useless video that needs to be edited down to something useful.

Take for example those videos of our youth where the family christmas was effectively captured by dad's movie camera in 3 minutes. Now we have soccer moms cranking out hours and hours of useless camcorder video of their kids opening EVERY present they ever get on EVERY special ocassion.

/Agrees with Sable & Myelin. Shooting film teaches you to gauge what's important and what's not. Your first few rolls might turn out like crap, but you'll learn very quickly what works and what doesn't - either that or you'll go broke.

Shot properly super 8 rivals standard definition video (including MiniDV) in terms of resolution. It produces a unique look, richer colours and gives you superior exposure latitude when compared to video, especially if you shoot negative stock.

The question is what do you want to do with your footage. Do you want something artistic and unique, or do you want the equivalent of home video footage? I have super 8, 16mm and MiniDV equipment and use all of it for different things.

Shoot some test rolls and get them developped. See what you think. If you have a local film cooperative talk to them, someone there will probably know about super 8. www.filmshooting.com is also a great place for information and advice.

Good luck!

It's a little bit of a step up, but 16mm is awesome. It helps that the world headquarters of Kodak is only a few miles from me, and that there are a lot of good labs in town, but if you ever get to it beats Dv Hands down. If I had the choice between 16 and Hd I would go 16 for most projects now. It really depends on how you're shooting.