Super 8 or 16?

[SCarton]

Hey Everybody,

I am a writer-director, soon to begin prep on a silent, black-and-white short that I would like to shoot on film. This is a very stylized, fictional piece that I intend for festival submission. The entire piece will be shot in daytime exteriors in Los Angeles.

I am weighing whether to shoot on Super 8 or 16/S16 (I will transfer to video for post, and submit DVDs to the festivals). As I will be shooting in Los Angeles, it will be very easy for me to head over to Spectra for pick-up / drop off of film.

Here are the pros and cons of Super 8mm as I see them:

PROS

1. I have extensive experience with Super 8mm. I have never worked with 16.
2. I own Super 8 equipment: camera, projector. I can load and shoot. If I go 16, I'll have to buy or rent.
3. Super 8 film / processing will be cheaper than 16.
4. Fewer crew members for Super 8mm I suppose. With 16, I would feel compelled to hire a DP, maybe an assistant to load.

CONS

1. Superior image / res with 16
2. Would festivals not accept a film shot in Super 8 (even if submitted on DVD)?
3. Would festivals that do accept it, not take it as seriously as 16mm / other entries?
4. Not really a "con," but I have a very close filmmaker friend who has offered to lend me his entire 16mm equipment for the shoot (I think he has a Bolex).

Thoughts? I especially need some guidance regarding the festival questions.

[kuparikettu]

I'd add one con for using super-8: unpredictability. This means that there might be some hiccups which wouldn't emerge when using loaded film vs super-8 cartridges. Also image stability might be an issue.

However, I really think it depends on what kind of production you want to have. If it's more "run and gun" super-8 is certainly a good idea. If needed, you'll be able to just go with your actors and work fast. With super-8 you won't be needing an AC to help pull focus.

If, however, you're going to put thousands of Euros to this production, 16mm will certainly be safer option. Also if you're lighting the set etc. Then get yourself a good DP, a camera the DP knows how to use (don't rule out renting, there are good deals to be had esp. during these times of film being used less) and an AC to do the focus pulling. Shooting on 16mm might even be film-wise the same cost as shooting on super-8, because you'll be able to shoot on short ends and there are even more good transfer houses for 16mm than for super-8.

As for the festivals--- they are much more interested in the story than the medium it's shot on. Super-8, 16mm, digital -- what ever gets the story told. Of course if you have a 35mm film copy you'll be able to enter many festivals that don't accept dvds or digibeta as the screening copy.

To conclude: I myself started writing a screenplay in May 2008. We thought first about shooting on super-8, because I had some vision2 in the fridge. However, I found for our project a very good DP, and quite soon we had rented an Aaton XTR, HMIs, van etc. You can find the trailer for our film here: http://www.kutsumuselokuva.net/en/

[Arislan]

That was a very impressive trailer, you could see your DP knew what he was doing, but I felt it was a missed opportunity because I'd have loved to have seen it in Super 8. ;-)

[woods01]

Shoot what you're comfortable with but consider what is appropriate for your story. After looking at kuparikettu's trailer its hard to imagine that being the same film on super 8.

Don't be afraid to recruit a DP even if you end up shooting on Super 8. Having a creative partner will make the shoot easier and better.

[SCarton]

Thanks for the replies. That was a beautiful trailer!

I should have mentioned the budget. I just finished the script, so this is only a rough estimate, but I'd say at least 10,000 dollars (about 7,000 Euros?). The film length will be 10-12 minutes.

[kuparikettu]

I should have mentioned the budget. I just finished the script, so this is only a rough estimate, but I'd say at least 10,000 dollars (about 7,000 Euros?). The film length will be 10-12 minutes.

Do you have to pay your team and actors?

If not... with that kind of budget I'd go for 16mm, if the choice is purely practical and not artistic. If you don't have too many locations, you should be able to shoot the film in a week, which means you can usually rent the equipment for a week for the price of four days. You'll get a serviced, well running modern camera and they'll have a backup for you if the camera decides to die during the shoot.

We shot our film in seven days, seven locations and with about 5:1 ratio. The final film is 19 minutes long, so we had 100 minutes worth of raw film, Vision2 200T short ends, recans and new stock bought from Filmxchange. I was eligible for student discounts, so be sure to use those if you're eligible.

As for the telecine, on your side of ocean there seems to be a rather cost effective and good transfer house if shooting on 16mm... http://www.scanyourfilm.com

[Nicholas Kovats]

I would like to suggest a new film format called UltraPan8. Details forthcoming.

[grainy]

hmm, I thought I posted something earlier on this but I agree with Woods - if you've got the budget for both, the question is what's appropriate for the story? RE: festivals, my super 8 short got into a festival just fine back in April, looked great projected digitally from Blu-ray disc.
Best of luck!
G

[sk360]

Honestly, these days it's about the same price wise for either formart. Although with 100D is may be a buck less if your a student go directly through Kodak and have your processing done at Walmart( unless Dwayne has stopped dealing with them).

As to whatever is the better format, you really need to do as much research as possible to decide what works best for you. One thing I like to do is look to see what other filmmakers have to say( especially cinematographers as they generally know more then directors when it comes to cameras) about using what kind of camera or stock they choose for their projects. For myself, I mostly like shooting B&W reversal; both in super 8 as I love the old Anton Corbijn music videos and 16mm that guys like Jarmusch, Van Sant and Aronofsky use when they made their first features.

Do your homework and know your tools as a wise old teckie told me years ago.

[SCarton]

I should have mentioned the budget. I just finished the script, so this is only a rough estimate, but I'd say at least 10,000 dollars (about 7,000 Euros?). The film length will be 10-12 minutes.

Do you have to pay your team and actors?

If not... with that kind of budget I'd go for 16mm, if the choice is purely practical and not artistic. If you don't have too many locations, you should be able to shoot the film in a week, which means you can usually rent the equipment for a week for the price of four days. You'll get a serviced, well running modern camera and they'll have a backup for you if the camera decides to die during the shoot.
http://www.scanyourfilm.com

I will be paying my crew and my actors. However, the entire shoot is in one single exterior location.

[Will2]

...I'd have loved to have seen it in Super 8. ;-)

16mm was perfect for this. Beautiful images, great costume and set design. 8mm would have been a gimmick and not supported the story in this case. Maybe if there were flashbacks from within the story or something but the main story worked great on 16.