What should we call the widescreen version of super 8?

[Taqi]

8&1/2

[Dre]

PAN8

I really like the sound of that. It's short and to the point. It's perfect! To bad I can't change my vote.

[Santo]

Is Pan8 potentially a violation of a company's trademark name?

Not that they'd care unless some sort of big breakthrough film happened that entered the radar using a filed gate and the filmmakers used the term Pan8. Panavision seems pretty anal-retentive. They might actually launch a case if such far-flung circumstances should occur. They'd probably lose -- unless somebody called it Pana8.

Pan8 is a pretty good alternative to Wide8.

[JCook]

Showing my ignorance of the topic here...

What constitutes wide screen 8, is this a new wider film emulsion, anamorphic lens or masking/pan and scan?

John

[Mitch Perkins]

Is Pan8 potentially a violation of a company's trademark name?

Not that they'd care unless some sort of big breakthrough film happened that entered the radar using a filed gate and the filmmakers used the term Pan8. Panavision seems pretty anal-retentive. They might actually launch a case if such far-flung circumstances should occur. They'd probably lose -- unless somebody called it Pana8.

Pan8 is a pretty good alternative to Wide8.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer ... sO_P.shtml

"Pan (Panchromatic)
Designation of films that record all colors in tones of about the same relative brightness as the human eye sees in the original scene, sensitive to all visible wave-lengths."

Not sure if this is good or bad news, from a "pro-PAN" POV,
but there it is.

Mitch

[Santo]

John -

We're talking about a bunch of guys filing out super 8 film gates for their cameras in their garages or basements or whatever to use up the left hand side edge of super 8 film stock that would have potentially been used for an optical sound strip. Of course it creates likely more problems than benefits throwning off framing and creating vignetting problems and emulsion scratches and -- I think a lot more problems numbers-wise and practicality-wise than benefits if you want to be objective, but this is all about tinkering. Shooting with the amazing new negatives and cropping 16x9 with the latest scanning devices will satisfy most anybody, but common sense and logic don't apply to tinkering like Wide 8 or Pan8. Not something I'd bother with, but I always appreciate tinkering and find it interesting.

[B Movie Mogul]

Well put

[Santo]

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer ... sO_P.shtml

"Pan (Panchromatic)
Designation of films that record all colors in tones of about the same relative brightness as the human eye sees in the original scene, sensitive to all visible wave-lengths."

Not sure if this is good or bad news, from a "pro-PAN" POV,
but there it is.

Mitch

It's bad news. It has nothing to do with the association that people using the Pan8 tag are using it for. If I were trying to make an argument in a court case, I'd point this out. Clearly, it is a play on my client's trademark name and not related to a actual accepted "film glossary term" of pan.

Though I guess the term pan in this context comes from panorama -- which nobody has rights to. So there you go.

[Lunar07]

I do not see the issue here. Google for Panchromatic and PANORAMA. These are not trade marks. Just photographic terms and I do not think these are owned by anyone. The fact that Kodak lists them in a glossary does not mean that Kodak owns the terms.

The item immediately over Pan (Panchromatic) is:
"P"-Format
"Pan" format - one of the three selectable Advanced Photo System print formats; a 1:3 aspect ratio that produces prints of 3.5 x 10.5 inches or up to 4.5 x 11.5 inches; suitable for panoramic shots and tall or wide subjects. See also Aspect Ratio and Interspersed Aspect Ratio.

This is very fitting and there is no problem with Pan8.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer ... sO_P.shtml

"Pan (Panchromatic)
Designation of films that record all colors in tones of about the same relative brightness as the human eye sees in the original scene, sensitive to all visible wave-lengths."

Not sure if this is good or bad news, from a "pro-PAN" POV,
but there it is.

Mitch

It's bad news. It has nothing to do with the association that people using the Pan8 tag are using it for. If I were trying to make an argument in a court case, I'd point this out. Clearly, it is a play on my client's trademark name and not related to a actual accepted "film glossary term" of pan.

Though I guess the term pan in this context comes from panorama -- which nobody has rights to. So there you go.

[Santo]

I was being/acting silly with the lawsuit bit. There's no problem, I'm certain. Panavis8 would be a problem. Maybe even if you used Pana8 since Panorama is spelled with an o and not an a.

[Mitch Perkins]

[quote="Santo"]John -
Shooting with the amazing new negatives and cropping 16x9 with the latest scanning devices will satisfy most anybody,

[snip]

I'd like to go on record as agreeing with you here, for the most part. It's easier and looks great. OTOH, anyone can set up their own telecine, basically out of *garbage*, and save a lot of money.
For me, it was just irksome to waste that extra mm of image area, and super du..oops easy to use it up.

Mitch
PS - I can't believe I asked Roger if he had GM wheels on his Ford. They don't even fucking fit! I'll pretend the limited run might have meant an exception. (no emoticon, ever)

[reflex]

this is all about tinkering. Shooting with the amazing new negatives and cropping 16x9 with the latest scanning devices will satisfy most anybody, but common sense and logic don't apply to.

Tinkering? I suppose so - its all about trying to "squeeze" the last little bit of performance from the emulsion. Just like guys who put the free-flow mufflers on their cars for the extra 2% performance boost.

As far as common sense goes, I disagree -- its all about making a fun format better.

[Santo]

PS - I can't believe I asked Roger if he had GM wheels on his Ford. They don't even fucking fit! I'll pretend the limited run might have meant an exception. (no emoticon, ever)

They do appear, from that angle, like the wheels you describe. But of course the bolt pattern is different. I was overly harsh with you the other night, I think, so I refrained from correcting you on that. I was already "overboard" on here.

Being a nitpicker fanatic on such things...Judging by the width of the tires, I'd put them at the 1969-70 Boss 302 range. So not of the same year as the car. Though who knows? Maybe they're aftermarket?

[FILM-THURSO]

How bout Wild Bitch for a name, now that we're down to name calling.
Film- Thurso is not a company nor has it ever been said to be. On here it's only a name and our group has a different name but it is a real group not invented, just reality. :lol:

[Sparky]

Just photographic terms and I do not think these are owned by anyone

Pan=ancient greek for "all" or "whole" - thats all!
No-one has copyright over ancient Greek so its not an issue at all.
And its quite fitting for the widened gate, if that makes you tick.

Mark