WHICH SYSTEM - REALLY?

[Esoteric]

With grateful thanks to everyone who has helped to point me in the right direction with regard to choosing suitable 16mm equipment, I am about ready to take the plunge and try out this format.

However, just before doing so, and with the news that Fuji are continuing with Single 8 (which I seriously considered switching to earlier) I should like to get the Forum's opinion which, out of Standard 8; Super 8; Single 8; or 16mm I should finally settle on.

I currently shoot Standard 8 and Super 8, using Cinevia cartridges for Super 8, as they seem to be the only ones to work satisfactorily in my Bauer cameras.

Thanks for your opinions in advance.

[reflex]

Shortest remaining lifespan:
Single-8 - Fuji has not promised availability forever. Their recent announcement suggests they will stop making the format within the next five years. Not truly compatible with widescreen TV and looks overly soft in HD. Extremely limited stock availability.

Unknown lifespan:
Super 8 - Market outlook looks slightly stronger, simply because there are more Super 8 cameras in the world. Easy to get film by calling Kodak or third parties. No new cameras have been made for years, so it's likely the format will come to an end within the next decade. Kodak hasn't offered filmmakers a long-term product roadmap like Fuji recently did. Not truly compatible with widescreen TV and looks overly soft in HD.

Longest lifespan:
16mm - Still used professionally, new cameras are still being designed and marketed. More-or-less affordable Super 16 conversions are available for Bolex and other popular models, making the format widescreen TV compatible. Looks "arty" in HD. Will outlive Single-8 and Super 8, probably by decades.

[Esoteric]

reflex!

"You obviously 'da man"!! 8)

This really answers my question in a nutshell. Thank you so much for such a definitive answer - which is what I needed.

I can now proceed into 16mm with impunity. :lol:

[reflex]

Well, I still shoot far more Super 8 than 16mm because it's such a convenient format - small cameras and easy to load film packs.

16 has it's frustrations, too... Good optics tend to be expensive, the stock is more expensive on a per minute basis, and others on this board have been on the receiving end of my rants about trying to quickly and correctly load a Beaulieu R-16 (AKA The Spaghetti Monster). It took me hours of "slug practice" to learn that particular skill.

[mattias]

which, out of Standard 8; Super 8; Single 8; or 16mm I should finally settle on.

why settle? standard 8 and single 8 are dying formats, and super 8 and 16mm are completely different and both have their advantages.

/matt

[BigBeaner]

Seriously, experiment with them all, definitely give 16mm a shot and post the results here, I'm sure we would all like to give them a look but you don't have to choose just one for rest of your life, some projects one standard would be better than the other.

[Esoteric]

OK, Gentlemen - point taken!

I guess you're right. I'll continue with Standard 8 and Super 8, probably give Single 8 a miss for the time being, and dip my toes in the waters of 16mm - just to get a feel for it. No urgency. I'll keep an eye open for a Canon Scoopix, as it seems to be a good bet. I think an Arriflex is probably not really justifiable!!!!

Sincere thanks again to everyone for your input.

Kindest regards to all,

[audadvnc]

Even a Canon Scoopix isn't justified if you're trying to do 16mm on the cheap. Just buy any 16mm camera that you can afford, it doesn't have to be pro-level. One of my favorite 16mm cameras is a B&H 200 magazine camera that I bought for less than $25. Cheap, rugged, smaller than most S8 cameras, takes fine pictures, and if it breaks I'll throw it out and get another one. And yes you can still buy NOS magazines loaded with Plus-X 7231 from Java Photo in Atlanta.

[kentbulza]

Shortest remaining lifespan:
Single-8 - Fuji has not promised availability forever. Their recent announcement suggests they will stop making the format within the next five years. Not truly compatible with widescreen TV and looks overly soft in HD. Extremely limited stock availability.

Unknown lifespan:
Super 8 - Market outlook looks slightly stronger, simply because there are more Super 8 cameras in the world. Easy to get film by calling Kodak or third parties. No new cameras have been made for years, so it's likely the format will come to an end within the next decade. Kodak hasn't offered filmmakers a long-term product roadmap like Fuji recently did. Not truly compatible with widescreen TV and looks overly soft in HD.

Longest lifespan:
16mm - Still used professionally, new cameras are still being designed and marketed. More-or-less affordable Super 16 conversions are available for Bolex and other popular models, making the format widescreen TV compatible. Looks "arty" in HD. Will outlive Single-8 and Super 8, probably by decades.

If it comes down to loading film yourself, certainly Single-8 is the easier of the Type S films and thus ensures long-term availability somewhat to the same degree Standard 8 does.

[audadvnc]

If it comes down to loading film yourself, certainly Single-8 is the easier of the Type S films and thus ensures long-term availability somewhat to the same degree Standard 8 does.

Unnh, what? Do you load Single 8 cartridges? Why not load 16mm magazines? Or hire your little brother to load them for you? Again, 16mm will be around for decades, Single 8 probably won't last the year.

[marc]

I think that Standard 8 has a bigger chance of survival than many realize. Because as long as 16mm is going strong, it seems that Regular 8 has a fairly good chance of surviving along side of it. And I doubt that Super 8 has a better chance of surviving than 16mm. Regular 8 uses the same specs as 16mm except that the frame is half the height and width. The sprocked holes are identical!

[mattias]

The sprocked holes are identical!

the holes, sure, but not their pitch. It's easier to reperf 16 to d8 than to s8 though, that much is for sure. As for softness in hd (i missed that before) i disagree. S8 is already "too soft" in sd, and enlarging the frame only increases the sharpness on the grain while hardly changing the "actual image" at all. /matt

[marc]

The sprocked holes are identical!

the holes, sure, but not their pitch. It's easier to reperf 16 to d8 than to s8 though, that much is for sure. As for softness in hd (i missed that before) i disagree. S8 is already "too soft" in sd, and enlarging the frame only increases the sharpness on the grain while hardly changing the "actual image" at all. /matt

I think that we must have misunderstood eachother. BY standard 8 I also mean Double 8. The Sproked holes are the same and just half the pitch. I agree, Super 8 is way off. Not only is the pitch not some even factor but the sprocket holes are totally different.

[mattias]

The sprocked holes are identical!

the holes, sure, but not their pitch.

I think that we must have misunderstood eachother. BY standard 8 I also mean Double 8. The Sproked holes are the same and just half the pitch.

i fail to see where the misunderstanding would be. this sounds like the completest of all complete agreements i've ever seen. we almost even use the same words. ;-)

where we differ is that you say "just" half the pitch, while i'm saying that if that's not an important difference what is? it sounds like you're saying that you can use 16mm film in r8/d8 cameras without reperfing, which you obviously can't.

/matt