What should we call the widescreen version of super 8?

Post by **sonickel** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:05 am

Well I like Hyper 8 the best. It sounds fun and exciting, and is short as well.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:32 pm

Rick Palidwor wrote:when I tell people I am shooting "super-duper 8" (and I tell a lot of people, mostly filmmakers) no one has ever dismissed me because of the name

Same here. They generally dismiss me for other reasons. :lol:

Roger

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:02 pm

Sure they're dismissing you, just not to your face. They'll wait until you've left the room. Nothing has stood in my way more than being honest and refusing to suck up to people here in Canada in an industry built on cliques and political correctness and devoid of the eventual weeding out process of economic realities like it is in the States to a certain degree (which is also not perfect, but at least there's an honesty to that). These people are good actors and game players. That's how they got where they are and stay where they are.

Okay, I'm going to tell you -- on a large patio back just before you had an initial screening of your film a couple of years ago, an upcoming producer (whom you know, of a "Hungarian bent"

) mentioned this screening (he was enthusiastic) and people were interested when he mentioned a new process and modifying cameras. Then he mentioned the "super duper 8" name with these young directors, producers, writers. There was smirking and they moved on body language-wise and those people lost interest -- he might not have noticed, but I could see the reactions. I had yet to rediscover super 8 for myself and ended up not going. True story. None of those people would dismiss you to your face. They didn't dismiss him, either -- but the body language was a giveaway. I don't think anybody went.

Post by **Lunar07** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:45 pm

Mitch Perkins wrote: I chose "Super Duper 8" *because* it's silly!

Are you saying that the feature created with this system was a silly idea after all! That this whole thing is silly and we are being asked to pay money to convert a camera or to buy a DVD of the film is a silly idea and that you are taking people for a laugh?
You said that, I did not!

Post by **Lunar07** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:53 pm

Rick Palidwor wrote: I agree with Roger: no matter what we call it most people don't take super 8 seriously.

This is an attitude that truly bothers me.
Rick -
At least try to take yourself seriously. If you do, maybe others will take Super8 seriously. You did create a film after all in Super 8 in your format. Right? Would you call that a silly idea? Not serious?
People who work in this format are the ones who can make it serious!
This is not about being worked up over the name of a format - it is about showing some respect for the medium you work in - showing some respect for your work - showing some respect for yourself as an artist.

Mitch says that he called it Super Duper 8 because it silly. These were his words! I was going to send you a Nizo 6080 for modification. I am NOT going to do that anymore. I am not going to pay Mitch money over something that he thinks is silly after all. Mitch shows disrespect for people who take art and the medium seriously. I am not going to allow him to laugh at me while he runs to the bank with my money.

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:04 pm

Lunar07 wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote: I chose "Super Duper 8" *because* it's silly!
Are you saying that the feature created with this system was a silly idea after all! That this whole thing is silly and we are being asked to pay money to convert a camera or to buy a DVD of the film is a silly idea and that you are taking people for a laugh?
You said that, I did not!

Well, Mr. Wizard of Intelligence, let me clarify; I chose the *name* Super Duper 8 because it is silly. Okay then? The *name*.
Watch out though; you're next...

http://www.scholastic.com/captainunderp ... hanger.htm

Ever heard of a little company nobody takes seriously called "Google"? How 'bout "Yahoo!"? In Canada, we have BMO ("bee-moe", Bank of Montreal).
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "this whole thing is silly", but if you are refering to life in general, yes, I am saying it is silly.

Mitch

Post by **B Movie Mogul** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:20 pm

Ultrasuperscoporamavison S8 Plus

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:57 pm

Lunar07 wrote:
Rick Palidwor wrote: I agree with Roger: no matter what we call it most people don't take super 8 seriously.
This is an attitude that truly bothers me.

Rick's, or "most people"'s? Either way, I suggest you get past it.

Rick -
At least try to take yourself seriously.

Rest assured, Rick takes himself no more or less seriously than he should.

If you do, maybe others will take Super8 seriously.

You might want to re-check that equation.

You did create a film after all in Super 8 in your format. Right? Would you call that a silly idea? Not serious?

I would call that a stupid question.

People who work in this format are the ones who can make it serious!
This is not about being worked up over the name of a format - it is about showing some respect for the medium you work in - showing some respect for your work - showing some respect for yourself as an artist.

Thank you Dr. Phil.

Mitch says that he called it Super Duper 8 because it silly. These were his words!

No, I used the word "it's".

I was going to send you a Nizo 6080 for modification.

Rick does not perform modifications to Super 8 cameras.

I am NOT going to do that anymore.

This is true.

I am not going to pay Mitch money over something that he thinks is silly after all.

[sniffle] So much for my whirlwind tour of the gullies of Puslinch.

Mitch shows disrespect for people who take art and the medium seriously.

...by completing a feature film - how disrespectful!

I am not going to allow him to laugh at me while he runs to the bank with my money.

I never *run* to the bank; might trip and drop all that gate conversion cash! I am however, laughing at you nonetheless.
BTW, just *try* to find someone else to remove a small amount of material from a metallic object with a file! Ha! I am the only person in the *world* who can perform such magic!

Mitch

Post by **christoph** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:09 pm

i dont really care that much how people call it but i think the same as mitch, super duper 8 is really funny, and it will diss all those people that think that it "looks just as good as 16mm, really"..

the idea itself is not silly but fun to play with.. and if you need widescreen it's probably your best bet if you are concerned with image quality.
that is, if you enjoy to mess around with non standard gates, lens coverage, viewfinder issues, scratch risks and special telecine - i know i do... but i also like 1:1.33 ;)

++ christoph ++

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:37 pm

Lunar07 wrote:
Rick Palidwor wrote: I agree with Roger: no matter what we call it most people don't take super 8 seriously.
This is an attitude that truly bothers me.
Rick -
At least try to take yourself seriously. If you do, maybe others will take Super8 seriously.

Most of the bad films out of Hollywood were shot in the highly respected format of Panavision, thus, it is deeds, not words, that create or destroy credability. A bad film in IMAX is still a bad film and isn't any better because it is called IMAX. Creating a good film on super 8 film is the harder part of the equation than what to call the format. If the film is no good, the name "Super 8" will not garner any more or less respect than "Super Duper 8". If someone already likes and uses Super 8, then using a wider gate is going to be what attacts them, not the name. If they are already predisposed to not like Super 8, the name Super Duper 8 isn't going to make them use Super 8 even less. As far as the average person not familiar with Super 8 that might have a passing interest in film making, well, the name "Super 8" hardly commands respect from the get go. My experience is that people still have to see good imagery in Super 8 to believe it is even possible.

Roger

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:52 pm

christoph wrote:i dont really care that much how people call it but i think the same as mitch, super duper 8 is really funny, and it will diss all those people that think that it "looks just as good as 16mm, really"..

the idea itself is not silly but fun to play with.. and if you need widescreen it's probably your best bet if you are concerned with image quality.
that is, if you enjoy to mess around with non standard gates, lens coverage, viewfinder issues, scratch risks and special telecine - i know i do... but i also like 1:1.33 ;)

++ christoph ++

Hi christoph,

Just a note on scratch risks - I would expect all images exposed in the Supercalafragilistiosohohohoh 8, or whatever you want to call it, format to exhibit scratching in the soundstripe area. This is because the film has to make contact with the rollers in the processor *somewhere*. One even mildly sticking roller and...
The poor woman's wet gate is naught more than a couple of cloth make-up pads soaked in alcohol. The purer the alcohol, the sicker you feel whilst transfering. Nice! We used 99%, which means it was 1% water. The film "grew" crystals almost immediately. However, being perfectionists, we had the film professionally cleaned immediately post transfer (immediately = about a month or two). All was fine.

Mitch

Post by **reflex** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:57 pm

There are quite a few interpersonal hand grenades flying around. I'm excited about widescreen Super 8 - its a great way to maximize the format. Perhaps I should tell you the story behind the inspiration for this post.

A couple of weeks ago, I was reinstalling the widened film gate on one of my cameras when my wife walked in and asked what I was doing.

"Changing the camera so it can shoot Super Duper 8," I responded.

She looked at me to see if I was serious, and then burst out laughing, "What an awful name!"

As she giggled her way downstairs, I realized this was one of those rare moments when someone stands up and shouts that the Emperor has no clothes.

And so I decided to begin a hunt for a more respectable name, with the aim of promoting the format as much as possible. I'm looking to all of you to help me.

Post by **Lunar07** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:04 pm

You know something Mitchie boy - you remind me of those students who used to work with me long ago in a Physics lab. They were geeky, and smart alecky, and they were good with building gadgets. And they thought everything was silly and they took everything they heard with sarcasm. But they were lonely, and I always felt bad for them. Because basically they did not have a life.
You see Mitchie boy - I do feel bad for you, because in everything you said - I am certain that the only thing you are good at in life is filing the camera gate, and even then, at the one thing you are good at, you are silly!

Mitch Perkins wrote:
Lunar07 wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote: I chose "Super Duper 8" *because* it's silly!
Are you saying that the feature created with this system was a silly idea after all! That this whole thing is silly and we are being asked to pay money to convert a camera or to buy a DVD of the film is a silly idea and that you are taking people for a laugh?
You said that, I did not!
Well, Mr. Wizard of Intelligence, let me clarify; I chose the *name* Super Duper 8 because it is silly. Okay then? The *name*.
Watch out though; you're next...

http://www.scholastic.com/captainunderp ... hanger.htm

Ever heard of a little company nobody takes seriously called "Google"? How 'bout "Yahoo!"? In Canada, we have BMO ("bee-moe", Bank of Montreal).
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "this whole thing is silly", but if you are refering to life in general, yes, I am saying it is silly.

Mitch

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:11 pm

reflex wrote: She looked at me to see if I was serious, and then burst out laughing, "What an awful name!"

But she'll always remember it. Sometimes marketing isn't about what sounds the coolest but what is most memorable. Google, PayPal, Yahoo are some internet names that come to mind. Slick50, Goo-B-Gone are a couple of other very successful procuct lines that have silly names. I mean, make no mistake, I agree that "Super Duper 8" does sound silly. The only question is whether it sounding silly really makes a difference to the content of the film or the audience's acceptance of the story. We should be so lucky to have audiences lacking such apathy. From where I stand, an audience that actually cares seems more rare than a well produced super 8 film, regardless of gate size.

Roger

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:16 pm

Lunar07 wrote:You know something Mitchie boy - you remind me of those students who used to work with me long ago in a Physics lab. They were geeky, and smart alecky, and they were good with building gadgets. And they thought everything was silly and they took everything they heard with sarcasm. But they were lonely, and I always felt bad for them. Because basically they did not have a life.
You see Mitchie boy - I do feel bad for you, because in everything you said - I am certain that the only thing you are good at in life is filing the camera gate, and even then, at the one thing you are good at, you are silly!

This seems a bit harsh, don't you think? I mean, what's in a name and why is it so important to you? Call it what you want, just as you don't need our okay to name your dog. The same applies to Mitch. He doesn't need anyone's approval for what he calls it. I don't see what sort of transgression Mitch has made that deserves such dissing. This discussion should be fun, not insulting.

Roger

Filmshooting

What should we call the widescreen version of super 8?

What name would you choose to describe the widescreen Super 8 format?