DVX-100a or Super 8mm at DVinfo.net

John A. Davies · March 12th, 2006, 04:17 PM

I want to shoot a feature with some friends in the near future and we're debating using the DVX-100a (Which we have) or shooting on super 8mm. I've never shot on 8mm before so I'm not aware of all the pro's and con's of it. If anybody has any experience shooting both I'd love to hear opinions. I'm not looking for which is better, just some points I may not know to consider.

Brendan Sundry · March 12th, 2006, 04:36 PM

John,

Id take the oney youd be spending on film and processing and hire a mini35.

BS

Mathieu Ghekiere · March 12th, 2006, 05:12 PM

DVX: you'll get nicer images I think, and it will be much easier to collor correct and edit.

Richard Alvarez · March 12th, 2006, 06:34 PM

I own ten super 8 cameras. Love to shoot with them. They are a lot of fun, and give great images. You can shoot Kodak Vision Negative stock now as well. Have the footage processed and telecined in one lab.

Having said that, I wouldn't attempt a feature with super 8 for a number of reasons.

Increased cost is amoung them. I think it's great for film look for shorts, special effects, and music videos. But shooting an entire feature, double system sound, with a rebuilt super 8 camera is going to cost you a whole lot more than renting a mini35 adapter and shooting tape. Plus you won't get shallow depth of field you can get with the adapter. Super 8 has about the same depth of field as most mini-dv cams. That is to say, deep.

And the cartidge load is less than three minutes.

If you want to shoot film, shoot super 16. It won't cost you much more and the cameras available for rental are a lot more reliable than the super 8 cams you will find. (Remember, you will need a crystal synch motor, and a blimped housing)

March 12th, 2006, 04:17 PM	#1
John A. Davies New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Dartmouth, Canada Posts: 16	DVX-100a or Super 8mm I want to shoot a feature with some friends in the near future and we're debating using the DVX-100a (Which we have) or shooting on super 8mm. I've never shot on 8mm before so I'm not aware of all the pro's and con's of it. If anybody has any experience shooting both I'd love to hear opinions. I'm not looking for which is better, just some points I may not know to consider.

March 12th, 2006, 05:12 PM	#3
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	DVX: you'll get nicer images I think, and it will be much easier to collor correct and edit. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

March 12th, 2006, 04:36 PM	#2
Brendan Sundry Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 112	John, Id take the oney youd be spending on film and processing and hire a mini35. BS

March 12th, 2006, 06:34 PM	#4
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I own ten super 8 cameras. Love to shoot with them. They are a lot of fun, and give great images. You can shoot Kodak Vision Negative stock now as well. Have the footage processed and telecined in one lab. Having said that, I wouldn't attempt a feature with super 8 for a number of reasons. Increased cost is amoung them. I think it's great for film look for shorts, special effects, and music videos. But shooting an entire feature, double system sound, with a rebuilt super 8 camera is going to cost you a whole lot more than renting a mini35 adapter and shooting tape. Plus you won't get shallow depth of field you can get with the adapter. Super 8 has about the same depth of field as most mini-dv cams. That is to say, deep. And the cartidge load is less than three minutes. If you want to shoot film, shoot super 16. It won't cost you much more and the cameras available for rental are a lot more reliable than the super 8 cams you will find. (Remember, you will need a crystal synch motor, and a blimped housing)