Full length super 8 wedding film

Brian Boyko · September 9th, 2008, 09:30 AM

To me, those light-exposures, blurry shots, technical errors are the point.

A professional super-8 shoot from the 1990s wouldn't have those errors. An -amateur- super-8 shoot from the 1970s would.

Oleg Kalyan · September 9th, 2008, 10:35 AM

Really enjoyed the look and feed of the film, great couple too!

Question how did you record the audio. Have you transfered the video to DV to go to editing?
Very unusual and inspirational piece, for authenticity!

David T. Green · September 9th, 2008, 12:37 PM

I;m also one who has enjoyed this wedding film and when you look at film's from hollywood you also see errors which they try to hide but as a pro when we look at them, we see the errors.
There is no perfect film out there and i think this was a great job done.

Colin McDonald · September 9th, 2008, 02:15 PM

OK, so I'm out-voted!

Like I said, interesting film, lots of hard work, good shots but edit style not for me.
Thanks for posting, Joe, and look forward to seeing your next work.

Shaun Conner · September 15th, 2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Simon

I just finished up my first full length Super 8mm wedding film and wanted to get some feed back. This was a single camera shoot that I did to test out some of my new cameras and get a feel for shooting a full wedding vintage style. I used the Canon 814XLS.

I recorded sound during the ceremony with two wireless mics and synced in post. As you will notice I did not record audio during the pre-ceremony and with the lack of nat. sound I feel it drags a bit. Let me know what you guys think of this, I'm might go back in and re-edit it so it's shorter.

You can check it out here on my blog -

Joe Simon Productions: Super 8mm Vintage Wedding film

Thanks for watching!

I loved it. I hope to add this to my package eventually.

Charlie Wiser · August 16th, 2010, 12:32 PM

Excellent! I don't know what Collin was going on about.

Rainer Listing · August 16th, 2010, 04:34 PM

Since the thread has been revived, I'll just comment I'm entirely with Colin. Could be that those of us who used to shoot 8/Super8 long ago and have moved on just don't get it.

Stephen J. Williams · August 16th, 2010, 04:49 PM

Joe...

Uhhhgg,,, Now I want to take my 814 out of the case and use it on my next wedding.

1 question... what was it like during the ceremony. Mine is pretty loud and I would think that the camera rolling could be a little distracting during the quite times.

Steve

Philip Howells · August 16th, 2010, 11:31 PM

Joe, I'm sorry to be another dissenting voice but I fail to see why "errors" like film burns are considered acceptable even desirable when almost every amateur NLE includes the device. Frankly, transferred to video for editing and the application of silly effects isn't a film any more. My thought when watching was why didn't he throw in the "Old Film" filter for good measure.

I am surprised that the film transfer introduced imperfections. I thought the general image quality was good enough to have been done by telecine chain - unless the telecine operator is a klutz

I was a very keen amateur film maker - 9.5mm, Super-8 then Single-8 for in-camera dissolves - from the mid 50's my first camera (Pathe Baby) cost me £1 in 1953. I never aspired to an 814 though before I went over to Fuji's Single 8 I had a Canon 518 with the huge chunk of telephoto extender which was actually very good and with which I won some amateur awards.

But I also had a tripod and disdain wobbly cam under any but the most expert circumstances. Hill St Blues made it look easy but any pro knows that it is exactly the opposite and this film certainly isn't pro.

More to the point, the content was to my mind mundane and amateur. Sideways shots from cars only work in dramatic clips, wheels close the edge etc - to portray the view it simply doesn't work, in film or video or stills.

Sorry Joe, just my 2c and not intended to be unkind. I'm pleased you have a strong following of admirers but I can't be one of them. I agree that the circumstances under which we all worked then were more demanding - imagine being the cameraman filming an unrepeatable event and not knowing what you got until the film came back from the lab - but the work we did then, even as amateurs, was better than Brian suggests.

Chad Nickle · August 17th, 2010, 12:00 PM

How old is this thread? Almost two years. I really don't think any of this is relevant anymore, not to mention Joe has since become recognized as one of the best in the business since he posted this.

What seems amateurish is to come on a necro thread and criticize a piece of work from somebody that was posted years ago!

This horse died loooong ago. I seriously doubt Joe even comes on these boards anymore.

September 9th, 2008, 09:30 AM	#16
Brian Boyko Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 773	To me, those light-exposures, blurry shots, technical errors are the point. A professional super-8 shoot from the 1990s wouldn't have those errors. An -amateur- super-8 shoot from the 1970s would. __________________ Equip: Panny GH1, Canon HG20, Juicedlink, AT897, Sennh. EW/GW100, Zoom H2, Vegas 8.1

September 9th, 2008, 02:15 PM	#19
Colin McDonald Trustee Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 1,546	So I missed the point OK, so I'm out-voted! Like I said, interesting film, lots of hard work, good shots but edit style not for me. Thanks for posting, Joe, and look forward to seeing your next work.

September 9th, 2008, 10:35 AM	#17
Oleg Kalyan Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: MOSCOW Posts: 860	Really enjoyed the look and feed of the film, great couple too! Question how did you record the audio. Have you transfered the video to DV to go to editing? Very unusual and inspirational piece, for authenticity!

September 9th, 2008, 12:37 PM	#18
David T. Green Tourist Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Barbados Posts: 3	I;m also one who has enjoyed this wedding film and when you look at film's from hollywood you also see errors which they try to hide but as a pro when we look at them, we see the errors. There is no perfect film out there and i think this was a great job done.

August 16th, 2010, 12:32 PM	#21
Charlie Wiser Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: UK Posts: 32	Excellent! I don't know what Collin was going on about.

August 16th, 2010, 04:34 PM	#22
Rainer Listing Major Player Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Nowra, Australia Posts: 440	Since the thread has been revived, I'll just comment I'm entirely with Colin. Could be that those of us who used to shoot 8/Super8 long ago and have moved on just don't get it.

August 16th, 2010, 04:49 PM	#23
Stephen J. Williams Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 768	Joe... Uhhhgg,,, Now I want to take my 814 out of the case and use it on my next wedding. 1 question... what was it like during the ceremony. Mine is pretty loud and I would think that the camera rolling could be a little distracting during the quite times. Steve

August 16th, 2010, 11:31 PM	#24
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Joe, I'm sorry to be another dissenting voice but I fail to see why "errors" like film burns are considered acceptable even desirable when almost every amateur NLE includes the device. Frankly, transferred to video for editing and the application of silly effects isn't a film any more. My thought when watching was why didn't he throw in the "Old Film" filter for good measure. I am surprised that the film transfer introduced imperfections. I thought the general image quality was good enough to have been done by telecine chain - unless the telecine operator is a klutz I was a very keen amateur film maker - 9.5mm, Super-8 then Single-8 for in-camera dissolves - from the mid 50's my first camera (Pathe Baby) cost me £1 in 1953. I never aspired to an 814 though before I went over to Fuji's Single 8 I had a Canon 518 with the huge chunk of telephoto extender which was actually very good and with which I won some amateur awards. But I also had a tripod and disdain wobbly cam under any but the most expert circumstances. Hill St Blues made it look easy but any pro knows that it is exactly the opposite and this film certainly isn't pro. More to the point, the content was to my mind mundane and amateur. Sideways shots from cars only work in dramatic clips, wheels close the edge etc - to portray the view it simply doesn't work, in film or video or stills. Sorry Joe, just my 2c and not intended to be unkind. I'm pleased you have a strong following of admirers but I can't be one of them. I agree that the circumstances under which we all worked then were more demanding - imagine being the cameraman filming an unrepeatable event and not knowing what you got until the film came back from the lab - but the work we did then, even as amateurs, was better than Brian suggests.

August 17th, 2010, 12:00 PM	#25
Chad Nickle Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 84	How old is this thread? Almost two years. I really don't think any of this is relevant anymore, not to mention Joe has since become recognized as one of the best in the business since he posted this. What seems amateurish is to come on a necro thread and criticize a piece of work from somebody that was posted years ago! This horse died loooong ago. I seriously doubt Joe even comes on these boards anymore.