Does anyone have any clue what their reputation is? Good? Bad? Scam?
I ordered some rolls of 8mm from them nearly 2 weeks ago. A week ago I emailed them asking where my package was and they said it would ship the next day due to it being back ordered, (didnt even bother to tell me this at all to begin with). I'm still not receiving it. I suppose there are still a few days left to their credit. This just seems like really sloppy business.
I was wondering if anyone might know of some cheap & efficient online services for purchasing 8mm film. And also if 8mmflmstock actually is a legitimate business.
Thanks.
are they the ones that cut 35mm film into 8mm? if so then ive heard good things about them
are we talking about snuff films?
Quote from: cecil b. dementedare they the ones that cut 35mm film into 8mm? if so then ive heard good things about them
I'm not aware of them being able to do such a thing if so. Dunno.....
Yeah...I saw portions of Saving Private Ryan a classmate cut together for his experimental film on super8, and that was a trip, let me tell you.
That's Super 8 Sound (or Pro8mm, I think they go by both names now). They take various Kodak 35mm stocks and cut them down to size, so to speak. It's a great idea; unfortunately, it costs about as much as 16mm, so there's not really a point to it unless you already have a Super 8 camera and want to shoot some really nice looking stuff with it.
Quote from: GhostboyThat's Super 8 Sound (or Pro8mm, I think they go by both names now). They take various Kodak 35mm stocks and cut them down to size, so to speak. It's a great idea; unfortunately, it costs about as much as 16mm, so there's not really a point to it unless you already have a Super 8 camera and want to shoot some really nice looking stuff with it.
How is this possible? You shoot on 35mm quality film that's sized to fit your Super 8 camera? I thought the film was simply based on it's size, and the camera determines the quality.
Super-8 isn't exactly high demand stock. Like B&W, there hasn't been much upgrading throughout the years. I think what Ghostboy is suggesting is that they take premium 35mm stocks, and as he said "cut 'em down" to fit super-8. That way you're getting a higher quality stock.
Yes, because it's smaller it won't look as good as 35mm. But because you're using better stock, it'll look a lot better than traditional super-8.
I wonder if that would look any better than just shooting 16mm.
They make the same stocks for 35mm and 16mm. Primarily, we're talking about the Vision stocks. They were a mid-90s upgrade that's really revolutionized the image quality of film. Richer colors, tighter grain, higher contrast. They're also higher speed, in most cases, and can shoot in extremely low light levels without losing quality.
Some D.P.'s, however, don't really like them for the exact reasons stated above. People like Vilmos Zsigmond really prefer degraded images. He likes to push film and flash it too. People like him argue that these new stocks have been developed more for commercial use than anything else. Remember, commercials and videos are usually pretty slick with bright colors, etc.
On the other hand, you name a great looking film from the past half dozen years and it was probably either shot on Vision or printed on Vision. The one holdout still seems to be the old 93 stock with an ASA of 200. It has a certain look, though a bit grainier. A.I. and Memento were shot on it, for instance.
Quote from: mutinycoThey make the same stocks for 35mm and 16mm. Primarily, we're talking about the Vision stocks. They were a mid-90s upgrade that's really revolutionized the image quality of film. Richer colors, tighter grain, higher contrast. They're also higher speed, in most cases, and can shoot in extremely low light levels without losing quality.
Some D.P.'s, however, don't really like them for the exact reasons stated above. People like Vilmos Zsigmond really prefer degraded images. He likes to push film and flash it too. People like him argue that these new stocks have been developed more for commercial use than anything else. Remember, commercials and videos are usually pretty slick with bright colors, etc.
On the other hand, you name a great looking film from the past half dozen years and it was probably either shot on Vision or printed on Vision. The one holdout still seems to be the old 93 stock with an ASA of 200. It has a certain look, though a bit grainier. A.I. and Memento were shot on it, for instance.
Was Magnolia shot on Vision? That's one of the most incredible looking films, so I'm guessing no. I tend to go for the grainier films myself. What was Kubrick shooting on?
Can't guarantee it, but Magnolia looked like a lot the interiors and night sequences were shot on Vision 500T, can't be certain about the daylight exteriors. Looks like it was run through an ENR bath, too. ENR is a process Vittorio Storaro had developed at Technicolor Rome after Technicolor stopped printing "Technicolor". By that, I mean Technicolor prints were traditionally just that -- images printed on transparent strips the same way an image is printed in a magazine in CMYK, though I can't guarantee they used those colors.
Point is, they were literally prints of the films. Nowadays they're not really printed, they're developed rolls of actual film. The colors aren't as vibrant. The rerelease of Apocalypse Now Redux had REAL Technicolor prints used and they were exquisite. What ENR does is resilver the prints -- or negatives, depending on your preference. When film is processed the silver nitrate is stripped from the actual chemical make-up of the celluloid. ENR is a bath that reattaches the silver.
By doing this you heighten the contrast and bleach the color a bit. David Fincher's films are a perfect example of this. When he used it on Se7en everybody's heads spun. Now it's pretty commonplace and digital intermediaries are taking over.
Eyes Wide Shut was shot using the older Eastman 500 EXR stock. It was grainier, and since Kubrick pushed EWS 2 stops to achieve the degraded image,preffered the old EXR -- the Vision stock was too tight and when pushed tended to run a bit blue.
Yep, I was right -- Vision 500T. Go to:
http://www.ptanderson.com/featurefilms/magnolia/articlesandinterviews/elswitcw.htm
I just checked the site. Yes, they are selling Vision 200 as one of their stocks...
I know PT Anderson developed the film in his bathroom. Is that how he got the unique look to it? By using an ENR bath? That's just incredible...
Quote from: mutinycoEyes Wide Shut was shot using the older Eastman 500 EXR stock. It was grainier, and since Kubrick pushed EWS 2 stops to achieve the degraded image,preffered the old EXR -- the Vision stock was too tight and when pushed tended to run a bit blue.
I don't know if it was the lighting or the film used in Eyes Wide Shut but I was most impressed with the way colors from the Chistmas tree or the night would just invade the apartment's walls. I really wish Kubrick would have written a book on Lighting.
Kubrick used source lighting on everything. By that, I mean the lights you see are all there is. If there's a lamp in the room or a window...that's where the light is coming from.
Most D.P.'s cut light. They sculpt it for each shot. They use lights hidden off-screen and cut it with flags and diffuse them with screens, etc. But Kubrick used real sources. That way he could move more freely and shoot in low light levels. Also looks better.
Watch Eyes Wide Shut on the big screen, not DVD, and you'll notice a huge difference.
I can't imagine there being enough light to see anything on film by not using any extra lighting, much less create such images as he did. Was it the fact that he was using that camera he assembled with the lens NASA designed? I don't think he even had that camera until he was ready to shoot Barry Lyndon.
You can see examples of source lighting in his work as far back at Killer's Kiss. He always preferred it. For Barry Lyndon he had Nasa lenses fitted to a coule of old Mitchell BNC cameras.
But between advances in lenses and film stock he shot with source lighting. If you don't think that film is sensitive enough then you don't know much about film at this point. Stuff nowadays is ultrasensitive.
Quote from: mutinycoIf you don't think that film is sensitive enough then you don't know much about film at this point. Stuff nowadays is ultrasensitive.
I could stand to know a little bit more. The only reason it seems impossible to me to only use source lighting is because, especially in doors, I have the worst trouble having enough light to shoot anything. Perhaps 8mm is less sensitive & doesnt have the kind of exposure 35mm does. Besides that it seems that most of the sets using 35mm have these high voltage lights to create enough light for the film. I guess I just don't understand how if a few lamps in a room are enough to light an entire scene, I don't see why it's at all considered to have these gigantic lights on some sets. And then, of course, there is the consideration of foil and such.
Most film interiors -- and this might be an exaggeration -- use stocks with ASA's from 320 to 500. You don't have that luxury on 8mm. Look at the film speed on the stocks. The Vision 200 was the fastest thing there, right? Another consideration is the lenses. You're dealing with super high speed lenses for 35mm. You can open up to like a 1.2 or more. The NASA lenses Kubrick had got to 0.7, I think. Again, you don't have that luxury in 8mm.
Watch Kubrick's films. His shots are so wide and they move through so much territory that they only could have been lit with sources. Watch Eyes Wide Shut or The Shining...
The reason you see big lights on most movie sets is because most D.P.'s like to sculpt light. They need the big equipment to make them feel important.
I believe in simplicity.
Go to:
http://www.cinematographer.com
It's the online version of American Cinematographer.
I would reccommend that you shoot with the Vision 200. Put 200 watt bulbs in all your lamps or sources. Then perhaps grab a Chinese paper lantern to bring up the room tone a bit. Make sure to get a good light reading. Should look wonderful.
Thanks very much. I've put a lot of this information down in my notes. Yeah I think that's a great idea.
Hey Bill let me know how it goes getting the 8mm film.
Im going to be shooting a short film on super 8mm very soon. I think Im gonna order straight from Kodak.
If ya need to talk about 8mm film, Im your guy.
I transfer hundreds of ft of 8mm a day at my work.
Also for transfers, let me know if ya need anything, because I can get you a really great deal.
chris
What can you transfer to, and what kind of costs are usually involved with transferring 8mm to, say, mini-dv?
Sounds like it could be actually affordable.
Quote from: XixaxWhat can you transfer to, and what kind of costs are usually involved with transferring 8mm to, say, mini-dv?
Sounds like it could be actually affordable.
Make sure you get it done right....I know of a lot of places that will just project it and set up a video camera.....
...side note: It really amazes me how many people are looking for 8mm or Super 8mm projectors....they were like gold at this place I used to work...(mostly old family vacations and stuff)
....in college I came across some Super 8mm porn and old Flintstone cartoons...kinda a funny combo.....
Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooHey Bill let me know how it goes getting the 8mm film.
Im going to be shooting a short film on super 8mm very soon. I think Im gonna order straight from Kodak.
If ya need to talk about 8mm film, Im your guy.
I transfer hundreds of ft of 8mm a day at my work.
Also for transfers, let me know if ya need anything, because I can get you a really great deal.
chris
It was fine actually. The post office fucked it up and they had to reship the film to me. Got to me just in time as well.
I would absolutely LOVE to get some great deals on transfers. And also on developing for that matter. Once I get this film developed I'll need to get it transfered to Mini DV.
Quote from: mutinycoThe reason you see big lights on most movie sets is because most D.P.'s like to sculpt light. They need the big equipment to make them feel important.
I believe in simplicity.
if i EVER get a chance to make a movie, i would want you to be my DP. you are very knowledgable on this subject and i think we both like the same kinds of cinematography (look, ma! i used a big word and now i'm a film buff!). though, i don't know if we'd get along. i kind of felt like you thought i was an asshole at the PDL screening! (that was you, right?)
If you want me to shoot your film you'd better hurry up. I have plans of my own...
Quote from: bonanzatazi kind of felt like you thought i was an asshole at the PDL screening!
And how is this different than any other person on any other day in your life, Taz?
:P
Wow. A perfectly good insult, completely ignored.