Talk:8 mm film

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Headshot

There should be a link to JFK in the article. I mean Zapruder's is the most famous 8mm footage ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

````I am requesting that all the 8mm external links please be put back. thanks in advance. ````

In regard to Zapruder, such link would be inappropriate to this article, which is about the nature and definition of the film format. In other words, Zapruder is irrelevant to this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastReflections (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8mm film into digital

How do you convert 8mm film into digital video to use on your computer to upload to a website or to make a dvd with the video? i think we should add the how to to this article as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldonald86 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecine. Girolamo Savonarola 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing when I read the article. The term of transferring film to video is called "telecine." This ought to be included in the article along with a link the wiki on telecine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.107.29 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:solution

If we think in digital terms, what is the maximum physical resolution of a high-quality Super8 color or b/w negative film frame? 320x240 pixel or maybe 512x384? I guess if you scan at too large resolution, like 2048x1536 you only get "empty" zoom, but no more details revealed. I heard 35mm ISO-100 color photo negative film stock has about 300dpi max. resolution due to limits imposed by silver-iodide grain size. 91.83.0.204 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Corny, 3/5/10

double super 8

some mention of double super 8 is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.157.242 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Super 8 Megapixie (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 8 mm film. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/8mmfilmgauges.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article excerpt mention in Hitman 2

A cutscene from the game used an excerpt from the article, fyi. Can anyone bring this to the attention of those in the WP:VG and Film wikiprojects? I don't own the game yet, but apparently this has been copy-pasted without attribution based on what was listed on MobyGames. Thought someone might notify IOI about it to rectify things as this is a licensing violation. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify David Bateson about the issue on his Facebook fan page though. He says he'll talk with the writers about it though idk if anything has been done. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sound to picture separation

"Sound to picture separation" & "image-sound separation" are both mentioned in this article, as well as in related articles, but it is never explained, and pasting the phrases into Google does not quickly yield an explanation. Is there an existing article or external reference which discusses it that could be linked to? If not, then it needs to be explained here. DKEdwards (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a technical term of art; it has to be divined from the preceding context and they've left out some helpful words:

"The only part of the film wide enough to accept such a magnetic stripe was the area between the edge and the perforations. A much narrower [magnetic] stripe was sometimes added to the opposite edge so that the film piled up evenly on the spool, but was never used for sound. The sound[-stripe] to picture[-framing area] [distance-]separation was the same dimensionally as 16 mm film and as that format is 28 frames",

ie: 'The physical distance between the sound-stripe and the frame... 'stripe', if you will, was the same distance as that in 16 mm film...' JohndanR (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to description

The description incorrectly implies that standard-8 and double-8 are different. Double-8 is standard-8 is regular 8: all the same. Standard-8 begins as a 16mm-wide film, with sprocketing slightly different from 16mm. After it has been run through the camera twice to expose both sides of the roll, it is sliced lengthwise and the two ends spliced together to make a strip of 8mm film twice as long as original the camera roll. The author may have been thinking of single-8 as the alternative. The format is the same, but it went through the camera as a single 8mm-width of film. Most single-8 cameras were unsuccessful, but the very inexpensive 8mm Univex line was highly popular and accounted for the great majority of the sales of single-8 film for a number of years. Bell & Howell and Revere both produced single-8 cameras but neither sold well so both are very hard to find now. PastReflections (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined the Standard and Double 8 sections. There is more detail at Standard 8 mm film. Someone had edited that page to say these are not the same thing. We don't have many source citations, but the few we do have verify that these are the same thing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

projectors

As far as I know, most Super-8 projectors will also projects Standard-8. Maybe a switch to change the pull-down sprocket setting. Or is it not most? In any case, ones that do need to be able to accept both kinds of reels. Gah4 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been true when super 8 first appeared, but super 8 only projectors quickly became the norm. Standard 8/Super 8 projectors were mechanically complicated as the gates were of different formats as well as the sprocket format. The most successful projectors were those that required a physical change of the affected parts rather than a turn of a switch. It was possible to construct a dual sprocket with the smaller super 8 sprockets mounted on top of the larger standard 8, but only because the pitch of standard 8 (80 per foot) was less than super 8 (72 per foot). However, this change of pitch did complicate the pull down mechanism. Film editors, on the other hand, were almost universally dual format only requiring a dual sprocket to rotate the prism shutter and few bothered to mask off the surplus area around the visible frame on standard 8.

Sound projectors had the added complication that the picture/sound separation of the two formats was very different (not to mention that the sound track was on opposite sides of the film). Standard 8 was 56 frames versus 18 frames for super 8 (for magnetic sound track). 81.154.179.214 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I might be remembering the early ones, and also editors. I actually have a Super 8 projector, bought from Goodwill for a good reason, but haven't looked at it that closely. I do remember the reel mounts that would take either reel, though. Gah4 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

color balance

Traditionally, 8mm films were Type A tungsten balanced for, I believe 3400K photofloods. In daylight, there was an orange filter to correct for daylight balance. The allowed for more sensitivity in the dimmer artificial light, though that might have been less common. Should the article mention this? Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good addition. When super 8 was conceived by Kodak, it was intended that only type A film would be available and a conversion filter would be included in every camera. The intention was to allow mixed filming in daylight and artificial light. It was convenient that the Kodachrome II daylight film was 25 ASA and the type A was 40 ASA. The conversion filter to allow type A to film in daylight just happened to reduce the effective ASA to 25 (also the colour rendering in daylight was better than with daylight film). The type A super 8 cartridge has a notch to indicate that type A film is loaded but most early cameras ignored it (it was originally intended to signal black and white film which did not require the filter even though Kodak did not make it). Kodak later released type G Ektachrome film which was daylight balanced but worked reasonably well (but not perfectly) in artificial light. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find sources to support the original intent, but came up dry. However, what I did discover is that Kodak have released a new super 8 camera and film stock to feed it. There are three colour negative films (a daylight balanced film at 50 ASA and two type A films at 200 or 500 ASA); one black and white 160 ASA film (which can be processed to negative or reversed) and one Ektachrome reversal film at 100 ASA. Although there is no sound version of the camera per se, the camera does record the sound onto an SD card, so that the sound can be added post processing. More at https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/super-8. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for some years now Kodak recommends color balance filters for black and white film. There is recent discussion somewhere else about theUse blue bulbs for flash on Verichrome Pan. I am not sure about current Super 8 Tri-X, though. Gah4 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Kodak data sheet for Tri-X 7266 does not recommend a filter for daylight or tungsten lighting, though a different ISO value. Gah4 (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantically: correction filters were always recommended for black and white film in order to restore the correct grey scale to colour balance. However, I know of no one who actually bothered beyond some professional photographers and cinematographers. Professional and prosumer digital cameras automatically make the correction if operated in black and white mode. My Canon is also supposed to emulate yellow, orange and red filters but their use makes no obvious change to the resultant photograph. It renders clouds against blue sky acceptably well, something unfiltered panchromatic film never did (and orthochromatic film didn't do either).

Equally pedantically: black and white film was always a third of a stop or so slower in artificial light though the wide exposure latitude often meant that it didn't really matter. It was perhaps slightly more critical when the film was reversed rather than developed to a negative. As the data sheet notes, the speed notches in the cartridge don't magically change when the light source changes so the camera exposes at the daylight speed. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(With only one example) Kodak didn't recommend filters for black and white film, but they did recommend blue flash bulbs. Maybe they thought that was enough easier to ask. And besides, once someone bought flashbulbs, they might keep them around until a roll of color film. ASA values change when a film is reversal processed, and not always the same way. Panatomic-X (ASA 32) is 64 when reversal processed. And Tri-X movie film is 200 or so when reversal processed. Also, tungsten Ektachrome is a third stop slower than daylight Ektachrome, so it even applies when it is not the same film! Not to mention, or maybe that is partly the reason, different light meters had different color sensitivities. I never did find a good explanation for type G, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of flash bulbs (when a flash bulb was the size of an ordinary light bulb), they were only available in clear. The subsequent, and much smaller, PF-1 and FP-1 flash bulbs still came in clear for black and white but also in blue (PF-1B and FP-1B) for the upcoming colour film (mostly colour reversal as colour negative and prints were still too darned expensive at this time) The FP-1 bulbs, though physically the same size, were designed for cameras with focal plane shutters as they had a longer burn time. With the introduction of the even smaller AG-1 flash bulb (roughly coincidental with the 126 instamatic camera), nearly all photography by now was colour and so AG-1 bulbs were only ever available in blue. This was the reason black and white film (of the time) recommended blue flash bulbs (though they probably did give a more accurate colour to grey rendition). Although Verichrome Pan film was initially available in 126, it was quickly dropped as colour print photography had become more affordable now that film processors were offering cheaper machine prints in one standard size.

I never found out why the bulbs were designated 'PF-1', 'FP-1' and 'AG-1' as there was never a 'PF-2', 'FP-2' or 'AG-2'. It may have been a nod to the light bulb sized flash bulbs which were designated simply as the 'No. 1 flash bulb'. Again, there was never a 'No. 2 flash bulb.

I note your point about reversal processing. It was always recommended that if you were using film that was intended and rated for reversal (such as Kodachrome) that it was wise to over expose it by one third to half a stop. Some cameras (and a few light meters) provided exposure for both negative and reversal film (usually by marking two indexes to set the film speed against).

While poking around in some of my old books, I found a piece talking about the Ektachrome type G film. Although it was marked as 'daylight' on the packaging (possibly because it set the camera to daylight mode), it seems that it was, in reality, balanced for a compromise between daylight and type A and it really was designed to be less susceptible to colour change as the source light changed. Those web sites that were not sure but suggested a compromise were spot on. I still have a few rolls of Ektachrome type G but they were mostly exposed in available light in buildings (often under fluorescent lighting). Even so, the colour, though not perfect, is reasonably acceptable if a little green. Could the 'type G' have meant a film for general use?

Light meter sensitivities changed as the photo sensors evolved. Very early light meters used an early photo-voltaic cell which simply powered a galvanometer movement. They were very blue sensitive and completely blind to red (though early orthochromatic film had a similar sensitivity). The use of these cells survived well into the panchromatic and colour era (and because they required no power source, were perfect for wind up cameras cine cameras). They were almost universally used on double 8mm cine cameras of the time, at least on those that actually provided a built in light meter. The introduction of cadmium sulphide cells provided a better colour match but they required a battery to power them and also suffered a lag problem that could give false exposures. Silicon sensors soon followed that could be manufactured with the right colour characteristics. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely AG-1 came in blue (AG-1B) and clear. But flashcubes only came blue. When I was about 10, I inherited much of my grandfather's photographic stuff, including a flashgun cover that had a blue side and clear side. So with the blue side, you could use clear bulbs with color film. I believe that there were AG-3, similar to the bulbs in hi-power cube. I do have some #40 flashbulbs that I bought from Goodwill. I haven't tried one yet. I also have a box camera (that uses 116 film) that my grandfather adapted for flash. It has two regular electrical outlets on the front, one to plug in a desk lamp, which you presumably put one of those bulbs in, and a power source in the other side. They are rated to fire from 3 to 120V. I might have some negatives taken with that camera, too. I know about the FP bulbs, but always used others with focal plane shutters, at 1/30 shutter speed, and never had a problem. Most of the time, I used flashcubes with an Agfalux-C, very tiny, flashgun. Yes, I suspect G is for general. (Type F is for flash, though not in movie film.) Gah4 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]