Talk:Super 8 mm film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

Is there really any point in this article. It seems the content should be merged with 8 mm film. There is lots of overlap already. -- Egil 14:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of overlap, but all of the formats should eventually get a proper technical specifications section (see my addition on 9,5 mm film), so the page on 8mm film which includes the 3 subtypes of Super-8 may get a little unwieldy. Also, although standard 8 is the same film width; Super-8 was quite an advance technically and certainly was in terms of consumer acceptance, so it probably does deserve its own page. Maybe it would be best to decrease the sections on Super8 which appear on the 8mm film page. bignoter 06:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the articles should be kept separate. This format is quite different to Standard 8, despite them having the same width. Also, merging the two articles would tend to increase the possibility of confusing, say Double (standard) 8 and Double Super8. Wiki-linking the 2 articles makes the differences much clearer.

---What's up with that super 8 guy link? It seems there's no info on that page, only a few pictures... (or maybe there's a problem with my browser or something...)

--- They should certainly not be merged, it's a totally different format from standard-8!

I edited the following out of the article as it is based soley on a rumour/hoax by an anonymous poster on a german messageboard, followed by a lengthy thread, discussing the possibilities and trying to verify the truth, on www.filmshooting.com. This thread reached no real conclusion as of dec 2005 and no image or definite info on the film was found.

There were rumours of Super 8 cameras and films being manufactured and sold in North Korea and indeed this has been confirmed by North Korean embassies, but the only way to buy such products is to visit the country itself.

- the paragraph goes from identifying the info as a rumour to implying that you can actually buy such film in NK which is NOT at all verified. As I remember the only conformation from NK embassy was that a film manufacturing company exists which supposedly made the rumoured stock, but there's been no real evidence that super-8 specifically is or ever was made there.

It would be great if it were true, but at the moment it remains totally unverified and shouldn't be mentioned in the article as this will just confuse people and spread rumours. Best treat it as a piece of cyberpunk fiction for now. :) 81.158.54.181 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maaan this article is not much good on further examination! :) Double Super 8 was referred to as Double 8 for some reason? I have fixed that...

Also I can't be bothered to rewrite now, but this is pretty hilarious:

and it appears to have made something of a comeback in both the art and experimental film world. Oliver Stone, for example,

Uh, what!? 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)81.158.54.181

[edit] Formats for cameras versus formats for projectors

The formats of catridge described in this article confused me, and I think it may be because no distinction is made between cartridges made for shooting in a camera, and reel-to-reel playback on a projector.

The article implies that the only two formats are the Kodak and and Fujifilm cartridges, which made me think that my dad's reel to reel home movies were somehow a completely different format. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me could explain this. Is playback just reel to reel? Or are there cartridge-based projectors? Or is there another completely different format that I am getting confused by?

Most super and single 8 film was used on reels for viewing. SIngle 8 is the same format after processing other then it comes on a thiner Polyester base filmstock, which cannon be cement spliced.

The sound film was the same format except having the soundtrack.

There were some projectors that took special cartriges, and even the "technicolor 8" continuous loop cartriges sold in teh educational market. No cartrige for projection ever got any major market share that I am aware of. It was quite common for users to splice films together onto larger 200 and 400Ft reels.cmacd 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi there, Super-8 unexposed film comes in a Super-8 film cartridge which then goes into the film camera. When the 50 feet of film has been exposed (but it never actually leaves the film cartridge) the cartridge is brought to a film lab, the film is taken out of the cartridge while in a darkroom and the film is then processed. When it is given back to the customer it is now on a small 50 foot plastic movie reel. At this point the now processed super-8 film can be either transferred to video and then edited on a computer or it can projected directly onto a wall, or it can be edited with a movie viewer and splicing tape, all of those scenarios actually require two movie reels, a supply reel (where the film currently resides) and a take-up reel (where the film ends up after traveling past the projection point).

The Oliver Stone comment was not from me but it's reference comes from a picture of Oliver Stone holding a Super-8 camera while on the set of his JFK movie. Super-8 was used extensively in Stone's JFK and since then it has actually been used fleetingly in several feature films. Usually Super-8 is used to create a flashback effect, or handheld to illicit a feeling that the world is caving in around the protagonist. Super-8 is used more in Music Videos than in feature films.

I spent a bit of time trying to tidy up the Super-8 page. The Super-8 community is not that large and many in that community know that it's probably just a matter of time before a corporate bean counter axes motion picture film in pre-anticipation of the day when it won't be as profitable as it has been in the past. I believe the Super-8 community loves wikipedia but when you stamp the super-8 stalwarts, (aka those who put up a super-8 website knowing they will never make back their costs) as spammers not only is it demoralizing but I think Wikipedia is not acknowledging that at some point wiki actually takes away hits from the few super-8 sites that do exist.

I commend Wikipedia for following the original Star Trek series credo of not trying to influence any community in either a positive or negative way, but Wiki takes away hits from all other Super-8 sites by being Wiki, aka the gentle giant that is tops on most if not all search engines. The external links section is the one area that equalizes the fact that Wiki will usually be at the top of any Super-8 search. Wiki is able to equalize what they have taken away from other Super-8 websites by having one section where there are links to other super-8 sites. I can vouch for about 75% of the links as being more about Super-8 than profiteering. There is a constant stream of misinformation on the net that Super-8 film is no longer made or necessary, and the links section helps set the record straight.

If you are concerned that if you make an exception here than you would have to make it all over wikipedia there is a distinction with a difference that can be made. No new Super-8 techology of note is being made in the Super-8 format and it usually is new product in any industry that creates the overt commercialism that wikipedia trys to avoid. With no new Super-8 cameras being made, the Super-8 format would actually be hurt if Wikipedia had no links that would go to other super-8 sites. Yet if Wiki made no mention of Super-8 at all, then there would be no place to get third party observations. The primary reason I don't sign up is I am involved in the Super-8 community and I just don't know if I could be impartial enough or if I would agree with a stiff interpretation of Wikipedia protocol. I can check back periodically if you have questions about specific links. 72.129.88.30 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text hereItalic texthuuyjhujjhjuih kijhod oijkj oipàioju said

[edit] Wording change

I changed the wording of the fourth paragraph under the heading "Kodak Super 8 System" a little because I thought that it might have been non-neutral in tone. Feel free to revert my edit if I'm wrong, though. ::Travis Evans 03:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] super 8 example loop

Please eliminate the Super 8 example loop. What's the point of it? It doesn't demonstrate anything. It's also very distracting. It makes it harder to concentrate on reading the text. Furthermore, you can't tell anything from it. There is nothing about it that gives any real feel for what Super 8 looks like. You can't do that on a computer monitor. You may as well show the loop on the radio! There isn't any such example for the TV or (motion picture) film articles. Why here? (And one doesn't normally show Super 8 films forwards and backwards in a loop! One possible improvement would be to make it play only when you click a Play button, e.g. But it would still be useless and pointless.)

So basically, it's pointless, useless, distracting, and annoying. betaneptune 71.251.41.51 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--- This looping image gives an example of colour, texture and grain associated with Super 8 mm film. It is useful for a reader who is unfamiliar with the visual feel of the format. Most people have seen Super 8 mm, but are not familiar with its name and this image helps people develop an awareness of the the film without searching for it on Youtube. A 'real feel' for Super 8 (pretentious) would require a projector, not at most peoples disposal. As for it being 'distracting', I think most people with relatively normal attention spans can deal with the shiny colours.

Jesse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam jesse (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)