Starting with Super 8, is it reasonable?

VincentM

• Jan 16, 2010

• #1

Just wondering if I should even consider it knowing that I never have used any?
Which camera should I consider and where to get B&W films? How to develop it? is it close in process to developing a normal 35mm film?

My recent interest is due to my moving in Sweden, this country has so much to offer that sometimes I feel that I should video record it instead of only doing still photography.

Of course I could buy a HDV camcorder and live wiht it but as long as film exists, I would prefer to go for it.

Thanks

 

holmburgers

• Apr 5, 2010

• #2

Go for it man! The camera I intend to buy is the Canon 514XL. These seem to be an excellent mix of affordability, quality & features. I know that Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, KS, USA is one of few processors of super 8 & 16mm film.

Good luck

 

Marco Gilardetti

• May 13, 2010

• #3

Hello Vincent, this answer comes a little late but perhaps you're still thinking about it.

My answer is that you should definitely try. Processing the cine film is basically like making slides (inversion process) and, although a bit longer, is basically just as difficult as developing B/W still film. Foma brand offers both films and reversal kits.

Loading the reel is easy, the spiral works on a completely different concept so don't be worried about having had problems when loading 135 or 120 films, forget still film. It's much easier than you may think.

It is fun. Give it a try!

 

mmcneil86

• Jun 17, 2010

• #4

Even later answer!

Using Super-8 for vacations or other important things is definitely cool, but remember you're going to pay a lot of money for it. 3 minutes of film is about $20, and processing at Dwayne's is $12. That's $32 for 3 minutes of footage. If you're planning on going abroad and using a Super-8 camera, be sure you can afford all the film and processing you want. A HDV camera is definitely more cost-effective, but if you really love film then it's going to be worth it.

 

lionelpina

• Jun 19, 2010

• #5

Of course, shooting film in any medium(still or motion) requires the shooter to be much more selective of the images captured than on digital. Because of: the expense, but exposing images on film takes a little more time because you want to get the exposure values right. But film is historically more permanent than digital/video.

 

fschifano

• Jul 15, 2010

• #6

You know, as much as I like the look of Super 8, I really can't see using it unless you have deep pockets - really deep pockets. Not only is the film and processing expensive, but you also need to consider getting a print made (if you're shooting negative film) and editing the whole thing down to something that makes sense. These things are easily and inexpensively done with digital video equipment making the use of motion picture film extremely unattractive.