My wife owns a video camera, one of those Hi-8mm camcorders with all the tiny little buttons on it.  It's a wonderful piece of electronics -- takes great color, can be set to twenty-five international time zones and different languages, and comes with a date function that always shows up on the television screen and never goes away.
    My wife uses the camcorder on occasion, as it's very convenient and quick to capture the moment with its auto-focus.  I prefer to shoot everything, including home movies, on Super-8 film, if for no other reason than film's longevity (Kodachrome is rated 100 years before a 10% loss of color versus videotape's 20 years until the entire picture becomes seriously deteriorated).
    But more than that -- there's something about film.  Using different film stocks, exposures, and film speeds; Projecting the image on the screen, running it through your fingers while editing -- even the smell of it.  There's something about being able to hold the film up to a light and seeing every frame of it, and to edit piece by piece with your own hands that appeals to me.  Other people obviously have an affection for small gauge images as I do, for when I am shooting Super-8, people often come up to me after realizing I am shooting film, and tell me the experiences they remember shooting Super-8 and making movies years gone by.  I guess the fond memories from Super-8 users are akin to others' comradeship from owning the original Volkswagen Beetle, or MG.
    Nevertheless, as a Super-8 filmmaker, there are ways that video can be used to enhance your films.  One of the best features of the camcorder is the built-in microphone.  Some of these models even have a "zoom-in" microphone feature, which can automatically change the mike from omnidirectional to directional.  When filming documentaries, I used to bring along a cassette tape recorder to record background noises that I would later add to the film, as I usually shoot silent if there is no dialogue.  A much better method, I have learned, is to shoot videotape of the sounds. Whether it's a waterfall, voices coming from a loudspeaker at a festival, or birds in a tree, the camcorder does a tremendous job of picking up omnipresent sounds.  Then, when editing, I can scan through the videotape looking for the sound I want because I have the pictures to remind me of exactly what the sounds are.  This works much better than listening to an audio tape and referring to notes with tape counters to find what sound is where, and trying to remember exactly what is being listened to.
    Another video tool that looks very promising is computer animation.  A current project of mine is a documentary about Cinerama, the unique three camera, three projector process used in just seven movies that were shown on ultra-wide curved screens from 1952-1963.  Trying to illustrate the wonder of a widescreen technique shown on a curved screen by employing an almost square format shown on a flat screen is like using a canoe to demonstrate the immensity of a battleship.  I needed a way to explain what Cinerama is and what made it so impressive and unique, and at the same time to be able to compare its size to other film formats.  It seemed to me that the use of animation would be the best way to demonstrate this.  I love the look of hand drawn animation, but since I am not an artist, don't know any local artists, and have never worked with cel-animation, 60 seconds of computer graphics seemed like the perfect answer.  A few hours work by a computer programmer can give me the tool I need to help tell this story for a very low cost.
    The problem with filming anything off of a computer screen is that the film speed is not in synch with the scanning rate of the monitor, thus giving the appearance of rolling lines when the computer monitor is filmed.  To correctly synch these two can be quite costly, many times the cost of any hired computer programmer, so that is not an option.  Besides, the best way, regardless of cost, to synch these two is to have the animation actually digitized on film and I'm sure no one has thought to offer this service in Super-8.  The solution I have found is to film one of the newer LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) monitors instead of the common CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitors, which are similar to a television.  The LCD monitors are used in laptops, because they are flat, but are also available in color 12", and 14" sizes, although these can cost in the thousands of dollars.  If one can rent, borrow, or beg one of these from an owner, I can attest that filming the LCD monitor will give a picture without the rolling bars.  In a simple test I filmed a 30-second moving picture consisting of both real photographs and fluid animation.  I shot this at various filming speeds (9, 18, 24, 36) and never had a problem.  In my short test of one super-8 cartridge, I did have some problem getting the lighting right so that the computer screen didn't look washed out or too light, but I'm sure that a little practice could solve this.  And with this new technique, one should also be able to make animated titles and credits for the opening and closing of a film, including titles that roll across or down the screen and change in size or look 3-Dimensional.  Since all the programming can be carried around in a 3.5" diskette, a filmmaker only needs to find a computer and LCD monitor to borrow or rent for an hour, and to bring along your computer diskette and camera to shoot it off of the screen.
    No matter what one might think of video as a production medium, it serves a wonderful purpose as a distribution medium.  There is no easier or inexpensive way to share copies of your completed super-8 films to others than through videotape.
    One of the things I noticed about Ektachrome 7240 that I was not aware of when writing my last column was that it makes an excellent transfer to videotape.  Perhaps this is because the contrast is not as great as the earlier Ektachromes (160 and Type G).  The result is a pleasing image, a little grainier than Kodachrome, but appearing less grainy than Ektachrome 160 and with excellent colors and contrast.  Another plus for the newer Ektachrome 7240 is its ability to look consistent in varied lighting conditions.  Shooting inside a large retail mall, the area was illuminated with some incandescent lights, lots of fluorescent lighting, and some outside sun coming through a few skylights overhead.  I set the camera for artificial light (no filter) and the result was fabulous.  Finally, while the grain can be similar to the older Ektachromes, the film can look better than its predecessor if care is taken with the exposure, and if the proper lab is used for processing, which in itself can reduce the grain and improve the color.  There can be quite a variance among labs, and the best advice is to try out two or three and stick with one that looks best to suit you.  Overall, the more I have used this film, and the more consistent the labs have become, the more I am pleased with Kodak's efforts to keep Super-8 alive and healthy.

---  Chris Cottrill
      E-mail:  chris_cottrill@yahoo.com
 

BACK TO SUPER 8 MAIN PAGE