Super-8 Sound. Would anyone use it?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’ve been cruising eBay lately, and have noticed a lot of super-8 cameras on auction. (I’m into 16mm, myself; but I have some super-8, and that’s how I started.)

“Back in the day…” people shot “home movies” on super-8 film. Home video was unheard of; film was the only option. Not too long after super-8 became available in the mid-1960s, the super-8 sound cartridge was invented. These cartridges were larger than super-8 silent cartridges because they had a place for the magnetic sound head to enter. The audio was displaced three inches from the image. This was called “single-system sound”. Single-system cameras could also use silent cartridges.

For “double-system sound” a seperate recorder was needed, and a pilot tone was recorded on one track fror synching the audio and image later. Double-system cameras usually used silent cartridges. The audio could be played back by attaching the recorder to a special projector, or the audio track could be “resolved” onto magnetic film for editing. A print of the edited film and edited audio track was printed onto soundstriped film.

There were many, many “consumer quality” cameras. Bell & Howell and GAF come to mind. But there were other, higher-quality brands such as Elmo, Beaulieu and Nizo. Elmo made excellent cameras, but they also made lesser models. These were better than the cheap competition, but they were designed for “home movies”. Their higher-end models were comparable to the European competition.

The point is that there were a lot of super-8 cameras made, and many of them were expensive high-quality units. (I have an Elmo 1000S single-system camera that cost about $700 new in 1979. I don’t remember how much my Beaulieu 5008.S Multispeed originally sold for, but it was closer to two grand.) And there’s a lot of junk. Which brings us back to eBay.

High-quality cameras fetch higher prices than the cheap plastic super-8 cameras. It’s obvious. But single-system sound cameras often sell for higher prices than their high-quality silent counterparts. That’s all well and good except for one thing: Try to find super-8 sound cartridges! Kodak doesn’t make 'em. It’s really a specialty item, if you can get it at all.

Video cameras are cheap, and tape is many times cheaper than rolls of super-8 film and processing. The typical consumer would not be interested in super-8, let alone super-8 sound film. Serious filmmakers prefer 16mm (although super-8 has a certain “look” that many people find useful for their projects).

But people are still buying high-quality single-system super-8 cameras. I’m sure that part of this is because most of the high-quality cameras were sound cameras. For whatever reason, people are looking for good super-8 cameras and the sound capability is just a useless frill. But what if…?

What if super-8 soundstriped film became generally available? Do you think that the people who are buying the cameras on eBay would use it? If you had a single-system camera, would you shoot sound film? If so, then why?

2

Well, silent Super 8 film is still available, as is laminate sound stripe, as is cement… add the three together and you’ve got sound film. You can also buy pre-striped film on spools, I believe (for cutting down and loading into one of the Russian reloadable cartridge dealies, never done it myself).

Kodak discontinued their line of sound film years ago, but there’s still a good deal of it on the market. You can pick it up on eBay any day of the week. It’s little wonder it was ditched, single system sound isn’t at all what it’s cracked-up to be. In the mid-90’s (just before production was stopped), only around 10% of Kodak Super 8 film bought was sound-- shooting on silent stock and recording the sound separately was and is vastly more popular (although it does call for an expensive crystal sync camera, unless you keep your scenes short enough that deviations in speed don’t become noticeable or you have one of those old pilotone things).

As to why sound cameras are more popular, perhaps it’s because they’re, on the whole, quieter running. Even if you’re not recording the sound on the film, you can connect to the earphone port and make used of the noise cancellation circuitry many of the higher-end cameras had. Sound cameras are often black and sleek looking, appearance has got to count for something, right?

Of course, you can still buy new Super 8 cameras, although your selection is very, very limited (A couple hundred for a basic clockwork Quartz or a few grand for a Beaulieu). Used is the way to go, although eBay prices are often rather inflated. Everyone has their favorite, but I’m partial to my Canon 1014 (the silent model, not the sound XL one). I’ve got two, one bought very cheaply at a flea market and the other from eBay. Sadly, the latter wasn’t so cheap, but it was in unused condition.

Personally, I despise video. It looks so much like… well, like video. For vacation home movie and the like, I film 8mm and Super 8. Too much emphasis is put on sound these days. I find it rarely needed and often distracting, so I film totally silent and simply add music and very limited narration in post (striping the film after it’s been processed and edited).

Super 8’s doing better (sales-wise) now than it has in decades, Kodak could probably make tidy sum off of it if they’d advertise a bit better. Nowadays the whole concept of filming on film is totally foreign to most people, it’s a fresh audience that I’m sure would eat it up. I know everyone I’ve ever shot and projected 8mm/Super 8 for have been dazzled and wish dearly to get into it. Even those that recognize what it is never knew it could actually yield a high quality image, they had been conditioned by the Wonder Years and such to associate 8mm with crap.

In answer to your last question, I might use sound film on occasion, but I think it’d stick mostly with silent. What I think would sell marvelously would be a new mid-range consumer camera and a bright, quiet projector. If properly advertised, I can’t imagine how it would fail. People can say what they want about “digital revolutions”, but I’ve yet to meet a man who hasn’t adored film’s unique magic.

3

I’d like to give it a whirl, actually.

4

Right. But where do you get fresh pre-striped film?

Unfortunately, much of it has probably not been kept in a proper environment.

For the price of a new Beaulieu, you can get a good used 16mm camera. I got my Éclair NPR ten years ago for $5,000 with a crystal motor, two mags, battery, case, cables, and a nice Zeiss zoom. It’s hard to justify paying that much for super-8 unless you’re a pro who really wants that look. Pro8mm (formerly Super-8 Sound) sells tha Quartz for $350. I paid $45 for mine (new, with accessories) from The Sovietski Collection in San Diego. (They’re long-since sold out of them.)

Indeed, man. When my friend wanted to make his last feature, I lobbied to use my NPR (I was 1st Unit Photography). Hey, it’s a great camera; and he’d seen what it could do – not mine, but his DP’s on the film before that. But he decided the film stock and processing would be too expensive. We shot it on a Sony DV-1000 and the results were very good. But it still looks like video. Now he says that he will not shoot another feature on video, since 16mm film is so much better. (His next project is probably going to be 35mm. If the budget is not enough for that, then he’s thinking super-16.)

But yeah, there’s nothing like film.

You’ll be pleasantly surprised. A super-8 film cartridge only lasts 2-1/2 minutes at 24fps (3:20 at 18fps), and film and processing is rather expensive compared to video. But as long as you have some AA cells, you won’t have to worry about running out of power. And it’s so much cooler to use film.

(Or do you already know that because you shoot super-8, and want to give single-system sound a whirl?)

5

Sometime this month Wittner Kinotechnik will begin selling new (exp.
6/2006) pre-striped k40 on 200 foot spools.

True, but occasionally you’ll find some that isn’t too old and has at least been kept refrigerated.