«

Hi...

Wondering if anyone here happens to know what
the actual image size is on old 8 mm and/or super 8
movie film is?

I know the question sounds ridiculous, but looking
at a 35 mm piece of film it looks much more than
4 times as big as I remember movie film was.

Thanks, take care.

Ken

Hi:

Found what you wanted on a site in Australia! Standard 8 has an image
dimension of 4.88 by 3.68 mm, and Super 8 has an image dimension of
6.24 by 4.22 mm. Interesting bit of trivia.

Regards,

Lee

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:40:14 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
wrote:

>
>Hi...
>
>Wondering if anyone here happens to know what
>the actual image size is on old 8 mm and/or super 8
>movie film is?
>
>I know the question sounds ridiculous, but looking
>at a 35 mm piece of film it looks much more than
>4 times as big as I remember movie film was.
>
>Thanks, take care.
>
>Ken

The 8mm dimension referred to the width of the film, including sprocket
holes.

Don


"MLS" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi:
>
> Found what you wanted on a site in Australia! Standard 8 has an image
> dimension of 4.88 by 3.68 mm, and Super 8 has an image dimension of
> 6.24 by 4.22 mm. Interesting bit of trivia.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lee
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:40:14 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi...
> >
> >Wondering if anyone here happens to know what
> >the actual image size is on old 8 mm and/or super 8
> >movie film is?
> >
> >I know the question sounds ridiculous, but looking
> >at a 35 mm piece of film it looks much more than
> >4 times as big as I remember movie film was.
> >
> >Thanks, take care.
> >
> >Ken
>

John "re-enactor" Kerry should be an expert as well!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com

MLS wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Found what you wanted on a site in Australia! Standard 8 has an image
> dimension of 4.88 by 3.68 mm, and Super 8 has an image dimension of
> 6.24 by 4.22 mm. Interesting bit of trivia.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lee

Hi Lee...

Thanks so much, really appreciate the info!

Just in case anyone's interested, the reason I wanted
to know was because I have a friend in a really
sad situtation.

A recent house fire destroyed all her photos and neg's;
all she has is a couple of 50 year old 8mm movie films...
only has those because they were off site.

Anyway, she doesn't want to risk projecting them, fearing
that the (plastic ?) may be dried and brittle, perhaps
even burn easily. She is willing to bring them along
when she visits Winnipeg, gently unroll them, and scan
them. First, I wanted to crop a slide to 8mm size,
scan it, and see if we can get some individual pics.

A really quick and dirty test shows that they're not
gonna be good by any stretch of the imagination,
but probably get some 3 or 4 inch prints that will
be much better than nothing

Thanks again...

Ken

Don wrote:

> The 8mm dimension referred to the width of the film, including sprocket
> holes.
>
> Don


Ahhh, that explains it!

I know that I can hold a slide up to the light and
kind of see what it is, even with my real old eyes...

I also know that 50 years ago I had much younger eyes,
and couldn't see hardly a thing holding movie film
up to the light.

Thanks, and take care.

Ken

"Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
news:QojPc.155701$od7.75122@pd7tw3no...
>
>
>
> Thanks so much, really appreciate the info!
>
> Just in case anyone's interested, the reason I wanted
> to know was because I have a friend in a really
> sad situtation.
>
> A recent house fire destroyed all her photos and neg's;
> all she has is a couple of 50 year old 8mm movie films...
> only has those because they were off site.
>
> Anyway, she doesn't want to risk projecting them, fearing
> that the (plastic ?) may be dried and brittle, perhaps
> even burn easily. She is willing to bring them along
> when she visits Winnipeg, gently unroll them, and scan
> them. First, I wanted to crop a slide to 8mm size,
> scan it, and see if we can get some individual pics.
>
> A really quick and dirty test shows that they're not
> gonna be good by any stretch of the imagination,
> but probably get some 3 or 4 inch prints that will
> be much better than nothing
>
> Thanks again...
>
> Ken
----------

A suggestion... if it is worth it in time and effort - see if you can find
an old 8mm editor / splicer. The kind where you put the reel of film on one
side and hand crank it to the take-up side but that also allows projection
at very low power / and low heat to a small viewing screen.

Would make it a LOT easier to screen the film and select target frames to
work on. May be able to find one cheep in a local "junque" shop, or a pawn
shop, if you are anywhere near a bigger town or city.

Journalist

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 05:56:41 GMT, "Journalist-North"
<journalist-> wrote:

> Anyway, she doesn't want to risk projecting them, fearing
>> that the (plastic ?) may be dried and brittle, perhaps
>> even burn easily. She is willing to bring them along
>> when she visits Winnipeg, gently unroll them, and scan
>> them. First, I wanted to crop a slide to 8mm size,
>> scan it, and see if we can get some individual pics.
>>

I have many 8mm home movies that are over 50 years old and they
project just fine.

Suggest you load up a film and project just a few frames to see how
they work.

The best would be to have the films converted to CD. Using the right
software you could then choose which pictures you want and print them.

Remember you are dealing with a small image and you will not get the
quality that you get with 35mm esp larger prints.

Dave

"Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
news:QojPc.155701$od7.75122@pd7tw3no...
SNIP
> First, I wanted to crop a slide to 8mm size,
> scan it, and see if we can get some individual pics.
>
> A really quick and dirty test shows that they're not
> gonna be good by any stretch of the imagination,
> but probably get some 3 or 4 inch prints that will
> be much better than nothing

If you inspect individual frames, they will be grainy and often not
very sharp (partially due to the low shutterspeed of the individual
frames). You can improve the graininess by averaging several frames of
a stationary subject, a technique used in astronomy. There is even
free a program available that will do the stacking and aligning work
for you, http://aberrator.astronomy.net/registax/index.html , but it
has a bit of a learning curve. A commercial set of Photoshop plug-ins
that could be helpful is "Optipix"
(http://www.reindeergraphics.com/optipix/) because it can do sub-pixel
alignment and averaging.

When the graininess is reduced (for which you can also use programs
like "Neat Image"), the image or composite will tolerate higher levels
of sharpening.

You may even want to try an application like "Unshake"
(http://www.hamangia.freeserve.co.uk/), which could reduce traces of
camera shake of individual frames. Since the images won't be too
large, it would be not too timeconsuming to try different settings.

Bart

These old films *can* be "rescued" ... but not really cheaply.

A search on

telecine 8mm

will give you many sources ... including (selected at random):

http://www.moviestuff.tv/8mm_telecine.html

http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/telecine/index.php

http://www.homemoviedepot.com/

http://www.rainbowpixels.com/video.htm

http://www.filmtransfer.com/super-8m...conversion.asp














"Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message news:2YgPc.152027$Mr4.90112@pd7tw1no...
>
> Hi...
>
> Wondering if anyone here happens to know what
> the actual image size is on old 8 mm and/or super 8
> movie film is?
>
> I know the question sounds ridiculous, but looking
> at a 35 mm piece of film it looks much more than
> 4 times as big as I remember movie film was.
>
> Thanks, take care.
>
> Ken
>