OK guys and galls, if you've got 6 minutes and a cup of coffee, you can have a get-fit session just by sitting back and watching tom frolicking weightless in the water.
This little film was shot in 1983 so I was 24 years younger, had a lot more hair but as I remember it not a lot more fitness. Technically it was shot on a little waterproof Super-8 Eumig Nautica cine camera and I added all the sounds later on pretty crude equipment - no computers back then. I've letterboxed it to bring it up to date.
It was shot over many lunchtimes in Volvo's indoor and crystal-clear watered swimming pool, the pool attendant helping me with poolside shots. I was often the only person in the pool, as you'll see. Opening shot is actually one evening (Canon 1014E), and titles are cardboard cutouts spinning on cotton threads. Five pictures in a frame are done by rewinding the film in the Super-8 cartridge and refilming a small projected image.
I just wanted to show how good it feels to be weightless.
And how poor it looks when compressed for Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KYbojfwaEI
tom.
Super-8 on Youtube
-
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:00 pm
- Location: Scotland
-
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am
- billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
-
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am
Interesting that you should say that Billy (and thanks for your comment on the Youtube site) because ths little film cost me more in discarded footage than any other film I've ever made. And that was because of the difficulty in getting steady shots under water and the short time you can stay under, holding your breath.
This was the first film I used tape splices on rather than the more damaging and visible cement, and they hold up as well today as they did 24 years ago. There's a splice every 1.8 seconds or something, and they're next to invisible - even on the big screen.
tom.
This was the first film I used tape splices on rather than the more damaging and visible cement, and they hold up as well today as they did 24 years ago. There's a splice every 1.8 seconds or something, and they're next to invisible - even on the big screen.
tom.
-
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:00 pm
- Location: Scotland
This thread is becoming quite nostalgic for those of us who grew up with cine film. Tom's comments about splices reminded me of how hard we used to strive to secure the ultimate pinnacle of editing achievement - the invisible splice! I finished up using Wurker splices which many workers reckoned were about the best but what a fiddly job it was with all those little bits of red and white paper that you had to remove from the sticky bits. They did at least hold the film together unlike some cement joins, although this type of splicing had an enthusiastic following among the purists. Thank heavens for computer editing (or Casablanca, Willy)
Brian Saberton