Super 8 film stock.

Does the currently available super 8 film stock from Kodak like Ektachrome E100 have the magnetic strip to record audio?

I don't think so. And remember that although the S8 silent cartridge can be used in S8 cameras that can record sound on the S8 sound cartridge's magnetic strip, the sound cartridge can't be used in S8 silent cameras. Also remember that because of the offset between image and sound editing striped S8 film is a little difficult.

If you want sound, have your S8 camera crystal synced and get a synced recorder. I don't know what's available now, back when the Nagra was the class act.

Magnetic strip has not been applied to any motion picture stock since the 90s, as far as I have heard the process to attach it was expensive and banned by stricter EPA regulations. But regardless of why, it doesn't exist anymore and I would not get your hopes up of it ever returning

There is a guy in italy who has built his own machine to spray a sound strip onto film. In the old days the magnetic strip often was glued onto the film, but the italian does spray it onto the film - which is better because it cannot unglue that easily.
But this only is for developed film. So if you want to record sound on the film with a projector after development.

Thank you all. That's what I thought as the current Kodak super 8 camera record the audio separately on a SD card.

I thought motion picture film has an optical frame count embedded on the edge to synchronize sound. Could this be used to sync a recorder?

Kilgallb said:

I thought motion picture film has an optical frame count embedded on the edge to synchronize sound. Could this be used to sync a recorder?

Click to expand...

??? What in the camera will read it?

I think there was a Single-8 camera which did expose a red dot at the edge of the film (at the beginning of every shot), a projector with a light sensor at the edge of the film, so sound could be synced during projection. But this system wasn`t wide-spread, i think it only was one camera and one projector (by Fuji).

Often there was optical sound on a copy (for projection) and a light-sensor in the projector for read-out - as optical sound won`t fade. Magnetism on a magnetic strip will loose (some of the) sound within decades.

Kilgallb said:

I thought motion picture film has an optical frame count embedded on the edge to synchronize sound. Could this be used to sync a recorder?

Click to expand...

Maybe you are thinking of Aaton Key Code or DTS Stereo, but in general, no. The first was proprietary to Aaton cameras and it could be used to sync double system sound to a Nagra recording SMPTE Time code and the second was used in release printing for theatrical showing only.

Kilgallb said:

I thought motion picture film has an optical frame count embedded on the edge to synchronize sound. Could this be used to sync a recorder?

Click to expand...

16mm, 35mm and 65mm film have machine readable edge code ( barcode ) printed on them for post production use.
These are used in conjunction with a slate during photography to enable sync in post.
Super 8mm doesn't have these codes.

John S

Harry Callahan said:

I think there was a Single-8 camera which did expose a red dot at the edge of the film (at the beginning of every shot), a projector with a light sensor at the edge of the film, so sound could be synced during projection. But this system wasn`t wide-spread, i think it only was one camera and one projector (by Fuji).

Click to expand...

You might be thinking of the Canon 814-LS, a Canon 814 AutoZoom modified by B&H to have a "glitch light" and to send pulses to a tape recorder that used standard Phillips cassettes. This when B&H was Canon's US distributor. The edited film was to be projected by a B&H projector that connected to the recorder and received sync pulses from it. Super 8, not Single 8.

I have an 814-LS and a manual that explains to to edit the tape in parallel with the film, had the recorder and cabling, never had the projector. Since I was shooting silent travelogues for live narration I never tried to use the sound system. The manual insists that the editing process is simple. I don't agree.

I can imagine that it`s not easy... but i`m sure it was a Single-8 Fuji system. I`m aware of the (pulse-)syncing camera to tape or projector to tape systems, but the system i`m referring to was different. The camera did expose a red dot at the beginning of every shot at the edge of the film - and the projector had an optical sensor for that.
I neither mean pulse-syncing nor optical sound. But afaik there only was one camera model and one projector model being able of doing that - and the system never got wide spread.

You wouldn't believe the crazy systems invented to record sync sound on early home movies. One system I had the privileged of seeing in an extensive collection of film apparatus actually recorded the sound waves via a stylus above the film gate of the camera. The needle scratched the waveform into the base of the film as it was shot.

The projector had a similar needle in the same location above the gate, and on playback, followed the groove cut into the base of the film.

Needless to say, it was a flop as the waveform was clearly visible on the screen upon projection!

How it ever got to the production stage was beyond me...

Harry Callahan said:

I can imagine that it`s not easy... but i`m sure it was a Single-8 Fuji system. I`m aware of the (pulse-)syncing camera to tape or projector to tape systems, but the system i`m referring to was different. The camera did expose a red dot at the beginning of every shot at the edge of the film - and the projector had an optical sensor for that.
I neither mean pulse-syncing nor optical sound. But afaik there only was one camera model and one projector model being able of doing that - and the system never got wide spread.

Click to expand...

Harry, sorry that I wasn't clear. The B&H system did exactly what you described. The projector controlled the tape machine. The tapes used one track for sync pulses and one for sound. No stereo.

I don't recall anything like that in the Single-8 system but I didn't go far into it. I once got a ZC-1000 for its lens, which I wanted to use on a Beaulieu.

Kino said:

You wouldn't believe the crazy systems invented to record sync sound on early home movies. One system I had the privileged of seeing in an extensive collection of film apparatus actually recorded the sound waves via a stylus above the film gate of the camera. The needle scratched the waveform into the base of the film as it was shot.

The projector had a similar needle in the same location above the gate, and on playback, followed the groove cut into the base of the film.

Needless to say, it was a flop as the waveform was clearly visible on the screen upon projection!

How it ever got to the production stage was beyond me...

Click to expand...

I heard of that system, but i assumed the sound-groove to be on the side of the picture.
It does make some sense in a technical view, as with such a system you wouldn`t need as many electronics as with a tape machine. With a tape machine you also need special pre-amplification electronics to match the properties of the type of tape used and the type of magnetic head.
With a groove cut into the film, like on a record player, you should need fewer circuits and by that avoid high cost and requirements of space. I assume this sound-groove-system was done during the time of tube-amplifiers and tubes need quite some space and voltage.
On the other hand, if you want to produce a shellac record you have to cut the groove into a matrix first to produce stampers from. They used wax at the beginning but then switched to acetate, as acetate is easier to handle than a wax-matrix. Analog film often has an acetate base, so cutting a sound-groove into movie-film wasn`t far fetched these days from a technical point of view.

Dan Fromm said:

Harry, sorry that I wasn't clear. The B&H system did exactly what you described. The projector controlled the tape machine. The tapes used one track for sync pulses and one for sound. No stereo.

I don't recall anything like that in the Single-8 system but I didn't go far into it. I once got a ZC-1000 for its lens, which I wanted to use on a Beaulieu.

Click to expand...

I`m afraid, but i am still talking about a different technical approach. You mean sync pulses on tape, 1kHz iirc, but i am talking about something different.
There is a lamp in the camera, exposing a single dot on the edge of the film strip - every time you push the release button. Just one optical dot at the first frame of every shot. No optical sound.
The projector has an optical sensor to start or "sync" the tape machine. There are no constant pulses, no magnetic tracks reserved for 1kHz signals - the syncing is optical.
But this system probably does not allow lip-sync - and that`s probably why it never got wide-spread.

Harry Callahan said:

There is a lamp in the camera, exposing a single dot on the edge of the film strip - every time you push the release button. Just one optical dot at the first frame of every shot. No optical sound.

Click to expand...

That's what the 814LS' glitch light does.

This is not to quarrel with you, just to point out that I'm not aware of the Fuji system you mention. I never paid much attention to Single-8 gear. When I was getting going Single-8 and Super 8 were on the way out. Getting Single8 film was difficult and it was much more expensive than S8. With used S8 equipment, short-dated S8 film and discounted film mailers S8 was less expensive than the VHS alternative. And editing VHS was out of reach for such as me.

I also don`t want to quarrel... the problem is that i only heard once of this Fuji-system. Decades ago. I never used it, never held it in my hands ... only read somewhere about it. An ad maybe. Therefore i cannot remember the denomination of the camera and projector. I did a search before my last posting here, but i couldn`t find it.
I understand that the B&H system does similar, but i`m sure that the Fuji system had no carrier-signal/frequency, only the optical part with the dot on the film edge. I only did recall because Kilgallb asked for an optical sound-sync system.

I made it a little into Single-8 - also when it was going away - and it was a system with pros and cons. I went into for having a proper pressure plate, with S8 i got varying sharpness - especially when the aperture was wide open. I started to dislike this and went for Single-8. With Single-8 you get constant sharpness, registration is better on slow motion...
...but Fujichrome wasn`t as fine grained as Kodachrome. You only could get Fujichrome in the Single-8 cartridge...
... therefore it wasn`t the perfect system for me. Dry-splicing only because Fujichrome was on PET-base.

Kino said:

You wouldn't believe the crazy systems invented to record sync sound on early home movies. One system I had the privileged of seeing in an extensive collection of film apparatus actually recorded the sound waves via a stylus above the film gate of the camera. The needle scratched the waveform into the base of the film as it was shot.

The projector had a similar needle in the same location above the gate, and on playback, followed the groove cut into the base of the film.

Needless to say, it was a flop as the waveform was clearly visible on the screen upon projection!

How it ever got to the production stage was beyond me...

Click to expand...

I had to think about this even more... have you seen a film projected with this system?
Because when projecting movie film, scratches on the base usually don`t matter. The lens of a projector has such a big aperture, f2.0 for example, that you cannot see scratches on the base when focusing on the grain. If you look at a used movie film you often find scratches on the base, a lot of scratches sometimes - but you won`t see them on the screen.
Unless you set sharpness of the lens on the base, but then the image will be pretty blurred.
Therefore it`s possible that you didn`t see a lot of the sound-groove cut into the base. Even if - i assume this system to be from the 20s or 30s - back then films had bigger grain while taking lenses produced fewer sharpness. It may have been possible to set sharpness before the emulsion without loosing a lot or any sharpness - but blurring scratches on the base even more.
If then still visible, the sound-groove would be a light-grey and blurry vertical line - which would have been acceptable for an amateur sound-system. Such a groove-on-base system would have been uninteresting for professionals, as you cannot copy picture and sound. You only could copy the picture but sound... would be too problematic.
This system likely was intended for amateur use and then a light-grey, blurred and vertical line would have been acceptable - for having sync-sound. Sound-on-film was pretty hard to achieve these days - for example they tried to sync a gramophone to a movie projector - lip-sync sound was even harder. But with this sound-groove-on-film you`d get that, pretty easy, pretty cheap. No additional cost for tape, all you have to pay for is the film. It does make quite some sense, taking the technical limitations of these days into account.

I assume that it didn`t make it into mass production, because an acetate record does wear rather fast. There were electrical gramophones you could make your own recordings with, on acetate discs, but these wouldn`t stand as many playback cycles as a shellac record.
The biggest flaw of this grove-on-film-system should be that the sound-groove would wear rather fast - everything else does make quite some sense.

Harry Callahan said:

I had to think about this even more... have you seen a film projected with this system?
Because when projecting movie film, scratches on the base usually don`t matter. The lens of a projector has such a big aperture, f2.0 for example, that you cannot see scratches on the base when focusing on the grain. If you look at a used movie film you often find scratches on the base, a lot of scratches sometimes - but you won`t see them on the screen.
Unless you set sharpness of the lens on the base, but then the image will be pretty blurred.
Therefore it`s possible that you didn`t see a lot of the sound-groove cut into the base. Even if - i assume this system to be from the 20s or 30s - back then films had bigger grain while taking lenses produced fewer sharpness. It may have been possible to set sharpness before the emulsion without loosing a lot or any sharpness - but blurring scratches on the base even more.
If then still visible, the sound-groove would be a light-grey and blurry vertical line - which would have been acceptable for an amateur sound-system. Such a groove-on-base system would have been uninteresting for professionals, as you cannot copy picture and sound. You only could copy the picture but sound... would be too problematic.
This system likely was intended for amateur use and then a light-grey, blurred and vertical line would have been acceptable - for having sync-sound. Sound-on-film was pretty hard to achieve these days - for example they tried to sync a gramophone to a movie projector - lip-sync sound was even harder. But with this sound-groove-on-film you`d get that, pretty easy, pretty cheap. No additional cost for tape, all you have to pay for is the film. It does make quite some sense, taking the technical limitations of these days into account.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't get to see it in operation; like I said it was part of a cinematographic apparatus collection, pulled from storage for me to examine.

I've quality controlled millions of feet of motion picture film and can tell you it would be visible, if only as a faint noise pattern in the image. The groove was smack-dab in the middle of the aperture; no way it could not have slightly degraded the image quality. However, like you say, it might have been "worth it" to an amateur to get sync sound in that era. Depends on how you define "matter"...

Anyway, it's a moot point; it failed and other systems took the lead.

A sound-groove of course would be deeper (and probably wider) than an ordinary scratch, but as you concur it would be blurred to some extend. Also it only might have been visible in the highlight part of the image, as a grey line wouldn`t be visible in the shadows - and depending on intensity of grey also not on the mid-tones.
As you say the groove was exactly on the middle of the picture, they must have been pretty confident that it wouldn`t degrade image quality a lot - as a sound groove isn`t wide. It`s less than 1mm and i cannot think of a reason why you couldn`t place it at the edge of the picture (still in the picture, but not the middle). Was this for 16mm film?

Harry Callahan said:

A sound-groove of course would be deeper (and probably wider) than an ordinary scratch, but as you concur it would be blurred to some extend. Also it only might have been visible in the highlight part of the image, as a grey line wouldn`t be visible in the shadows - and depending on intensity of grey also not on the mid-tones.
As you say the groove was exactly on the middle of the picture, they must have been pretty confident that it wouldn`t degrade image quality a lot - as a sound groove isn`t wide. It`s less than 1mm and i cannot think of a reason why you couldn`t place it at the edge of the picture (still in the picture, but not the middle). Was this for 16mm film?

Click to expand...

Yes, it was for 16mm. In all practical terms, after you run a reversal print through a typical amateur-maintained projector, it would hardly matter for the "rain" that would result from abrasions. Perhaps the delicacy of the needle and the sound recording galvo also doomed the system. It couldn't have been very shock resistant.

16mm was an amateur format about to the 50s. Then it got semi-professional as it also was used for television, before 35mm was king.
I think sapphire needles came up in the 40s... before it was all steel needles, also on electric playback heads. These heads are rather sturdy... but one more problem would be a splice. The needle likely would loose track on that (and produce a loud click), so this system wasn`t really suited for editing. You had to watch your movies un-edited.

Oh, and when you cut an acetate record you have to get rid of the acetate you cut out of the matrix. Recording machines do have vacuum suction for that, but in a movie camera the cut acetate string would collect somewhere - maybe keeping the needle from properly cutting the rest of the roll...

Harry Callahan said:

There is a guy in italy who has built his own machine to spray a sound strip onto film. In the old days the magnetic strip often was glued onto the film, but the italian does spray it onto the film - which is better because it cannot unglue that easily.
But this only is for developed film. So if you want to record sound on the film with a projector after development.

Click to expand...

Andec in Berlin will glue magnetic stripes for mono sound on developed Super8 film. Note that although they make also copies from negatives, this service is possible only on reversal film. The reason for this is that film cement doesn´t work on Estar base.