DV versus Super-8, the Official Flame Thread...

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 8mmfilm:
There was a film fest here over the weekend. You had 48 hours to complete a film/video given a topic. I was the only one who shot in film. Some of my scenes were over exposed, but when I watched everyone else's dv and video productions, every one had obvious technical problems - poor exposure, no depth of field in night shots, sound problems, shaky camera (does anyone shooting dv ever heard of a tripod, much less use a tripod?) etc.

For me, since I grew up in a film world, whats the point shooting in dv or video for certain projects? There's not fun to it.
[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was there any kind of a link that to the group that put this film fest on, it sounds interesting.

[TA152]

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 28, 2003 11:14 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font></font>

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

Original message reinserted by the moderator to keep the entire topic thread intact.

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

Problem with this topic seem to be that every body basicaly agree that film is better, costs aside.

To me video is" bread and butter" achieved by the simplest and cheapest means while,

film, whatever format, is moving picture by the state of art, art or pure magic.

Here in PAL land DV has pale static look, the colors are certainly look. Pesonally I have a strong feeling that almost no one watches their video home movies once recorded or edited while quite e few more seem to watch their S8 projected or transferred.

Why is that?

Colour, closeness MAGIC of moving pictures, that is my guess.

When the Hi8 format was intrduced I visited Sony her ein Norway and their representative was not sure wether to suggest a few of us to buyteh V8 or Hi8 because the already not perfect colours of V8 saw a big drop to the Hi8 as they admitted.

Here in PAL land the MiniDV has NOT yet recaptured the colours lost with Hi8 and to me is not on par with the BETA for example.

R

<font color="#7BC618" size="1">[ November 14, 2003 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[TA152]

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 28, 2003 11:14 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font></font>

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

Original message reinserted by the moderator to keep the entire topic thread intact.

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

Besides, viewed from PAL - Land:

Impressions covering news / documentary cam DV range, MiniDV, DV 16:9 etc.

* Anybody noted the "muddy" colours on 24P
brownish/yellow "tint" in many light conditions
* 16:9 24P: sharpness down
* very unnatural skin tones
* just doesn?t look as natural as K40

and, possibly (my expectations from viewing TV) when 24P DV is transferred via NTSC to PAL it gets a REAL muddy and grainy look, particularly in the reds and have anyone noted the drop or lack of latitude?


R

<font color="#7BC618" size="1">[ November 14, 2003 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[crimsonson]

"If your goal isn't to be a cinematographer..."

and you will be in shock when you enter the industry in 5 years. Right now -the projects shot in HD is increasing substantially every year. In one of the most popular pro DP mailing list - its often discussed (sometimes dominating the daily discussions). With many features and episodic shows being shot in HD, sometimes under the recommendation of the DP, it will only increase. S8 is not going to teach you about setup, IRE, chroma bandwidth, 10 bit color, 75% etc.

"Cam noise?"

Never been a real problem for video, even when the mic is mounted... for Super8... good luck.


"So you can see that DV for one movie isn't that cheap"

and super 8 is neither - Anybody want to share their budget from their last short?

"cutting corners"?

You got to be kidding me?!!! I mean every cinephile considers Super8 as the low/cheap film format. This is very narrow comparison. My gosh.


Tripod?

You know why the tripod was invented? Because the first few movie cameras are the size and weight of a air conditioner!!! And as time passed people have associated tripods as standard film tool. Just compare the useage of 16 and S16 tripods. you will notice and considerable drop in percentage in use of tripods - pro DP or NOT!! sheez - Many of the worlds greatest DPs loves hand help shot (Janusz K and C Doyle for example). You will say that but theirs look better - yeah because they have been camera op for years.

How about panning flicker?
I mean even the inherit flaw of 24 fps film has been sold as an advantage.... Panning a shot has always been a headache for DPs because of the jerky image 24fps film produces.

"And the smaller the chips inside the camera, the more EVERYTHING is in focus, which is really not what filmmaking is about, in my opinion."

Watch what many consider America's greatest film and count how many deep DoF scenes where there - include the great opening shot of Touch of Evil, the ending of Full Metal Jacket, famous opening sequences of Saving Private Ryan, etc... Again the inherit characteristic of 35mm has been sold as strength. 35mm is INCAPABLE of deep DoF without expensive light setup and a fast (usually very grainy) film stock.
Last time I check R8 and S8 has a DoF pretty much the same as SD video. 16 is not far behind and HD is closer S16.

When did you guys last think of shooting a doc (where the shooting ratio could be as much as 100:1) with film. I mean video is the only format that allows an indie filmmaker (in generic terms) to shoot a doc narative without selling his first,second and third born.


Are there differences - OF COURSE
Does these differences equate to advantages - that is subjective and depends on each project. I mean deep DoF is NOT an advatage nor disadvantage. its just depends on what you need.

In my opinion, the theory of 24fps waking dream state versus 60i hipnotize state is more of a worthy discussion about film vs video - than the old "video looks flat" and "film is expensive."

I love both.

(FYI I actually have more Super 8 cameras than DV)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 03, 2002 07:37 PM: Message edited by: crimsonson ]</font>

[Alex]

First off, I will note that crimsonson has steered the discussion to HD versus 16mm and 35mm.

The reason for HD's growth isn't because it's as good as film. HD will continue to grow because it has to, technology demands it.

We are in the hype stage, where it takes hype and the promise for a better future in the format to get people to use it so that eventually the medium's camera price can be brought down so more people can use it.

Digital will encroach more and more on film because Investors are willing to take a loss on the front end to help reduce film's use so that on the back end more profits can be made as film is ridiculed for being horse and buggy technology.

It's being given away to top DP's.

Then it's refined, then given away again, and so on.

Shallow depth of field is wanted MOST of the time.

24FPS panning judder can be reduced by simply reducing shutter speed.

Tripods are cool.

HD Digital will fit in nicely as an additional tool for filmmakers, especially as the cameras get smaller in size, it's the continual harrassment that says that everything should be shot in digital that I find increasingly annoying.

[crimsonson]

I only used HD as a support for being a modern day DP - it is increasingly becoming a fact of DP life.

"It's being given away to top DP's"

I would like to see proof of this. BVR is making good business RENTING out theirs. Panavision makes one of the best set of lenses for HD and we know you CANT own Pana equipment.

"Shallow depth of field is wanted MOST of the time."

I disagree somewhat - its not its wanted as much as its the inherit characteristic of 35mm. at 4, 5.6 and even 8 aperture- the DoF of 35mm is small compared to 16, S16, HD and SD video. Plus give to the fact that you need a lot of light and most lenses perform best at 5.6 (thus most DP desires to shoot at around 4 for features) you got one shallow DoF.

"24FPS panning judder can be reduced by simply reducing shutter speed."

but creates an image different from what you will get at faster frame rate.

"Tripods are cool."

Yes it is.

"it's the continual harrassment that says that everything should be shot in digital that I find increasingly annoying."

who, where, - if anything more film supporters are more vocal about the transition from HD to film.

"We are in the hype stage, where it takes hype and the promise for a better future in the format to get people to use it so that eventually the medium's camera price can be brought down so more people can use it."

K - then can we use the same analogy for transition from B&W to color film stock?


"Digital will encroach more and more on film because Investors are willing to take a loss on the front end to help reduce film's use so that on the back end more profits can be made as film is ridiculed for being horse and buggy technology."

I really hope you guys have more than just a conspiracy theory!!! Come on - many directors and DPs themselves are suggesting to go digital. And dont say these directors and DPs are getting some kickbacks (That is just lame). and they come from everyside of the spectrum (low budget, high budget, indie, studio, art house, popcorn, Asian, European, documentaries, etc)


"medium's camera price can be brought down so more people can use it"

Huh? Explain.

[Mike Buckles]

While I do prefer film over video, HD does provide great clarity and nice color...but it is a different look from film...more stark, more "news report" looking than film. Perhaps a lot of directors will start using HD instead of film, that's their choice. But with our support, Super 8 will be around for a great many years to come, as those 24 fps progressive scan HD cameras are not readily available to most filmmakers and the general public, and a working model for the average filmmaker is probably 10-15 years away. Interesting side note...our local news station, which does everything in video, chose to shoot an advertisement showcasing their talents....on film! And it looks more professional than anything they've ever produced on video! Mike

[TA152]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">crimsonson wrote
"Cam noise?"

Never been a real problem for video, even when the mic is mounted... for Super8... good luck. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we stick to consumer/prosumer Video cams MANY OF THEM creates a heavy video drum noise that makes the audio useless for other than useless footage.

S8 sound, are you not an experienced S8 cam operator or do you simply have all the worst sound cams made?
S8 could (in the days of sound film) for outdoor shooting produce sound takes with virtually none or at least much less cam noise than many video cams currently around.

For "serious" filmmaking no one would use the on board mike anyway. Difference between that.

With no more sound film around this is no more a factor. S8 wins this battle if you want to by using a separate recording system.

Yah, yah, yah. I know about convinience too but have you ever attached a MD onto your S8 cam? I have, with magic results using the original on-board mike!

And if any, doesen?t it add a certain touch to home movies as long as it do not disrupts the sound?

I thought this topic were aimed at non-HD DV formats? We?ll se what HD bring in a few years. As for now it is in a development stage and will certainly improve is this realy of interest here?

It is an expensive technology that will not available for prosumers in MANY years if ever. (and what is the point anyway?)

To me this is to compare NASA to an in the field amateur rocket maker? = useless to compare.

So, back on trail please whilie I want once again to slam the borish looks of video. If you want quality, do not use it.

By the way: 100:1 ratio seem a result of no planning at all? Does it produce better Docs? I doubt it.

On the other hand: Could Sep/11 have been filmed on film?

R

[GREATwarEAGLE]

It's a safe bet that while film and video formats come and go, some obsolete, some long lasting, the FILM VS VIDEO debate will outlive us all.

Our grand kids will be fighting over this while watching a holographic broadcast of man's first colonization on Mars.

[TA152]

Just adding some info to respond to the continous misleading statments that MDs are not on par with MiniDV or DAT recorders.

In fact it is superior in sound quality. The early MDs had flaws (less than perfect IC converters etc) that were corrected many years ago.

From the info here (full story)
http://www.minidisc.org/mj_ja3es.html#mdquality
which actually dates back in December 1995 it is obvious that the MD technology is better and surely it has improved a lot since then.

MD sound files can be digitally copied without losses the same way as DV files can be copied without losses, just to correct another misunderstanding. Depends how far you want to go.



R

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 04, 2002 10:23 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>