SUPER 8 COMPARED TO DV

[mcarter4121]

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/transfer8mm.html

The first sample is a still from what you want to see. Right mouse click the movie link below and "save target as"

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/minidvsuper8.mpg

The first link is where the page is and the second is the movie itself. It was a real eye opener for me.

[lightfeat]

For me,

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/minidvsuper8.mpg

is an excellent example of the extreme difference between these formats and why, IMHO, they don't mix at all well. The DV is so clean and sharp, the colours well represented, monitor-like. It makes the K40 look like a joke when held up against it. The K40, however, is lovely, but not when mixed with the DV's clinical images, and not when badly exposed, or colour balanced as they so often are. I like both formats, but they are like chalk and cheese. If you mix them, neither look good, and it draws attention to itself and is distracting. This could work if the S8 is to be a flashback, or else distinct for a specific reason. S8 looks better mixed with B&W DV, again, IMHO.

[DIEFTHINTIS]

I am planning to use some Super 8 footage (after a telecine transfer) in a film shot with a DV camera. So I wonder how the various film types (Kodachrome and PRO8) compare in terms of resolution and color quality to the DV images.

[MovieStuff]

I think the biggest difference is that video looks "live" (indeed, one can never tell if the image is a video playback or is live from a video camera) and film always looks like something from the past, even if only yesterday, but never "live". That's why film works so well for flashbacks, regardless of contrast or color issues. Even 35mm neg Ranked would still look like "yesterday" as opposed to the "now" live look of video.

[pauls opinion]

"The DV is so clean and sharp, the colours well represented"

What I dislike about dv colour most is it's greens; I really hate dv greens; they are not representative at all I think and really, really ugly. Anyway, I think it doesn't really matter if colours of a film or format are representative or not; I also like what they add 9in a subtle way). Colour palettes like those of Kodachrome are great as are other films colour palettes. I would not like this to put this as a contra against dv; just think things shouldn't be overexaggerated.

happily you can also change things is post.

Paul

[pauls opinion]

.... well actually it is a contra...

[DIEFTHINTIS]

OK. My initial question comes from a possible use - for a special reason -of Super 8 footage (filmed in a Bauer S 715 camera) in a project that it will be basically shot with a DV camera an edited in premiere. The question started, because I need that special film look, but I don't want the picture in a a 32'' TV set to look blurred, or out of focus. So, conserning sharpness, I know that film looks softer than the digital image, but could an average viewer consider it technically unacceptable? Until I find out in my monitor, after shooting and scanning some rolls of film, all I have to do is guess through some mothematical equations... The super 8 frame is about 30 times smaller than the 35mm (24x36) frame. I have found that 6megapixels cameras, offer a little better sharpness than a 35mm camera (test with Fuji Sensia, scanned through a cylinder scanner). But the digital image was manipulated in photoshop, in order to achieve the same magnification. If 9 Mp could be considered the equal of film, then the equal of a super 8 camera would be a 30 times smaller senson, than tis 0,3 MP. With the DV PAL resolution of 720x576, the sensor is about 0,4 MP. Still the digital square pictures sometimes become ugly, especially in diagonal (jagged) edges, in contrary to the grainny film look.