A short film on a budget, Super 8 or 16?

[S8 Booster]

supa_ate_sixteen

There an easy way out of this;

Contact Monika ([email protected]) at PRO8mm and ask for their S8 demo reel on a HQ Videotape at a format you can playback. I suggest you to project it by a HQ video projector too.

That is what I did. When you see this demo reel you have got what you need to decide if you go for Super8 or 16mm.

The reel includes reversal 8mm or super8 transfers too so it is easy to compare rev/neg film.

If it isn?t good enough for you, go 16.
My guess is that you go Super8 .
Depends somewhat on what your final film is destined for.

Good luck with your project whatever format you choose.




------------------
Forrest Warrior

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S8 Booster:

Contact Monika ([email protected]) at PRO8mm and ask for their S8 demo reel on a HQ Videotape at a format you can playback. I suggest you to project it by a HQ video projector too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I would agree that looking at the Pro8mm demo reel COULD be useful they, unfortunately, don't label what the hell it is you are looking at. You don't know if it's 50ASA with grain suppression off or 200ASA with grain supression turned on, etc.

Also, a video projector is the LAST thing I would ever use to judge image quality. They are notoriously lower resolution than a CRT. Just use a good, well adjusted video monitor off the best tape you can afford for them to send you. My guess is that the 50 ASA is the only stock that would come close to acceptable grain and, even then, it is still much more grainy than K40 but more forgiving in contrast. The 200 looks like a swarm of gnats, in my opinion.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[S8 Booster]

Roger, i didn?t mean that he should not watch it on a HQ monitor, just that a HQ projector will give a different impression which I think is useful too:

1) Monitor
2) Projector

I think all the PRO8 mm stock is represented there and that the 50D is the best in terms of grain (Virtually none visual at the demo casette).

How the 200T is I do not know.

How is your experienece with the 200T on the WorkPrinter? Do you refer to the transfer from Rank or the WP when you decribe the grain?




------------------
Forrest Warrior

[Matt Pacini]

OK, I'm pretty late jumping in here.
I'll toss in my two cents here:

Almost my entire feature was shot at 1.8-f2.8.

1. The sharpest area of the lens is around two stops from wide open, which on most S8 lenses, is right in this area.
2. Super 8 has such depth of field, that if you want it to look more like 35mm, you shoot wider open than they usually do, to be able to put things out of foucus.
3. I almost never had enough light to go higher than that anyway!

K-40 is the finest grain Super 8 stock anywhere. The assumption that viewing Pro8mm's demo tape is going to be the end-all of the discussion, is silly, since in my opinion, their demo tape looks like crap.

You can't judget how much grain there is, or is not in their images, because they purposely (in my opinion) shot all the footage with the most ridiculous amount of jerky epileptic-like hand holding technique I've ever seen in my life.
Not once do they hold on something long enough for you to examine the image, which I don't think is an accident.

Some of my K-40 footage looks much more like a standard feature film, and their footage looks more home-movie-ish, in my opinion.

Anyone who doubts, it, (again) I'll email you some frames and you can see for yourself.

As for the whole 16/S8 argument, the asnwer is simple:
Shoot the largest format you can afford, period.
If I had the money, I'd be shooting IMAX. I'm shooting Super 8 because I can be broke and still shoot film, which is more beautiful than any video images.


Matt Pacini

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

[gaspode]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> auto and manual zoom (multi speed)

you don't ever find this on 16mm cameras?

> Macro

you don't ever find this on 16mm cameras?

> 12, 18, 24, 36 fps

you don't ever find this on 16mm cameras?

> Single frame

you don't ever find this on 16mm cameras?

> Intervalometer

you don't ever find this on 16mm cameras?
...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what i said was that you get many more features on one of these S8 cameras, if you can name me a 16mm cam with all these features then i will accept i was wrong

------------------
'Cause of death... at this time, unknown...'
'Unknown? What the..? He's had his fuckin' head sliced off!'

[S8 Booster]

Just a clarification for S8 film to transfer to Video. The statement on 1.4 - 2.8 is based on experience on the imaging quality for transfer to video.

My experience with the S8 K40 is that there is a gain in exposure quality with the K40 when you stay away from the lower end and maybe the high end as well.

My concern is when the film are to be transferred digitally to video this is the better way to do it to gain a good linearity in the image contol/lens, not to slam big apeteure filming.

Even the neg stock superior latitude range won?t always help to overlap big deviation between the normaly exposed and the darker areas when transfered S8 to DV.

For other purposes tweaking the aperture may give just the effect you want for that scene.

For Super8/K40 it is a general advantage to stay clear of the outer limits especially for video transfer jobs. Thats my experience.

Have you really seen the PRO8mm Video demo or have you just seen it on the net.?

If you are right about the grain for the 50-200 ASA neg stock it seem like the best alternative is to use the K40 for video transfer too. Its really good. I think it is a great film too.

The idea is to work within the best range of whatever film stock or equipment you work with and that should normally be well clear off the limits except for special phototechnical purposes.

Wether it is Super 8 or super+



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[supa_ate_sixteen]

16mm short ends? Labs that can be bargained with for Rank or processing in the US? Anyone? What happened to this thread when I was gone anyways??

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

[S8 Booster]

Bye Matt.

If you are a PRO it din?t show up a lot in this tread anyway. The guy asked for advice and you seemed to contribute very little to help him out other than trowing bits and pices in the air every time he went for a solution.

The 1:1.2 - 1:2.8 was refered to K40 which isn?t really in strongest exposure window of the K40 that is the film to project for the S8.

What you may do with neg films may be a different story.



------------------
Forrest Warrior

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S8 Booster:
"...Have you really seen the PRO8mm Video demo or have you just seen it on the net.?..."


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the actual VHS tape they sent me.
I'm not making my judgement on anything on the internet, just their tape.

I certainly see potential for the ASA50, MAYBE, but again, there is simply no way to tell from viewing their tape, since they do all they can to keep you from an honest evaluation of the quality.

And I think their transfers are hideious; way too oversaturated. I've never seen any kind of footage anywhere look like the footage on their tape.
It doesn't look like reversal usually looks, it doesn't look like neg usually looks, it just looks like a chimp did the telecine session.

If you want to see what the best of Super 8 is capable, shoot some K-40 really well, and you'll see what I mean...


Or just check this out and see for yourself:
http://www.blackforestentertainment....1/Parrish1.jpg

I would really like to see some still images from some Pro8mm film, to scrutinize like this, not some jerky hand-held footage, or footage that has been down-res'd for the web, so you can't really tell.


Matt Pacini



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

[blackangus1]

"The sharpest area of the lens is around two stops from wide open, which on most S8 lenses, is right in this area."

Typically the sharpest a lens will get is right about the middle aperture -- f/5.6 or f/8. The further one deviates from these apertures the softer the lens will typically get, but obviously different lenses will respond differently. Some hold their quality very nicely at varying apertures, and some fall apart. Shoot for the right exposure, but when you can manipulate circumstances, try for f/4 or more, but also try to avoid anything more closed than f/11.

"2. Super 8 has such depth of field, that if you want it to look more like 35mm, you shoot wider open than they usually do, to be able to put things out of focus".

Yep, that is basically true. The rules for soft background focus are pretty simple, use the longest focal length you can, with the widest aperture you can get, and get as close to the subject as you can (all while serving the right composition of course). If that doesn't do it, then you can "cheat" -- putting a superfine mesh behind the talent or such -- to get a little more separation.

"The assumption that viewing Pro8mm's demo tape is going to be the end-all of the discussion, is silly, since in my opinion, their demo tape looks like crap."

Ditto.

"You can't judge how much grain there is, or is not in their images, because they purposely (in my opinion) shot all the footage with the most ridiculous amount of jerky epileptic-like hand holding technique I've ever seen in my life."

DITTO. This is a really annoying thing about Pro8mm. They seem to never really want Pro8 to look GOOD. On the tape I have, they always show it in its grainiest, jerkiest, handheld amateurish worst.

"Not once do they hold on something long enough for you to examine the image, which I don't think is an accident."

When I've had transfers done there, it seems like they not only didn't try to reduce the grain, but it almost seems like they magnified the grain. And I know why -- they (at the time) had the belief that if you wanted smooth, grain-free footage, you'd be shooting 16mm or 35mm. They were of the opinion that if you were shooting S8, you were doing it on purpose to specifically get the grain and the shakes (which is a gross miscalculation on their part, because I don't know one person on this board who wants to see that -- everyone here seems to be trying to go for maximum image quality.)

That's one reason I haven't shot my Velvia roll yet, I'm waiting for a properly-lit professional production in the daylight. I want it to look as good as it possibly can, then we'll have Roger transfer it and pull some stills off it and we'll see what S-8 can really do. Wish I still had my 6008 though... but the Elmo will have to do.


"Some of my K-40 footage looks much more like a standard feature film, and their footage looks more home-movie-ish, in my opinion."

Exactly what they were going for, I think.

"As for the whole 16/S8 argument, the answer is simple:
Shoot the largest format you can afford, period."

Excellent advice. The only thing I would qualify it by is adding "unless you are choosing the format for some particular quality, such as that you really want a lot of grain (or no grain), or need extremely deep or shallow depth of field, etc."

Shutting up now.

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