Kodachrome vs. Super 8 Neg - THE FINAL CONFLICT

[Matt Pacini]

Hey, just food for thought, to end, (or add) to the debate about over whether or not Kodachrome 40 looks more "professional" or not, than Super 8 neg film.

My arguments have obviously surrounded around the problem of grain in Super 8, but also, keep this in mind, when using the argument that "K40 doesn't really look like what the pro's are using for feature films", etc. or however the argument is usually worded.

The whole supposed Digital Video Revolution, is basically the foisting upon us a medium that REALLY doesn't look like what movies are shot on.

In other words, K40 looks a hell of a lot more similar to most feature films, than does digital video.

Think about it.

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

To start my diatribe, let me preface this by saying that I've seen some really good "film look" processes for video, especially on PAL, that totally fooled me until I learned I was not watching film. Could I name the "stock" that the project was shot on when I thought it was film? No. But "film" has had so many "looks" over the years as stocks changed that what really makes film look consistantly like film is the motion characteristic that shooting at 24fps gives you. That is why everyone loves super 8; because it is the cheapest thing out there that will automatically give you that "film look" regardless of what emmulsion you choose. Therefore, even in the electronic "film look" lack of a specific emmulsion isn't what the audience cares about.

As I pointed out in another post, reversal looks like and has many of the same projection characteristics of a print pulled from a negative. This is no accident, as Kodak designed reversal for projection and not replication.

As such, 16mm neg transferred on a Rank can be made virtually indistinguisable from 35mm, depending on the stock used in production. However, once you pull a print off a 16mm neg, it forever looks like 16mm in my opinion. This is not a bad thing, just a characteristic. As we move down the food chain, I believe that Super 8 reversal can be made to look exactly like a 16mm print transferred to video, but never like a transfer off a negative of any format, since even 16mm and 35mm suffer the same fate when they are transferred off a print.

Now, as far as super 8 negative goes, I think it is just plain grainy and hollers "super 8" at the top of its lungs, even IF the skin tones are sometimes better in the final transfer than K40. However, lighting and filtration can attenuate the skin tone problem and get rid of it, if someone cares enough to try. Unfortunately, the amount of grain suppression needed to get rid of grain on super 8 negative would result in "glocoma vision", since grain supression softens the picture when applied. But more importantly, even without grain supression, super 8 negative just isn't as sharp as K40, no matter what ASA you use. This isn't my opinion, here. If negative was as sharp as reversal, there would be no more reversal in any format; still or motion picture.

So, IF your goal is to hide the fact that a production was shot in super 8, does one shoot in K40 and live with the idea that it will look like a 16mm print, at best, or does one live with the grain of super 8 negative which could call attention to the fact that it was shot in something other than 16mm or 35mm?

This is not an easy question, since features shot in 16mm are rarely printed in 16mm these days, except for festival use where the audience pretty much knows from the get-go that they're watching 16mm. Therefore, even though K40 could look like 16mm on video, the idea that it would look like a 16mm PRINT could also be a subconscious indicator that the movie presented wasn't "real" by today's Hollywood standards. More specfically, since the practice of printing 16mm features died out when people started posting and finishing on video over 15 years ago, any film that looks like a 16mm print, even if it WAS shot on 16mm, will have a somewhat "dated" quality to it and won't look like a film made recently, in my opinion. Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, but just a characteristic that would need to be addressed in the art direction of any film shot on K40 with an intention for release on video in today's market.

Again, the emmulsions used to make super 8 negative may very well be "professional" emmulsions. However, and this is very important in my opinion, Hollywood features that chose to employ super 8 negative in their production did so NOT because it looked "professional" but because it looked grainy and very "un-professional", despite the "professional" stocks it was derived from! Therefore, in the end analysis, it is my opinion that the idea of a "professional" negative stock for super 8 is pretty much a myth, at this stage of the game, IF it is one's desire to mask the fact that a given production was shot in super 8. That said, however, shooting in K40 doesn't solve all the problems in achieving this deception, but it does give one a good head start in the area of grain suppression.

It is my opinion that something shot in K40 and transferred to video will, at best, still look like a movie that was shot on negative and printed some years back, but, like a successful electronic "film look", the format of origin won't present itself as a huge question mark that distracts from the enjoyment of the story. But, ironically, the grain difference between super 8 neg and K40 is so great, that if I were shooting a contemporary film and wanted the "home movie look" for some sections of the feature, I would shoot all current scenes on K40 and shoot the "home movie" stuff on negative!

Anyway, this is all just my opinion based on my observations over the years.

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

Yeah, I agree with everything that Roger said.
I was making the comment, assuming that someone is stuck (like myself) with using Super 8, and does not have the choice at the moment of moving up the format food chain. I think it's safe to say, that nobody in their right mind is shooting S8 because they think it looks better than any other film format, just that we're poor bastards, but still just love the look of film over video.

I've seen some video run through Filmlook also, and it was convincing, but it seems to have a sort of generic look, that you can't really vary, at least from the stuff I've seen. I just really think that at some point, the hype about DV is going to be public knowledge, and everyone who has their films on DV will have about as much credibility, as my buddies a few years ago, telling me how superior S-video was to Super 8! Remeber how everyone ranted and raved about S-VHS in the low budget world?
Nobody believed me then that S8 was better. How cool do you think it is NOW, for those guys having their short films shot on S-VHS??

It's true about the home movie look of the neg stock, in spite of what the Super 8 Sound ads say about us using the "same professional stock that the big boys do" or whatever.

Everything I've seen shot on Pro8mm that was inserted into a 35mm feature, has specifically been "home movie footage", like in Selena, Natural Born Killers, etc.
I haven't seen, nor heard, of any big budget feature that put in S8 ProNeg for any other reason, so Super 8 Sound's claim is just hype and BS (as usual).
There's not getting away from the fact that reversal will always look like reversal, but grain the size of golfballs, will always look like shitty home movies, or badly processed old news footage (Traffic), no matter how you got there.

I will admit, however, that I would like to see the Pro neg ASA50 compared to K40 in a really good side by side test.
Problem is, since Neg looks better overexposed, you would actually need MORE light that shooting on K-40 to get a good exposure. In daylight, this would not be a problem, but interiors, I'd be melting my actors with so much light!

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

Previously, Matt wrote:

"I will admit, however, that I would like to see the Pro neg ASA50 compared to K40 in a really good side by side test. Problem is, since Neg looks better overexposed, you would actually need MORE light that shooting on K-40 to get a good exposure. In daylight, this would not be a problem, but interiors, I'd be melting my actors with so much light!"

This is a very good point. The grain does tighten on negative when you overexpose it a bit but doing so would effectively lower the ASA rating and K40 is tough enough to shoot as it is. However, IF the grain between 50 ASA neg and K40 were similar enough to call "even", the neg would have the advantage of wider latitude. A comparison of the same scene with both mazimixed during transfer would be interesting.

Roger

[Nigel]

Matt--

I take issue with your statement about Natural Born Killers--That film use Tri-X so that it would look grainy and raw. Most of the true professional films that I have worked on or known people to shoot for have shot reversal when they shoot S8.

The reasons being--
1. The "Look"

2. The fact that they blew up from S8 to 35mm Interneg without the loss of a generation.

I still like K40 the best for my colour shooting. I also like Neg stocks. However, I will take issue with some of the earlier statements about 16mm. I know this is an S8 board--However, 16mm is more dead than S8. If you have a Standard 16mm camera and try to get a job as a DP you will be laughed at by the director and producer before you even show your reel.

I have a late model Aaton LTR54 Super16, it has opened doors for me. But, those doors were opened because it is the flavour of the week right now. I have had jobs that I got beacuse of that camera only to rent 35mm gear. The camera sits in its cases more than it is running.

When shooting small formats(Super16 included) your film stocks are what makes or breaks you. You can't shoot anything over 250 without it being noticed--Take 500T(Both Fuji and Kodak--I like the Fuji more myself) when shot in 35mm it looks good. Not great, but Good. When shot on Super16 it looks like Shit. Shoot slow films on small formats--because if you don't they will soon look like pointilist paintings--Not that that is bad.

I have shot a lot of S8 for video and it looks like 16--Just as you said. I have also shot a lot of S8 to look grainy because-- it is another paint on my pallette. It is another choice I have to work with. When I use it for what it is--That is when I get the best results. I don't make it look slick. I don't make it compete with 35mm. I think that is what a lot of people do. And in my opinion that is the wrong way of doing things.

Good Luck

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

[MovieStuff]

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

I know this is an S8 board--However, 16mm is more dead than S8. If you have a Standard 16mm camera and try to get a job as a DP you will be laughed at by the director and producer before you even show your reel.

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Nigel!

I not so sure that is completely accurate for all regions of the country and for all applications. I have a standard 16mm camera package, a damn fine demo reel that gets me plenty of work all the time over people with super 16mm and no one has ever laughed at me. True professionals in the media will look at the quality of the finished work first, regardless of what format it was shot on. Only format snobs will turn their noses up at something before looking at it. Usually, these same people couldn't tell the difference between something shot in super 16 or standard 16mm when watching on video, which is how most people watch demo reels.

For television work, where the aspect ratio of standard 16mm is a better fit than super 16mm, I find that standard 16mm is used for commercials more often, here in Houston and Dallas, than super 16mm. Also, for people doing independent films in super 16mm, the big problem they run into for festivals is that you can't project super 16mm, so they either have to pay for a blow up to 35mm or a reduction to standard 16mm.

And finally, I don't believe for a moment that standard 16mm is more dead than super 8. I can go to any rental house in Texas and find all the ARRI SR3s in standard 16mm I want but super 16mm will be a special order every time, unless they happen to still have one in from someone else's feature film shoot.

Also, for super 8 to be more popular than standard 16mm, I find it odd that none of the rental houses have any professional super 8 equipment for rent. If it was more popular for professional DPs than standard 16, I would think rental houses would have supplanted their "useless" and expensive standard 16mm equipment for some high end Nizos and Beaulieus, just to keep up with the "demand".

With all due respect, I think your statements are based more on your own prefereces than actual reality in general. I work in 16mm all the time and I don't find your observations to be the same as mine.

Roger

[Nigel]

Roger--

The reason you can find R16 gear is because you are dealing with Arri. Arri didn't have a factory S16 camera until the SR3(maybe some late 2's).

As for your demo reel that is your best way to get a job--True. But when a director sees that horizontal flare that only Panavision lenses give you--or sees the fact that you shot 2.35:1 they cream in their jeans.

Plus, with HDTV being the hot topic people who are shooting for TV want the widescreen. As for festivals. If you can get your film into a decent festival you can usually find the money for a blow-up after. It really doesn't cost more than a couple grand to do. Which in the long run is nothing since you pay more than that for insurance, or food.

On a low/no budget film there is still demand for R16 gear. But, in a big budget world it is dead.

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

[MadFor3D]

Roger,

You said, "However, lighting and filtration can attenuate the skin tone problem and get rid of it" regarding the skin tone problems with k40.

I'm currently awaiting my first 3 rolls of k40 that are being processed. It was all shot outdoors. However, I'm preparing to shoot some indoor test shots. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

Also, from reading this post, it seems like we have to do everything we can to get the most out of this format. Right away I start thinking of all the different comparisons I'd like to try.

Specifically, I'm wondering how much of a difference is made by the camera being either a beam splitter reflex or a true reflex? I know that's a little off topic, I'm just trying to get a sense how much these different factors affect the image before the light hits the film.

-M

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

[jocko]

I am right there with you guys about 99%..but I have shot the super-8 50asa and 100asa neg film and have had great finished products..overexposing 1 stop the grain is pretty tight..and interior daylight shots with the kinoflow rig doesn't melt most people..granted..using a couple of K arrilights will melt some make-up..now I don't think I would shoot a feature in S-8 neg stock.but I use them for music video's..and they don't scream "home movie's"..I've had editing people askif it was 16..and also I must say I am totally impressed with the stills from Scotts feature..K-40 does shine..and I have used it for over 20years and will continue to use it..but to me filmstocks are tools..and used within their limits work fine..Now about reg 16mm being dead..not here in philly and NYC..infact I only know of a few people that shoot S16..and they are mostly using converted bolex and That russian camera Kraskakornova or whatever..I directed a Music video and the DP rented the A-minima(his choice not mine)Really nice camera though..didn't look any better then my 16 work..the rental guys around here rent out the SR3's told me that only about 10% shoot S16..starting my feature in a couple weeks(reg 16)so..much work to do...I lost 2 locations because of security concerns...ouch, it's going to be nightmare to find new ones

Neil

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

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Jocko!

Well, of course, the whole issue is relativity. As I indicated, directors don't cut super 8 into their 35mm or 16mm productions because super 8 looks the same as 35 or 16. What would be the point in that? Super 8 has a certain "look" that, if left raw and unattenuated, will be very home movie like. If handled properly, as seen in Scot's terrific shots from his film, it can also create images of great sophistication even THOUGH they might not match the characteristics of a specific 35mm or 16mm stock.

Years ago, when I was building optical printers on a fairly regular basis, one thing that I learned was that the initial images the audience sees is crucial to how they accept the rest of your film. I always encouraged people that were blowing up their 16mm films to 35mm to have their titles done in 35mm, even if the background imagery was originated in 16mm. My feeling was that, if the titles seemed nice and sharp, then any grain or softness of the rest of the movie would be accepted as an "artistic" decision on the part of the makers. But if the titles seemed soft and grainy, then the audience would always look at the rest of the picture as soft and underachieved.

I think the same is true with Super 8. It CAN look great, but care has to be taken to present it in a way that the audience accepts and in a way that doesn't tip the audience to the idea that it was shot in any specific format and not so much that it WASN'T shot in Super 8. In other words, as long as the audience doesn't suspect it was shot in super 8, they won't even consider choice of format an issue. It will just be "the movie".

Roger