super8 vs. digital filmmaking

[Fugazi]

Hi everybody,
I?m going to hold a speech about super8 vs. digital filmmaking in a course about digital media and economy. So I?m looking for some really good arguements. Can anybody response to that? I would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Max

[plattino]

Well that's simple. First, video looks like ( s h i t ) and film looks much better. Any questions?
[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]

[plattino]

Sorry didn't mean to sound so vulgar. How about I like film because its a photographic medium rather than a digital representation of an optical form of light combined with reality in the representation of the image. Dig the icon?

[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]

[Scottness]

Check out these rough comparison shots of Super 8 and miniDV -- it wasn't a fully even comparison (the minidv guy had to shoot what was lit for film etc etc) but it is still worth a look

http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/inmyimage/comp.htm

Scot M

[salt-sg]

The Panasonic announced about 24p-DVCamcorder for independent movie makers.
It can shoot actual 24fps image.

http://www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales...ag-dvx100.html

It will aim at being replaced with S8 and 16mm, because it is easy to get film print.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 05, 2002 07:24 AM: Message edited by: salt-sg ]</font>

[#Pedro]

compare by yourself:

resolution:

S8: up to about 900 "lines", with optimal focus setting and colimnation and optimal projection
video: always depending on your video system and tv norm. The max possible resolution is limited by the NTSC norm and the tape. In practice about the half of S8. Scanned S8 frames cannot be compared, as the final media is not a hi-quality computer screen still, but a video tape over NTSC tv.
Other difference: (S8)film has a dynamic resolution, due to the not regular grain distribution. Resulution of running film is higher than the theoretical still resolution.
Video has no dynamic resolution, regular pixel distribution.

contrast:

S8 positive film has about twice the latitude than any electronic registration. Therefore a film projection looks and is more "brilliant" and "contrasty". Deeper blacks and lighter lights are possible. K40 reacts nearly like the human eye to natural contrasts, so in most cases integral exposure metering gives good results. Natural contrast often result in override of the latitude in direct video registrations.

skin tones and light colors:

K40 has an excellent skin tone reproduction, all kinds of skins look very natural in projection and transmit a kind of "human feeling". Other light colors come out very differenciated and subtile.
Video registration often has problem with skin colors, perhaps due to white balance problems. Especially dark skinned people come out other than brown, greenish, orange looking etc. Look only at prof results in tv. Subtile light colors are extremly reduced in video registration (higher color contrast).

hard color contrasts:

K40 projection shows deep colors very deeply tinted. Video may also show deep colors, and in dv video the typical video noise in deep colors may be less significant. But also in dv, there are that typical shiny separation lines between the color areas, making the szene sometimes look like a cartoon. Film as a photografical media does not produce any separation lines between color areas.


Pedro

[MovieStuff]

The difference between digital and film?

Hmmmm.

Well, much depends on the format that you are talking about when you say "film" or "digital" and how that impacts the choices the film maker has. It also depends on the level of experience the film maker possesses and what sort of budget is available.

For instance: I recently worked on a project that the client shot with one of the new high-end 24p Sony videocams. The end result was stunning and looked like the best 35mm widescreen transfer I had ever seen. So, clearly, digital can and will replace film at some point in our future. But how many of us reading this have a budget that will support using one of these new cameras NOW? Conversely, shooting on super 8 will not look anywhere as good as the images that came off that Sony 24p camera. So, in that scenario, digital clearly wins.

On the other hand, if two neophyte film makers each pick up a camera, one miniDV and the other super 8, and begin to crank off footage, then the super 8 is clearly going to be the asthetic winner since the general public has a predisposition for the "look" of film, regardless of any inherent deficiencies that may be present in the footage as a result of lack of experience on the part of the neophyte film maker. So, in this scenario, super 8 clearly wins.

The problem is that propents of both mediums are quick to point out the deficiencies of the other regardless of whether those deficiencies are a valid part of the asthetic argument. If, say, a professional DP with effortless knowledge used a miniDV and then processed that footage through one of many "film look" programs, chances are very high that he could, from an asthetic viewpoint, come up with something that rivals the look of super 8 on video. The super 8 proponent might point out that the resolution won't be the same but is that really an effective argument to not use video if the asthetic end result is satisfying to the viewer and is accepted as "film"? So the super 8 proponet is technically correct but loses the asthetic argument in this scenario since they are pointing out a distinction that makes no difference in the final score.

In fact, "film look" is used all the time on commercials and music videos and no one is the wiser. They might not be using miniDV but they are definately using video and coming up with something that fools the most ardent film junkie like myself.

But the big difference here is a matter of resources. If we go back to the comparison of the neophyte super 8 shooter and the experienced DP using his knowledge and film look, we can see that the super 8 shooter is going to reach the asthetic finish line sooner than the pro shooting video. The pro will eventually make it, however, and that does count for something but is outside the parameters that generally guides this debate. Everyone reading this is strapped and working on budgets that preclude the type of support that the DP has in his usual bag of tricks.

So, even if the pro uses a miniDV camera, he requires quite an arsenal of auxillary tools to achieve his end result. If all he did was point and shoot with a couple of work lights from the hardware store, like so many super 8 shooters are forced to do, then I doubt that any amount of "film look" processing will save his footage.

In the final analysis, super 8 is the EASIEST way to achieve a "film look" but does not mean it is the only way nor the best way, as illustrated by the Sony 24p camera used on the production I was involved in which, clearly to me at least, rivaled the best 35mm production on video I had ever seen.
Nor can you discount the effect of experience on a production, as illustrated by the comparison of the neophyte super 8 shooter vs the experienced DP miniDV shooter with film look. Conversely, an experienced DP shooting super 8 will more than likely produce better results than a neophyte shooting video, regardless of the tools available.

Therefore, in the debate of super 8 vs digital, I think the defining factor is the experience of the shooter and their understanding of what constitutes the "asthetic need" of the viewing audience to see "film", regardless of HOW the footage was aquired; film or digital. If the shooter understands the need and does not get hung up on technical issues like resolution, gamma, etc, etc, then a final product can be produced on video that looks, for all the world, like film to a viewing audience and will satisfy their basic need to see "film" even if it isn't representative of any particular KIND of film or format. If those asthetic needs are ignored, as is the case of most people shooting miniDV, then nothing will make it look like film, even if it is ultimately printed to film. In that case, super 8 is the clear winner since much of the "asthetic" need of the viewing audience is already addressed by the choice of format.

My two cents.....

Roger

[TA152]

I put my brave face back on:

Film (S8) is: TOOL
Video is: TOY

(or vice versa)

But reality is: Video can do a lot of stuff that S8 is hardly capable of ever like filming in very low light without getting too grainy without even having to interchange cartridges, ++++++++++

Editing on DV/PC is just pure fun and there is absolutely no limit other than your imagination that sets the limit there.

If your S8 foot is transferred to DV its the same of course.

S8 reversal film editing has more limitations (no post lap dissolve stuff, transitions, colour correction, super imposing +++++++++) of course because it can not be post processed but the difference here makes no limitation to a creative S8 film maker or a to good film.

The other stuff is just fun.

Video is great for documentary stuff and experimentation at no cost. If you connect the cam to a monitor when recording and you will get perfect settings there and then and still, adjust them later if not satisfied.


Super8 looks great and to me much better than DV even when it is transferred properly to DV.

Some time ago I had the opportunity to compare DV video and S8DV projected on a big video screen (LCD projector) and nobody in the audience would claim that the DVDV was anything near the S8DV in image quality, colour balance/richness, general impressions and magic, watching the big screen.

It was this seance that made me instantly abandon my next planned camera buy that would have been a Mini DV or a BETACAM.

For trashmatic work and documentation stuff I will keep my old? Hi8.


Reality may be:

Super8 is: TOY and tool while
DV is: TOOL and toy?


The only one to create MAGIC is S8 if that is what you are looking for.

[salt-sg]

Furthermore, another important difference for me between Digital and Super8.
I hate the electric finder of digital camcorder.
Sometimes the optical finder of film camera evokes my imaginations, but gazeing at the electric one is a only tedious check work.

[kbrady]

"video is what the eye sees; film is what the mind sees." I dunno who said it first, but it says it all.

KBrady