High Definition video in feature filmmaking

Matt Pacini · October 22nd, 2001, 10:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chas_ucla:
Hey Matt,
I'm certainly not against what you are saying but as the years go by, unless some companies start making new cameras and projectors, I think we are going to start seeing a general S8 equipment breakdown...I mean, how long can this equipment which is 20+ years old now, last?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Matt Pacini responds):
Well, I'm not a huge fan of Beaulieu's, but the DO currently make Super 8 gear, including the re-release of the 4008 (Look up Widescreen Centre in London about this).

Still, you're right to a certain extent, but just like old cars, if there are enough people interested in owning and using them, there will continue to be an industry that services them.
Other than Beaulieu, all Super 8 cameras stopped being made almost 20 years ago, yet I can still get mine fixed, so there's not a problem, right?

Matt Pacini

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

chas_ucla · October 22nd, 2001, 10:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

I can still get mine fixed, so there's not a problem, right?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For now you are right...in ten years you may be right...but I think the odds are going to get progressively worse...
I hope I'm wrong!

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

MovieStuff · October 22nd, 2001, 11:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

The DV market and digital video in general is marketed for the consumer market mostly...

I would argue that the images a Panavision or Arri 35mm camera makes is so superior in quality, it doesn't need constant "improvements" to advance the craft and technology of film any more.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Matt!

One must remember that there really was and is no such thing as a "professional" super 8 camera, despite the words silk screened on the boxes they come in and the ads that promote(d) them. The entire format was designed for amatuer use. The fact that people like yourself and others MAKE it do things it wasn't intended for doesn't elevate the format or the equipment to a differenct status. The DV cameras of today are the super 8 cameras of 20 years ago; no difference other than the format they shoot on since the intended market is the same.

Therefore, when you write:

"The DV market and digital video in general is marketed for the consumer market mostly, and therefore, they have to come out with a zillion different models with little things that don't necessarily do anything that makes better pictures."

That pretty much describes the super 8 market of 20 years ago, as well. The footage produced today on a super 8 camera is no better than it was 20 years ago and certainly, no worse. BUT, the Super 8 cameras that currently exist aren't going to last forever and parts and service are going to become an issue that will make DV more appealing, especially after the "trickle down" of technology that allows for 24fps progressive scan film emulation.

As it stands, despite the fact that new 16mm cameras are being manufactured each year (unlike super 8) the digital 24p units are already taking a VERY fast bite out of the market once dominated by 16mm and super 16mm. Therefore, with the super 8 market not introducing new cameras each year, the only thing left to stimulate the manufacture of super 8 film is the ever decreasing stock pile of old super 8 cameras which, themselves, were the DV cams of their day.

Now, I agree with you that those cameras will PROBABLY be around for quite a while in various stages of decay. However, from a marketing standpoint, if Kodak were a manufacturer of ammunition for guns that stopped being made - then, at some point, they would have to look at their bottom line and see if continuation of said ammo was really worth the trouble, especially if producing that ammo had a steep environmental price tag and the shooting public had switched over to newer, cheaper, more versatile weapons.

In the end, (as it relates to this discussion) I think that film technology for super 8 is pretty much dead in the water. K40 is still the emmulsion of choice for people like yourself and Kodak hasn't changed it a bit over the years. Haven't you ever wondered why it is still a "type A" film stock? So much for "professional" applications as I'll bet the majority of people that use K40 have no idea what I just wrote! (and I mean that in a nice way, really)

So, in reference to Super 8, the cameras aren't being made and the film hasn't changed. So, when Crimsonson said:

"Film technology has been quite stagnant for a while."

I'd say that pretty much describes super 8 to a T. We need new super 8 cameras other than noisey, recycled Beaulieu designs. Only that will perpetuate the need for NEW super 8 film stocks that really are worth a damn and not another super grainy high speed negative which doesn't really give a better picture but has the allure of sounding faster and more "professional" than K40 or E160 reversal.

Otherwise, the clock is ticking, I am afraid.

My two cents...

Roger

crimsonson · October 23rd, 2001, 12:38 AM

Agree again with Roger.

DV as its stands have varying level of quality and price. Every year, what was pro becomes prosumer and then consumer. The trickle down effect has made what is pro to be better every year and what is consumer to be better too. For film if your pro your choice is either 35mm or S16. No trickle down. Amateurs and semi pros have 16. And S8- well... Roger already explained that. The fact that A Minima is the first major S16 camera in TEN years says a lot about the industry. The fact that its starting price is 7 digits says even more. Yes the quality of film is superior but its accessibility have remained the same. That fact is a major point for any filmmaker.

Matt: What other advances you ask?
How about making manufacturing technology cheaper so some of us can buy a decent 16 cam new under $5000?

"features" which are just semi-useless doohickies"

Canon's new XL1S offers gamma controls, black levels, hue, clear scan (yes clear scan), and other features that would normally be found on pro cams costing at least twice the price. Also, accessory that adds 2 XLRS and a Composite.

JVC has DV500- a cam that feels and looks and performs almost like a 25,000 ENG cam of five years ago, it also accepts bayonet mount lens. XLR is standard.

Again, these features where something use to be reserve for Pro cams and costing at least twice the price.

Some 35mm cams have iris/fps ramps and shutter/iris ramps. I dont know any DP to expect this feature on an the next A Minima anytime soon.

"The DV market and digital video in general is marketed for the consumer market mostly, and therefore, they have to come out with a zillion different models with little things that don't necessarily do anything that makes better pictures"

agree if its DV25, not for DV50 though. BetaSX definetely not. HD ( a form of digital video) ofcourse not. Matt I think you are grouping DV in to one big umbrella that is inaccurate.

I want super8 to survive. But its not only up to me/us. I have already the top of the class Nizo Pro and 6080. I have a Canon 814. I had the Nikon R10 and a couple of Bell&Howell. I use all Kodak stocks at least every week. I have a Goko 3003 viewer and a Chinon 7500 projector. But after spending all this money I'm already afraid if something breaks you might see an Ebay item titled:
Nizo 6080 for parts NO reserve

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

MovieStuff · October 23rd, 2001, 12:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
Agree again with Roger.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop it. People will talk.

Roger

Alex · October 23rd, 2001, 01:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Stop it. People will talk.

Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree with Roger.

You need to start with how many Super-8 cameras were actually made.

I have heard somewhere between 30 million to 75 million Super-8 cameras were actually made.

If we assume that 10% are still functioning....

Those 3 - 7.5 million cameras are a heck of a lot more than exist in 16mm.

In fact, Super-8 is the most logical format for Kodak to pursue film production in.

And apparently, Beaulieu is either recycling or making new cameras.

------------------
Alex

chas_ucla · October 23rd, 2001, 03:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
In fact, I'd say, that since digital video is such a compromise, that once the hype fades away, people will accept it's inferiority, and there will be even MORE Super 8 shooting!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Matt,
I'm certainly not against what you are saying but as the years go by, unless some companies start making new cameras and projectors, I think we are going to start seeing a general S8 equipment breakdown...I mean, how long can this equipment which is 20+ years old now, last?

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

MovieStuff · October 23rd, 2001, 05:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Roger, there were not more betamax decks made than Super-8 cameras.
Super-8 cameras were made from 1965 until 1981....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but how many "serious" super 8 enthusiasts are shooting with an old Argus fixed lens camera from 1965? THAT'S the issue, not overall volume of just any kind of camera made.

The cameras that had all the whistles and bells, like Canon 1014's, Elmo 1012's, Nizos, Bauer, Nikon etc, etc, etc were made MUCH later. These are the cameras that hardcore super 8 shooters are using today and not as many were sold as the pervasive and ubiquitous "Montgomery Wards" or "Sears" home movie outfits that make up the larger percentage of super 8 cameras manufactured and "missing in action".

Therefore, to make a blanket statement that more super 8 cameras were made by taking into account all the useless home movie dinky-cams is kind of silly since they don't constitute the bulk of cameras being shot with today and never have. The "fancy-cams" are getting more and more rare and that presents a problem unless one doesn't mind shooting with a "Bentley" or a "Focal" point and shoot cam.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:

BetaMax came and went pretty quickly, although one model marched on for quite a few years, not that many were sold. Remember, video decks were not that cheap when consumer video first came out, so Betamax saturation was no where near what Super-8 cameras were able to achieve over 16 years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, there wasn't 16 years of "fancy cam" saturation. The cameras that really smoked came much later. In fact, the best thing that happend to super 8 was Betamax. All the people that just wanted "home movies" switched to video. That left super 8 users that demanded more sophisticated cameras and not just point and shoot cams. The cameras I mentioned earlier were the end result of that consumer demand and were VERY expensive, compared to the old "Wards" variety.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:

Unlike VHS, which replaced Beta-Max, there was no actual film replacement for Super-8 cameras, that's why they keep turning up in closets AND NOT thrown out, people know they are different from video, and they value them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally incorrect. Home video replaced super 8, which is why there aren't anymore super 8 cameras being made. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion! Beyond that, there are just as many old two piece, single tube home video cameras hidden in the very same closets as there are really good super 8 cameras; more, I'll bet.

Roger

Alex · October 23rd, 2001, 01:39 PM

It's pretty safe to say there are way more Super-8 cameras than 16mm cameras, probably 50-100 times as many, perhaps even more.

Even if you limit it to just the "bells & whistles" type Super-8 cameras, there still is a staggering amount more of Super-8 cameras as 16mm.

Which makes Super-8 a logical market for Kodak to pursue, not run away from.

------------------
Alex

MovieStuff · October 23rd, 2001, 02:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:
It's pretty safe to say there are way more Super-8 cameras than 16mm cameras, probably 50-100 times as many, perhaps even more.

Even if you limit it to just the "bells & whistles" type Super-8 cameras, there still is a staggering amount more of Super-8 cameras as 16mm.

Which makes Super-8 a logical market for Kodak to pursue, not run away from.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number of super 8 cameras that exist isn't as important to Kodak as the number being used. THAT's the main difference here. More super 8 cameras MIGHT exist (not sure that's really true, actually) but the number of people shooting 16mm far exceeds the number of people currently shooting super 8.

Roger

Thread: High Definition video in feature filmmaking

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions