Super 8 vs miniDV comparison shots posted

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
By the way, you did the right thing by underexposing, as I've said many times before.
K-40 renders detail well in the shadows, as you can see, but it blows out in the highlights and that's when it starts looking like a home movie.
When you expose like you did, you have detail everwhere, and you can tweak it to look any way you want.
If you overexpose, you're hosed... if you increase contrast, it just looks aweful.
Good job...

Matt Pacini
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends what is is, Matt.

If the highlights are background foilage and are "background", then exposing for that at the expense of your actors face is truly insane.

I recently saw lovely Ektachrome projected on a film screen.

I already told you digital noise reduction is possible for Ektachrome AFTER it has been transferred to video.

You don't know about it and refuse to find out about it. Now that's insane.



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

[#Pedro]

The most important points just had been said, but some personal comments I would like do add.

I agree that the transfered film pics are looking somewhat underexposed, and, side by side with the bright exposed video, the look is less perfect. But obviously, Matt is right, you never should overexpose K40 for not loosing details.
I?m used to projected film, and with a modern projector, a slightly underexposed footage looks very good, rich in colors and sharper than a slightly overexposed one. With video transfer I don?t know. Thanks to Beaulieu, you can set it the way you want.

About sharpness and resolution:
As I?m used to projected film, I am missing the last bit of sharpness in your transfered footage. I think, the transfer cut?s a lot of the real effective resolution power of the film. Maybe, it is due to the tiny gauge, that the machines cannot transfer it in an adequate way.
When I set my Elmo projector to still projection, correct the focus setting and go close to the screen, I really can analyze what a immense resolution power K40 has! Therefore I feel, that the small-sized transfered frames should look AT LEAST as sharp as the video footage. For that size, the S8 resolution should be more than sufficient. Therefore, the comparison conditions cannot be considered as equal. A real comparment should be made projecting the film on a screen of the size of the video monitor, side-by-side.
But if lack of sharpness, another problem could be the lens adaption of the 4008 camera. Everything depends on that.

Another point that always had called my attention is representated very impressive in your pics: The reproduction of skin color.
I?ve never seen a realistic skin color reproduction of darker skinned people taken with any video system. The natural brown skin tone always comes out yellowish or orange colored, but not that blue-touched deep brown that the skin really looks like. And this is NO problem for the film. I have a lot of examples for that in my footage, taken under different lighting conditions. Skin on K40, not important of what color it is, always comes out perfectly. And I don?t know the reason, why that is not possible with video systems. It would be interesting to know, what is happening to brown colors!

Pedro


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

[MovieStuff]

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

I?ve never seen a realistic skin color reproduction of darker skinned people taken with any video system. Skin on K40, not important of what color it is, always comes out perfectly. And I don?t know the reason, why that is not possible with video systems. It would be interesting to know, what is happening to brown colors!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Pedro!

Well, one big difference is whether or not one's video camera has auto or manual white balance and if the operator knows how to use it. Most home variety of video cameras have no manual white balance and are constantly changing the white balance using logic circuitry that reads the scene and "guesses" at what the white (and black) balance is. It is a miracle that they work as well as they do but skin tones usually are sacrficed in favor of blue skys and green grass and orange birthday candles; the usual subjects for home movies on video.

Now, having a real, broadcast grade video camera can make a huge difference, but I still see video guys with 20 years experience white balancing off of a white board, regardless of how crappy the color looks on their calibrated field monitor. I always keep a small folder of multicolored paper (each sheet a different color) in my grip kit for location work. I can change the white balance on the camera by using differenct color sheets. If I want the camrera a little bluer, I use a sheet that has a slightly warmer color. If I want the camera a little warmer, then I use a sheet with a slightly bluer tint, etc. There is no reason that professional video can not reproduce good skin tones. It all depends on the experience of the shooter and the editor tweaking the color, as illustrated by Mattias' excellent color correction examples. But most home video cameras, already ham-strung by having only one chip, are often additionally hampered by not having manual white balance.

Roger