Future of Super 8 film?

[Carlos8]

I was wondering about the future of super 8 film . Many filmakers use today digital video transferred to 35 mm. New technologies are arising. What about Super 8?

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

[Mr Blackstock]

Its gonna die!

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

[Mr Blackstock]

For myself, the attraction of using super8 was its price, the cameras i get for about $20, thats the cheapest entry level camera i have seen yet. Considering the other equipment can be used for digital or 16mm or video, it must be just the look that keeps me using super8.(that and the price of the other camera types)

So, maybe most super8 users are either entry level, or sentimental(as in their fav' medium)

As to the "look" of super8, can people not add that on the computer? if so, whats the point of sticking with one gauge?

Although i do not hold such pessimistic views, the prevalence of computer editing must surely spell the eventual end of super8 use.


Just some thoughts......

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

[dogstarman]

Sorry, but I have to toally disagree with you on that one...

The advent of digital non-linear editing is probably the best thing that ever happened to
amature filmmakers who want to shoot on film. Everyone talks about how great miniDV/DV is. Alright. I know people who are shooting DV with OK results and they're happy, but they are the first to admit they'd love to shoot on film, but don't know the first thing about using it. (NOTICE: It's not the "low-cost" which video appologists rant about.)

Film looks better that video. That's it. The problem for people like myself is, film is expensive, multiplied many times over in the from of workprints, release prints, blah blah blah, and that was the only thing you could do if you were working with ANY film format in years past.

No, the digital video thing is good NOT because the format is so great for originating images on, but because it is a CHEAP and most of all NON-DESTRUCTIVE way to edit and create a finished "film" without mangling your negatives and spending a boatload of cash. In my opinion, video will replace film, BUT ONLY AT THE DISTRIBUTION LEVEL. I don't think the days of filmstock are numbered at all. I think the days of being raped for $8.50 at the local megaplex to watch crappy films are numbered. I think in another 10 years or so, most people will be watching films, even first-run Hollywood films, at HOME. On DVD or over the internet or whatever. "Going" to a movie will become more like going to a concert: something you do once in a great while when there is something you really want to see that may only be in town over the weekend. NOT because it's Friday and you're bored. Because, I don't know if you guys have noticed, but studios are making as much if not more in video/DVD sales and distribution as they do with theatrical releases anymore. That's why if a film totally flops at the box office, it's on video in 3 weeks: they need that money to keep the machine running. So they can keep making crap like Freddy Got Fingered...

Sorry, what were we talking about?
Super 8 film? Kodak will be producing it for European markets LONG after they stop producing for the US...

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

[Matt Pacini]

I've been hearing about the death of Super 8 since about 1980 or so, when video cameras became commonplace.
There was absolutely nobody who would have guessed then, that Super 8 would be around 20 years later, much less gaining in popularity like it has lately.
And it's not only ametuers shooting it.
I shot an entire feature on Super 8, as have others on this forum.
There are reasons to use S8, and there are reasons not to use S8, but the reason it's still around, is that in spite of it's shortcomings compared to 16mm and 35mm, it still has the beauty of looking like film.
And no, you cannot make video look like S8 in the computer.
At least, you can't make video look like well shot Super 8.

Matt Pacini

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

[Mr Blackstock]

I will admit to being a little off-hand in the remarks area. however, why are people taking up super8? Is it ease of use, cheapness of the cameras, etc. Are there enough beginners to replace those who opt for 16mm or digital. Or is there a die hard core that supports the continuing existence of super8 in the professional arena?

Answering this question would surely indicate whether and how small gauge shooting will continue.



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

[mattias]

> As to the "look" of super8, can people not add that on the computer?

no.

> why are people taking up super8?

lots and lots of people, including myself, saw the snowboarding movie "the garden" and quickly went to the attic for that cool camera that they remembered from when they were kids. and the rest is history...

/matt

[ulrichsd]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:
I will admit to being a little off-hand in the remarks area. however, why are people taking up super8? Is it ease of use, cheapness of the cameras, etc. Are there enough beginners to replace those who opt for 16mm or digital. Or is there a die hard core that supports the continuing existence of super8 in the professional arena?

Answering this question would surely indicate whether and how small gauge shooting will continue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can super8 *not* continue? This really is the question. Beaulieu is making more new cameras and is rereleasing their 4008ZM2. Kodak is coming out with new film stocks. More and more telecine labs are attaining super8 Rank transfer film gates. More and more of the biggest directors are using super8 in their films to give a certain *look*. So super8 won't die until 35mm does, and since their are so many directors that have sworn they would never use anything but film, I don't see that happening for a long, long time.

Scott
Who is *not* anti-tecnology.

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

[MovieStuff]

Can the look of super 8 be represented on a computer?

Hmmmm. Well, apparently it can, since you can transfer super 8 to video and then play it on a computer NLE system and it still retains that "look". So the ability to display that coveted look obviously exists.

So the next question is "Can you generate that "super 8 look" on a computer starting from nothing but digital video?"

Well, again, apparently you can, since broadcast shows are starting to use the "digital film" look more and more and no one seems to be the wiser.

So the more pertinent question would be,"Can I, the humble low budget super 8 user, create that "super 8 look" on a computer starting with nothing but digital video?"

Well, if 'digital video' is defined by a home DV cam, then the answer is no. This is an importent distinction since broadcast shows obviously aren't using super 8 as an economic means of getting the "film look" they also seek. As much as we like super 8, it does not have the look of 16mm or 35mm negative, which is what the big boys want.

Likewise, if someone starts with a home DV cam, which has weaker color and resolution characteristics than a broadcast camera and well below K40 super 8, then of course there is no computer process that is going to fill in the missing information. But does that mean the task is impossible? Not if you use a broadcast camera that, at least, puts out as much resolution as super 8.

In short, you would never pay a transfer house to use a home DV camera to transfer your super 8, due to the home DV's lack of picture quality, so comparing super 8 to any 'film look' that starts with a home DV cam is pretty silly, in my opinion. Start with a video camera that is good enough to handle the resolution of super 8 and then you can make a reasonable attempt of emmulating what ever film look you want, be it K40 or negative.

So, the next question is,"Can I, the humble super 8 low budget user afford a broadcast camera?"

Well, if you think paying $600-1200 for a Nizo is okay, then the answer is yes. The thing that most people have forgotten about in this digital age is that the current crop of DV cams like the 3 chip $3,800 Canon XL1 only put out as much resolution as is barely needed to qualify as "broadcast". The reason is that the manufacturers know the image is not the very best but, being DV, won't get any worse since they don't have to deal with generation loss because of the digital signal.

However, analog video cameras of the past DID have to deal with generation loss, which means that they typically put out an excess of resolution; anywhere between 750-850 lines, compared to the Canon XL1's only 500 or so and far above the typical home DV cam. Therefore, while you might not be able to afford a new $3,800, 500 line Canon XL1, you could afford a used $800, 750 line Ikegami or Sony camera that was made 7 years ago when everything was analog and resolution really counted.

Obviously, shooting super 8 is simpler and more portable. I only bring up the above information to illustrate that, if the "film look" can be achieved with off the shelf products, some of which are cheap and represent old technology, then there is no reason to think that it won't get simpler and cheaper as time goes by. The minDV cams of today put out a better picture than the broacast cameras of 15 years ago, so things change. However, the K40 of today doesn't put out a better picture than the K40 of 15 years ago, so the gap is getting more and more narrow as time goes by.

How does this relate to the future of super 8? Well, there is no question that emmulsion based imaging is losing groung to digital and that it is only a matter of time before the commercial industry goes all digital and abandons film altogether. I don't think that means that super 8 will HAVE to suffer the same fate but certainly Kodak will look at its bottom line and compare the profit margin of producing ANY motion picure film against the overhead and environmental issues that come along for the ride.

That said, I think that the future of K40 is certainly in question; not just for super 8 but in all formats. It is just a huge headache for Kodak and always has been. When the other shoe will drop is the million dollar question, of course. They may be waiting to see if the limited source of serious super 8 production gear plays out before their concerns over dealing with K40 come to a head. So the race might be on, even though we never heard the starting pistol.

I started another thread about the re-introduction of an emmulsion called "ECO" that I am sure just about no one on this board is familiar with. I really think that, if Kodak is going to be petitioned or pestered by concerned super 8 users for something useful, then ECO might be the answer. It can be safely produced and processed like Ektachrome, has super fine grain, is flat as a pancake which makes it ideal for reproduction on both video and print. There is a printing stock that Kodak made for it that brings back the contrast to levels that rival K40 and, if offered as a striped print stock, would go a long way toward accomodating the overall needs of the super 8 community while letting Kodak off the hook on the issues related to K40.

I think the future of super 8 does not reside in K40, since Kodachome has no future. I think the future of super 8 resides in the re-introduction of something like ECO and its sister printing stock. If the "film look" for video can be achieved with old technology, then why shouldn't super 8 users look to the past for answers, as well? I say petition Kodak for a practical K40 replacement before they pull the plug on our favorite emmulsion and leave us with nothing but grainy Ektachromes and neg stocks. Because if that happens, then usage of super 8 might drop to a point that Kodak may stop producing in super 8 altogether.

My two cents...

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

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited November 02, 2001).]

[crimsonson]

Mattias:
> As to the "look" of super8, can people not add that on the computer?

no.

Yes that is true, but like many things in this world we find a way for computer to emulate, mimic, copy, etc. certain things in life. There are software and post production processes that are in their infantile stages that attempts to emulate film. Certain TV shows shot on HD are already being given these treatments to further emulate film. I think in time it will happen. And since Super8 lacks the film quality hardest to emulate (sharpness, 35mm like contrast and color saturation) I think it will be one of the first to be successfully copied. I have tried out several of these software, though they are far from great, they are also far from being flat out 'No.'
I myself is not an advocate of video being butchered to look like another format. That is a lost not a gain.

ulrichsd:
"So super8 won't die until 35mm does"

I may disagree on this since there are major qualities that large film formats have that Super8 dont:

1. Economics- 35 is a living industry, where people can successfully make money, gain fame and power.
2. The technology is still moving - companies and individuals are making products from the mundane to the ultra shiek/expensive variable/zoom prime lenses.


As a Suepr8 lover i am not as optimistic as some of you. I do believe that Super8 will be around for a while. This is because a certain niches in the world have made efforts to use and collect Super8 items. But Super8 exist in a time capsule where it is more of a 'Gee Whiz' anomaly than someone saying how can we make art or money with this. I do wish that would change


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