The Dual Life of Super 8mm

[c_77]

It's a tuff sell...we super 8 fans are so misunderstood...Film is film. People laugh at me when they find my camera holds 3.5 minutes of film! They just don't get it that film is such a superior image quality compared to digital and video.(They also don't understand why I listen records either.) What they don't get is what's written about right here http://8mm.filmshooting.com/filming/page5.php

But I do want to clarify, what exactly do they mean by lines of resolution? For instance, HDTV is at 1080. Is super 8, at 1315 lines of resolution, higher image qaulity that HDTV? (I guess it would be because it's film.) Is the film in my super 8 basically the same thing as what's in those Panavisions except it's just a smaller gauge? (and it's reversal film, not negative)
Thanx-Chris


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


[This message has been edited by c_77 (edited November 03, 2001).]

[Super8Guy]

Super Film

The benefits of Super 8 film
as I see it include:

1. The look
2. The way a Super 8 camera can be used
to get shots.

I often shoot Super 8 film
at 24 fps -- that's 2.5 minutes
per cartridge.

The Home Movie Look
-- Well, not always.

For instance, I've shot the
last 12 Dwight Yoakam music videos
and Dwight (the director) just likes
the look because 35mm can look pretty
boring going back an forth on a
dolly or a jib arm after awhile.

CUT TO THE CHASE:

It's the Super 8 cartridge
that will keep Super 8 film going.
NOT the film stock that's in it.

The Film Stock
does not matter.

Cinematographers will use
whatever film stock is available.
So, if the Super 8 film cartridges
continue to m made, and filled
with some sort of film stock,
Cinematographers will shoot Super 8.


------------------
Super8Guy
JOHN LONGENECKER
http://JL-Site.com/Super8/DirectoryII.html

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, I agree totally with what you're saying, but like all products, perception is based not necessarily on a thoughtful study of attributes, or all TV commercials would be just video's of people sitting at tables doing product tests, and stating which was superior.
Instead, they have macho guys laughing and having a great time with beautiful models hanging all over them while they drink Budweiser or whatever.
So perception of the viability of a product is based more on emotion and an "image" than the real goods.
My point is, even though I hate Super 8 Sound, and think neg S8 stock is crap because of the grain, and I've never seen anything of S8 in "professional" situations that I really like the look of, like you say, all of this for some reason has raised the perception that it is used professionally, therefor it has a place.
Now, I don't think that it is making these people run out and start shooting big budget features, trying to do it on S8 (like I am!!!) or even thinking it looks good, but I would rather have someone think I'm shooting S8 for "the new cool music video look" or whatever, than to have them say: "Super 8? You mean like home movies from the 60's film? Why in the world would you use that?"

So it's the lessor of two evils.

Also, this is funny. One producer saw my film, and said "wow, I had no idea Super 8 could look so good. I guess these new neg stocks really make a difference".

Of course, I didn't bother to tell him it was NOT shot using any neg stock...

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Super8Guy:

It's the Super 8 cartridge that will keep Super 8 film going. NOT the film stock that's in it. The Film Stock does not matter. Cinematographers will use whatever film stock is available. So, if the Super 8 film cartridges continue to m made, and filled
with some sort of film stock, Cinematographers will shoot Super 8.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, John!

I don't mean to be argumentative, but that's the entire problem here. People shooting super 8 seriously and not for "effect" DO care what emmulsion is in the super 8 cartridge while the professionals don't care because they always have 16mm and 35mm to fall back on for their "real" shots!

I don't think people at large shoot super 8 because of the cartridge but because super 8 is the cheapest thing that will give them that real, quality "film" look. However, the look that serious super 8 users are after and the look that feature and music video makers are after seem to be at odds with each other, in terms of perceived quality.

Put it this way: If movie and music video makers had ONLY super 8 to work with, they wouldn't bastardize it like they do now. They would try and get the best image they can from it instead of using it "for effect".

To that end, I don't think that pointing to the use of super 8 in movies and music videos is a valid indicator of the future of super 8. More to the point, if what is seen in movies and music videos represents the general publics' and distributors' impression of the best that super 8 has to offer, then that only undermines the future of super 8 as a valid dramatic medium; it doesn't enhance it or open the doors to further developments of better stocks for super 8 by Kodak since the most prevelant image promoted by the professional groups is one of high contrast and grain, not of rich detail and beautiful colors.

I'm not blaming feature or music video producers for using it the way they do. Hell, I've done it. But I don't think we can expect Kodak to increase efforts for better emmulsions when the higher profile demand seems to embrace a purposely trashed out and crappy image. Furthermore, with everyone wondering if K40 will survive, why should we expect Kodak to think that Ektachrome ISN'T a viable substitute when, as bad as it looks, the shots seen in features and music videos look worse?

If I were a Kodak rep looking at the ads at Pro8mm and the results of super 8 in features and music videos, I would surely think: "Hell, E160 is good enough for what they're doin' with it! Why should we spend R&D money on anything better?"

The use of super 8 in features and music videos is fine by me, don't get me wrong. But I think Kodak may be getting a somewhat skewed message about the needs and desires of the larger, more serious group of super 8 users, that's all.

Again, to most of us, it DOES matter what film is in the cartridge and I think that with Kodak continually considering the demise of K40, then the time is ripe for people to let them know that a REAL replacement emmulsion is desired; not just "anything will do" to fill a cartridge.


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

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

To a degree I am always glad to see super 8 being used in the professional arena. However, I think that super 8 seems to have a dual life. On the one hand, it is used in broadcast and feature projects not because it looks like 16mm or 35mm but, rather, because it DOESN'T look like larger formats. On the other hand, there are die hard and serious super 8 producers that use super 8 for all sorts of serious dramatic projects because it looks so nice when handled properly.

Therefore, I would suggest that for super 8 to thrive and survive in the digital age, the inclusion of super 8 in features and music videos doesn't really benefit super 8 as much as it muddies the public's perception of super 8 as always a grainy, home movie image not fit for professional consideration. Worse, such imagery does little to instill confidence in distributors that might not even look at a feature shot in super 8 due this false image that is perpetuated by feature and music video productions, where super 8 is used specifically "for effect" as an inferior image in contrast to 16mm and 35mm when, in truth, the graininess and lack of image fidelity is always enhanced during transfer to make super 8 look worse than it really does.

In the end, I don't know if we can point to the inclusion of super 8 in feature and broadcast projects as an indicator that super 8 is thriving and has a potent future, since that "home movie look" can be emmulated so easily with computers and, most importantly, the NEED for that look is the exception to the rule, in terms of image quality. Usually, people want the BEST quality they can get, not the worst, and the use of super 8 in features and music videos isn't because it represents the best that super 8 has to offer at all but, rather, the worst they can make it.

If you go to the Pro8mm website, they list dozens and dozens of features and music videos that used super 8 as some sort of an indicator that super 8 has "come of age" for professional use yet NONE of these productions used super 8 because they thought
it looked like or would intercut seamlessly with 16 or 35. On the contrary, they used
it because it didn't. More to the point, the super 8 imagery was never shown as good as it could look but at its worst through artifical degradation with pumped up grain and contrast.

Is that really the message super 8 users want the public and distributors to get, that the lack of quality seen in features and music videos is representative of what super 8 is capable of delivering? How could they NOT think this since these projects were produced by "professionals".

Seems like a "step and fetch it" role, if you ask me, and doesn't speed the plow for the survival of super 8 since its occasional use as a "funky" image overshadows the wider use by independents that are trying to get the best out of the super 8 medium.

In short, the feature and music video usage may get the most press, but represents the smallest percentage of super 8 users. Worst, these higher profile projects not only define the super 8 medium in a negative fashion, they conflict with the larger groups' attempts to persuade Kodak to take super 8 more seriously. After all, if the "pros" are going to always use super 8 to represent maximum grain and contrast, then why should Kodak feel compelled to make super 8 any better than it already is?

My two cents....

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



[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited November 03, 2001).]