How does T-320 look in super 8?

[Greg Crawford]

I'm looking to shoot a Horror short in super 8 neg. I am thinking of using T-320, for Night EXT. and INT, work. And D-50 for EXT. days.

Any thoughts?

[MovieStuff]

This sort of question comes up from time to time. If you want your movie to look super grainy, then use just about any color stock other than Kodachrome 40. If you don't mind it looking like a swarm of gnats invaded the picture, then the high speed stuff will look great.

Roger

[Greg Crawford]

I think you've talked me in to shooting with Kodechrome. I always felt the film had to much contrast and had a hard time llighting people with dark hair or dark jackets in front of dark green foliage.

I think what I'm going to do, might look funny but use butterflies, reflectors and skrims on my Super 8 short.

Since my one and only interior scene is set in a cave, I'm considering shooting exterior for interior. and build an elaborate tent out of 2 ' pvc, set up above the cave set, then ad as much sunlight as I need with butterflies, nets or dark cloths.

Last time I shot INT. with K-40 was with a wide open lens and about 3k's worth of lighting gear!!!!

[mattias]

the 50d stock isn't very grainy at all, and has a lot more latitude and more natural colors. the only reasons i'd chose k40 over it are economy and nostalgia. however, since i only use super-8 for those reasons, when i can't afford 16mm or really want the home movie look, i only use k40. :-) i have used both the 50d and the 320t in 16mm though, so i know quite a lot about them. the 320t is probably a bit grainy in super-8, but it's my favorite stock in 16mm, especially if exposed normally and pushed one stop (it's a hard stock to get good blacks with if you don't do this). you might also consider the 200t from kodak. it's cheaper and isn't too grainy in super8 imho. buy a roll of each and shoot some tests.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mattias:
the 50d stock isn't very grainy at all, and has a lot more latitude and more natural colors.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it's a matter of what his end goal is. If he is trying to hide the fact that it is super 8, then it is possible to shoot K40 and light it well enough to pass as a 16mm print that has been transferred to video. However, while the 50D stock isn't very grainy compared to the 320, it is still grainy enough to call attention to itself as super 8, regardless of the superior latitude and natural colors. It does have a more "modern" look than K40, I'll agree, but K40 doens't HAVE to look nostalgic and archival. It will always look like a print when transferred to video since it shares similar projection contrast characteristics as a print but, if shot correctly, the viewing audience won't know it was originated on super 8. I think the added grain of 50D will always make people aware that it was shot on a very small format or, at the very least, they will be wondering why the film image has more grain than they are used to seeing. So it just depends on what the goal is.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mattias:
the only reasons i'd chose k40 over it are economy and nostalgia. however, since i only use super-8 for those reasons, when i can't afford 16mm or really want the home movie look, i only use k40.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well again, the "nostalia" look is ONE look that K40 can give but it isn't the ONLY look possible. Kodachrome is used all the time by professional photographers for commercial layouts in mags and other print media and the look is often more contemporary. It depends a lot on the lighting and color correction.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mattias:

i have used both the 50d and the 320t in 16mm though, so i know quite a lot about them. the 320t is probably a bit grainy in super-8, but it's my favorite stock in 16mm, especially if exposed normally and pushed one stop (it's a hard stock to get good blacks with if you don't do this). </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. However, from a lighting standpoint, the choice of 50D is awkard IMHO. The film is daylight balanced, for crying out loud. That means you have to use a filter indoors and lose precious f-stops and no filter outdoors where light us abundant. Seems backwards to me. I never understood Pro8mm's decision to offer this stock other than to appease the professional DPs that shoot music videos which they do so much work with. Obviously these guys have HMIs (which are daylight balanced) but the average super 8 user interested in their stocks will be lucky to have a set of quartz work lights from the hardware store. A low speed tungsten film is what's needed in negative.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mattias:

you might also consider the 200t from kodak. it's cheaper and isn't too grainy in super8 imho. buy a roll of each and shoot some tests. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, at least about the testing part. I personally think that the 200 in super 8 is grain city but, again, it all depends on the "look" you're after.

Roger

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 01, 2002 08:50 AM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>

[Mike Buckles]

To me, when I shoot K-40, it doesn't have that home movie look...the other posts are correct..a lot has to do with how it's lit...I think the camera used has a bearing too...when I used to shoot k40 with my cheapo GAF super 8, it looked like a home movie...but later, when I got a better camera with professional features, the picture got a lot better. Outdoor shots always look great, and indoors, I use controlled lighting, and it comes out good too. The "no-grain" of K40 is a big deciding factor for me. Indoors, i always use a key, back and fill light, and I always get a nice picture from k40.

[mattias]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">when I used to shoot k40 with my cheapo GAF super 8, it looked like a home movie...but later, when I got a better camera with professional features, the picture got a lot better.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

please don't misunderstand me. the home movie look that imho icomes from the stock itself has nothing to do with "quality". it's simply due to the higher contrast and the saturated colors. not all people call the look "nostalgic", but you often hear that, or "beautiful", "cool" or "dreamy", but almost never "very natural and just like the hollywood movies"... ;-)

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mattias:
not all people call the look "nostalgic", but you often hear that, or "beautiful", "cool" or "dreamy", but almost never "very natural and just like the hollywood movies"</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so sure about that, actually. I think one of the big appeals of reversal and K40, in general, is that it DOES give your movie a very "theatrical" quality; sort of like framing a fine oil painting. Even in 35mm, negative transferred to video doesn't look anything like a 35mm print viewed in a theater, with its higher contrast and deeper blacks. Again, this is just my opinion, but I think that there is a psychological aspect to viewing a story shot in K40 that subconsciously says,"This is a movie that has been printed and is complete and ready for an audience". And, to be fair, a 35mm film transferred from negative looks more "now" and the same film transferred from a print looks more "then". But is that so bad? Most of my favorite movies are from "then" and not "now"!

I think that, perhaps, "archival" might be a better term than "nostalgic" for K40 super 8. You are right that it CAN look "nostalgic", but I think that is more determined by the subject matter and lighting. If you watched a 35mm print of a kids playing, shot by direct sunlight with no fill light, it will look for all the world just like K40. To see what I mean, check out "Pale Rider", Clint Eastwood's (rather silly) retelling of "Shane". They used nothing but natural light outside and had a dickens of a time transferring it to video! Looks a LOT like K40 telecined. In fact, I've seen better super 8 transfers!

Roger

[mattias]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so sure about that, actually. I think one of the big appeals of reversal and K40, in general, is that it DOES give your movie a very "theatrical" quality</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes, much more so than negative stocks. and technicolor prints look even more theatrical, but they're also extremely mid 20th centurish. your making my point... :-)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And, to be fair, a 35mm film transferred from negative looks more "now" and the same film transferred from a print looks more "then". But is that so bad?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
no, just different.

perhaps i wasn't clear when i said "i'd chose", "i only chose" and "imho", but i'm talking about my own uses of the stock and nothing else. of course any stock can be used to tell any story if the look suits your intentions. the reason i normally don't use k40 if i want the "now" look and have the money to shoot 16 mm is not that i think k40 won't work, but that some other stock will work even better...

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mattias:

technicolor prints look even more theatrical, but they're also extremely mid 20th centurish. your making my point</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I didn't realize that theatrical film presentations were a thing of the past in the 21st century. [img]wink.gif[/img]

My whole point is that reversal has a "theatrical feel" to it when viewed projected or on video. I don't necessarily think that hurts a project of any kind, whether they are looking for a more contemporary look or not. Even contemporary films shot on 35mm negative have the "theatrical look" when shown in the cinema and tend to look much flatter when viewed on video.

Roger