The Spin on Film...

[Alex]

<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 Yammeryammeryammer:
I am actually getting into Super-8 because I am a believer in the whole 'you've gotta walk before you run' idea. But a lot of us need, or were going to buy a computer anyway. I just made sure mine was good for video, and I use the software it came with. Cameras I tend to borrow. And with that, the tape is costing a few bucks each. That is cheaper than Super-8. And with the amount of footage you want to shoot on productions. I can shoot at a 25:1 ratio of tape vs product, but to do that on film would be stupid and expensive. I think, eventually HD video will be come economical, and film will become replaced as the main way of doing things. But it still isn't going to die.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But film will die, and it will be a bean counter that pulls the plug, and will pull the plug way too prematurely.

[miker]

some are understandably emotionally attached to certain formats.

but i think the whole argument is moot as soon as you factor in storytelling and the intended audience.

and using celluloid is expensive when you compare running times and duplication and distribution costs.

when I edit I want to concern myself with pacing and rhythm, not splicing and the cost of an answerprint from the lab.

okay, so video still pretty much ***** when projected, but the potential audience for video is far greater than film -- indeed, most 'normal' films make their money back on sellthrough and not cinema release.

as for 'spin', i think you are imagining it. until Attack of the Clones, all studios were very much against digital. now, i think, the format has been proven (albeit with an overall weak movie http://www.lanceandeskimo.com/chefel...ons1-10.shtml)

like you say though, the film industry is run by bean counters, not artists.

i know of a lot of successful artists who have an accountant. oh, and PR for spin.

[steven_craig]

"video killed the radio star"

never happened really

look i have been known to argue in favour of DV - love it - it transcends the elite-ist aspects of film, and opens up a whole world of possibities to people who never had the opportunity before, and that for an industry (cause we cant deny films are not an industry) is good. resulting in a wider audience, more of a workforce, more money, more time for us to comment and change things that are wrong or just entertain.

personally im the wh?re of the digital world - i work on all formats, as a photographer i shoot 35mm, yet i mainly shoot films on DV and would argue the benifits of DV all night... but i have one question, what happens when High Definition CCD's have the same resolution / image characteristics as 70 or 35mm film? will the arguement not be of quality or finance, but more on principle?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 06, 2002 07:31 PM: Message edited by: steven_craig ]</font>

[Alex]

Perhaps that day will come. I just would like to see a great overlap of formats. Not, well, next year it will be as good as film, so lets stop making film this year...that is what a bean counter would do.

but do keep in mind, as video resolution improves, so does the look of film on the newer, better video.

[eddie]

hello

Im currently working on finishing a film I started a while ago, and so far it has been shot on both super 8 and VHS (eek!) Video.
The final part will be filmed on DV, 16mm and super8, so in all it will be ALL FORMATS.
But of course the final thing will end up on Video (VHS almost certainly) - its the only way to bind them all together.
If you are working on a tiny budget, with very few connections and doing most of the work yourself all these discussions become pretty academic.
Ive got to agree with miker though. In the end I think its the audio that matters far far more than the rest.
Imagine a black screen with sound effects.
Now imagine Moulin Rouge with the sound turned off.
I think Sound design is often overlooked, and can make or break your work.
Its also a **** of a lot cheaper and easier to get sound than pictures.

[Nolan]

What I don't get is why do the people making movies on HD or DV WANT to make it look like film? You're shooting with a different format I mean don't get me wrong HD looks great, but why make it look like something it's not? I think that instead of trying to make HD look like film I say take advantage of the quality and look of HD and instead of trying to make the film look, make a whole new look for some movies, the HD look. I just don't understand why the digital format wants to look like something different. I'm more of a film person and would choose film any day over digital, but trying to make a digital format look like film I just think that it shows you that film is the superior format. I mean why would the video formats want to emulate it instead of making their own look?

[Alex]

Then why is digital overtaking film the talk of the second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year?

By the way, I agree that audio is the foundation. During actor auditions, some casting directors close their eyes to hear if the performance is believeable.

[Curtin-Parloe]

Guys, guys, guys...

Can't we all just learn to get along? [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

People want to run, they couldn't do that with film, they had to start walking first. [img]graemlins/person.gif[/img]

The outlay you describe, super8, isn't much, but it's not just the equipment. The stock is difficult to find, certainly in my area, and as for getting it developed, yipes!

Now people are running all over the place. Most of them bump into things, in a comedy way, but some are getting somewhere.

With digital you can plug your camera into your PC, both of which you probably already have, and have practically free special effects, visual effects, etc.

The people who cut their teeth on celluloid have the real advantage, as they have learnt the hard way, but Digi guys can enter a world previously closed off.

I also think, for the record, that film has that certain something, like vinyl. It's more "grown up" and will always be inextricably linked with movies. You dont see a harddisk in the "Graemlins"...

Curtin

[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]

[wahiba]

It does not really matter what the 'artistic' equipment is. A genius will make a good movie on the latest wizz bang digital, or a clockwork, wind up regular 8.
[img]cool.gif[/img]
If you are an amatuer home movie maker like myself then the output looks just as bad in Hi-8 video, or Super-8 black and white.
The really interesting thing is that using the hi-8 to copy the cine does not loose the flavour of film.
[img]cool.gif[/img]
So - I film with my clockwork super-8 cine camera onto black and white stock which I then develope myself and transfer to computer using a cine projector and hi-8 camcorder where I then edit the material add a sound track and save it all on a CD for later playback, or stick for the world to enjoy (laugh at it, or with it).
I have fun - do you.
[img]cool.gif[/img]
Now, if I was making my living out of filming I would use the best kit I could afford to guarrantee reliable technical quality. Of course, there might be money to be made from my clockwork camera, but I have not worked that one out yet.

[Curtin-Parloe]

How does that videoing the projection work out?

Paul