still unclear on some basics

Printable View

May 19th, 2005, 11:53 PM
etimh

I'm also a newbie to super 8 and I've been reading and reading and I'm still unclear on a few basics: First, I can't figure out what the advantage is to shooting negative film stock. Whether you choose to telecine to digital or cut and splice your camera film, doesn't reversal film cut out the step of getting a positive printed from the negative? The only thing that I can think would be the advantage of having a negative is that you could have multiple quality release prints made. But even if you cut and splice your reversal positive as a "work" print, can't you have positive "release" prints made fairly easily? Finally, are the majority of super 8 filmmakers now editing digitally or is there still a loyalty to the tactile experience of cutting and splicing? Thanks for your time, Tim
May 20th, 2005, 10:26 PM
Actor

Quote:

Originally posted by tvod:
I'm also a newbie to super 8 and I've been reading and reading and I'm still unclear on a few basics: First, I can't figure out what the advantage is to shooting negative film stock.

The standard answer here is that negative has more dynamic range than reversal, meaning that more detail can be seen in dark and bright areas. I.e., the film is more forgiving. Your exposure can be off by one, or maybe two, stops and the film can still be rescued when the print is made or in the computer. Reversal needs to be right on or, IMHO, off by no more than 1/3 stop.

Quote:

Originally posted by tvod:
Whether you choose to telecine to digital or cut and splice your camera film, doesn't reversal film cut out the step of getting a positive printed from the negative?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by tvod:
The only thing that I can think would be the advantage of having a negative is that you could have multiple quality release prints made. But even if you cut and splice your reversal positive as a "work" print, can't you have positive "release" prints made fairly easily?

Release prints from super8 original are a rarity if they can be had at all. Blow ups to 35mm are (so I'm told) awful. If you are originating on super8 I would plan of video distribution.

Quote:

Originally posted by tvod:
Finally, are the majority of super 8 filmmakers now editing digitally or is there still a loyalty to the tactile experience of cutting and splicing? Thanks for your time, Tim

I think most are editing digitally, Those who are editing manually are pretty much limited to silent movies. Sound film is no longer available. Those who want to make super8 sound movies have several options, all challenging and expensive.
<ul type="square">[*]Edit their movie silent then have it post striped then try to add and sync the sound.[*]Blow up to 16mm and add an optical track.[*]Try to find, buy and then master one of the commercial dual systems that were offered decades ago.[*]Invent your own method.[/list]Take every thing I say with a grain of salt. I don't shoot negative because I don't think it is worth the expense and hassle. I''m not an expert.
May 21st, 2005, 12:25 AM
Alex

In my opinion if you were to make a super clean super-8mm video transfer to at the very least mini-dv, and then used that to make a film print, it should look as good as if you originated in mini-dv. I really don't have any proof however, just a hunch.

Although if I were to make a video master, I would use betacam sp to make my edit master, then bump that to digital betacam and use that to make the film print from. Could be quite expensive however.

I had a 16mm negative optically made from a super-8 original, (meaning on an optical printer), and I was thrilled with how good it came out. When I had a 16mm print made at foto-kem, the foto-kem rep who screened the film with me was impressed with how good the 16mm print looked.

Use Kodachrome 40 if you will be blowing it up to 16m or 35mm. Although Kodachrome is contrasty, how much latitude you get also depends on how contrasty the scene is that you are shooting.

You should have at least one f-stop over and one f-stop under in most situations. Sometimes a stop and a half in either direction. If shooting with negative, you'll probably get 2.5 stops over and 2 f-stops under most of the time.

Black and white blows up even better than Kodachrome.

Most festivals now accept digital video and high end analog (such as betacam sp) for showing at their festivals.
May 21st, 2005, 09:13 PM
etimh

Thanks for your responses. So who exactly shoots the negative stocks like Vision? Is it just for "professional" use like shooting for integration into features, advertising, music vids? Does reversal film satisfy the needs of most film artists, hobbyists, analog fetishists? And finally, I'm disappointed to here that even super 8 s******* are opting to edit digitally. I think there's something to be said for maintaining the working traditions of shooting film as well as the raw material. Does anyone in the "community" attempt to maintain this type of criteria for their films: shooting actual film, editing manually, and analog projection? FILM IS A PHILOSOPHY.
May 21st, 2005, 09:16 PM
etimh

The word blocked out in the above post is S,H,O,O,T,E,R,S. I don't know why it got blocked. Tim
May 21st, 2005, 09:57 PM
Alex

sorry about the blocked word, it's an automatic feature.

There still is a loyal following of projected super-8 film. And the cutting of film is a cool experience. I just find it much tidier to transfer to video and edit on video.

I actually edit on high resolution videotape called betacam sp. I enjoy being able to adjust the look of every shot and do it quickly and efficiently. But I don't go crazy and make it not look like film anymore.

Perhaps your uncovering why the super-8 filmstocks are so neatm, you can go use them a variety of ways.