-
while i wait for my first role of Tri-X to come back from the developers, here's a very basic question: what's the difference between super 8 black and white and the B/W image you can get in mini DV? - meaning, how do the differences in the two media make for differences in what you see in terms of the range/depth/(tries to think of other qualitative terms) of the monochome that is available to you? (beyond generic film/DV differences which apply equally to colour)
when i look at the raw B/W i can get from my panasonic camcorder (untreated in anyway in post), i dont like it very much: but i dont know enough to describe technically what i dont like about it! so i'm looking for some concepts/ideas which might help me look better, and start to talk about what i see.
if that's just too big a topic, then book recommendations would be very gladly received!
TIA
peter
(who begins to wish he'd done more still photography when he was a boy...)
-
Say you had a perfect piece of black and white film and a perfect piece of black and white minidv video to compare it to. The main differences between the two will be in contrast and resolution. contrast is the difference (measured in f stops) between the whitest white and the blackest black in the scene. A reasonably high contrast is generally the best unless you are looking for a special effect. Images with low contrast will look wishy washy in terms of tonal range, because everything will end up looking grey and samey, for me at least this is never a satisfying result, because a good range of light in a scene generally looks good. Film will probably outperform video in this area, but obviously only if you get your exposure right. Resolution affects the sharpness and fine detail retention the media you choose, and is measured in lines. Mini dv averages around 500, while high end hdtv video equipment gets up to about 900. Super 8 gives you over 1300! so the difference there is quite big.
[This message has been edited by AlexGfromUK (edited April 23, 2001).]
-
actually, super 8 gives you 900 lines maximum. according to kodak, most films (k40 for example) can resolve around 100 lines per millimeter which for a 4.5 mm frame would require *at least* 900 pixels. so 900 is the maximum, but it will be hard to get to this limit. my own tests (see some post i made a long time ago) suggest the resolution is around 500 lines. this said, video cameras can't reach their theoretical limit either. some high end cameras can probably reach about 400 or so if they use an 800 line ccd, but that's it.
/matt
-
Ive shot both black and white video and super 8 too. There are various reasons to prefer one over the other, not just 'the look'.
I know everyone here goes on about resolution and colours, but for me personally (and this is a personal thing) I prefer film because it is, albeit slightly, 'flawed' - the way the picture wobbles in the projector, the scratches, the light from behind it - almost as if it is a living breathing, thing. Whereas video looks too perfect for my liking. There is a quality that video lacks in my mind and no amount of digital post processing can get it, and I think it is the roughness (however slight it might be) in the finished thing.
Of course people will/are moving to video and digital, but do you remember those HiFi's that came out that included valve technology in them? The sound became too perfect and so HiFi manufacturers put in in built flaws. There is a warmth that film (and valves) have, that DV doesnt and will never had.
Perhaps this is the quality you are talking about.
Having said this I do beleive that eventually film will be a thing of the past, but thats a way in the future.
