-
I read that this movie was shot on Super 16, so I rented it to see what that is like. I know there are a lot of factors involved, in how the VHS tape I viewed was mastered. However, all that aside, that film sure looks good to me. I can't remember ever being so impressed by a 16mm movie.
Really makes that much difference eh? My girlfriend said it looked just like a "regular" movie to her.
Whenever there was a fade, or a really dark shot it would get grainy, but otherwise very beautiful in my eyes, the color, the lighting, contrast, etc.
Anyone care to comment?
-M
------------------
-
on a good video copy the grain is very visible throughout the movie. i think it's becasue they used a fast stock and very little lighting though, and not because it's 16.
/matt
-
Yeah, I thought it looked great.
There's no question it's good enough for professional work.
He shot it on an Aaton, I believe.
I didn't care for the movie that much, but I wish I'd have seen in at the theater in 35mm, to see how the blowup looked.
I wonder if they telecine'd the S16 neg, or the 35mm print that had been timed.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
I saw it in a theater. It looked great. I had no idea it was super 16 until I read an article about it later.
------------------
-
That's interesting. To my unsuspecting eye I wouldn't have any clue it wasn't a Panavision, etc. But why would somebody shoot a movie in Super 16? What are the benefits over 35mm?
------------------
-
Lower film costs and better depth of field than 35mm, for starters. Also, the equipment is lighter and more portable. Cheaper to rent, too. Better depth of field means less light which means smaller crews, no genny and fewer power tie-ins, since you can almost always muster about 10,000 watts off available breakers by spreading the power across several circuits.
Anyway, these are some of the benefits of Super 16. If you are going letterboxed on HD, then it works great for video also.
Roger
-
On a funny note-
When Nicolas Cage heard that the movie was going to be shot on Super 16, he "politely" to the director that if he needed the extra money to shoot in 35mm, he would pay for it.
What a nice guy.
Scott
------------------
-
As an avid S16 shooter and as a S16 Owner/Operator. I can tell you that the interpositive stocks that are made now are great and that you will really have to look to see that it was blown up. I did some tests using reversal to 35mm Neg to 35mm Pos. I thought that it cut out a step which would mean that it would look better--But it actually increased contrast.
I would venture to say that they made the video copies both VHS and DVD off of the Neg. In order to get the best quality on your tapes that is usually what is done. They might not have used the camera originals but a copy.
------------------
-
Hey Nigel, I'm curious about something:
When shooting S16 for blowup, do they color time it:
1. When they make the interpos, then just make the 35 neg & release prints without messing with it?
2. After the interpos, when they make the 35mm neg?
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Hi, guys!
Nigel: I did the same test years ago and found the same thing. Reversal just was never designed for reproduction. That's why the contrast was higher. When they were shooting "The Deer Hunter" and wanted a reversal documentary look for the Vietnam footage, they actually printed the negative and then duped right off a projection print. No one had the balls to shoot reversal!
Matt: When the timing is done is dependent on whether the film was cut on 16mm or 35mm. If the film was shot on super 16mm and then the selected takes were blown up to 35mm for editing, then the final timing would probably be done during the answer print stage, though some timing issues must be addressed during any kind of film printing. It isn't just a "load and copy" process.
However, if the film were cut on 16mm, then the timing could be done when A/B rolling to 35mm interpositive material on an optical printer, which would be the best way, but more expensive. I know a lot of people that will contact print to 16mm interpositive material first, because contact printing is cheaper, then blow up the 16mm interpositive to 35mm negative. However the grain difference and sharpness is hugely different than A/B rolling directly from the 16mm negative to 35mm interpositive. Just depends on the budget assigned for the blow up.
After posting this information, I realized that I have been assuming you are talking about traditional optical printing. I would imagine that with today's technology for scanning and printing back to film, super 16mm could be scanned and printed to 35mm with a great degree of control. How cost effective that would be, I don't know.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 22, 2001).]
-
Roger--
Kodak also discontinued an Interneg stock a few years back that I guess was the shit for blow-ups. I can't remember its number though.
------------------
-
So was Leaving Las Vegas shot S16 to keep costs down or was it a conscious choice to have that kind of look? When I saw it in the theater, the only time I ever felt aware of the grain was in the opening shot across the the city lights, and then probably only because of the step printing effect.
So what other recient films have been done in this format?
It remindes me of the time I was telling this guy that I was going to shoot a couple of shorts on super 8 and 16mm and he said I would be taken more seriously if I stuck to 16mm. I thought maybe he was right but then later I realized that the whole reason I was even over there was to watch his wifes attempt at a short shot with a- you guessed it- Sony digital camcorder. Somehow she found actors who would take her seriously, so what gives? If actors can take a camcorder seriously but not lil' ol' super8, then I'll either slap a Sony sticker on my Nizo or find other actors.
Their is a great article in the latest Moviemaker magazine on the digital myth.
Sometimes there is nothing more satisfying than to be in the chior and be preached to.
------------------
PRM
-
S16 for Leaving Last Vegas was a conscious decision by the director Mike Figgis. He wanted the touch of grain, symbolizing the struggle of the two characters - neither perfect but in their world admirable (of course you may interpret it differently. this is just the popular one.)
If you are interested in his cinematography his best work IMHO is "Lost of Sexual Innocence". Brilliant! Although this may not be everyone's cup of tea. Its a non linear story loosely based on the struggles of Adam & Eve. Various lighting techniques, camera movement and a little water effect that was simple yet stunning in result. Structure and form are the great achievements of this film. I will admit that many may think the story pretentious. I enjoyed it though. DP = Beno?t Delhomme.
------------------
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited September 25, 2001).]
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 8th Man:
"If actors can take a camcorder seriously but not lil' ol' super8, then I'll either slap a Sony sticker on my Nizo or find other actors."
(Matt Pacini resonds):
In my opinion, in a year or two, when everybody actually sees lots of these projects shot on DV, instead of just believing all the hype about it, they will have to finally realize that it's just marginally better than cheap, VHS camcorder quality.
So I think it's flavor of the week.
Another factor that nobody seems to be saying in this "DV is the great equalizer, because anyone now can make a film", is that distributors have been flooded with crappy DV movies made by people who have no business making films, but have bought into all this.
So just try getting your film distributed that is shot on anything BUT film.
It's probably even MORE difficult now, than it was 3 years ago.
Either you had better be established in the industry somehow already, or your film had better be something really special, because it's hard to get anyone in the business to look at a DV movie right now.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
I have to admit this to eveyone...sniff .. sob.. I nearly bought a DV camera about a year ago.I was considering one of those JVC 500 thingies until I started seeing 16mm and super8 cams on ebay. There, I said it and I can't take it back. Oh but it's nice knowing that I didn't fall prey to the DV hype afterall. I actually thought I was going to make shorts with one and then I found Pro8mm and started shooting S8. Although I did buy a JVC pocket size camcorder for spur o' the moment recording 'cause I think they do have a place in the world. Anyway I'm glad I went this route unlike my writer friend who bought a cannon GL-1 and will have to justify that evey time I show him stuff I shot with a 20 year old S8 camera...
I know more guys that think they can make anything with mini DV but I'm not worried since we've had so many "revolutions" in formats and it doesn't make great (or even good) filmmakers just beacause things get easier or cheaper. It just gives us more volume of crap.
------------------
PRM
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
In my opinion, in a year or two, when everybody actually sees lots of these projects shot on DV, instead of just believing all the hype about it, they will have to finally realize that it's just marginally better than cheap, VHS camcorder quality.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as far as miniDV goes, the big difference is in the camera portion of the unit. The single chip head on a home DV cam is no different than the single chip head on a home VHS camcorder. Therefore, when playing it back and looking at the original, there really isn't any difference in quality in terms of color or resolution.
However, and this is the big however, even the miniDV can record a signal that is on par with broadcast units. I have a betaSP deck that I use all the time and I just recently installed a DV board for some work from a client that shoots on DV. To record and play back from my computer, I use a cheap-ass little Panasonic miniDV camcorder via the FireWire. The image quality is stunning. I did a test where I bounced a clip back and forth between the computer and the recorder like 10 times or so (before I got bored) and when I did a split screen, there was not difference in quality. Zero generation loss. My waveform monitor and vector scope showed no difference in the signal. Now, for projects of one hour or less, I always give my clients a mini-DV along with the BetaSP. Many have since forgone the BetaSP in favor of the DV because the quality is so good and the tapes are cheap, cheap, cheap.
But, again, the camera portion of the little Panasonic sucks big time. The recorder portion, however, seems to record as good as any $3800 DV cam deck. If there's a difference in quality, I certainly can't tell it.
Of course, this is still video. Ewwwwwwww.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 26, 2001).]
-
Hi guys!
I dont understand this large jaded view of DV? Why?
Most camera operators and DPs I know here in NY have a DV not Super 8.
Its just a format!
Marginally better than VHS?
That is like saying VHS is slightly less in quality compared to BetaSP, since DV was designed and generally accepted by video pro as replacement for BetaSP. If its marginally better, somebody should inform Post Production and Duplication Managers throughout the world who are/did/in process of migrating to DV/DVCam/DVC Pro. A line by line comaprison of the technical specs of DV and BetaSP, the only advantage of BetaSP is its 4:2:2 sampling, which only really matters when you recompress in edits. DV is equal or has the advantage in everything else.
If it was not for the proliferation of DV,
No cheap, very able home NLE system.
Most of us would still be doing linear editing (which is not bad, bad not great either). Especially for sych'ing sound.
No companies such as Sachtler, Porta Brace, Sony, and others producing tripods, steady cams, weather bags and decks designed for DV that many of us use for our Super 8 projects.
And a host of other minor occurences that benefitted us Super 8 users.
Its hard to get a viewing of DV? It seems harder for Super 8 - no? When I see a short film or feature shot in Super 8 - its seems news. But if shot on DV - as MAtt refered to b4- its not.
Remember perceived quality is not the only determing factor of the success of a format. If that was the case films would always be shot in larger than 35mm format. Ease and cost plays equal, sometimes bigger role.
------------------
-
The new version of Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke
was shot with Super-16, if I'm not mistaken.
------------------
-
The new version of Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke
was shot with Super-16, if I'm not mistaken.
------------------
-
I've seen low light DV that looked like crap.
I'm not impressed with the 1/3 chips they are using...they create vast depths of field, so everything looks in focus.
Every year, something about DV improves...so agruments get started because someone saw something shot on a 3-4 year old DV camera in low light, and in fact, it can look like crap.
Than someone else buys the newest camera with an improved look in low light, and they think anyone who has seen bad digital is just jealous or jaded.
Just remember this, 4 out 5 people who bought the first digital camera off the shelf, were selling their digital camera when the 2nd generation digital camera was released!
DV is totally hip to get if you own a 16mm or 35mm motion picture camera...
The DP's get be "progressive" by having a "Digital" Camera. The DP can Pick up some extra paid work shooting digital, show off how much more they know than others who fancy themselves a cameraperson simply because they bought a digital camera while not possessing anywhere near the knowledge the film DP has....it must be nirvana for these film guys, and, they still keep their 16mm or 35mm camera for more expensive jobs.
And once the Film DP masters the DV camera, they can say with a confident swagger, "it's alright for video". They have mastered the digital format rather than the format mastering them and taking them and film out of business.
So, the fact that a Film DP owns a 16mm or 35mm camera and also owns a dv camera instead of a super-8 camera is irrelevant. It makes sense. Although, they should also own a super-8 camera anyway!
Just for grabbing quickie film shots while the main camera is unavailable.
The jury is out if mini-dv is truly lossless in mult-generational situations...
I find the whole issue confusing.
4.1.1. processing is still less of a sampling rate than 4.2.2.
But DV has definitely made an enormous impact.
But I think DV has expanded the overall pie rather than "taken out" any other format.
So DV hype is dangerous, because people start saying..."it's digital", completely clueless to the fact that there are something like 10 or 20 digital formats, (it may even be higher than that!)
The "digital is perfect"blanket statement is a bit offensive to hear because it is not true.
Mini-DV's greatest contribution has been it's low megabits per second data playback data rate has allowed non-linear editing to take explode.
And it has allowed hard drive storage to tumble in price because the lower per second data rate needed has made it easier to develop low cost hardware to support non-linear.
Analog Origination, Digital Destination, that's my view of all of this. The digital cameras are a bonus.
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 27, 2001).]
-
The Youg Indianna Jones Chronicles was also shot S16 and I'd have never guessed that considering George- Digital Freak- Lucas had produced it . Plenty of T.V. is still 16 like the first few seasons of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer" before it switched to 35. Strangely the biggest difference between the 16 & 35 episodes is the flesh tones- a little more muted in 16.
------------------
PRM
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B]"When I see a short film or feature shot in Super 8 - its seems news. But if shot on DV - as MAtt refered to b4- its not."
(Matt Pacini resonds):
It's NOT news when a film is shot digital?
Are you kidding me?
That's just about the only thing being talked about in interviews and write-ups about The new Star Whores movie, not to mention The Anniversary Party, and a couple others (I don't remember the name of the onestarring Rahda Mitchell... Nice girl, I met her at the Santa Barbara Film Festival...Hmmmm).
You could not get one sentence into the article, without some big deal being made about how it was shot on digital video, not film. They barely even talk about anything else regarding the picture.
I call that making news, don't you?
crimsonson:
"Remember perceived quality is not the only determing factor of the success of a format. If that was the case films would always be shot in larger than 35mm format. Ease and cost plays equal, sometimes bigger role."
(Matt Pacini responds):
Well, I don't know how to break this to you, but yes, all films ARE shot in 35mm.
The amount of released films shot in anything else, is such a small sliver, to be almost not worth mentioning (except that they ARE meontioned in a big way, because they're shot in digital video, thus being a big news story in all the trade mags.)
However, you are right about quality not being the sole determining factor, but that contradicts your own logic from your last post, about if it weren't good quality, why would Pro DP's be getting DV cams?
They will shoot on a freakin box camera, if that's what someone wants them to do, because they're professionlas, they make their living doing this, and they're not going to lose work over it.
If you read American Cinematographer, you will read interview after interview, with these same guys basically saying that they will shoot whatever someone wants them to shoot on, but they do NOT have raving compliments about DV at all.
They all still prefer film. They have to eat just like the rest of us!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
"The new version of Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke was shot with Super-16, if I'm not mistaken."
dogstarman-
I listened to the director, Michael Almereyda, talk about his version of Hamlet at the Austin Film Festival's Screenwriting Conference last year.
According to Almereyda, the film was shot on digital video -- whether it was miniDV, DVCam, DigiBeta, or Lucas' new baby, I can't remember -- and eventually transferred and printed to 35mm.
There may have been a Super-16 step in there, somewhere, but the raw footage originated on digital video.
Ronson
------------------
-
MAtt:
Regarding Super 8 and digital:
News or not news
More pros and amateurs seems to be still using DV more than Super8. I am not saying the Dv is better than Super 8 either (that is a personal call). My point is its a medium only.
Regarding 35mm:
"Well, I don't know how to break this to you, but yes, all films ARE shot in 35mm.
"
I did not say it was not. I am confused?
I did not say DV is superior to Super 8 but it offers certain traits that many people finds as an advantage, including pros (and me). I think there is a misunderstanding in here. I have feeling you maybe reitarating my point and vice versa.
------------------
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited October 02, 2001).]
-
Remember, the vertical resolution on super 16mm is the same as regular 16mm. All you get is a different aspect ratio using aspheric lenses. So there's more information on the sides but not the top and bottom. Young Indiana Jones was not release letterboxed, which means that it had no more resolution than something shot regular 16mm.
Young Indiana Jones was shot on Super 16mm but for entirely different reasons than most people would guess. Since they were doing a lot of effects, they needed the extra width to assist in being able to reposition the image for compositing purposes. The larger width of the image gave them that little bit of room.
However, as I understand it, the final scenes (effects or otherwise) were actually all transferred to laser disk and then edited using the earliest of the non linear systems of that time period. So, even though YIJ was shot on super 16mm, resolution was hardly the deciding factor since they were limiting their final output to the SVHS quality that laser disks provided; something far below even regular 16mm.
Roger
-
I am not at all a pro of the likes of you guys but I have something interesting to share that you may find interesting.
About two months ago I visited a friend who is doing post on Michale Mans' ALI film and saw a lot of DV footage that coverd everything from Will Smith shadowboxing to African landscapes.
I don?t know what's going to be use in the Film, but it seems even in the biggest Hollywood productions thease days, DV is being used one way or another.
[This message has been edited by rexster (edited September 30, 2001).]
-
Roger,
I always assumed they were shooting S16 so that when t.v. became 16/9 these shows would make the transition more easily amd have more lasting power.
That's assuming they composed shots with that in mind.
Young Ind. Jones has been released on video, is it in letterboxed format?
------------------
PRM
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 8th Man:
Roger,
I always assumed they were shooting S16 so that when t.v. became 16/9 these shows would make the transition more easily amd have more lasting power.
That's assuming they composed shots with that in mind.
Young Ind. Jones has been released on video, is it in letterboxed format?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Haven't seen it on video. Might be. I'm not sure that many people were thinking that far ahead regarding 16:9 when that show was made. You could be right, of course. The article I read specifically talked about the need to reposition the image during compositing; something they did all the time back then also in VistaVision. It would make sense that they would want the same advantage in super 16.
Their effects were done electronically with no printing back to film. Certainly, they wouldn't want to do the effects and composites over again just for a recent 16:9 release. I would be surprised if the video is letterboxed but who knows?
Roger
