-
I have been following the host board now for a few weeks and one thing has struck me, the discussion can easily concentrate on computer editing and its probs. With questions relating to old splice and tape/cement probs, there seems to be little discusion exept great advice from the moderator. Do most people use computers for editing as well? I beleived that one of the great aspects of super/regular 8 is that due to cost one had to make sure each shot was well organised and worth shooting. One thing that has enabled people with modern home video cameras to shoot really bad vhs with the idea of "no loss, just record over it". Will super 8 shooting evolve to the same idea, "oh well, i can touch it up on the computer". Will the imaginative filmmakers of the future be remarked on for their skill, or the version of software they use?
P.S I do not intend to insult, just really curious about what other users do!
------------------
-
I tend to do a bit of both.
I really like using film for the reasons you say, but sometimes it costs too much to get everything right. So if a shot comes out too overexposed (for example) I can touch it up on a PC.
Besides the finished thing will be on VHS, so it will end up in a PC anyway, might as well make th emost of that.
------------------
-
i edited my first films way before computers were even being sold. and i do like that process but for one thing. with super8, the gauge is so small it's hard to work for very long like that. plus finding professional editing gear in super8 is very hard to do. not like 16mm. i also use super8 for video. i raelly don't have plans to shoot a film on super8 and project it. either in super8 or in blow up. if i was making a film for theatres, i would shoot 16mm and edit on a flatbed, although i've never had the chance yet to work this way. what limited experience i do have in this area, i do find it more appealling. i have thought about shooting super8, blowing up to 16mm, and then edit. but with the money i would save not doing that i could buy or rent a decent 16mm sync camera. so, the reason i use video/avid editing is because i shoot super8 and finish on video.
------------------
-
A very insightful question.
In the early 90's I had recently started my own editing bay, and I had a music video to edit.
The band had shot in HI-8 video and really didn't have enough coverage, so I found some stock time-lapse shots that I had shot in Super-8 and had already transferred to video and I put it into the video to liven it up...
...I also did some chroma key shots of the Super-8 stock footage that added a nice background treatment to some of the shots.
I bring the video over for him to review for the third time as it is now close to being done.
The Client/Drummer/Producer has an entourage over. They watch the video once, and I think it is rather lukewarmly received. (perhaps they had seen earlier versions and were sick of it, I'm not sure)
The "maestro" as I will call the music video "drummer"/producer decides to watch it again.
The second time around, the drummer/producer maestro decides to add "visual digital" effects via his VHS VCR Remote.
As the music video plays for the second time, he lifts his remote as if he were Noah summoning all the animals of the world to come aboard his boat with his cane....
...and he begins to add his own digital effects to the video.
First he makes 9 identical boxes of the music video appear on the screen, then 16, now a mosaic pattern effect, he follows this with a still frame effect.....next comes a strobe effect...
This time everyone in the room starts to ooh and ahh with every digital effect he adds to the video.
Nothing that the drummer boy did added anything to the video, except for the fact that he was doing it, and his friends were seeing him manipulate the image in front of their eyes, live.
This Phenomena is the tell tale sign of genetic DNA code in most humans that cries out ..."But what I really want to do is direct.", or "I know the Director".
The lesson I learned that night was don't put a huge effort into editing a music video,...for a dork....
......unless you are being well paid...which, sad to say, I made less than $ 7.00 an hour, because even though we had agreed on a flat price of around $750.00.....
He came up with a very clever way of stalling paying me. (he only paid me $250-$350, even though the music video was easily over 90% done)
Every time he saw the video, he had a really long list of additional edits he needed made.
Well, he can't possibly pay more than a pittance of what he owes because there still is so much more work to be done on the video.
So, the way he can string out paying me on a flat rate fee is by giving me a large number of fixes!
In other words, the more fixes he comes up with that the video needs, the less he needs to pay me whenever we review the video.
Is that twisted or what! Instead of just saying he can't pay me, he gives me more work to do so he can pay me less.
I had only had had my edit studio a short time, so I guess I had to go through this lesson, once.
I didn't figure out his modus operandi until he started critiquing edit sequences that he had never said word one about the first 3 times he reviewed the music video.
And the jealousy if another band member had more stage time or had better shots....
The straw that broke the camels back was when his revised list of shots that needed to be fixed included shots of himself drumming.
He said he didn't like the way he looked drumming...and there were no other shots of him drumming, and he knew it.
.....That was when I knew I needed to leave "Hotel California"...
Anyway, to use the above story in answer to your question...yes, it's all becoming about what software did you use to diffuse the shot and so on.
The DP is in fact being slowly let out to pasture by incorporating more effects in editing.
However, the cycle of DP annihilation is still more hype than reality.
It's a slow erosion over time practiced more by newer film and video makers than by those who precede them.
The software makers are helping to build a community of video editors / camerapeople who try to do as much as they can on their own.
Which really does fly in the face of film as a collaborative medium.
The other insidious aspect to what is going on reminds me of what happened to my brother once after he won a bicycle race as a teenager.
The second place rider came up to him and said "you have a fast bike!"
Yes, and soon we will all have really cool software to make up for the time we didn't spend lighting the scene properly, writing a good script, or just planning correctly.
We'll make it all up in "post"!
And then we can all go around and complement each other on how great the software is that we are using!
I can't wait.
When do we create the specially cloned aliens to watch all the stuff every person on the planet will be making!
footnote#...(editing on the computer is a terrific way to edit Super-8 film that has already been transferred to video...but how many "effects" are we going to add the film simply because the story, acting, lighting or sound is weak? "Fix it in post" may be become so commonplace that the "art of filmmaking" will be become the "Art of Computerediting"
Is that a bad thing? If we become "lazy" filmmakers because we think we can fix everything later, yes.)
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 07, 2001).]
-
The film methods appeal more to me. Perhaps because I have a 9-5 computer graphics job. Sitting in front of a monitor for hours and hours isn't as fun as cutting and splicing to me, even being such a small format.
I do make movies for my own enjoyment and appreciation of the media, however, I'm sort of a ham to and I need an audience. Most people have vcr's. I'm also planning on showing my movies over the internet... High speed access, a smaller audience than vcr's... but more people have that than projectors still.
As well, I'm scared to project any of my footage that much for fear of scratching it up or tearing, etc.
A lot of the posts here have got me thinking it would be cool to be able to do some sort of optical print for "theatrical" release. Apparently there are film festivals that will project Super 8. But lets face it, that audience is much smaller.
Side question: Might shooting frame by frme from a quality flat screen computer monitor be a viable method for creating a print? Is there a way to avoid the flicker/monitor bars frame by frame?
My 2c. -Madrone
------------------
-
Oh yeah, and then there is the whole question of sound... Sound stripping!? Sounds like a lot of work. I think I saw this link from this forum, might have been another one...
http://freespace.virgin.net/k.mayes/...m/KJMfilm4.htm
-M
------------------
-
tape or cement editing only for me. Projection can't be beat.
------------------
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MadFor3D:
"Sitting in front of a monitor for hours and hours isn't as fun as cutting and splicing to me, even being such a small format".
MadFor3D -I couldn't agree more, however so much additional work can be done with software.
Can anyone recommend a great editing sofware for a Mac computer?
------------------
-
-
For Macs the most obvious answer is Final Cut Pro, but the more simple i movie can do a surprising amount considering it's free on newer Macs. Its biggest drawback is in the audio area I think. But people would've paid hundreds for it a few years ago.
------------------
PRM
-
The definitive word for mac's and non-linear editing is www.2-pop.com
------------------
Alex
-
Thanks for the prompt Mac software info guys.
------------------
-
Well, I've done it both ways, and I'm never cutting film again, unless it's a little tiny projoect.
I did my first cut of Lost Tribes on film, by hand, and it took me something like 9-10 months of evenings and weekends! And I mean almost every weekend, all day long!
This did not include any sound editing!
A feature is a huge project, it's not just splicing a little 3 minute cute little film thing together.
So, I think the real answer to this, is that there are a lot of Super 8 shooters trying to do somewhat professional things with the format, pushing it beyond what it was intended to do, or has been historically used for; just fun fooling around shooting.
SO, it sounds really romantic to cut film, but if you're really doing this for the outcome, and not the process, then you have to do what is most productive, and that's cutting on the computer.
Also, nobody serious projects their Super 8 film, so it's all going to end up on video anyway.
The only justification for cutting S8 on film, is to gain quality by losing one generation of degradation in the process, which is why I did it.
It was for nothing, though, because I ended up having to re-cut the movie anyway (on the computer) when it was obvious thatthere were story problems, it was too long, etc.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
It's true, S8 was and still is best when acually projected. It always loses so much of its value when transfered- even ranked with the latest in color correction and everything. But it all depends on what you want to do with your film.
------------------
PRM
-
I just do not see the point in using film for transfer to video, except of course its quality, but the big picture cannot be beaten for impact, Imax for example.
------------------
-
The response was better than i thought. A lot of, I suppose wise, things were said. And i can concede that computer editing would be a powerful advantage for the time pressed, which may be all of us. And if it is to end up on VHS, why not take the advantage of portraying it to the best of ones ability, after all, the super 8 audience is shrinking from what i hear. However, the more time one spends in front of the computer, the less time one is being intellectually and artistically challenged either behind the camera, script, or at the editing table. For example, my girlfreind is an author and she insists on editing on paper, feeling the words. Not cutting and pasting. She beleives that too much time on the computer distances the creator from their creation. Could the preference for computer editing equate to film makers spending more time in front of the monitor, and not looking through the eyepiece? This question may have already been bantered about by generations of purists with the advent of every new technology to emerge, from the motorised camera to the steadicam, yet, was their argument groundless? Are there countless aspects of filming and other arts that can be traded away in place of ease without eventually detracting from the origional intention of what you wanted to portray?
One quote "Honda Goldwing? get a car and be done with it!"
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:
One quote "Honda Goldwing? get a car and be done with it!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but do you get a car for functionality, or for status?
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank Houiellebecq:
I just do not see the point in using film for transfer to video, except of course its quality, but the big picture cannot be beaten for impact, Imax for example.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Film on video still looks like film.
Video tends to look "live"...film on video looks like a story.
So film has it's advantages both ways.
------------------
Alex
-
Mr.Blackstock.
If you really want to stick it across computer finished images,and if of course one can afford it,shoot on Super8 colour neg and have a projection print made.That will shake them! You know-just like it is in 'proper' cinema.
Old Uncle Barry
UK
------------------
-
super8 to video, the perfect independent medium...
------------------
-
I must say I enjoy the feeling of film in my hands, but having cut film and cut on a computer non-linear system, I'll pick a computer everytime. I've edited Super-8, 16mm and 35mm film and I'm glad I did, but the speed of NLEs is some much better.
Also, you have to ask yourself what will happen to you final product. Not many people are going to get to see your film projected on Super-8. You can have such a wider audience if transfer to video and go for a distributor. Hey, I've shot things on Super VHS that have landed distribution in the U.S and foreign countries, so why not something shot on Super-8?
Scott
------------------
-
No, Mr. Blackstop, you just can't kickstart a Honda Goldwing no matter how hard you try. Better get a Triumph Bonneville instead. I transfer everything(homemade) to video. But I agree I like to splice and edit in FILM first. It just seems like the right thing to do. However, right now I am primarily only doing it for my own amusement and maybe a few friends. I hope to branch out a little and get a editing program for my PC. As far as Super8 users shrinking, maybe it is, I haven't seen the stats on that. Personally, since I began shooting 8mm & S8mm film, it is funny how many people I have met who are doing the same thing. Many of those people are just starting too.
Oh well, think I'll go kick the Bonnie over :-)
------------------
-
> shoot on Super8 colour neg and have a
> projection print made
well, i don't think there are any print stocks available, and it's obvious it wouldn't look as good as projected k40 anyway. so what do you mean?
/matt
-
Well Matttias,I concede to your obvious superior knowledge of printing stock.But you certainly have underlined in no uncertain terms that 'projected' Super8 is the tops!
Old Uncle Barry
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank Houiellebecq:
I just do not see the point in using film for transfer to video, except of course its quality, but the big picture cannot be beaten for impact, Imax for example.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Matt Pacini resonds):
You say "except for its quality" as if that's an afterthought!
That's the whole point of shooting on film, otherwise, nobody would do it!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Concerning the honda goldwing quote: motorcycling is about the act of riding, be it on a scooter or a harley. The mode and comfort of the ride should not detract from the joy of the experience. The honda goldwing has for many years been decried as the unfortunate meeting between the ride and comfort. With a stereo, hydraulic main stand and a reverse gear! It seems logical to arrogantly assume that the owner of such machinery would prefer the comfort, having maybe forgotten the ride? Maybe a similar analogy can be corelated to computer editing? Has the super 8 camera been overtaken in importance by the computer or software? is the only reason people use super 8 at all due only to the price and ease of use? Or is it the unique aspects of the gauge? Maybe one day i will also edit on the computer, and enjoy the advantage afforded to so many others. Then again, I drive an old car, use a 486 computer, and still beleive in cash over plastic. Yet i earn enough money to purchase topline video equipment and rent an editing suite.
And yes, the thought has occured to me, I may be a very cheap dinosaur.
------------------
-
I remember that Star Trek episode, 8th Man...
If it makes you feel better, I'll lend you my editing equipment if you lend me your G4!
Chas
------------------
-
George Lucas encouraged/convinced Robert Rodriguez to shoot digital video...Spy Kids was shot on Digital Video (that's what I was told)
Mr. Rodgriguez, as told to me through someone who claims to know him, is touting digital video as the format that needs less set-up than film, is clearer than film, and so cheap to shoot you don't even have to stop the camera between takes.
The inner meaning I pick-up from this philosophy is less crew, more self-indulgence, more experimentation, less time between set-ups, more control, more set-ups shot per day, less lighting????
....then you edit yourself in Non-linear, and make a film print...although I still don't understand what format of NLE is of high enough quality to ensure you can make terrific film prints from.
I haven't seen SPY KIDS, but was this film done in digital video?
By Transferring HI-Definition Digital Video to film, it ends up looking like film, that is the claim.
Desperado is the next Rodriguez film, and it is shot in digital video and will be transferred to film for projection.
I said many months ago that whatever medium you start out in, switch to the other for final projection.
If you start out in 35mm, project in HI-Definition Video once it really is as good as a film print.
And if you shoot in HI-DEF Video, make a final print onto 35mm for projection.
I still think that film transferred onto HD-Video would look really phenomenal.
So, HD will be marketed as the format that means less crew, has more clarity, but is it true?
And is this really a better way, to reduce the amount of people needed to make a film?
------------------
Alex
-
Until I can afford a G4 I'm editing the "old fashioned way" with my Hervic Splicer and a viewer.
------------------
-
Spock said in Star Trek "having is not always as nice a thing as wanting, it may not be logical but it is often true." I'm writing this on a G4 and I have Final cut Pro and yet I look forward to cutting film with a splicer on my next S8 project.
Sorry to geek out with the Spock reference, but I'd quote my five year old niece if it made sence at the time.
------------------
PRM
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
It is so, and the reason is that the higher the budget of the picture is, the smaller percentage of that budget is in film stock and processing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. With stars getting huge salaries, the difference in shooting film or video doesn't amount to much. However, there is a savings in time that can add up quite fast, especially if you are shooting a lot of indoor scenes or outdoor scenes at night. Lighting for video is VERY fast compared to film. The biggest cost on "Hollywood" movies is labor. If the crew can be smaller and get off the set faster, that can only help the budget. Using less lights and running less cables for power is going to help the schedule also.
Little by little, these things can add up to a pretty big savings, even for a large project. But, in general, I agree that the people that will benefit the most from digi-film will be the independents where every penny is stretched to the last drop. Ironically, it is the independents that seem to be the most ardent supporters of film over video!
Roger
-
I was in my driveway the other night and this associate went on and on about digital video and Robert Rodriguez and how the HD cameras already existed and that was what RR was using...
I don't want to be the last one out the door, and what I was hearing sounded too easy.
I think Lucas wants others to join him, he probably will get some kind of cut (just my opinion)
I thought Desperado was coming out this year.
Is Rodriguez making a movie right now? If he is, is it being shot on digital?
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 09, 2001).]
-
I?m shooting S8 because it can be projected in good quality. So, there?s no other way as normal splicing. It can be done. The main work of film editing is in your head, building the story, arranging the szenes. Once done, only mount the film the way you?ve planned it. I?m actually using a Thermocoll splicer, that needs 5 seconds drying time per splice, together with cutting/grinding, let?s say, 30 seconds per splice. That?s not to much, it?s fun. But I?m planning to achieve a professional Hamman splicer, which works without any dust and produces a film not thicker at it?s splices.
Computer editing could be an option to come to a editing plan, that would have to be finished on film in the end, depending on the project it could make sense. But without finishing it on film, it?s nothing REAL, it?s only a VIRTUAL film.
I don?t like VHS, neither tv. VHS gives only an information of the film?s contense, but it?s not adequate to feel and live the film.
Pedro
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
George Lucas encouraged/convinced Robert Rodriguez to shoot digital video...Spy Kids was shot on Digital Video (that's what I was told)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spy kids was shot on film, though some of the effects footage incorporated digital video. I've seen production stills and the cameras are all 35mm. He used digital video to make the effects easier and cheaper, as I understand it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Mr. Rodgriguez, as told to me through someone who claims to know him, is touting digital video as the format that needs less set-up than film, is clearer than film, and so cheap to shoot you don't even have to stop the camera between takes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe that Rodriguez is a big fan of video. He hates super 8 and complained that it always looked grainey and amaturish. He said that he tried shooting movies in Super 8 and found it frustrating because nothing ever turned out. He then switched to video for his early projects before going to 16mm.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
....then you edit yourself in Non-linear, and make a film print...although I still don't understand what format of NLE is of high enough quality to ensure you can make terrific film prints from.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It doesn't have to be. That's why God invented timecode. Hell, you could shoot on HD and edit on VHS if you wanted. All you need is an accurate EDL. All automatic from there.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
I haven't seen SPY KIDS, but was this film done in digital video?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a copy that I have seen a million times (my 3 year old loves it). As I pointed out above, the movie was shot on film and some of the effects were shot on digital video. Kind of looks that way, frankly. Fun, but the effects were sort of cheesey as a result of the digital video, which I think was intended.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
By Transferring HI-Definition Digital Video to film, it ends up looking like film, that is the claim. Desperado is the next Rodriguez film, and it is shot in digital video and will be transferred to film for projection.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ummmm, Desperado came out in 1995. Old history and it wasn't shot on video. I haven't seen the Lucas tests, but they are supposed to be pretty convincing. I know there was one scene in the last Star Wars movie where Anakin gets his blood checked by Liam Neason's character on a balcony at night. That scene was shot with one of the new Sony/Panavision HD cameras at 24fps. Looked fine in the theater but terrible on the video release.
Beyond that, I don't think the HD video for television is the same as the HD video for theatrical. I could be wrong, but I believe that the two are different formats and different resolutions. I say that because Sony HD cameras have been around for a number of years and the ones that Lucas is just NOW shooting with weren't field tested until very recently. As such, I would find it very odd that Lucas would push Rodriguez to steal his thunder after pumping all that money into R&D. You've got to believe that Star Wars will be the first to shoot "all digital" in the suped up format, if Lucas hasn't lost his sense of marketing. Lord knows there really isn't any other reason to watch the Star Wars movies anymore.
Roger
-
I read a review with Rodriquez, and he indeed did shoot Spy Kids on film, but he was going on and on about how his NEXT film would be on digital video. (As if that would be entirely his decision, and not the producers anyway).
If you read American Cinematographer regularly (and you should) you will read often in interviews with DP's who shoot both film and digital video, that the cost savings of shooting video is almost nil.
This just can't be so, can it?
It is so, and the reason is that the higher the budget of the picture is, the smaller percentage of that budget is in film stock and processing.
A good friend of mine almost had his script produced, and he's a huge "film is dead" believer.
Well, guess what?
After they budgeted the movie both ways, it didn't make a difference one way or the other.
It only really saves you money if you're on the low budget end of the industry, where film stock & processing are your big budget items, OR if you're George Lucas, digitizing every freakin' frame of the movie for effects, and you have a room full of programmers to write code to enhance the look any way you want.
P.S. Even the lowly, semi-talented Tarrantino says he'll never shoot anything but film. Which is strange, because his movies probably SHOULD be shot on video, like VHS.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
IMDB says that Spy Kids was shot on 35mm. It also lists Spy Kids 2 (Island of Lost Dreams) to come out in 2002.
Interesting note in the trivia section for SpyKids:
***Director Robert Rodriguez edited the movie in his garage.***
http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0227538
I find this kind of funny, but how true is it really? I'm assuming this means he edited it non-linear on a computer or something and the crew used it as guide to make a master with the special effects, but not as a master itself???
But hey, who knows with Rodriguez, in his book/diary for El Mariachi after he got the financial backing of Columbia, he still cut and edited the 35mm print himself , because he didn't like the work the editors were doing.
And, BTW, I saw Spy Kids and thought it was very entertaining and imaginative.
Scott
------------------
-
That was the part that confused me. The person who told me about RR said the same thing.
Perhaps as Roger says, they "conform" the original negative to his video edit.
------------------
Alex
-
Often a director will cut the film and give it to the editor an producer to give a perspective how the film should look in regards how she/he shot it. They sometimes agree (Probably in SPy Kids case) and sometimes they dont (American History X). This is also where you get those DVD's claiming Director's Cut. Its based on this edited version and script/prodcution notes.
------------------
-
> You've got to believe that Star Wars will be the first to shoot "all digital" in the suped up format
kind of hard to believe considering there are at least two movies released theatrically that i know of that was shot in 24p. ("jackpot" and the swedish "livvakterna")
i believe the digital scene in tpm was shot on regular 60i hd by the way.
/matt
-
Have you guys heard of "Ivansxtc"? Directed by Bernard Rose, the director of "Immortal Beloved". There might be other movies out there already that have been shot on HD, but I just remember this one because I read this article:
http://www.cyberfilmschool.com/articles/ivansxtc_p1.htm
He has a lot to say about HD vs. Film. He sounds a little bit bitter to me, but there are some interesting things in the article.
Shenan
------------------
