Hello, and where's the super 8 love?

[rileynesbit]

Hello everyone,

My name is Riley Nesbit and this I've just recently joined here on the forums. I'm a film video major at Georgia State University.

One thing I've noticed is that everyone doesn't seem to pay to much attention to the little guy: Super 8mm. I know what the preconceived notions of this small format are. 8mm is too small to have decent resolution; it was meant for home movies, not serious filmmaking; and super 8 can't compete with miniDV to name a few.

Look a little closer. Properly exposed 8mm has a resolution that Digital can rarely touch. At times, super 8 film can contain over twice as many lines of resolution when telecined and brought into a digital enviroment. While it is true that super8 was originated for consumer use, miniDv, the format that many of you swear by, was as well. The best DV cameras claim that they can shoot in progressive framing and with colors more similar to that of film. That they may, but they will never be able to faithfully recreate the look of actual film. Super 8 has the beautiful, organic colors that digital wishes to create. Shooting film is expensive, I'll admit. But so is your $4000 3-CCD camcorder. Digital is more efficient to work with, especially when a large amount of compiled footage is required such as a documentary. All I'm asking is that before you purchase or rent your professional miniDV camera and ride off into the technology-ridden sunset, go buy a super8 camera with manual settings for around 40 or 50 dollars. You'll be stunned with the film-like warmth you've been trying to recreate.

Riley

 

[Lazlo]

I think its more a conveniance issue than resolution issue, at least for me it was. That is, fine, its 50$ for what at this point would most likely be a used 8mm camera, with little or no technical support. You have to purchase film for the camera. Then you have to develop the film. And many people don't have access to facilities that can develop film, and movie film is much more difficult to develop in your own home than still 35mm. Then after you develop it, theoretically it would be nice to be able to edit the film, so then you have to transfer it to a computer using (I would suppose since i myself haven't does this), an expensive film scanner (telecine process?). And then there's the issue of syncing the sound, which can be a lot more difficult shooting on film. Then you have to purchase more film to shoot your next movie. And if you don't want to edit it digitally, then you need to have a projector (which runs at least 4000), and a screen with which to project the image... So if you shoot a lot of movies, I'm sure the expenses add up quite quickly, and it ends up costing about the same, with a lot more trouble.

I've found, that with digital, its great for experimentation, because its so easy to use, and provides instant gratification, where you can see results almost immediately. Not that 8mm isn't great for experimentation, just that its much less conveniant, and has become much more cumbersome in recent years because of the advances in digital technology. tapes can be reused, editing programs come with all computers almost. Not that the easy way is always the right way, but basically film is just hard to shoot on, with a lot of 'secret' expenses and troubles. I think S8mm could be useful for a film major, who already has a lot of experience in making movies, but even then, in the end, yes technology is important, but it needs to suit the production needs. And in many cases, digital is faster, and requires less maintenence or technical knowledge. Just standing up for digital.

p.s. And the resolution isn't that bad on the high end digital cameras, or even the 3CCD cameras...

 

[Brad Hoover]

Super 8

Super 8

I have always been a big fan of Super-8. I love the organic feel and texture that's unique to the format. Recently I had the opportunity to shoot the new Vision 2 negative stocks from kodak on a short project I assigned to my class. We shot 14 rolls of the 200T and 500T stock. We had a nice transfer done at Flying Spot in Seattle (suprisingly affordable I might add). When we watched the tape, I was flabbergasted at the quality of the image, especially the 200T stock. The color, the grain, the resolution were incredible. It looked more like well exposed 16mm than any Super-8 that I'd ever seen.

We edited the project and burned it to DVD as our final output. Just on a whim I decided to take the DVD into our screening room and see how it held up to projection on a big screen (30 ft wide). Again, I was flabbergasted, totally blown away. Yes, the grain was apparent but the resoulution was still very sharp and the colors were incredible. The image blew any DV footage we've ever shot right out of the water.

Admittidly we used a camera with an excellent lens (Canon 1014XLS), we were very careful about exposing the film correctly and had a high end transfer done. Not as convienant or as cheap as DV, but the results were more than worth it. I know that Super-8 is not the right choice for every filmmaker or every project, but for someone looking to get a unique film look at a fraction of the cost of 16mm or 35mm, Super-8 is definately a viable option that I would love to see more people take seriousley.

 

[Alessandro Machi]

I think its more a conveniance issue than resolution issue, at least for me it was. That is, fine, its 50$ for what at this point would most likely be a used 8mm camera, with little or no technical support. You have to purchase film for the camera. Then you have to develop the film. And many people don't have access to facilities that can develop film, and movie film is much more difficult to develop in your own home than still 35mm. Then after you develop it, theoretically it would be nice to be able to edit the film, so then you have to transfer it to a computer using (I would suppose since i myself haven't does this), an expensive film scanner (telecine process?). And then there's the issue of syncing the sound, which can be a lot more difficult shooting on film. Then you have to purchase more film to shoot your next movie. And if you don't want to edit it digitally, then you need to have a projector (which runs at least 4000), and a screen with which to project the image... So if you shoot a lot of movies, I'm sure the expenses add up quite quickly, and it ends up costing about the same, with a lot more trouble.

I've found, that with digital, its great for experimentation, because its so easy to use, and provides instant gratification, where you can see results almost immediately. Not that 8mm isn't great for experimentation, just that its much less conveniant, and has become much more cumbersome in recent years because of the advances in digital technology. tapes can be reused, editing programs come with all computers almost. Not that the easy way is always the right way, but basically film is just hard to shoot on, with a lot of 'secret' expenses and troubles. I think S8mm could be useful for a film major, who already has a lot of experience in making movies, but even then, in the end, yes technology is important, but it needs to suit the production needs. And in many cases, digital is faster, and requires less maintenence or technical knowledge. Just standing up for digital.

p.s. And the resolution isn't that bad on the high end digital cameras, or even the 3CCD cameras...

I agree with your analysis as being an accurate representation of everything digital. I also believe that it is no longer an issue of either or, either (hehehe). No matter how many videos you have made using the above workflow, I doubt that it hurts to know how to make a film by shooting film, it most likely helps. The fact that there are different protocols and strategies that you will experience by shooting a low budget film will just expand your capabilities and expand your creative experiences.