miniDV vs. super 8 pics

What they forgot to take in account is that miniDV can deliver much more than that. Depending on the cam.

But sure the look of that 8mm is what most of us DVX shooters want (- the grain).
 
MovieSwede said:
What they forgot to take in account is that miniDV can deliver much more than that. Depending on the cam.

But sure the look of that 8mm is what most of us DVX shooters want (- the grain).
Click to expand...

There is a lot more to film vs. video than just grain. The whole image making process is different and that, IMO, affects the look. I do not think one is inherently better than the other. It depends on the need of the subject.


BTW. What camera was the Super 8 shot with? Like DV cameras, there is differences in qualty between Super 8 cameras.
 
David G. Smith said:
BTW. What camera was the Super 8 shot with? Like DV cameras, there is differences in qualty between Super 8 cameras.
Click to expand...



I believe it was a Beaulieu 4008 but am not quite sure (there's some pics of the behind the scenes here http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/inmyimage/photos4.htm ).

As for the comparison, I think what he wrote on the website is pretty much what I think: if you shoot on video, it looks more like today. If you shoot on film it gives you that feeling of fantasy. It could be today or 1938 as he mentions.

I think it all depends on what you want. If you want the video-look, shoot on video. If you want the film-look shot on film. Is one better than the other ? No. Is one different from the other ? Definitely.
 
ropbo said:
I believe it was a Beaulieu 4008 but am not quite sure (there's some pics of the behind the scenes here http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/inmyimage/photos4.htm ).

As for the comparison, I think what he wrote on the website is pretty much what I think: if you shoot on video, it looks more like today. If you shoot on film it gives you that feeling of fantasy. It could be today or 1938 as he mentions.

I think it all depends on what you want. If you want the video-look, shoot on video. If you want the film-look shot on film. Is one better than the other ? No. Is one different from the other ? Definitely.
Click to expand...


But most of us shoot video that we want to look like film. The best of both worlds.
 
MovieSwede said:
But most of us shoot video that we want to look like film. The best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

That is an arguable point. I do not have the inclination to participate in the arguement today. However, I do believe that the quest to seek a film look with video, has vastly expanded the aesthetic possibilites of some video systems. Which is a great thing.
 
The only drawback seems to be with that project is the vignetting, but overall the super8 looks great for what they are trying to achive.
 
I think the 200ASA Vision 2 super 8 neg will deliver a result that falls between the MiniDV and K40. Taking the best parts of both and combining them.

The K-40 is a difficult film to shoot and telecine with the contrast of the shade and sunlight you have in your shots. I know that the neg would preform much better under such conditions. And, naturally, it would retain the film look you want to see.

I have heard rumors that Kodak may release sharper, more grain free low ASA negative films in super 8 (if interest continues to grow). If this happens, I am sure we will see quite a boost in low budget film making.
 
i prefer mini-dv over the super 8, i dunno. super8 looks like the old 70s-80s..i dont want to shoot on a medium that will remind people of that point of time, looks aight, i will probably go 16mm if i had to shoot film.
 
hiro said:
i prefer mini-dv over the super 8, i dunno. super8 looks like the old 70s-80s..i dont want to shoot on a medium that will remind people of that point of time, looks aight, i will probably go 16mm if i had to shoot film.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly Super 8 that looks like the old 70-80s but the stock you're using. If you shoot Vision2 stock you'll get a much less 70s look.
 
Cooler.

Just shoot with the wrong whitebalance and your DVX will have real cool footage.

Sorry couldnt help myself ;)
 
A progressive camera with a Cine-Like gamma curve (aware of any?) will look MUCH better (read: closer to film) than that JVC mini-DV.
 
<A progressive camera with a Cine-Like gamma curve (aware of any?) will look MUCH better (read: closer to film) than that JVC mini-DV.>

yeah, it will look better than the JVC but its not going to look like the real film. Especially if you are comparing projected film vs projected miniDV. No contest baby.
 
MovieSwede said:
Cooler.

Just shoot with the wrong whitebalance and your DVX will have real cool footage.

Sorry couldnt help myself ;)
Click to expand...
Clever, I guess I will have to be more PC when I talk around here.
 
Lakmir0 said:
<A progressive camera with a Cine-Like gamma curve (aware of any?) will look MUCH better (read: closer to film) than that JVC mini-DV.>

yeah, it will look better than the JVC but its not going to look like the real film. Especially if you are comparing projected film vs projected miniDV. No contest baby.
Click to expand...

Digital projection have done a lot of breaktrough the last years. There is no problem if the source is good to create a filmlike experience.

The problem would be to succed in both cameras and projector. To create a film like experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top