Super 16 vs HD...... Opinions HEHEHE I know you want to!!!

Martini Yernazty

Martini Yernazty

Active member
Hello MY DVX Family
I'm researching both formats....
I shot with both, love both, but I love the mechanical feel of Super 16.... my crew for some reason takes it more seriously, but ( like always we have one ) I been developing a technique on digital based on the film technique named Cross Process... I did on the DVX... and gentleman people ask me with what stock did you shoot, it was a pretty nice feeling
My dilemma is I can Just get My Super 16 cam or get the HD cam that will be outdated in a couple of years
Plus the looks that I can achieve with both are great , but in this dubious night I ask You
what do you prefer


Best

Martín Yernazian
 
HD,24p, DVX, etc. is exciting cuz it's accessible. We can shoot it, edit it and TRY to make it look like film with great results. But if you have the $$ and ability, Super 16 still looks waaay better (just worked on some nighttime stuff for Studio 60 with the AAton A-Minima - lush).
 
Bionicpix said:
HD,24p, DVX, etc. is exciting cuz it's accessible. We can shoot it, edit it and TRY to make it look like film with great results. But if you have the $$ and ability, Super 16 still looks waaay better (just worked on some nighttime stuff for Studio 60 with the AAton A-Minima - lush).
Click to expand...
Who did you like it ?
the told me the A minima is a great cam ....
I'm getting soon an Eclair NPR Super 16.... with awhole bunch of toys
.... will see what will happend
 
The A Minima looks awesome (I only played with one "dry" but never shot with one). It's nice because it's so small. You can put it almost anywhere you could put a large prosumer camera. I was thinking of buying one of Birns & Sawyer's used ones a while back. I can't remember the price, but it was way less than new, and A Minimas are hard to find on the used market. You have to use those special reverse-load film reels, and they only come in a few film stocks. How much are you paying for your Eclair package?
 
Rezfactor said:
The A Minima looks awesome (I only played with one "dry" but never shot with one). It's nice because it's so small. You can put it almost anywhere you could put a large prosumer camera. I was thinking of buying one of Birns & Sawyer's used ones a while back. I can't remember the price, but it was way less than new, and A Minimas are hard to find on the used market. You have to use those special reverse-load film reels, and they only come in a few film stocks. How much are you paying for your Eclair package?
Click to expand...
The package is 6500
and it comes with all this :

1 Lens Angenieux 12-240mm 1 $2000
2 Lens 5.9mm #06433-7075-121001 w/ gears for uw use + 85 and UR pro filters, C-mount. 1 $1600
3 S-16mm Eclair camera #10162 w/ Alcan motor. 1 $6500
4 Kinoptic viewfinders w/eye piece (one is orientable) 2 $1400
5 Eclair film magazines 2
6 Lens mounts C or Eclair or Nikon, all fit super16 or 16mm. 3
7 Underwater Film Camera Housing 1 Kit $10,000
8 Lens dome port for 5.9mm, 9mm, 5.7mm replacement glass coated acrylic domes. 2 $400
9 Flat ports for 9.5-57mm, 15-150mm, 5.9mm, 55mm Nikor. 4
10 Gears and index rings for each lens. 1 Box
11 Spare Parts Kit
12 Sekonic Light meter No901950 1 $350

I mean the value is great ... for all this stuff... is in perfect condition, is beign in maintence constantly( nothing is broken but the owner has in great condition)
 
HDCinema25 said:
I personally prefer film, so super 16 would be the way to go with me.

Kev
Click to expand...
Thanks Kev....I'm personally open for everything but right know Film is still the winner...
but I still shoot digital...
 
I'd rather go with HD. I've shot 16 but I feel more comfortible with HD and the flexibility it offers. I vastly prefer a digital workflow. I've also seen enough footage to know that, even though Super 16mm basically blows the hell out of HD if all things are equal, the multiple generations and digital intermediats pretty much give up that advantage (look at the report about good 35mm only offer around 700 lines of resolution on average when projected in theaters). Also, with the 4:2:2 color sampling of the HVX, I find the image can look just as nice. I've seen tests and the HVX200 looks like pretty nice Super 16mm. All I know who have seen it on film outs say the same thing.

So, HD being cheaper (yes it matters), more flexible, and easier to work with makes me wanna use it. I also love the fact that I can see what I'm getting with digital rather than hoping it'll come out well after processing.

That said, Super 16mm certainly has its advantages. Yes it looks and feels more professional. More importantly, you'll get a good 11 stops of lattitude out of it compared to the 8.5 max you'll get from an HVX.

Still, for me the pros of HD outweigh the cons.
 
Depends on the project, we shoot both. We don't produce for theatrical release so I've never gone from HD to film with the exeption of a few short tests. We now post everything at either 1080P or 1080i, I personally find shooting on film a more enjoyable process. I also for the most part prefer a well telecined negative over digitally adquired material when in post.
 
Sarmoti said:
I also for the most part prefer a well telecined negative over digitally adquired material when in post.
Click to expand...
True point
I think a lot of people that resist shooting on film, is because they never did, they are afraid of it, and they don't want to learn.... and hope for digital to take over so they, again don't have to face it and learn the process
 
Personally I stay away from it because the good cameras are expensive and film + telecine is expensive. But then again, I'm one of those that wants to own my camera.
 
I think a lot of people that resist shooting on film, is because they never did, they are afraid of it, and they don't want to learn.... and hope for digital to take over so they, again don't have to face it and learn the process
Click to expand...

Or because they have and realise that shooting film is a huge pain in the ass for little benefit. At the end of the day, very few people care whether your movie was shot on film or video, they care about story, acting and, to a lesser extent, production quality. On a low budget I'd rather shoot HD and put the $50k I would have had to spend on film stock and telecine into better lighting, sets and props.

I just find it odd that here in the 21st century people are still championing a 19th century format where you can't see what you're shooting and can't even see what you shot until the next day. As a new generation of directors who started out shooting DV replace those who started out shooting super-8, I can't help but feel that they're never going to want the hassle of shooting with film.
 
donatello said:
here's a old review/test that ASC magazine did on DVX , 16mm, 35mm ...

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm
Click to expand...
Donatello great article.....This is what people don't realize..... The film lovers..... do have most of them a DVX.... like me..... and we shot lowbudget stuff with it to make it look great.... but if we have more money....well then the style and shape and everything that you can push with film..... is the favorite... at least for me
 
MarkG said:
Or because they have and realise that shooting film is a huge pain in the ass for little benefit. At the end of the day, very few people care whether your movie was shot on film or video, they care about story, acting and, to a lesser extent, production quality. On a low budget I'd rather shoot HD and put the $50k I would have had to spend on film stock and telecine into better lighting, sets and props.

I just find it odd that here in the 21st century people are still championing a 19th century format where you can't see what you're shooting and can't even see what you shot until the next day. As a new generation of directors who started out shooting DV replace those who started out shooting super-8, I can't help but feel that they're never going to want the hassle of shooting with film.
Click to expand...

Heheheaaa kid... did you ever shoot film, if we are talking about rewards... let me tell you that when you see your dailies or your final product I can tell that my project is been done with film or not...
Second..... of course what matters is the story the performance and then the visuals and the sound.....
I will tell you something about been trained in the old and new ways.... I can give you a field day on the biz..... the old way is great .... and the new one is getting there .
I believe that if you want to learn about visuals ... you should pick up a film camera ( still 35mm) and make a story... and learn what it is not to have the resources to make something excellent.....
Need is the Mother of invention.... if people tell me that they are satisfy with digital.... I think they are in big trouble....
Like me and other.... we don't satisfy with nothing.... we keep driving until we amazed ourself.... if not well you can keep punching low weight...
That's up to you
 
did you ever shoot film
Click to expand...

Yes, and I've also worked on films shot by other people. Which is why I know it's a huge pain in the ass.

let me tell you that when you see your dailies or your final product I can tell that my project is been done with film or not
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can, but that's irrelevant, because you're not the people I'd be selling my movie to. Joe Sixpack does not care whether a movie was shot on film or video: they can certainly tell if it was shot badly or if so much money was spent on film that there wasn't anything left in the budget to hire decent actors, build decent sets or find decent locations, buy decent costumes, props, etc, but so long as the final picture looks decent they don't care in the slightest what it was shot on.

Claiming that people don't want to use film because they're 'afraid' of it is just film snob talk with no basis in reality. Film gives a small increase in picture quality over HD at a high cost both financially and in complexity.... only weird art movies and the occasional blockbuster by directors who are afraid of video will be shot on film in twenty years.
 
Last edited:
Martini Yernazty said:
I mean the value is great ... for all this stuff... is in perfect condition.
Click to expand...
Well that certainly sounds like a lot of gear for quite a value price! The A Minima is awesome, but I think of it more as a specialty camera (small enough to stick in tight places, or as a super-cool Steadicam Flyer camera). I was going to buy the A Minima used for about $20K+. I say, go for the Eclair package!
 
I know that I am coming in late to this thread, but to me it would seem that this should be an economic decision, not one of preference of one format over the other. I think that most would agree that with modern film stock and great glass, S16 is nearly as resolving as 35 was 10 years ago. The increased latitude of film is a wonderful thing, you have so many choices. At this stage in digital, S16 is considerably better than any sub $10k digital solution.

For $6500 the Eclair looks to be a great deal (have it and the glass really check out so you know what your getting).

What you should really consider as part of the decision making process is the final delivery format that you intend for your projects. Are you often shooting for film out? If so, then S16 optically to 35mm release is a well tested route. If you are shooting for the small screen, then you have to consider that your costs are going to be much higher with film than digital.

I did notice that the package lacks a video tap. Is this going to be a problem for you? Do you have a director, or even worse, clients on site when shooting, that feel the "need" to see what the camera op sees? This would likely add several thousand more to the complete camera cost. It shouldn't be a deal breaker, rather just something to keep in mind.
 
khmuse said:
For $6500 the Eclair looks to be a great deal (have it and the glass really check out so you know what your getting).

What you should really consider as part of the decision making process is the final delivery format that you intend for your projects. Are you often shooting for film out? If so, then S16 optically to 35mm release is a well tested route. If you are shooting for the small screen, then you have to consider that your costs are going to be much higher with film than digital.

I did notice that the package lacks a video tap. Is this going to be a problem for you? Do you have a director, or even worse, clients on site when shooting, that feel the "need" to see what the camera op sees? This would likely add several thousand more to the complete camera cost. It shouldn't be a deal breaker, rather just something to keep in mind.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent point...
Bro I thought about it... and Isaid no prblem... the camera is still in perfect condition has most of everything I need... so I said to myself, if it need the video tap... I would pay someone to instaled... it will be like 1500 to 2000 grand but it will be there

at the same time I'm saving for an HVX with an M2 setup
will see.....
A lot of fun next year .... alot of projects....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top