Can your camera match Super 8 film?

C

combatentropy

Veteran
Can you find or make footage from a digital camera that could intercut seamlessly with this fashion video shot on Super 8?


Granted, this is the latest Vision 3 8mm stock, but is film dead yet? Video has passed it in sharpness, cleanness, cost, and certainly portability. But the latitude, smoothness of tone, and (don't take too literally, I'm grasping for the right words) "softness" and "warmth" of this footage is something I still don't usually see in today's videocameras, even in the most expensive ones.

I'm not talking about the grain or scratches, although you can add that if you want. And you don't necessarily have to match its deep focus. Yes, he clearly uses reflectors and maybe some lights to fill in shadows in many shots. That's fine, you can too, and grade to your heart's content. Does anyone want to take up this challenge? (I'm out for now, I admit I'm armchair-quarterbacking this, because I have no gear.)
 
I don't think 'softness' and 'warmth' would come from the cameras today, necessarily. They could, but most likely I think they would be added in post as effects.

This is nice and all. But crop it to a 16:9 and it will lose more resolution. It's pretty to look at, but could today's technology rival it? I think so -- and surpass it.

As for taking up the challenge -- someone would have to be willing to replicate the professional lighting as well. Personally, I don't have the time. But I think you could find plenty of examples on YouTube or Vimeo of stuff shot with modern gear and proper lighting that would blow this away.
 
Pro8mm has announced a new 8mm professional camera. Crystal synch motor and digital viewfinder. Doubt it's quite dead yet.

I've got a Nikon super-8 camera from eBay, shot a test roll but have yet to do a project. Cost is prohibitive - film packages that include processing and HD scanning are about $100 a roll... that's under 5 minutes. So a music video with an incredible shooting ratio could easily be $600 or more.

Someday someone will pony up for that. For now, it looks really cool sitting there...
 
Michael Carter said:
Pro8mm has announced a new 8mm professional camera. Crystal synch motor and digital viewfinder. Doubt it's quite dead yet.

I've got a Nikon super-8 camera from eBay, shot a test roll but have yet to do a project. Cost is prohibitive - film packages that include processing and HD scanning are about $100 a roll... that's under 5 minutes. So a music video with an incredible shooting ratio could easily be $600 or more.

Someday someone will pony up for that. For now, it looks really cool sitting there...
Click to expand...

Yeah. I bought a Bolex 8mm for a prop and had a moment of nostalgia, which was quickly cured by looking a prices, and given I like B&W, I found there was no 'negative' B&W, just Tri-X positive...

The clip was 'nice', but these days, for me, I have no problem with the same shoot being done with Digital Film... a pretty girl isn't going to look ugly, unless major steps are taken to uglify her...
 
for advertising film is perfect for clients (models skin tones are stunning)
production wise it's cheap …buy the camera and plan the shots
 
8mm was never intended as a professional format. It was what people shot their home movies on before 16mm was available, and 16mm wasn't even considered for professional work until film stocks improved. This may look OK on a small internet screen, but pull it up full screen and take a look at it. Not trying to knock this guy's work, but yes, there are plenty of cameras out there that surpass 8mm film.

Oops! what I meant to say was… Film is the bomb, and there is nothing better. And just think how much better your projects will look over 8mm when you shoot them on 16mm Vision 3 on this camera!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Lenses&p=1986451951&highlight=#post1986451951
 
David W. Richardson said:
This is nice and all. But crop it to a 16:9 and it will lose more resolution.
Click to expand...

David W. Jones said:
This may look OK on a small internet screen, but pull it up full screen and take a look at it.
Click to expand...

When I began this thread, I didn't mean for it to be about resolution. As I already said, video can beat film in resolution:

combatentropy said:
Video has passed it in sharpness, cleanness, cost, and certainly portability. But the latitude, smoothness of tone, and (don't take too literally, I'm grasping for the right words) "softness" and "warmth" of this footage is something I still don't usually see in today's videocameras, even in the most expensive ones.
Click to expand...

I'm specifically zeroing in on the sample's tones. Some might call it its colors. But video is capable of plenty of color, as we've all seen in many garish videos. In fact, as you know, this film you're seeing as video. It was translated to video. So it's not that video's color gamut is lacking, at least for this comparison. So the best word I can come up with is its tones. Is there any digitally originated videos that match this film's look and feel, such that you could cut them together and make them look like they were from the same camera?
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
Is there any digitally originated videos that match this film's look and feel, such that you could cut them together and make them look like they were from the same camera?
Click to expand...

I think this is a false comparison, as one had 'problems' potentially cutting Fuji Film stock with Kodak, because of the mix of the dyes that the manufacturer determined to yield what in their respective engineer's eyes was 'The Best'...

If there was significant lighting change, well, then one could mix different stocks, even from the same company, and the viewer would not be jarred by the change in color theme/scheme...

One can also see the effects of 'push' processing that was required in the olden days for many of the late 60's early 70's film when the filmmaker was trying to break the ISO 200 barrier...

I recently shot moving pictures at a location that I had shot with stills for weddings and had to use flash to get any form of usable image... with a Canon C100 @ ISO 3200, with acceptable results.

That plain and simple, can't be done with movie film...

Even on my GH-1 the 'crappy' ISO 1600 is better than the Fuji 800 ISO still film I used 15 years ago... and let's not talk about Kodak's ISO 1000 film of yore...
 
Last edited:
David W. Jones said:
8mm was never intended as a professional format. It was what people shot their home movies on before 16mm was available, and 16mm wasn't even considered for professional work until film stocks improved. This may look OK on a small internet screen, but pull it up full screen and take a look at it. Not trying to knock this guy's work, but yes, there are plenty of cameras out there that surpass 8mm film.

Oops! what I meant to say was… Film is the bomb, and there is nothing better. And just think how much better your projects will look over 8mm when you shoot them on 16mm Vision 3 on this camera!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Lenses&p=1986451951&highlight=#post1986451951
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree... but 16mm was 'introduced' in the 20's as an 'amateur/non-pro' film stock and attendant cheaper cameras. The 8mm was introduced to provide an even cheaper 'home' camera.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Even on my GH-1 the 'crappy' ISO 1600 is better than the Fuji 800 ISO
Click to expand...

Yes, today's videocameras are cleaner than film. As I said at the beginning:

combatentropy said:
Video has passed it in sharpness, cleanness, cost, and certainly portability.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that film has better resolution.
I'm not saying that film is better in low light.
I'm not saying whether 8mm, 16mm, or even 35mm would be the "professional" choice for anyone's upcoming assignments.

I don't have a film camera. Nor will I likely ever buy one. Nor am a Kodak shareholder. I have no interest in keeping film alive. All I'm after is:

combatentropy said:
But the latitude, smoothness of tone, and (don't take too literally, I'm grasping for the right words) "softness" and "warmth" of this footage is something I still don't usually see in today's videocameras, even in the most expensive ones.
Click to expand...

And again:

combatentropy said:
I'm specifically zeroing in on the sample's tones. Some might call it its colors. But video is capable of plenty of color, as we've all seen in many garish videos. In fact, as you know, this film you're seeing as video. It was translated to video. So it's not that video's color gamut is lacking, at least for this comparison. So the best word I can come up with is its tones. Is there any digitally originated videos that match this film's look and feel, such that you could cut them together and make them look like they were from the same camera?
Click to expand...

---

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I think this is a false comparison, as one had 'problems' potentially cutting Fuji Film stock with Kodak
Click to expand...

Well, I think if you found or made some video that got as close to this footage as Fuji is to Kodak, that would be close enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Hard to watch that video because of super cheesy direction, still what you find attractive is the skin tones. They are "golden yellow" while other colors in the frame stay more or less natural (versus adding yellow to the image in the post with typical video footage). Still this effect can be replicated quiet easily by proficient colorist by separating skin tones and warming up just those skin tones. Here, of course they went after certain effect and did it successfully (sans really bad direction). When you think about it, shooting pieces like this on film might be cheaper than hiring good colorist to achieve similar effects with video footage.
 
The problem is if you get it wrong on film as far as exposure, focus, color balance, etc., you won't know it until you've shelled out the money to have it processed. Plus I doubt the footage here is raw, straight from the camera -- I suspect it, too, has been through color correction, grading, etc.
 
combatentropy said:
Well, I think if you found or made some video that got as close to this footage as Fuji is to Kodak, that would be close enough for me.
Click to expand...

While I don't have the time to really do this... I can say that when I viewed 4 of the films that were up for the Academy Best Picture awards, I was wrong on 2 counts... which was digital and which was film. I thought "Philomena" was Film film... and "12 Years a Slave" was Digital film... just the opposite was the case.

So in the class of Film film (now only Kodak...) and Digital, at least in the case of Alexa... it appears to be a 'wash' on which is which.

In the case of the presented 8mm clip... Personally I didn't care for the low contrast and certain brief little 'light leak/sunspots' and I found the bright little 'runner' along the edges to be sort of distracting, but could have easily been cropped out.
 
David W. Richardson said:
The problem is if you get it wrong on film as far as exposure, focus, color balance, etc., you won't know it until you've shelled out the money to have it processed.
Click to expand...

Yes, young padawan, I spent many a sleepless night with film in the lab, waiting for morning snip tests from shoots with an overall budget of $10 or $15k (and those were stills, too, can't imagine what a TV spot's costs could be. But reversal film, you've got maybe a stop push/pull after snip testing and that's it).

Film really separated the men from the boys.

By the way, pushing film wasn't just for ISO reasons - with reversal film, it boosts contrast and pops whites nicely. For fashion, I'd always push at least a third or so and plan exposure accordingly.

As far as super 8 goes - yes, never a pro format. What I like about it now is how crazy-"film"y it looks. Everything about film, turned up to 11, from grain to gate issues and registration problems.

I would really, really love to do a scanned film gig with my super-8. But I'd likely go for something like a goth band or a Mazzy Star/Marrisa Nadler act - I think super 8 can go spooky much faster than pretty.
 
Your super 8 footage does not look like super 8 because:

(1) The footage is too sharp. With super 8 you always have a lot of grain and the resolution is poor. You image is way too sharp.

(2) The footage is too stable. Wih super 8, you only have one perf, and that means the image tends to wobble vertically. Your image is way too stable.

(3) The footage is to well exposed. Most super 8 cameras did not have exposure settings, so the footage was always overexposed or underexposed. Your image has a too perfect exposure.

(4) The depth of field is too thin. With super 8 cameras you had infinite deph of field and the camera did not have a focus ring. Your image has a too controlled depth of field.

(5) The frame rate is wrong. Most super 8 footage ran at 18Fr/sec.


In other words: Good Super 8 does not look like Super 8 but looks like digital film. :)
 
Last edited:
I'd like to try, I started off in this with super8, progressive cams were too expensive.

All the 'horsepower' aside, and keeping in mind that little variables seemingly neglibile or can be specifically treated just add up, I think when digital sensors' photosites react to light the way emulsion does we may be dealing with the same set of info coming into the pc. I don't know, but I think as long as each pixel is a bucket, and there's a bayer mosaic, it will be a different process to get to the same result. I think that matters. I am pretty confident I can match film and digital if i have lights on hand. But the approach ot getting final image you intend is different. I think cause the info gathered from the light off the subject is different, and obtained in different ways between the media in question.

i would give it a shot. I'll find something exposed well in my BMPCC folder, there's canon folders, d90 folders, even a couple of r3ds of a red one original. Before MX was that called just mysterium?

But off the top of my head, film = fill factor over digital, negative density, layers of color, opposed to photon buckets gathering 'on or off' and figuring out the rest from that point, means two things to me...

- the info gathered via film is sooo different than video
- the approach to reach same result has to differ even before shooting, the plans for each have to differ.

I think it can be done, but I mean the lighting between both setups would be crazy different.

My 2c. Could be sooo wrong. Thank heavens it's a good thing to be wrong here :)

combatentropy i like your threads mate.
 
Here is a short test sample from my Digital Bolex. No skin in this one, but the overall tonality and texture is to me very film like. Graded in Resolve 11 using the new raw adjustment tools, lift, gamma, gain and log color wheels only, no preprogrammed luts applied.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top