Can your camera match Super 8 film?

[Razz16mm]

Still looks too digital. Too much contrast.
The *REAL* 8 mm looks like this
https://vimeo.com/2289419

I was not trying to make this look like any film stock. I was trying to reproduce the natural range of color and value my eye sees in the scene. Difficult as the range of light values by my meter is between 13 and 14 stops from the outside specular highlights to the deepest shadows on the dark wood.
There is still room to flatten the image contrast considerably but it that brings noise levels up too. The outside highlights are clipped by about 1 stop. Resolve's soft clip function is nice for smoothing digital highlights.
This doesn't look so much like S8 as 16mm film.

 

[freedom4kids]

It's interesting to note that this thread was initiated with no reference to the filmmaker in question, Jose Luis Villar. His handheld color negative exposures are superlative.


I will wade into this thread with some trepidation as members of the Digital Illuminati have little patience for film based works and tend to attack a 110 year old refined, exquisite practice. It's as if the definitive cultural references are now dictated by owning the same digital camera as millions of others generating the same image. How does an artist stand out in the massive bandwidth generated by the massive democratization of Japanese consumer engineering? I will not be able to watch even 0.0000005% of it's output in my lifetime.


My tiny film budgets do not even come close to the capital outlay exemplified by my colleagues and their digital purchases. The "high cost of film" argument is a non sequitur at best and perhaps exemplifies a frustration with a very physical medium. In practice short film based run times generate intense focus when shooting in the field and I like it. I am forced to make cost effective decisions that count.


Enough of the wording. Here is an example of a new ultrawide native spherical hybrid motion picture format I introduced in 2011 called UltraPan8. We have re-manufactured approximately 14 cameras to date and the optical viewfinder is also a native 2.8:1 aspect ratio. The color negative is a bit thin as I did not have my multi-variable ND filter for my Kodak V3 200T film stock.


https://vimeo.com/92484795

 

[David W. Jones]

Auto Zoom 814 8X w/ 80A 80B ???

 

[David W. Jones]

for advertising film is perfect for clients (models skin tones are stunning)
production wise it's cheap …buy the camera and plan the shots

Guess it really depends...

4 rolls of Super 8 Vision 3 = $120
Developing = $72
Transfer Minimun = $150

With shipping thats around $350

That breaks down to between $27min to $35min depending on frame rate.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

https://vimeo.com/10309778
Almost 15 years ago when Apple released Final Cut 1.0 I made this little "art" film while on tour to see what I could do combining analog techniques in Super8 film and the new digital capabilities of Final Cut. Back then the differences between any digital format and film were obvious. There were tricks and techniques to try to get your DV tape footage to look like film, but it wasn't even close. Now, you can choose which things about film, and what kind of film you want, and easily translate them to digital. We're only talking about the minutiae now, and not the visual impression of what's shot on film and what's digital. Given a talented colorist you could create a bunch of clips for a blind test and it would be tough to tell which was film and which was digital made to look like film. The technology is not the limiter any more, only the talent. I could make this video again today and make it look like super8, but I have to ask...would I really want to? I'd rather take some of the aesthetics of film and apply them to what is so much easier (and nicer) to shoot on a modern digital camera while still being able to avoid many of the pitfalls of film.

 

[Razz16mm]

It's interesting to note that this thread was initiated with no reference to the filmmaker in question, Jose Luis Villar. His handheld color negative exposures are superlative.


I will wade into this thread with some trepidation as members of the Digital Illuminati have little patience for film based works and tend to attack a 110 year old refined, exquisite practice. It's as if the definitive cultural references are now dictated by owning the same digital camera as millions of others generating the same image. How does an artist stand out in the massive bandwidth generated by the massive democratization of Japanese consumer engineering? I will not be able to watch even 0.0000005% of it's output in my lifetime.


My tiny film budgets do not even come close to the capital outlay exemplified by my colleagues and their digital purchases. The "high cost of film" argument is a non sequitur at best and perhaps exemplifies a frustration with a very physical medium. In practice short film based run times generate intense focus when shooting in the field and I like it. I am forced to make cost effective decisions that count.


Enough of the wording. Here is an example of a new ultrawide native spherical hybrid motion picture format I introduced in 2011 called UltraPan8. We have re-manufactured approximately 14 cameras to date and the optical viewfinder is also a native 2.8:1 aspect ratio. The color negative is a bit thin as I did not have my multi-variable ND filter for my Kodak V3 200T film stock.


https://vimeo.com/92484795

Interesting film. Nicely done.

I used to shoot 16mm film for TV commercials and industrials before high quality field portable video camera/recorder systems existed. So I'm with you on the film style shooting discipline. I still profile and expose by a light meter, even with video cameras and dealing with the volume of data that 2k uncompressed DNG raw footage generates is not a problem at all. Storage media is cheap compared with 16mm stock and digital transfer costs, but one is still more disciplined in shooting compared to typical video shooting practices these days.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

...but one is still more disciplined in shooting compared to typical video shooting practices these days.

If this is one of the 'benefits' of Film film... then that is a 'teachable' skill... rather than something inherent in the medium itself.

I have no problem with encouraging Digital filmmakers who own/shoot their own equipment to test like hell, use a lightmeter, etc. do scouting etc. so that a shoot does not become some chaotic sequence of randomness.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Guess it really depends...

4 rolls of Super 8 Vision 3 = $120
Developing = $72
Transfer Minimun = $150

With shipping thats around $350

That breaks down to between $27min to $35min depending on frame rate.

Adorama has a special on the Black Magic Cinema Pocket Camera for $495 (as I recall...) so in just 1 1/2 'shooting film' one has paid for that camera...

 

[Razz16mm]

Adorama has a special on the Black Magic Cinema Pocket Camera for $495 (as I recall...) so in just 1 1/2 'shooting film' one has paid for that camera...

I was sorely tempted for a few moments to order one as a B-cam to my D16, until I considered the pile of accessories one needs to add to make it practically usable. I need the bucks more for my D16 kit.

 

[Razz16mm]

If this is one of the 'benefits' of Film film... then that is a 'teachable' skill... rather than something inherent in the medium itself.

I have no problem with encouraging Digital filmmakers who own/shoot their own equipment to test like hell, use a lightmeter, etc. do scouting etc. so that a shoot does not become some chaotic sequence of randomness.

The physics of light and human vision have not changed with respect to our photographic systems, regardless of whether we use film or electronic media. Modern digital technologies have made it easier to ignore that stuff and still get reasonably acceptable results most of the time. But there are still hard won fundamental skill sets passed down from our forebears that are very much worth learning if one wants to pursue artistic mastery of any photographic medium.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The physics of light and human vision have not changed with respect to our photographic systems, regardless of whether we use film or electronic media. Modern digital technologies have made it easier to ignore that stuff and still get reasonably acceptable results most of the time. But there are still hard won fundamental skill sets passed down from our forebears that are very much worth learning if one wants to pursue artistic mastery of any photographic medium.

Before the late 19th century, one thrust of 'painting', starting with the Renaissance for the 'modern era' was to produce paintings that very closely matched 'what one would see if standing where the painter (virtual painter... as often the painting was actually done in a studio...) was when painting was supposed to be'.

The camera was developed early on by painters wanting to capture The Real, so that they could better paint such realism... but what happened was painting became more abstract as the camera became more generally available for 'realism', as well as 'speed' to produce... no 6 months for a oil paint to be painted and well... infinite time to dry... a photographic portrait studio could take 'hours'... if not days... to produce an acceptable image of the clients.

This photographic realism extended far beyond 'portraits' and 'nice pretty lanscapes and still lifes'... but also documented the horrors of war in gory detail... something painters of fabled battles had often glossed over or not depicted at all.

But in all that... principles of ligth/shadow/composition have not been dispatched to the dust bin, as that is independent of the medium of expression.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Before the late 19th century, one thrust of 'painting', starting with the Renaissance for the 'modern era' was to produce paintings that very closely matched 'what one would see if standing where the painter (virtual painter... as often the painting was actually done in a studio...) was when painting was supposed to be'.

The camera was developed early on by painters wanting to capture The Real, so that they could better paint such realism... but what happened was painting became more abstract as the camera became more generally available for 'realism', as well as 'speed' to produce... no 6 months for a oil paint to be painted and well... infinite time to dry... a photographic portrait studio could take 'hours'... if not days... to produce an acceptable image of the clients.

This photographic realism extended far beyond 'portraits' and 'nice pretty lanscapes and still lifes'... but also documented the horrors of war in gory detail... something painters of fabled battles had often glossed over or not depicted at all.

But in all that... principles of ligth/shadow/composition have not been dispatched to the dust bin, as that is independent of the medium of expression.

That's not exactly correct - though i'm pretty sure i myself have written a similar statement at some point to illustrate a point or two. If you look closely at the painting all the way up to 19 century where the photo camera got introduced you will see that it's only on the surface that they cared about reality. The reality was an unsettled status quo in its formal treatment because, well, there was no other way. However the wildly fantastic stories being told with said paintings didn't require realistic treatment - it's just happened that the painters didn't speak any other language. The invention of the camera forced said painters to rethink their adherence to said language and, of course, they realized that they really don't have to speak it.

 

[Michael Carter]

Your super 8 footage does not look like super 8 because:
(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.

Going by my Nikon, the only Super-8 camera I own... manual exposure controls via shutter angle and f-stop. And auto settings agree with my meter except in the most extreme conditions.

(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.

I was able to get good DOF, pretty much the same way you did with the DVX or video cameras - wide open, zoomed. Day-to-day use, DOF is difficult.

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

I get from 18fps to 48fps as I recall.

So perhaps it's "your footage doesn't look like low-end all-auto super-8"...

 

[jlv]

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.

'm the cheesy shot, first I say that's just a shot during a photo shoot, at any time you want to do something else and I have done enough in dispararar photos for catalog and s8.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

'm the cheesy shot, first I say that's just a shot during a photo shoot, at any time you want to do something else and I have done enough in dispararar photos for catalog and s8.

I too have done my share of those during-photoshoot videos. I too would relay on the run of the mill solutions: lens flares and pretty girl not doing anything in particular. My videos were as cheesy as yours. And i'm admitting it. The admittance is the first step into doing something more unique with the medium.

 

[Grug]

Why the need to replicate it digitally? Super8 is cheap as chips, surely if you need the look for a project you could afford to shoot a few rolls of it?

 

[combatentropy]

Hard to watch that video because of super cheesy direction

This comment bothered me. It's directed like a hundred other fashion videos, which have their own feel, look, and rules.

But every time I watched it, I had the sound off. I just now watched it with the soundtrack, and they clash. The rhythm is right, but the tone is different. The music has a hip, indie feel, which to me at least has that jaded, cynical outlook and refusal to feel a little too much. Meanwhile the video is exactly the opposite. It is sweet, innocent, and whimsical. Although the model is clearly adult, the video looks like a dream of a six-year-old, unfortunately soundtracked by her older teenage brother. Something more fitting, maybe like Truman Sleeps, by Philip Glass, would help a lot.