After several years of shooting digital, this is my first job in film Super 8.
Filmed with Kodak 200t and 500t Vision3.
https://vimeo.com/58302232
Filmed with Kodak 200t and 500t Vision3.
https://vimeo.com/58302232
Filmed in negative S8
- Thread starter jlv
- Start date
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Wow, I watched that last night from the Vimeo Super 8 group. Outstanding images. Great job. My first camera was a Canon 1014XLS, loved that camera.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Yeah, I would be interested in your post workflow. What was that graded in? It was very well done.
Hi flinty, that would be discussed, this is a comparison of a shot with 7d HDSLR and s8, the actual difference in real resolution is not as important, while the color range is bigger in s8. Here is no color correction, the movie is VISION3 200t.
And the famous "film look", we know how to do it for real.
And the famous "film look", we know how to do it for real.
Last edited:
Film (in any format) has inherent qualities that digital still can not replicate. You can make a cheap facsimil, but the real thing is obviously the real thing.
Today, Super-8 can look absolutely gorgeous as this comparison really proves. I don't see the flicker that flinty states, and perhaps his vision is more based on preconceived ideas than practical examples.
I've seen lots of 7D movies (or 5D or whenever HDSLR you want) on the big screen and they look all like TV movies. I don't mean bad quality, of course, but they are NOT film. Just choose the tool that fits your project best.
As for me, I'm happy that we can still shoot on real film. Comparing it with digital is like comparing apples and oranges...
Today, Super-8 can look absolutely gorgeous as this comparison really proves. I don't see the flicker that flinty states, and perhaps his vision is more based on preconceived ideas than practical examples.
I've seen lots of 7D movies (or 5D or whenever HDSLR you want) on the big screen and they look all like TV movies. I don't mean bad quality, of course, but they are NOT film. Just choose the tool that fits your project best.
As for me, I'm happy that we can still shoot on real film. Comparing it with digital is like comparing apples and oranges...
Comparing super 8 to modern video is like comparing http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_100 to http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home...l_SLR/EOS_1Ds/ in still photography.[ I don't see the flicker that flinty states, and perhaps his vision is more based on preconceived ideas than practical examples.]Well i do see it flicks rather than flicker and am not sorry that i dont like low resolution grainy super 8 that i did use many years ago,but each to their own but statements like we can still shoot on real film is annoying.
Its great that all nature films shown on tv are now video sourced so much better than they looked in the old days.
Its great that all nature films shown on tv are now video sourced so much better than they looked in the old days.
Well, you're recognizing that your super-8 appreciation is based on what you did with the format many years ago... but the reality is that with negative emulsions and HD scans, the format has evolved to a pretty higher level these days.
My main point is still the same: you can't say "Digital is better than film" because apples are not oranges. And the Kodak instantmatic isn't comparable to an EOS 1D as well as you can't compare your Iphone with a Fujica ZC-1000.
A painter have many different techniques and tools to work with (watercolours, canvas,...) but a filmmaker these days is being forced to work with just one: digital. I think that's not fair...
Perhaps for the nature films you say, digital suits better, so I insist: Choose the tool that fits your project best, and let the others choose what they like. It's obvious that many people still appreciate real film. What's annoying with that?
My main point is still the same: you can't say "Digital is better than film" because apples are not oranges. And the Kodak instantmatic isn't comparable to an EOS 1D as well as you can't compare your Iphone with a Fujica ZC-1000.
A painter have many different techniques and tools to work with (watercolours, canvas,...) but a filmmaker these days is being forced to work with just one: digital. I think that's not fair...
Perhaps for the nature films you say, digital suits better, so I insist: Choose the tool that fits your project best, and let the others choose what they like. It's obvious that many people still appreciate real film. What's annoying with that?
Avortex is right in their comments, digital and film are totally different systems to capture images. I would never, as an example, shoot a corporative video in S8, even, S16. Howerver for a particular subjet as fashion, an absolute success is to film in S8, as it gives a texture on image that can not get with digital, as much as they try to imitate. Everything is not resolution and a clean image
As long as your all happy thats fine,sad that there are no film sites[or am i wrong] and a video forum has to used though as the film enthusiasts could use one.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Samsara-Blu-ray/51257/#Review 70mm is still vg though and will take some beating.