From Super-8 to High Definition DV

[Guest Fred]

A group of friends are considering to shot a short (about 12 minutes) in Super-8 for to finish in digital video. This short is just for release in TV and will be shot with 3 cameras: (2) Nizo 6080 and (1) Nizo 4080, all with Schneider-Kreuznach Macro-Variogon lens.

 

So we have a lot of questions about:

 

Some people says that Super8 has a lot more resolution than digital video;...like the equivalent of 1300 resolution lines....Is this a correct information?

 

What is the BEST professional way for to transfer the Super8 film to video and where (in the US) can we do that?

 

Will the video mantain 100% the film color latitude?

 

Can the super-8 film to be transfered directly to High Definition video without problems (1920 x 1080)?........ Or just to Standard Video at 720 x 486?

 

The 90% of the movie will be shoot in interiors; what is the best stock for that: Kodachrome 40?...VisionT 200?....Pro8/12 ?....other?

 

Any comments, ideas or sugestions about this topic?

 

Regards

 

Fred

[David Mullen ASC]

In theory Kodachrome 40T in Super-8 has more resolution than DV but in practical reality, it's not really true -- the graininess, the optics of the cameras, the registration when transferring them all will reduce apparent sharpness. Plus it's partly simply due to the higher contrast of Kodachrome that the resolution is higher.

 

There are a few places that can put a Super-8 gate on an HD telecine -- there was some Super-8 transfers to HD for the HD-shot TV series "American Family" - I believe Laser Pacific did the transferring.

 

The other solution is to shoot at 24 fps in Super-8, transfer it to PAL Digital Betacam, and then uprez it to 24P HD later. Or transfer it to NTSC but remove the 3:2 pulldown when importing it into your computer so you can treat it as 24P/480.

 

If you shoot in Super-8, embrace the look. Don't worry about the graininess.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Resolution depends on the film stock you choose, and the quality of the camera and lenses.

 

Here is the technical data for KODACHROME 40, which has an MTF that extends well beyond 50 cycles per millimeter on the film:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.6.14&lc=en

[Matt Wells]

Fred.....

 

Much as I love it, I would avoid K40 for 2 reasons:

 

1. you say much of your stuff will be shot indoors. K40 is so slow you will need a big budget for lighting, and also a keen cinematographic eye - it is not the most forgiving stock to use at all.

 

2. You say you will be transferring to tape - K40 does not work all that well for telecine chiefly due to its very high contrast.

 

Your best bet by far is probably the Vision 200T. Why?

 

1. It was designed with telecine in mind

2. It is a negative film which means that it is far more tolerant of over or under exposure, that is to say you will get more detail into your highlights and shadows simultaneously and it is easier to use (although you should always aim for a properly exposed negative!)

3. It is a LOT faster than K40 and so you will need less lights and will be able to work with better f stops.

4. During transfer you can make loads of adjustments to colour etc.

 

As regards you other questions. The video will not be able to convey all the information in the negative. This is because the film has a far greater contrast ratio than a television screen, but you wll get a far better and more interesting picture than any video format, and it will obviously be film originated, which subconciously audiences pick up on regardless of whether they are familiar with the difference between film and video

 

The vision 200T in super8 has a certain amount of grain, but not too much (although this depends a lot upon your lighting and if you are pushing it to the limits in terms of available light the grain will be more prounounced).

 

Whilst I am from the UK I know that there are loads of places in the States who will transfer this film - Pro8mm are the obvious ones plus also Cine Post amongst others.

 

For further information try the forum at http://www.filmshooting.com/

 

A lot of people post there from the US and you will have loads of answers in no time. It is a website specific to 8mm and 16mm.

 

Hope this is of help,

Matt

[John Pytlak RIP]

Good news! Both KODAK VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 and KODAK VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 7218 will soon be available in Super-8! The "official" announcement comes out in June. B)

 

Both are very sharp films, very suitable for telecine transfer. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone trying to make a DI and going up to 35mm release (at least for part of a film).

[Matt Pacini]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with a couple of the statements above.

 

There are a couple things I think most people who haven't shot lots of S8 don't think about regarding Super 8 K40.

Reversal looks best underexposed 1/2-a full stop, and neg looks best when OVERexposed 1/2- one full stop, therefore K40 under 1 stop, is not that much slower than ISO200 overexposed one stop:

K40 rated at 80.

200 rated at 100.

 

So the statements saying "oh my god, you're screwed if you shoot K40, you'd better get the ISO200" are not really as true as they seem on the surface.

 

Also, remember that all good Super 8 cameras have really fast lenses, typically f1.4-f1.8.

 

I've shot lots of Kodachome40 interiors using one or two 650 watt lights and gotten great results, especially when I'm able to bounce a bit lf light through the windows, so saying you need a big budget to rent a whole bunch of lights is not really true.

 

Kodakchrome is extremely fine grained film, and when shot with a quality S8 camera, with good glass, it can look much better than DV (IMHO!)

 

Matt Pacini

[Matt Pacini]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with a couple of the statements above.

 

There are a couple things I think most people who haven't shot lots of S8 don't think about regarding Super 8 K40.

Reversal looks best underexposed 1/2-a full stop, and neg looks best when OVERexposed 1/2- one full stop, therefore K40 under 1 stop, is not that much slower than ISO200 overexposed one stop:

K40 rated at 80.

200 rated at 100.

 

So the statements saying "oh my god, you're screwed if you shoot K40, you'd better get the ISO200" are not really as true as they seem on the surface.

 

Also, remember that all good Super 8 cameras have really fast lenses, typically f1.4-f1.8.

 

I've shot lots of Kodachome40 interiors using one or two 650 watt lights and gotten great results, especially when I'm able to bounce a bit lf light through the windows, so saying you need a big budget to rent a whole bunch of lights is not really true.

 

Kodakchrome is extremely fine grained film, and when shot with a quality S8 camera, with good glass, it can look much better than DV (IMHO!)

 

Matt Pacini

[John Pytlak RIP]

KODACHROME film is very sharp and fine-grained, and an excellent choice if you want a reversal film. The Kodak VISION 200T (and soon Kodak VISION2 200T and 500T) films offer additional choices, expecially if you want to use Super-8 as a capture medium, and do editing and post-production digitally.

[Matt Wells]

I am not saying K40 is no good for indoor shooting, all I am saying is that the original thread appears to have been started by someone who has little experience shooting super8 and if that is the case they are likley to achieve a better result with the Vision 200T (and soon Vision2) stock.

 

Although the K40 is better underexposed the gulf between the two stocks in terms of sensitivity is massive - this is because while it is better to overexpose the 200T, you can still under expose way beyond what is possible with K40 and detail will still be visible ie. With the K40 the useable section of the charastic curve is very small and with Vision 200T it is very wide - 7 stops either way.

 

Hence why I suggest this would be far and away a more suitable stock for the purposes of the person who started the thread. :)

 

Matt

[Matt Wells]

.............I do agree that K40 is very fine grained and a beautiful stock, and I shot some (outside) a few months ago on a fresh sunny winter's day with my Beaulieu 4008 with the Angineux 8-64 lens - the results were absolutely stunning when projected - wonderful colours (I particularly like the way it renders reds and the Angineux helps this) and beautiful deep shadows.

 

Kodachrome is an incredible film - last night I was watching a program about the Third Reich "in colour" - I presume that this was all Kodachrome. The quality 65 years down the line was incredible.

 

I presume the Germans had access to Kodachrome? in the late 1930's - 1945? or did they make their own film? Mabey John would know what type of film was being used back then?

 

Matt

[David Mullen ASC]

Germans had access to Kodachrome until the 1940's when they mostly used their own Agfacolor reversal process. This became the basis of the first color monopack negative film, also called Agfacolor. During the war, the original GAF/Agfa (?) plants in the U.S. became government property and sold the original reversal product as Anscochrome.

 

The name Kodachrome was used for an earlier process before the full-color version was invented by Mannes and Godowsky in 1934.

 

The only other full-color process was the Technicolor 3-strip camera system, which did not work for still photography. Kodachrome was the basis of Technicolor's "monopack" film used for some WW2 documentaries (like "Memphis Belle") and exterior work in "Lassie Come Home". It was a lower-contrast Kodachrome stock but even so did not reproduce as well as 3-strip Technicolor b&w negatives.

 

It's always been unclear how much Kodak used post-war Agfacolor technology to invent Eastmancolor negative in 1948. Kodak's main alteration was the addition of the orange color mask to improve color reproduction. Agfacolor also became the basis for Fujicolor, Sovcolor, Anscocolor, etc.

[Guest Fred]

Thanks a lot for the useful info about my questions...

 

warm regards

 

Fred

[John Pytlak RIP]

I recall that the old Agfa Fischer "ball-and-chain" couplers were very different from the solvent-dispersed coupler dispersions that Kodak developed (Vittum). Kodak's invention of colored couplers opened the door to good color reproduction from a color negative film, and the development of EASTMAN Color Negative and Print Film won an Academy Award in 1952.

[Nate Downes]

Good news! Both KODAK VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 and KODAK VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 7218 will soon be available in Super-8! The "official" announcement comes out in June. 

 

Both are very sharp films, very suitable for telecine transfer. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone trying to make a DI and going up to 35mm release (at least for part of a film).

 

I know that I, for one, have put off one project just to wait for this film stock to arrive. (it's now to happen in August, and is slated for the 500T)

[John Pytlak RIP]

The "official" notice is now posted on the Kodak website:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...PCN041604_Q.pdf

 

KODAK VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 and

KODAK VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 7218

Now Available in Super 8 mm Format

Beginning May 15, 2004, Kodak will offer KODAK VISION2 200T 7217 and KODAK VISION2 500T 7218 Color

Negative Films in Super 8 mm format. 7217 is highly versatile and reliable, offering excellent image structure

under a wide variety of lighting conditions while 7218 delivers crisp clean images and has the lowest grain

available in a 500T product. All the VISION2 Films provide excellent tone scale and flesh-to-neutral reproduction,

with superior shadow and highlight detail and very fine grain. They also maintain neutrality through the full range

of exposure.

KODAK VISION2 200T 7217, Super 8 Cartridge, CAT No. 5288535, replaces KODAK VISION 200T Color

Negative Film / 7274, CAT No. 5243456, Super 8 Cartridge (page 17) on a stock turnover basis.

[Guest Fred]

Well, finally, in yours opinions the only we will win if we shot in super 8 and finish in video is a better DOF and the film look...

 

We will not get more resolution 'cause it will be reduced in the telecine transfer.... The film color latitude will be lost too when transfered to video...And the best stock options for the work are Kodachrome and Vision 200T...

 

Is that right?

 

Thanks

[Nate Downes]

Well, finally, in yours opinions the only we will win if we shot in super 8 and finish in video is a better DOF and the film look...

 

We will not get more resolution 'cause it will be reduced in the telecine transfer.... The film color latitude will be lost too when transfered to video...And the best stock options for the work are Kodachrome and Vision 200T...

 

Is that right?

 

Thanks

Not the best, just two commonly used stock options. I've seen good results with Ektachrome, the B&W stocks, and Pro8's stock. Also, I'm eagerly anticipating Vision2 from Kodak.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

If by "better DOF" you mean a smaller depth of field, video will generally be smaller than super-8, particularly with 2/3" chip cameras. The super-8 frame is tiny, on a par with a modern handycam.

 

Phil

[Guest Fred]

In theory Kodachrome 40T in Super-8 has more resolution than DV but in practical reality, it's not really true -- the graininess, the optics of the cameras, the registration when transferring them all will reduce apparent sharpness.

 

If by "better DOF" you mean a smaller depth of field, video will generally be smaller than super-8, particularly with 2/3" chip cameras. The super-8 frame is tiny, on a par with a modern handycam.

 

:P Well, then we do not see important advantages in to film in Super 8 for to finish in DV... Seemingly we can't get a better resolution quality, color latitude and DOF... It's like to much effort in time and money for a minimal improvement...if any...

 

Thanks guys for your help...We will keep the sexy Nizo cameras in his boxes :( ...Hehehehehe.....Sony time again, and some work in post for "emulate" the film look....

 

warm regards

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Well, then we do not see important advantages in to film in Super 8 for to finish in DV... Seemingly we can't get a better resolution quality, color latitude and DOF... It's like to much effort in time and money for a minimal improvement...if any...

The only way you'll know for sure is to get a cart of K-40 and shoot a quick test, then get a PK-59 mailer and wait for three weeks. For under $20 you can have an answer for sure.

 

My main reason for hesitating about Super 8 is the difficulty in getting affordable video transfer as well as relatively high processing costs. Still, if I can get my Nizo repaired I will try to shoot some in the near future.

 

- G.

[Nate Downes]

I'm getting practice developing B&W Super8 film by hand, to avoid the whole cost of development issue. And I've been messing with a way to get the image into my computer. It's slow, but it does the job.

[Matt Wells]

In theory Kodachrome 40T in Super-8 has more resolution than DV but in practical reality, it's not really true -- the graininess, the optics of the cameras, the registration when transferring them all will reduce apparent sharpness.

 

If by "better DOF" you mean a smaller depth of field, video will generally be smaller than super-8, particularly with 2/3" chip cameras. The super-8 frame is tiny, on a par with a modern handycam.

 

:P Well, then we do not see important advantages in to film in Super 8 for to finish in DV... Seemingly we can't get a better resolution quality, color latitude and DOF... It's like to much effort in time and money for a minimal improvement...if any...

 

Thanks guys for your help...We will keep the sexy Nizo cameras in his boxes :( ...Hehehehehe.....Sony time again, and some work in post for "emulate" the film look....

 

warm regards

No.....keep the sony in the box :o . It is very easy these days to become obsessed with resolution, but there is so much more than that to a picture.

 

Watch Natural Born Killers and you will see whart can be done with super8 - there is a lot of S8 footage intercut with everything else here!

 

Matt

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I'm getting practice developing B&W Super8 film by hand, to avoid the whole cost of development issue.

Not a good way to get even results unless you are going for the hand processed look. Check out my movie processing webpage at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky for info on how to do this. I have a lot of stuff on there.

 

- G.

[Nate Downes]

I'm getting practice developing B&W Super8 film by hand, to avoid the whole cost of development issue.

Not a good way to get even results unless you are going for the hand processed look. Check out my movie processing webpage at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky for info on how to do this. I have a lot of stuff on there.

 

- G.

Should I mention here that I work with a mini-lab for my day job? (plenty of chance to practice) I know that it is not easy to do, but I would like trying it just to say that I've done it.

[Alessandro Machi]

I am looking forward to testing Super-8 directly to HD, if I can afford the $350.00 "super-8 gate charge" that is above and beyond the room charge. :unsure:

 

My Super-8 Filmmaking in the Digital Age Forum has a topic devoted to the issue of transferring Super-8 to HD. Included are 15 locations around the world that offer Super-8 to HD transfer services.

 

It's topic 1242 if you can't find it right away. You might have to register to see the topic, but that's only because I get lonely and like to see a name rather than "visitor" when someone does visit.

(was that pathetic or what!)