The benefits of film over video

[Hal Smith]

Having worked quite a bit in both worlds, I'll disagree with that conclusion. The reason that film troops turn out "better" work more often is because they are given the A) time B ) money C ) equipment and D ) personnel to perfect (at least try to anyway) the frame.

 

You've made an assumption that video people haven't had to learn the "right" way to do things. Perhaps some, but not all, and certainly, as I've said before, film is so forgiving, that just about anybody can be rescued from their mistakes due to the latitude of negative stock, but video has such tight parameters that one doesn't have that kind of leeway and had better know what he's doing the first time.

Good points, particularly about how video is often driven so strongly by economics that there never is enough time or crew, before, during, or after the shoot - that the working professional has to learn to nail it every time. You're right on the money about how now film is often being shot under ideal circumstances, good budgets, large crews, equipment dripping out of the back of trucks, etc. The time constraints are still there but at least the others aren't as demanding.

 

However, I don't think a cinematographer would last very long in film if they had to rely on latitude to rescue them. I've noticed that the cinematographers like David Mullen who shoot features sometimes talk about deliberately changing film speed ratings to get a given desired result. That wouldn't work unless they are shooting very controlled exposures all the time. They seem to emphasize getting a good, consistent negative and then tweaking in post for a given "look".

 

I am very aware that there are many in video who are every bit as professional and thorough as film folk. You work in both film and video worlds, which did you start in? Which one would you say you first mastered?

[Brian Dzyak]

However, I don't think a cinematographer would last very long in film if they had to rely on latitude to rescue them. I've noticed that the cinematographers like David Mullen who shoot features sometimes talk about deliberately changing film speed ratings to get a given desired result. That wouldn't work unless they are shooting very controlled exposures all the time. They seem to emphasize getting a good, consistent negative and then tweaking in post for a given "look".

I'll absolutely agree with that. There is no doubt that anybody remotely qualified to call themselves a DP isn't really "guessing" at exposure or "hoping" to see what they intended the next day at dailies. All I was saying is that because film is inherently more forgiving than video, I think that it takes more effort to create that "perfectly" lit and exposed frame in video. Saying that, I think that holds true for any medium with a small latitude. Kodachrome 40 would fall into that same category. It's not a "film vs video" issue. It's an exposure latitude issue.

 

I am very aware that there are many in video who are every bit as professional and thorough as film folk. You work in both film and video worlds, which did you start in? Which one would you say you first mastered?

I began in video.

 

Mastered? That's hilarious. :D I'm still learning every day. :)

[Hal Smith]

I think that it takes more effort to create that "perfectly" lit and exposed frame in video. Saying that, I think that holds true for any medium with a small latitude. Kodachrome 40 would fall into that same category. It's not a "film vs video" issue. It's an exposure latitude issue.

That's certainly true - sounds like we could both ramble on subjects like gamma for hours. I learned video back in the dark ages directing in a studio with a pair of TK41's. Latitude? It was a major success to avoid half the picture blown out and the other half down in the blanking somewhere. :D

Mastered? That's hilarious. :D I'm still learning every day. :)

Another point on which we can agree - the day you stop learning is the day you start dying.

[Maulubekotofa]

This topic is about as far away from super 8 as you can get.

 

Super 8 - the format for home movies - and you guys are arguing over whether 35mm looks good compared to video. Wow.

[Brian Dzyak]

This topic is about as far away from super 8 as you can get.

 

Super 8 - the format for home movies - and you guys are arguing over whether 35mm looks good compared to video. Wow.

 

Wow what? The thread is called "The benefits of film over video." Some claim that film is objectively superior to video because it has more latitude (an objective statement) and looks better (a subjective statement).

 

Kodachrome 40, a Super8 format, is effectively reversal stock with very little latitude, much like video but even less so. Therefore, the generic statement by many that "Film" is inherently better than video is proven false by the very existence of Kodachrome 40 which has less latitude than most video and arguably does not look as good as HD.

 

:)

[Hal Smith]

This topic is about as far away from super 8 as you can get.

 

Super 8 - the format for home movies - and you guys are arguing over whether 35mm looks good compared to video. Wow.

I don't think "The Man Who Met Himself", shot in England on Super-8 Kodachrome 40 and accepted as an official selection in the Short Film Palme D'Or competition at Cannes last year was a home movie.

 

Super-8 is a format for making movies, period. With Kodak's increasingly good small gauge film selection there will be more and more serious films shot with Super-8. I just bought a Nizo 4056 specifically because of the new Plus-X. I've got a personal film project I've been wanting to make that would be too expensive to shoot with my Arri 2A/C. When I'm done, the final film will transfer very nicely to DVD and look great since the new Plus-X can resolve around 500 line pairs in a Super-8 frame. I might even shoot it for transfer to DVD at 16X9. :)

 

I love that people are starting to shoot home movies again with Super-8 gear, it'll create an entire new generation of enthusiasts with an appreciation for "film-look" - and who will know the easiest way to get it - shoot film.

[Alessandro Machi]

So, here's my answer. As for super8 goes, I'd avoid it for anything you're shooting sound on. I worked very hard to get a Nizo prepared for a shoot only to discover it was still going to be a lot more trouble than it should have to link up sound. Having a crystal sync motor is something that's important to me and aside from the quasi-sync motors provided by the film group, that's not an option. It's much easier to just step up to 16mm.

 

Maybe the Canon Scoopics were made to record at crystal sync speed whether or not it has been crystal sync modified, but I assure you it is NOT a big deal to sync sound if one used a slate and clapper on location and identified the scenes when they called out the slate information.

 

I've actually sunk up sound recorded on a dat when a Scoopic was the camera of choice. In my editing suite we would on average sync between 3-5 minutes to as much as 8-12 minutes per hour using betacam sp video decks. This fear people have about syncing their footage is just unfounded. Anyway, I had to rant because I see these kind of posts at least once a month somewhere and I think the fear of not being able to sync is for the most part not something to worry about.

[Maulubekotofa]

Wow what? The thread is called "The benefits of film over video." Some claim that film is objectively superior to video because it has more latitude (an objective statement) and looks better (a subjective statement).

 

Kodachrome 40, a Super8 format, is effectively reversal stock with very little latitude, much like video but even less so. Therefore, the generic statement by many that "Film" is inherently better than video is proven false by the very existence of Kodachrome 40 which has less latitude than most video and arguably does not look as good as HD.

 

:)

 

But is there not another forum for this video vs film dialog? I tend to think most people on here just talk about ideals and not about actual filmmaking, be it home movie making or serious film festival content with dialog and whatnot. Seems most people like to talk more than actually filmming. How many feet of super 8 film have people shot so far this year? I think I am up to a thousand but I have lost count. Anyone else ACTUALLY shoot super 8 film on this forum?

[Hal Smith]

Anyone else ACTUALLY shoot super 8 film on this forum?

Not yet for me, but I plan on wearing out my Nizo when it gets here from Germany. There are a bunch of active Super-8 shooters here, if only judged by the posts from people seeking help for grumpy cameras, etc.

 

PS: It's recently become a policy of this Forum that participants use their real name as their Display Name. Please read the Forum Guidelines on the homepage. This is a very lightly moderated forum, it takes pretty rank abuse to get booted off, but continuing to use a pseudonym is one of the no-no's.

[Anthony Schilling]

I've shot at least 1600ft in the last month or so. and have another video project coming up soon... so I shoot tons of S8, and a bit of 16mm.

 

Another note on video: aside from latatude, it lacks density and richness big time... and the colors are cheesey looking.

[Brian Dzyak]

Anyone else ACTUALLY shoot super 8 film on this forum?

 

It's been a few years, but I shot a feature entirely on Super 8 my last year in college. I wish I could remember the numbers, but it was a 90 minute film and we must have had something like a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio. Something like that. It's been awhile.

 

After that, I shot a couple of animated projects using Super 8.

 

 

I think that the overall "argument" or "discussion" centers around the point of shooting Super 8 when there are now somewhat more economical and arguably "better" choices are available for the beginning aspiring filmmaker. I honestly don't think any new Director or DP would turn down a Producers "offer" to finance a 35mm budget, but that is a whole different arena. Apples to Oranges. Kodachrome 40 has about the same or less latitude than most video these days, so that argument about film being inherently better because of latitude falls flat at that level. The "look" is another factor, but again, unless you really screw things up, some of the newer "prosumer" HD cameras can give you a pretty acceptable "film look" for a fraction of the price. Considering the general point of a low-budget production, the only reason to choose Super 8 over a more economical video choice would be to be a "stubborn traditionalist." I guess the point is that if someone doesn't have a lot of money to spend and is even considering using anything less than 16mm or a 1080I HD camera, chances are that what they are shooting isn't going theatrical anyway. So unless the choice of Super 8 is made purely as an exercise for "tradition's" sake or because of an irrational "hate" for electronic image acquisition, there doesn't seem to be a point to it if the ultimate goal is to make money.

 

Of course, there is art for art's sake, but there must be websites for that somewhere. :)

[John Adolfi]

Coming back off the weekend I see some very interesting discussion but many are missing the point I had originally ask for. We know that DV and HD have some great advantages over film from the camera itself to the shoot to the workflow to follow. My intent was to encourage us and others to shoot film by pointing out the strengths of shooting film from beginning to end. Let's pretend we are talking to our college student son who has shot loads of Dv and you sit him down and without dissing DV you unfold super 8 to him for the first time.

What would you say?

 

Point#3 of why I like to shoot film. When you have the developed reel of magic and even projecting a silent 3 min. family film on the "big" screen in a living room the presentation takes on a whole different dynamic. They usually want more. People seem to love this experience whether in the theatre or at home. Some how video looses that mystic on a TV.

[Maulubekotofa]

i think I will simply stop posting in order to abide by the rules...too much junk mail and everything else when it comes to real names and all that. It's been swell fellas (and gallas). Enjoy the forum. And get out there and shoot more film. Its the only way to keep Kodak making super 8 film cartridges.

 

Have a good one!

 

Catch you on the flip side. Just consider me on a permanent 10-200 break. :ph34r:

[Alessandro Machi]

i think I will simply stop posting in order to abide by the rules...too much junk mail and everything else when it comes to real names and all that. It's been swell fellas (and gallas). Enjoy the forum. And get out there and shoot more film. Its the only way to keep Kodak making super 8 film cartridges.

 

Have a good one!

 

Catch you on the flip side. Just consider me on a permanent 10-200 break. :ph34r:

 

 

Or you could just use your real name and nobody will ever know this name was you.

[Brian Dzyak]

Coming back off the weekend I see some very interesting discussion but many are missing the point I had originally ask for. We know that DV and HD have some great advantages over film from the camera itself to the shoot to the workflow to follow. My intent was to encourage us and others to shoot film by pointing out the strengths of shooting film from beginning to end. Let's pretend we are talking to our college student son who has shot loads of Dv and you sit him down and without dissing DV you unfold super 8 to him for the first time.

What would you say?

It costs more and is harder to get and process, so take your time and think about what you're going to shoot before you pull the trigger. Also I'd point out that editing the physical film itself can be quite difficult and if the edits aren't done precisely right, the film will "jump" through the gate as the sprockets won't line up well. If he wants to edit on the computer, he'll have to find a telecine service and hope that they do it well. I've had some very poor transfers done on "professional" machines.

 

I guess the point is that shooting film stock....any film stock...takes a lot more effort than shooting video, so take your time and plan your process from beginning to end.

 

Point#3 of why I like to shoot film. When you have the developed reel of magic and even projecting a silent 3 min. family film on the "big" screen in a living room the presentation takes on a whole different dynamic. They usually want more. People seem to love this experience whether in the theatre or at home. Some how video looses that mystic on a TV.

There is an untouchable "mystique" that one feels when watching a projected film over a television screen, particularly when it's at home. I think part of it is the frame rate. For some reason, 24fps registers as less "real" than a faster rate of 29.97. More fps is "sharper" and a little truer to life while shooting at less fps introduces a sense that what you're watching isn't just a "recording" of what happened. Some of that is the way emulsion differs from electronic recording, but I wonder if home movies were shot at 30fps, if the reaction would be the same?

[Anthony Schilling]

Well, one of the big reasons I like film has to do with the way you work with it... You are actually exposing frames through photographic principals. I'd say most of the shooting I do on super 8 is not 24fps, or not a 150 shutter... The creative aspects are so infinate when it comes to the amount of control I have with S8... I almost feel restricted working with 16mm cameras, and video just doesn't apply when it comes to getting crazy and experimentation... I understand video is the only thing that makes sense for a lot of projects, but it just can't be applied to what i'm into.

[Nate Downes]

Well, one of the big reasons I like film has to do with the way you work with it... You are actually exposing frames through photographic principals. I'd say most of the shooting I do on super 8 is not 24fps, or not a 150 shutter... The creative aspects are so infinate when it comes to the amount of control I have with S8... I almost feel restricted working with 16mm cameras, and video just doesn't apply when it comes to getting crazy and experimentation... I understand video is the only thing that makes sense for a lot of projects, but it just can't be applied to what i'm into.

 

I've felt the same, actually. I am working on a project, was designed to be shot on 35mm. When I began doing film tests, the director kept going "I like the look, but it's too clean." And I found myself being held back in some areas due to the camera itself. Then, I showed her a short I shot on S8, and she went "That's the look I want! Whatever you shot it with, that's what we'll use." So now, we're skipping on the 35mm and switching production to S8. *shrug*

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I think that the overall "argument" or "discussion" centers around the point of shooting Super 8 when there are now somewhat more economical and arguably "better" choices are available for the beginning aspiring filmmaker... ...Kodachrome 40 has about the same or less latitude than most video these days, so that argument about film being inherently better because of latitude falls flat at that level. The "look" is another factor, but again, unless you really screw things up, some of the newer "prosumer" HD cameras can give you a pretty acceptable "film look" for a fraction of the price. Considering the general point of a low-budget production, the only reason to choose Super 8 over a more economical video choice would be to be a "stubborn traditionalist."

 

I don't get what you are saying...I think you have had fancy digital gear so long, you don't understand the low-budget mindset anymore. Check this scenario...

 

I want to shoot a 90 minute feature. If I shoot at 4:1 ratio like you did, I can:

 

Buy a $100 Super8 camera off ebay. (I got a good one for $40, but let's just figure high)

Go through Spectra and get 6 hours worth of Color negative film in a bulk

deal with processing, prep/clean, and RANK telecine to digital format: $7,137

TOTAL FOR JUST THE IMAGE ACQUISITION AND EDITABLE PLATFORM: $7,237

 

Let's say Panasonic HVX200 camera: $5,285.00 (figure taken from buydig for estimate)

At least two 8 GB cards for swapping out (assuming you transfer footage and delete): $2,300.00 (B&H)

 

TOTAL FOR IMAGE ACQUISTION AND EDITABLE PLATFORM: $7,585

 

Granted, the HVX200, in DVCPRO50 mode will have higher res. than Super 8. But using a good S8 stock like Vision2 200T is going to give a much better latitude than the HVX200. If the end result is SD, is there really any significant gain in using the HVX? If it's not for SD, you still have a native film negative instead of a digital source. Either way, I think the Super 8 is the better choice in the super low budget realm. And MiniDV is not even on the charts in this discussion.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Of course if you are going the really low budget route as described above, after shooting with the HVX you could sell the camera for easily $5k if not more, so at that point it would become the cheaper option. Not to mention your audio can go to the same tape and you can monitor while shooting.

 

That said, nothing makes you feel like you're walking in the footsteps of giants more then shooting film. Of course the image is higher quality, but there's something about the process....something about not EXACTLY knowing how it's going to turn out that is really exciting.

[Alessandro Machi]

.....but there's something about the process....something about not EXACTLY knowing how it's going to turn out that is really exciting.

 

And that is where today's world of accounting practices considers that to be horse and buggy. Everything must be scheduled and predicted and anything that adds even a minutae of doubt is considered horse and buggy.

 

Entourage had a funny bit where the lead actor is being courted by various talent agencies and in the couse of one day three different agencies use the same software application in virtually the same way to entice the actor to sign with them.

[Matthew Buick]

Indeed, there is nothing like getting a roll or processed film back, unraveling some, and seeing a series of pictures of your beautiful house cat, rendered beautifully in Kodachrome, and know that you took that film with a 25 year old Canon camera. Super 8 is such a wholesome thing to shoot with, plain, simple and honest.

 

Matthew Buick.

 

Also, may I add the longevity of film, Videotape rots away after 20 years or so, Kodachrome can keepas it colour for a 100 years+.

 

I rest my case.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Of course if you are going the really low budget route as described above, after shooting with the HVX you could sell the camera for easily $5k if not more, so at that point it would become the cheaper option. Not to mention your audio can go to the same tape and you can monitor while shooting.

 

That said, nothing makes you feel like you're walking in the footsteps of giants more then shooting film. Of course the image is higher quality, but there's something about the process....something about not EXACTLY knowing how it's going to turn out that is really exciting.

 

Okay, I stand corrected...I totally overlooked the fire sale idea. However, most people I know might have trouble procuring that much cash initially for gear even if they know they are going to get back a significant portion.

 

And you're right about the great feeling of shooting on film. I think shooting on Super 8 is more exciting than shooting HD. Of course I am referring to low level HD like HVX200, etc. I wouldn't mind trying a shoot on a Genesis but that is way out of my range and I would rather shoot 35. Actually, I cannot think of any scenario where it would be better for me to shoot on video than on film. Unless the only thing I could afford was a cheap MiniDV cam and then I would probably shoot S8 and do a short instead.

[Brian Dzyak]

And you're right about the great feeling of shooting on film. I think shooting on Super 8 is more exciting than shooting HD. Of course I am referring to low level HD like HVX200, etc. I wouldn't mind trying a shoot on a Genesis but that is way out of my range and I would rather shoot 35. Actually, I cannot think of any scenario where it would be better for me to shoot on video than on film. Unless the only thing I could afford was a cheap MiniDV cam and then I would probably shoot S8 and do a short instead.

 

I think the crux of the "which format to use" is dependent upon the overall budget of the project, and almost more importantly, what one plans to do with it in the long run. In terms of what I do a lot of now (which isn't entirely relevant), if I'm shooting EPK on a high budget movie set that is using 35mm or Genesis, I'm most likely going to be shooting with an F900. However, if the movie is decidely smaller and they are using 35mm (but low budget...I usually can tell because they are using an ARRI or Moviecam) or an F900, then the marketing budget is also impacted, so I have to shoot on Standard Def or lower level HD (like HDV).

 

I guess the moral of the story is that I've found that the Producers ultimately are the decision makers of what format will be shot with. I've seen episodic DPs fight to keep 35mm over HD, but ultimately all any cameraman can do is "recommend" and "advise" while the final call comes from above. If someone is financing their own project, then kudos to them and their choice whatever it may be (at this time, it is Lucas, Rodriquez, and super low budget independent moviemakers and maybe a handful of other top tier Directors), but for everyone else, the question seems academic.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

...and super low budget independent moviemakers...

 

Yeah, that would be me. :(