Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 12, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2004 When Mini-Dv gets a 15 million dollar budget as in 28 days, comparing it to Super-8 is pointless because I don't recall even a one million dollar budget ever being used on a super-8 feature. If Super-8 had a similar budget to 28 days, (and perhaps for even quite a bit less) Super-8 would have easily rivaled the look and probably surpassed the look of mini-dv. However, in terms of orientable viewfinders, DV wins that one hands down, hands up, etc, and that is a real consideration when it comes to using a lower resolution format. Super-8 however does offer an incredible array of filming options (multiple filming speeds and excellent time-exposure capabilities) not easily found on 16mm and 35mm or DV, Super-8 is an orphan format that can be linked to many shooting situations as a B-roll camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Alessandro, first of all, I wuold not suggest dismissing David's comments so flippantly. He's an experienced pro, and he's also probably shot more Super 8 film than all of us on this board combined. But the point about the scaning is, past a certain point, there's simply no more detail there to scan. And even 2K is probably overkill for that reason. It has nothing to do with how much so and so has spent to improve a DV image in whatever movie, that's not the same thing. You're talking about a post production scenario that's a completely different thing. I've shot lots of Super 8 (I'm one of I think 2 on this board who have made a S8 feature), and I've shot images that I would say are just about as good as the format can do, but still, we're talking about teeny, tiny frames. There's a limit to what it can do! And by the way, there's no such thing as grainless film shooting, just as there's no such thing as noisless video shooting. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 14, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 14, 2004 Alessandro, first of all, I wuold not suggest dismissing David's comments so flippantly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you are going to make comments in an offhand but insulting manner, at least put the quote you are refering to as I cannot find one on this thread that describes what you state above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 I've been a regular in shooting8mm board as long as I remember it being around and I have never seen anything shot on super8 as sharp as dv. Also I've never seen "grain free" K40, everything I've seen in this little format is pretty grainy. That said, I love super8 for what it is and have shot several projects on it. A couple of music videos and some inserts for dv projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 If you are going to make comments in an offhand but insulting manner, at least put the quote you are refering to as I cannot find one on this thread that describes what you state above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, maybe Matt's just trying to point out that David's shot on almost every format ever existed ;) Or at least knows almost anything about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 14, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 14, 2004 I've been a regular in shooting8mm board as long as I remember it being around and I have never seen anything shot on super8 as sharp as dv. Also I've never seen "grain free" K40, everything I've seen in this little format is pretty grainy. That said, I love super8 for what it is and have shot several projects on it. A couple of music videos and some inserts for dv projects. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sharp compared to what, a 1/6 chip camcorder with lots of depth of field? Super-8 transfers that I supervised at the Post Group for Super-8 Sound sometimes had a virtually grain free look on the Kodachrome 40. What others have said and something I agree with is you actually need higher resolving power to transfer super-8 than you do 16mm or 35mm. Find a scanner that can scan 35mm film, now try and scan a 16mm film frame and watch the quality drop off to a much greater degree than it should, then try a super-8 frame and see that the resolving power of the scanner can't handle the small film frame with any degree of quality. If you shoot blue skys with K-40 you should see no grain, if you do see grain then either the image is underexposed OR something else is going on. What other issue of note, in my opinion the sharpest looking film transfers to video involve HMI lighting. That's why I said I would have loved to have seen some of the scenes in 28 days shot with K-40 to see how they would have come out. Very few productions use HMI lighting for Super-8 so to say it doesn't look as sharp as DV is not telling the full story. Lets at least compare Super-8 footage that was shot with HMI lighting AND shot with the higher end Super-8 cameras such as a Canon814XLS at the 150 degree shutter setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Sharp compared to what, a 1/6 chip camcorder with lots of depth of field? Super-8 transfers that I supervised at the Post Group for Super-8 Sound sometimes had a virtually grain free look on the Kodachrome 40. Compared to 2/3" chip dvcpro/digibeta/whatever. Compared to 1/3" chip dvcam. If you shoot blue skys with K-40 you should see no grain, if you do see grain then either the image is underexposed OR something else is going on. I have to disagree, the sky is in my experience the worst. It's almost like any other flat surface with limited colors. Am I totally of the track here, or shouldn't there be grain in this example? Everything I've seen has a lot of grain all over the skies. What other issue of note, in my opinion the sharpest looking film transfers to video involve HMI lighting. That's why I said I would have loved to have seen some of the scenes in 28 days shot with K-40 to see how they would have come out. Very few productions use HMI lighting for Super-8 so to say it doesn't look as sharp as DV is not telling the full story. Lets at least compare Super-8 footage that was shot with HMI lighting AND shot with the higher end Super-8 cameras such as a Canon814XLS at the 150 degree shutter setting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Umm... How does lighting with HMI's relate to sharpness? I routinely light with hmi's and have also done it with super8. There isn't, and there never should be any difference in sharpness whether you light with tungsten or with daylight. Maybe you a re just referring to bigger lighting budgets, not too many low-budget productions can afford hmi's. And there is also the problem with flicker, if you don't have electronic ballasts because super8 cameras' don't have crystal sync, the speed will drift enough and you will get flicker. I usually shoot with Beaulieu 4008ZMII/Nizo 6080/Canon 814AZE. I think you got me wrong, in many cases I prefer super8 over video, but it certainly has a look you can't argue, whereas bigger film formats are more flexible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 14, 2004 I'm trying to imagine lighting some of those locations in "28 Days Later", like the church, for 40 ASA... (or 25 ASA with the 85B filter.) You'd better have huge HMI's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 14, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 14, 2004 I'm talking about the scenes where HMI light sources were used to create a really intense light sources. HMI lighting does create sharper imagery when viewed on a television monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8 Booster Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Alex is perfectly right and there is absolutely no problem to shoot grain free K40 with the right gear and knowledge. R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 HMI lighting does create sharper imagery when viewed on a television monitor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please back this up? Compared to what? Maybe compared to not lighting at all, but that's hardly a comparison. Have you even lit anything with hmi's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Alex is perfectly right and there is absolutely no problem to shoot grain free K40 with the right gear and knowledge. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right, wonder why nobody has even shot grain free 35mm then :rolleyes: Could you post some frames of grain free k40, then? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 16, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 16, 2004 Please back this up? Compared to what? Maybe compared to not lighting at all, but that's hardly a comparison. Have you even lit anything with hmi's? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not with the huge HMI's, but I own two of the frezzi mini HMI's. I've noticed a difference on ENG shoots with the HMI's versus more conventional tungsten lighting. My belief is the image as viewed on a television screen will look sharper, crisper, with HMI lighting. Ever notice how fuzzy red gel scenes can become when viewed on a television monitor? The combination of minimal white luminence with no blue tones makes the picture look softer. I can tell when a scene has been lit with HMI versus when it has been lit with tungsten, well at least I think I can. ------------------------------- Yes, Blue skys on Kodachrome 40 USED TO LOOK grainless. Nowadays I wonder if either the processing has gone downhill OR the ranks are just not optimized properly, Kodachrome blue skys should basically look grainless, if they don't, it's either the rank's fault or the processing, I tend to lean toward the rank as not being set up properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 16, 2004 The sharpness of a light has nothing to do with being HMI or Tungsten. A 12K HMI Fresnel isn't sharper than a 20K Tungsten Fresnel. Lens design, size of the fresnel, distance of the light, etc. all play a more significant effect on sharpness than whether the globe is HMI or tungsten. For example, many high-powered HMI's are PAR's but there aren't really a lot of high-powered tungsten PAR's. And most low-powered HMI's are PAR's are well. But compare a 575w HMI fresnel to a 2K tungsten Baby Junior (similar output of light) and you'll find that the sharpness is about the same because the size of the fresnel is about the same. Also, if you're talking about film stocks, the daylight-balanced stocks may seem sharper under HMI lighting because the blue layer is slower-speed and less grainy on those stocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 17, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2004 I'm talking specifically about how the filmed originated image or electronic originated image looks as viewed on a television screen. I don't have an opinion on how it actually looks on the film frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2004 You seem to be saying that bluer images look sharper than redder images on a TV screen -- that's not really an HMI versus tungsten issue. You can white-balance so that the HMI is neutral in color or even gelled orange, and you could gel a tungsten lamp to be blue. In that scenario, a warm-gelled HMI versus a blue-gelled tungsten, is the HMI-lit warm image still going to look "sharper" because it's lit by an HMI, compared to a blue-ish image created by a gelled tungsten lamp? Storaro's movies are fairly crisp and sharp and he doesn't use HMI's, just powerful tungsten units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted December 17, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2004 You seem to be saying that bluer images look sharper than redder images on a TV screen -- that's not really an HMI versus tungsten issue. You can white-balance so that the HMI is neutral in color or even gelled orange, and you could gel a tungsten lamp to be blue. In that scenario, a warm-gelled HMI versus a blue-gelled tungsten, is the HMI-lit warm image still going to look "sharper" because it's lit by an HMI, compared to a blue-ish image created by a gelled tungsten lamp? Storaro's movies are fairly crisp and sharp and he doesn't use HMI's, just powerful tungsten units. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't DP on the level that some here do. I did try bluing some tungsten lights once, I found it really difficult as compared to just going with HMI lights. It looks to me like the HMI has more white light mixed in, whereas when one gels a tungsten light blue, the light is just blue. The difference may simply be in guerrilla lighting (where one has less lights to work with) versus really lighting a scene. I have found for guerrilla style of lighting the portable HMI's give a sharper look. However, the light source is small and harsh and that can be a problem. I find when I look on vectorscopes and see reds, orange, and blue on the scope, the television screen seems to look sharper versus when the blue part of the scope is minimal. I definitely don't have enough experience with making tungsten work like an HMI to know how sharp that looks, but I definitely like the look of HMI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2004 HMI's and tungstens are both full spectrum light sources (they have all wavelengths in them), so assuming you use the correct amount of gel, you can match them color-wise. A tungsten light with Full CTB is just as blue as an ungelled HMI, more or less (HMI's are a little less consistent in their color.) A tungsten lamp with Half-Blue is less blue than an ungelled HMI, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted December 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2004 Hi, Interestingly enough, quite a lot of "28 Days Later" was actually lit to pretty high light levels as they wanted very short shutter periods on the XL1s. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now