Trying to achieve THIS look...

Michael Nash · October 23, 2004

Subjectively I'd say the Super8 500 would look more interesting than the DVX, and would hold more detail in the extreme highs and lows, although soft from the small gauge.

I don't think the problem with Super8 is so much the amount of grain, as the size of the grain. If it gets too big, noise reduction is going to have a harder time cleaning it up. Then again, it might look pretty cool! Some of the coolest stuff in Pi was the driving sequence where it got so dark and grainy you weren't sure what you were looking at!

Bill Totolo · October 24, 2004

I wonder if the Super8 will be untolerably soft with the addition of DNR.

Since I am thinking of a digital blow up (with noise reduction) not an optical blow-up, do you think the grain will be just as bad?

Thanks,

Kristoffer Newsom · October 25, 2004

*phew* good luck on this one. I too, would reccomend not pushing more than 2 stops, especially if you want to maintain decent contrast in the image. What I would suggest would be to replace your practicals with brighter lights. (difficult, true, but if you could do it, it'd really pay off). On a foggy evening, brighter practicals would blow out, and greatly increase ambient light. If it's not so foggy, a fog filter could help. Another way to help blow the lights out a bit would be to shoot at 18fps, then optically print up, of course. Finally, if you can't get brighter practicals, you could shoot, get what you get, and bring it into final cut pro, then run 3-way color correction on the shot, increasing the values of the highlights. ...that's probably what I would do, if I was planning to finish on video.

Michael Nash · October 25, 2004

I wonder if the Super8 will be untolerably soft with the addition of DNR.

Since I am thinking of a digital blow up (with noise reduction) not an optical blow-up, do you think the grain will be just as bad?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my experience DNR doesn't soften things as much as it makes motion blurry. It's essentially comparing pixels from adjascent frames and eliminating the small differences. Eliminate too much difference during motion and it becomes a big smeary blur.

You can counteract the softness of DNR by adding a little sharpening or edge enhancement. But like all digital adjustments, you can only go so far or expect so much before the artifacts start to show up.

I can only speculate about the outcome of Super 8 on HD, but it stands to reason that a digital blow up could look less grainy than an optical one. But then, why are you shooting Super 8? It sounds to me like you're interested in the unique look it would give you, and grain is part of that. But you'd really have to test to see if it looks the way you want.

Why not try to transfer directly to HD, rather than the SD->HD->film route? I'm sure cost is a factor, but it seems you would get the sharpest, cleanest image that way.

Phil Rhodes · October 25, 2004

Hi,

I may have a line on a decent transfer for that S8 next month if you can afford to hang on.

Phil

Greg Gross · October 29, 2004

Hey Landon!

I like you're new camera!

Do you want to rent it? I want to shoot some 16mm with 320T?

Greg

Edited October 29, 2004 by pd170user

Guy Meachin · October 29, 2004

If you know how to do bluescreen, you SHOULD be able to shoot the actors in front of the bluescreen, then super impose the live actors over the still photograph. Possible even the photo you have on this page

If you're thinking of using bluescreen with a still image, it might look like what it is, a still image - normally it's pretty easy to tell! You could take the picture into after effects and apply some dancing dissolve to it. This would give it a slight feeling of movement but it would prob still look like a still image. Hope that makes sense! It would also make the shot a little grainy. Just an idea. Best shooting for real in my opinion - if poss