Super8 vs. 16mm vs. High Quality MiniDV Camera

John Adolfi · October 2, 2004

I understand there needs to be more attention paid to story, editing and content than to aquisition format. I know, I know but I wanted to bring this equation to the 16mm table and hear you experts out. I 'm just coming off a bad experience with 5 rolls of Kodachrome Super 8 film that came back from the lab looking like I shot Ektachrome 160asa film-grainy.

S8 is cheap to shoot and I could get a good education on the format before I step up to 16mm, right? Or spend the money and get a DVX100a and shoot 24P mini DV? Saves money too? Thank you ahead of time friends.

Rachel Oliver · October 2, 2004

Hi,

sounds to me like you already made up your mind with the DVX no?

Super 8 is a great way to learn film (It IS film after all) you can shoot the very same stocks (even vision 2!) as 16mm and 35mm, but it is ofcourse far less immediate than video. if you want to learn how to get good on 16 then learn how to do it on S8 or better yet get a Bolex and shoot 16, I actually think it's far harder to shoot decent S8 than 16! 16 will seem a breeze if you master S8......

I've never shot 24p video by the way (it looks pretty cool but it is different to film)

Olly

John Adolfi · October 2, 2004

Thank you and its seems a bit confusing at times. Robert Rodriguez says "Film Sucks" He shoots everything on video. Its faster for him and more predictable. But then I cannot afford HD 24P. Only mini DV 24P (I have yet to see first hand the results). I'm not sold on the idea of shooting DV but after the super8 grain issue and the unpredictability of super8 kodachrome developing I hear about and may have experienced, it got me thinking. Let me ask this. It costs anywhere from $15-$35 per 50' roll of processed super8. What's the cheapest for 16mm?

$60-$70 per 100 foot roll? (No one lite just ready for telecine.)

Rachel Oliver · October 2, 2004

Hi;

Robert Rodriguez says alot of things, I guess for him film does suck! But I personally find the inherent functions of the film process to be essential to forming quality ideas, and I think it looks very diffeent to all forms of electronic image creation.

I'm UK based so i'm not sure how much processing costs in the USA but at a glance I'd say your estimate is correct.....

However if you move into shooting negative stocks on S8 you will find the costs to be very close to 16 post telecine.....

24p DV will never look like S16mm, but for a gritty realism I think it looks great, I guess it's down to what your story or concept require?

Olly

Sam Wells · October 2, 2004

" I 'm just coming off a bad experience with 5 rolls of Kodachrome Super 8 film that came back from the lab looking like I shot Ektachrome 160asa film-grainy."

The first thing to do would be to analyze why this happened, right ?

I mean if you had a similar experience in 16mm or some kind of noise issues with DV, you woudn't just drop the format would you ?

-Sam

Scot McPhie · October 3, 2004

If lit, shot and transferred well K40 can look as good as 16mm on a tv (see my webpage for examples from my feature In My Image which was shot on K40) if you got poor grainy results what was your lighting set up like? - 40 ASA is so low you need heaps of lights unless shooting outdoors on a sunny day

- there are some notes on lighting Super 8 here:

at this link

and also this one

And also the the trailer for my film is here

- Don't give up on Super 8 yet - but it has got other serious issues - such as image stabilisation/focus breathing and noisy cameras - check the archives at shooting 8mm for more about these

There is also an interesting bit comparing Super 8 and 16mm here

Good luck!

Scot

October 4, 2004

Well, the advantage of the film is the resolution. MiniDV can't compare even with 8mm. Although, MiniDV has that cost effectiveness and conveniences. A £10 MiniDV tape will last an hour or more and can be used over and over again. I was looking up 16mm film prices the other day, for descent stuff your looking at least £200. And then there the cost of developing it, and possibly transferring it to computer if your going to edit it digitally, which I do recommend...

So, I'd say it goes in this order:

8mm - MiniDV - 16mm

Results with 8mm are usually pretty crap, though it IS film so it still does give the beauties of film.

Riku Naskali · October 5, 2004

Well, the advantage of the film is the resolution. MiniDV can't compare even with 8mm.

Results with 8mm are usually pretty crap, though it IS film so it still does give the

So what are you saying ;)? I'd never say s8mm is crap, it's just quite different than video. Not better or worse, just different. Just like all mediums are. My opinion is, you can compare s8mm to video, but comparing s8mm to 16mm is just wrong.

But it all comes to what you are shooting, will it benefit from super8's look? K40 certainly has a look. I've done a lot of mixed video/super8 stuff, and it almost always works brilliantly as long as you have good justification for the medium change.

Phil Rhodes · October 5, 2004

Hi,

Broadcast-style DV (from a DSR-570 or similar) will be around as sharp as the super-8 and be very much smoother and completely steady - whereas stability on super-8 can be atrocious. Handycam DV may also be around as sharp, but I'd imagine it would be possible to considerably out-resolve 500-line DV with modern super-8 stocks in a camera with decent glass, even if it doesn't look like it due to the stability problems.

16mm has the potential to be very much better than either, and if you are aiming for hi-def or theatrically-projected results it's the only "real" solution. If it's drama and you cannot shoot good 24p video (SDX-900 or similar) or 16mm then the super-8 may be worth examining; if it's a documentary then I have no problem with well-shot video.

Phil