Jump to content

2-perf Super8 Anamorphic


Lasse Roedtnes
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I think Super 8 can look really great.

Look at this video and then explain to me why it is "bad"

I think it looks really nice:

Umm what? It looks like something a film student would make on their spare time.

 

The gate wobble is crazy, looks like it was put their purposely in post. The animation wasn't very good either, but maybe that was their intention?

 

I guess the sloppiness is "artistic"? But from my perspective, it looked like slopping filmmaking. Yet, this is exactly the examples used over and over again of what "super 8" is capable of. It's a specialized format for artists to have fun with, just like that music video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Most of the decent WWII documentary work was done on 35mm. This is because the material was used directly for news reels in theaters. Also, due to the larger negative, you could push it and still get a decent image. Yes, there was a lot of 16mm being used, the Auricon CT-70 optical sound camera was quite popular for controlled situations with lots of lighting. 16mm delivered good enough quality when lit properly AND longer run times then 35. So the news-gathering outfits, slowly started moving away from 35mm and into 16mm.

 

 

"Most of the decent WWII documentary work was done on 35mm" says Tyler, as if this was a good argument.

 

Note the qualification "decent". This cleverly sidesteps the fact that the majority of film shot during the war (and subsequent wars) was not shot on 35mm. It was shot on 16mm. And it is this which led directly to it's use in television news. The use of 35mm for news reels didn't play any role whatsoever.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm what? It looks like something a film student would make on their spare time.

 

The gate wobble is crazy, looks like it was put their purposely in post. The animation wasn't very good either, but maybe that was their intention?

 

I guess the sloppiness is "artistic"? But from my perspective, it looked like slopping filmmaking. Yet, this is exactly the examples used over and over again of what "super 8" is capable of. It's a specialized format for artists to have fun with, just like that music video.

 

Music videos are a business. I earnt a living for a little while making music videos, and on Super8 (as much as on 16mm and video). AND it was also great fun. Nothing wrong with fun. Indeed, fun should be a pre-requisite for all film making. But if we're talking about professional usage, all that means, and it doesn't mean anything more at all, is that the usage is undertaken as part of a business - making money if you like.

 

So in this context Super8 is a professional format. The word "professional" has simply nothing to do with notions of quality or otherwise. It is about business. Money.

 

However there is no requirement that Super8 be used in this way, ie. in a professional capacity. Indeed a lot more can be done by simply ignoring this whole stupid professional/non-professional dichotomy altogether.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "nerd" today might be a suitable substitute for the term "amateur".

 

You nailed it Carl, Super 8 is for film nerds ;)

 

I guess the sloppiness is "artistic"?

 

Tyler, being mean won't prove your point. Artists and nerds having fun are to me much more enjoyable than "pros" doing commercial stuff.

Edited by Tom Chabbat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The environment around us is full of intelligence. We feel it, or not, according to our own level of intelligence. Everything we are able to express expands from that point, that condition.

It's the common conceit of the human mind to assume authorship of its own experience. And to experience within narrow self imposed limits. How else to maintain the mirage?

 

The fact that one is able to move around a set and explore directly with only one's eye does not reduce the potential value of the optical viewfinder. When we are at the viewfinder, the stream of photons, the photons that have impacted with the object(s) of our awareness, pass through the lens, bounce off the mirror and impact upon our retina. I call this a relatively direct connection between the object of attention and the awareness of the cinematographer.

 

After 1/50th of a second or so, the same photon stream impacts on the film emulsion. Again a relatively direct connection. These two parallel events, towards the eye and towards the emulsion, quickly oscillating, do in fact synergize. Together they become something more, and the cinematographer, with his cerebral ganglia in extreme proximity, may sense the magic.

With the eye on the view finder, all these connections are quite intimate. Mind connected to the seen object, object connected to the emulsion, light (photons) connected to all, as the connecting element. And the whole? Within that the mind of the cinematographer has the chance to rule over all of this....so I resist all that inhibits that I suppose.

 

If we remove the optical finder, does it matter? What, at best can the cinematographer see? A simulation, an approximation, a guide as to what the optical viewfinder or a piece of film might yield.

 

What reasonable human being could delete the optical viewfinder?

 

Hmmm. The universe is not what happens in 1/50th of a second. Not only can one stand back in space to see the bigger picture (and I mean see in every sense of the word) but one can also stand "back" in terms of time, which is to say, to see the larger interval - the larger duration in which that 1/50th of a second moment takes place. To see time.

 

And as I keep saying to Tyler, it's not about deleting optical viewfinders. It's about appreciating them in a far more fundamental way - as part (and only part) of a bigger picture in both space and time. And I mean picture in the full sense - as an experienced thing - as distinct from the fevered imagination of a storyboard artist.

 

A certain humility is required to see this bigger picture. More so than mastery. To see the world is to receive the world rather than subdue it.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm what? It looks like something a film student would make on their spare time.

 

The gate wobble is crazy, looks like it was put their purposely in post. The animation wasn't very good either, but maybe that was their intention?

 

I guess the sloppiness is "artistic"? But from my perspective, it looked like slopping filmmaking. Yet, this is exactly the examples used over and over again of what "super 8" is capable of. It's a specialized format for artists to have fun with, just like that music video.

 

Well most of what you have to say here is about the people operating the camera and the only thing you have to say about the quality of the format is that there is a lot of gate wobble.

 

So this would appear to back what I'm saying that the format does not look bad, else you would have more to say about the format aand less about the filmmakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another take on the term "professional".

 

To speak of a "professional look", such as a shallow depth of field look, only makes any sense, if by doing a shallow depth of field look, one gets paid for doing that. That's about the only thing that would be professional with a shallow depth of field look.

 

And by the same token, if one makes a grainy, wobbly, out of focus look, it too is a "professional look" - if one gets paid for it.

 

In other words the look doesn't actually matter! What matters is if you get paid for it.

 

For everyone else (and this includes enlightened professionals) the look does matter, whether according to traditional aesthetics, or alternative ones. And the concept of "professional look" becomes at best a completely irrelevant one. A furfy as one might say. Or just completely bogus.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful "video", Freya. And great song. There are no references to the Super 8 film format or cameras/scanners used. Do you happen top have the inside scoop?

 

You are right, it doesn't say, so maybe it's badly shot 16mm with gateweave added in post like Tyler seems to be implying.

 

I do have the inside scoop of course. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...The universe is not what happens in 1/50th of a second....see the bigger picture ....

....it's not about deleting optical viewfinders. ....

A certain humility is required to see this bigger picture. More so than mastery. To see the world is to receive the world rather than subdue it.

 

If one can't sense the universe in the microcosmic, why assume that one might do so in the macrocosmic? Where is the humility?

To master a thing does not mean to subdue it, but absorb its principals and be able to function within a more expanded set of principals. In comparison, a ridgidized ego, assuming the external universe as an infinite tapestry of diverse particulars, may feel without control, in awe, or even broken by these boundaries. Humbled. But is this the same as humility?

 

When I say that the universe is full of intelligence, this is a "bigger picture", though I did not use that metaphor. A world more polulated with things and limitations does not make a bigger picture. For you, I think it's a metaphor that hopes not to pierce the canvas that it's spread upon.

 

The Logmar has in fact deleted the optical finder. So perhaps the conversation can be about that.

 

We may talk later when this other fracas is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Note the qualification "decent". This cleverly sidesteps the fact that the majority of film shot during the war (and subsequent wars) was not shot on 35mm.

Carl, I've been blessed to talk with many filmmakers who shot material from the war due to the documentaries I've worked on. So I know a tiny bit about this. Your argument that 16mm went from consumer to professional during the war is untrue. I've been to the archives at the library of congress and I've physically worked with hundreds of thousands of feet of re-printed original camera negative. I have seen many instances of home-movies, private soldier collections shot in 16mm. I've also seen 16mm used extensively for sound on film interviews. However, the library of congress original camera negative archive is mostly 35mm from WWII. This is the case by the way with Russia, Germany and the UK as well. They shot 35mm because they went to print with it for propaganda purposes. Can you imagine being a combat filmmaker running 100ft or 200ft loads of 35mm? Crazy to think about that eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Music videos are a business. I earnt a living for a little while making music videos, and on Super8 (as much as on 16mm and video).

Right, and I bet that wasn't last year. We're in 2016 Carl, not 1996. Audiences today EXPECT much more then they did two decades ago.

 

So in this context Super8 is a professional format. The word "professional" has simply nothing to do with notions of quality or otherwise. It is about business. Money.

Right it's about money, but doesn't your product have to be successful for the person who invested to recoup their investment so they can make MORE product? Nobody is going to invest in using super 8 for more then a play format unless there is a example to prove previous success.

 

However there is no requirement that Super8 be used in this way, ie. in a professional capacity. Indeed a lot more can be done by simply ignoring this whole stupid professional/non-professional dichotomy altogether.

I have this argument all the time with people about my Blackmagic Pocket camera. They think it's just a toy, no way could a decent image come from that small of a camera. Then I put them in front of my calibrated DLP projector and show them a few short films I made with the camera. They change their mind very quickly, even though I'm in agreement with them straight up! I absolutely think the pocket camera treads that water between consumer and professional. Mostly because Blackmagic never did further development of that exact form factor. It needed one more revision with a real 2k imager, faster processor and better display, but it never happened. So the camera will always be a non-professional camera that creates great images. What's frustrating is that people just think they need a 4k image and ya know what, for theatrical that maybe the case. For shooting a music video, you can really use anything because the distribution methods aren't good enough yet.

 

I guess my point is, the professional dichotomy isn't bad. It's a great way of differentiating equipment from one another since there is so much STUFF out there today. I just look at Super 8 and I see my home movie camera. Ya know, no adjustments for anything. Put the cartridge in and hold the trigger until it runs out of film. To me, that's super 8 and it probably will always be my impression of it until I see something truly amazing to change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If one can't sense the universe in the microcosmic, why assume that one might do so in the macrocosmic? Where is the humility?

To master a thing does not mean to subdue it, but absorb its principals and be able to function within a more expanded set of principals. In comparison, a ridgidized ego, assuming the external universe as an infinite tapestry of diverse particulars, may feel without control, in awe, or even broken by these boundaries. Humbled. But is this the same as humility?

 

When I say that the universe is full of intelligence, this is a "bigger picture", though I did not use that metaphor. A world more polulated with things and limitations does not make a bigger picture. For you, I think it's a metaphor that hopes not to pierce the canvas that it's spread upon.

 

The Logmar has in fact deleted the optical finder. So perhaps the conversation can be about that.

 

We may talk later when this other fracas is over.

 

Lets talk now. There is no real fracas going on. We're just having a rigourous debate. In the end there will be things said, which we may or may not regret having said in quite the way we said them, or indeed might be further emboldened to elaborate a position we took - but ultimately what happens is that a way forward emerges, and everyone takes what they can from such and moves on. It's team work! It's not so much about the person, for some might even take a devil's advocate position, ie. arguing an unsustainable argument, just in case it turns out to actually be a good one. What is important is not the particular egos involved (we're all burdened by such) but what can come out of a debate - if anything. Some times it's bruising but the benefits are understood to outweigh the cost.

 

Ok, so where were we?

 

Yes, we're back in philosophical territory. Yes, the universe is intelligent, at all sort of levels, the least intelligent, but no less fascinating is the microscopic. However it is the macroscopic where things get far more interesting. For example, if we treat light in terms of the microscopic, ie. in terms of photons and the fundamental waves into which light can be decomposed we will discover that there is no light that corresponds to the colour magenta.

 

What?

 

Magenta is a mixture of red and blue light. Now while there is no single wavelength to which magenta corresponds (unlike all the other colours), there is a composite wave (a signal) to which magenta corresponds.

 

Is magenta less real than red? Is it just a figment of our imagination? No. What distinguishes magenta from all the other colours is that it does not fit into a model of light (ie. as determined by human reasoning) based on decomposing light into fundamental waves. It is more complex than the parts of which the model tells us it is made. Another way of reading magenta is to say it is firstly magenta, and that according to particularly useful models of light, it can be decomposed into red and blue.

 

In the same way we can say a brick house can be decomposed into bricks. It is a useful thing this thing called decomposition. However the intelligence of a house will not reside in the bricks so decomposed. It will be the bricks that reside within the intelligence of a house.

 

Or at least that's the philosophical trajectory I'm pursuing here. There is firstly an image (an experience) before there is a way of formalising such, and otherwise decomposing such into bricks, atoms, roman tiles, pixels, etc.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What wound up making 16mm a "powerful" format was the introduction of higher speed, lower-grain negative stocks and the use of sound track area for picture. The lower cost of 16mm and increased quality, created demand for newer higher-end cameras, mostly for broadcast documentary work and feature films. This kept the format alive along with Kodak/Fuji's continuous development of better/newer stocks, has turned the format into something truly professional. Plus, Super 16 blows up very nicely to 35mm for distribution, something that was a requirement until a few years ago.

 

It's the constant development of the 16mm format and the adoption by professionals, which makes it professional in the long run. Since professional filmmakers weren't forced to use Super 8 like 16mm, we haven't seen the huge paradigm changes in the format. In fact, Super 8 is pretty much the same format it started as in the 60's. Super 8 officially died when Kodak stopped making Kodachrome and the last lab stopped processing it. The death allowed for a revival which is slowly building. Kodak offering modern negative stocks in super 8 form was really the first push. The advent of Max 8 and scanning gates specifically designed for super 8 helped tremendously as well. However, it was the advent of a camera that removes the horrible cartridge pressure plate issues that really helped the format's quality. However, with only 50 cameras in existence (logmar) and most super 8 owners wanting a "projectable" product, very few people are exposed to this modern super 8 format.

 

Kodak's leap into the Super 8 band wagon is really to pump film as a capture medium. It's more of a marketing ploy then anything else and it's very smart. It maybe exactly what the format needs to succeed once more. However, it would take another decade of tweaks to make Super 8 camera anywhere near the quality of a 90's produced Super 16 camera. Then you're still messing with a very small negative which is prone to all the other issues I discussed prior.

 

So no Carl, it's not rubbish, it's just logic. 16mm has an upper hand of ohh... 50 years of development over Super 8.

Also... for clarity, this year there were 2 high-profile world released films shot on Super 16mm and one which shot a complete segment on S16. I don't see this same kind of adoption with Super 8. Until I do, it's just a consumer format with a few people who "claim" excellence, for I have never seen it first-hand.

 

Here we go again. One rule for 16mm and another for Super 8. It's been like this all through this thread. 16mm benefited from progress in new film stocks with lower grain and more choice in speeds. This never happened for Super 8 however???

 

Come on Kodak negative stocks have been available in Super 8 since long, long, long, before Kodachrome came to an end. Gates for Super 8 have been around for 15-20 years too. Max8 has been kicking about for at least 10 years. Long before it got called that in fact.

 

There aren't only 50 cameras witout the Kodak pressure plate issues. There are loads of single eight cameras out there on the second hand market for those who are worried about that. There is also the frame master add-on that has been kicking about for the past decade.

 

16mm has 50 years of development but for some magic reason Super8 never benefitted from any of those changes according to this post. Funny that given they are both take the same film stocks just cut down to different sizes! However for super8 it's a different rule and it remains unchanged for 50 years according to this post.

 

Now lets look at just this year so we can drop the sample size so far as to try and exclude Super8.

Of course we can ignore the long history of Super8 in feature films in the past because only this year counts.

This in spite of the fact that this year has only been around a few weeks! Anyway I'm interested. What are the other movies aside from Carol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, I've been blessed to talk with many filmmakers who shot material from the war due to the documentaries I've worked on. So I know a tiny bit about this. Your argument that 16mm went from consumer to professional during the war is untrue. I've been to the archives at the library of congress and I've physically worked with hundreds of thousands of feet of re-printed original camera negative. I have seen many instances of home-movies, private soldier collections shot in 16mm. I've also seen 16mm used extensively for sound on film interviews. However, the library of congress original camera negative archive is mostly 35mm from WWII. This is the case by the way with Russia, Germany and the UK as well. They shot 35mm because they went to print with it for propaganda purposes. Can you imagine being a combat filmmaker running 100ft or 200ft loads of 35mm? Crazy to think about that eh?

 

I've worked with guys that shot film during the war, (who latter worked in television), but my main source of information is not anecdotal but from that which historians do.

 

The stuff done on 35mm was (as you rightly point out) done for propaganda purposes. For news reels. Film was co-opted during the war by governments. The US as much as Nazi Germany. Donald Duck was hired to feature in one or two US propaganda films. But this represents the smallest use of film during the war (in the war). And it's the least interesting. It was 16mm film that underwent a major overhaul.

 

The following is from a random article I picked off the net, but otherwise correlates with other material I've read over the years. In particular is the line which reads:

 

With the war’s onset, 16mm film became unavailable for the U.S. consumer market and instead was utilized by the military “for surveillance, recording the war, and training”

 

From this:

 

During the 1920s, usage of the 16mm format spread in the home setting as a vehicle to view home movies and rented films, and dissipated in the 1930s for a myriad of reasons ranging from the Depression, the introduction of other film formats and media, and World War II (Wasson, 2009, p.12). Wasson continues that the 16mm film solidified itself as the format of choice for venues such as educational (both schools and universities), libraries, and houses of worship prior to World War II. With the war’s onset, 16mm film became unavailable for the U.S. consumer market and instead was utilized by the military “for surveillance, recording the war, and training” (Zimmerman, 1988, p. 24). Zimmerman asserts that the military’s use of 16mm film transformed the gauge’s usage to a “semiprofessional medium with limited commercial possibilities” that once it was again available for the consumer market, saw expanded growth due in part to the “leisure economy” (p. 25). Indeed, Schaefer (2002) notes the status change of the 16mm format in the post World War II film landscape, and that although it was still a non-theatrical gauge, echoed Zimmerman’s assertion that 16mm solidified itself as a semiprofessional film format (p. 7).

 

The post-war era featured the 16mm format in its previous role as the primary gauge utilized in educational, library, and church exhibitions, but given its new-found semiprofessional status, 16mm was the “primary distribution medium for films and television shows shown on television” throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Horack, 2006, p. 4). Additionally, Horack states that filmmakers utilized the format for independent and avant-garde films, for both production and distribution, and Schaefer (2002) notes that the format was used in genres as diverse as industry and pornography (p. 5).

 

This expanded range of uses of 16mm film and its broad spectrum of filmmakers contributed to the multitude and range of cinematic features shot on the format. Indeed, MacDonald (2006) asserts that

avant-garde and experimental filmmakers have produced, and continue to produce, a considerable body of films made specifically for exhibition as 16mm prints. Because this history includes many major contributions to modern cinema, those who are committed to the full range of film accomplishment will continue to be forced to see that 16mm exhibition of these films remains available […] (p. 125)

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Most of the decent WWII documentary work was done on 35mm" says Tyler, as if this was a good argument.

 

Note the qualification "decent". This cleverly sidesteps the fact that the majority of film shot during the war (and subsequent wars) was not shot on 35mm. It was shot on 16mm. And it is this which led directly to it's use in television news. The use of 35mm for news reels didn't play any role whatsoever.

 

C

Tyler is spot on about WW2. Apart from some 16mm. Kodachrome blown up to 35 in the Pacific, most material that was presented to the public was 35mm. The newsreel cameramen going ashore on D-Day had an allocation of four 100' rolls.

I suppose you could argue about the number of feet shot, but when you see an army film unit in a wartime newsreel, they're usually shooting 35.

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Here we go again. One rule for 16mm and another for Super 8. It's been like this all through this thread. 16mm benefited from progress in new film stocks with lower grain and more choice in speeds. This never happened for Super 8 however???

Every format has their own "rules" as every format developed differently. Both 16mm and 35mm went through extremely similar development paths however.

 

Super 8 never had ECO, ECN, or EXR. It never had those high speed stocks, which are critical for capturing images in darker environments, which existed on 16/35/65. The highest speed available from Kodak was Ektachrome 160, which I have shot many films with and is a grain sandwich, though doesn't look too bad otherwise. According to Kodak's own site, the first color negative arrived to the format in 2004. Max 8 was a mid 90's development that was done to a few cameras and eventually made available to the public in the 2000's.

 

Super 8 never got the "silent" treatment either. The all mighty Beaulieu 7000 which I've shot with, is still a very noisy camera. It never got an 180 degree rotating mirrored shutter. It never got a decent high resolution video tap. It never got a shoulder mounted camera. It never got a decent rotatable optical viewfinder. It never got a larger more professional lens mount. I mean the list goes on and on. Ohh and Single 8 is not Super 8. They are two entirely different formats, only comparable by width.

 

Of course we can ignore the long history of Super8 in feature films in the past because only this year counts.

Really? I'm not that much of a jerk man.

 

Anyway I'm interested. What are the other movies aside from Carol?

In 2015 alone...

Carol (whole film arri 416)

Mediterranea (whole film arri 416)

Supremacy (whole film arri 416)

Umrika (whole film Arri 416)

Christmas, Again (whole film Aaton XTR)

Suffragette (MOST of the film arri 416)

Steve Jobs (first 3rd arri 416)

 

In 2015, there was only ONE MENTION of super 8 being used by Kodak, it was on a music video. In fact, 2015 was kinda low on the 16mm films, 2013 for instance had twice that amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super 8 never had ECO, ECN, or EXR. It never had those high speed stocks, which are critical for capturing images in darker environments, which existed on 16/35/65. The highest speed available from Kodak was Ektachrome 160, which I have shot many films with and is a grain sandwich, though doesn't look too bad otherwise. According to Kodak's own site, the first color negative arrived to the format in 2004. Max 8 was a mid 90's development that was done to a few cameras and eventually made available to the public in the 2000's.

 

Super8 had EXR. Pro8 made EXR available including 50D. Kodak only made EXR 200T available. Someone was selling 7 carts of the stuff on ebay the other day. The Kodak date may not be accurate. EXR 200T was probably even more of a grain sandwich in Super 8 than the ektachrome. Things moved on tho and we had the vision stocks and now even vision 3 is here so it's not fair to suggest Super8 just stood still for 50 years like you did earlier.

 

Loads of people did the "max8" thing, It didn't need to be "made available to the public"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every format has their own "rules" as every format developed differently. Both 16mm and 35mm went through extremely similar development paths however.

 

Of course Super8 is different.

The point I was making is that all through this thread you have ttalked about the shortcomings of Super 8 but havn't held 16mm to the same standard of scrutiny.

 

For instance you said that Super8 was no use because a 50ft cart had such short run times. Yet a 16mm bolex was great in spite of the fact that a 100ft roll is a similar run time. In the same way the viewfinders on Super8 cameras are terrible but a bolex is just great even though most of the cheap bolexs out there are completely non reflex.

 

Now 16mm benefited greatly from improvements in film stock but Super8 stayed the same for 50 years. Yet Super8 uses the same stock just in a smaller gauge so surely it has benefited too? A lot of the developments in 16mm have been parraleled by those in Super8 but whenever you talk about this stuff only the 16mm developments happened.

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2015 alone...

Carol (whole film arri 416)

Mediterranea (whole film arri 416)

Supremacy (whole film arri 416)

Umrika (whole film Arri 416)

Christmas, Again (whole film Aaton XTR)

Suffragette (MOST of the film arri 416)

Steve Jobs (first 3rd arri 416)

 

In 2015, there was only ONE MENTION of super 8 being used by Kodak, it was on a music video. In fact, 2015 was kinda low on the 16mm films, 2013 for instance had twice that amount.

 

Okay we are now talking last year. It's 2016 now! Anyway I'm very impressed to hear of all this different stuff being shot on 16mm in 2015. Looks like it is really making a comeback! Carol, Christmas Again, and Steve Jobs were the only ones I knew about so it will be interesting to learn more about the others. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Kodak tend to do less promotion around Super8 as they have always been more focused around their more expensive products. I actually am expecting that to continue. Which is a another good argument for shooting Super16. Doesn't mean nothing happened in Super8 last year, just that Kodak kind of ignored it all. Super 8 has of course also been really hammered the last few years by various changes and a lack of support from Kodak, which is why it's such a big shock this year that they seem to be about to start supporting it again somewhat.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyler is spot on about WW2. Apart from some 16mm. Kodachrome blown up to 35 in the Pacific, most material that was presented to the public was 35mm. The newsreel cameramen going ashore on D-Day had an allocation of four 100' rolls.

I suppose you could argue about the number of feet shot, but when you see an army film unit in a wartime newsreel, they're usually shooting 35.

 

Yes, Tyler's picture of World War 2 is of government propaganda films shot on 35mm, and shown to the public as news reels. I have no real disagreement with this. Although calling such "decent" seems to stretch the meaning of that word.

 

The bulk of the documentation done during the war was done on 16mm, and a tradition of getting ones hands dirty on the front line, as distinct from concocting some fantasy about the war disguised as a news reel, would be that which television news would inherit. And they would inherit the means: shooting news footage on 16mm.

 

We're talking about how 16mm changed from a home movie format into a professional format. Whatever role 35mm was playing at the time is almost completely irrelevant in this.

 

In case you missed it, see my last post on this.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

concocting some fantasy about the war disguised as a news reel,

 

I didn't miss it.

D-Day was no "fantasy".

Remember the shot of the landing craft door dropping into the surf? 35mm, shot by one of those chaps with a couple of 100' cans in his pocket and an Eyemo or Newman-Sinclair instead of a rifle.

If you don't remember it, look it up, but don't call it a "fantasy".

 

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't miss it.

D-Day was no "fantasy".

Remember the shot of the landing craft door dropping into the surf? 35mm, shot by one of those chaps with a couple of 100' cans in his pocket and an Eyemo or Newman-Sinclair instead of a rifle.

If you don't remember it, look it up, but don't call it a "fantasy".

 

 

 

Yes, D-Day is not a fantasy. But the exploitation of D-Day, in propaganda films, creates a fantasy around D-Day.

 

I might just add that 16mm would not have been immune from those dedicated to propaganda filmmaking. But this is a red herring. Whether making propaganda films on 16mm, or anything else on 16mm, it the war which changed how 16mm would be understood. This is the point I was making. And it was from the extensive use of 16mm during the war (far more than 35mm) that did this.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...