John Sherman

So what you're saying is that we need separate but equal awards for black filmmakers? That's a good idea, and we could hold them in buildings right next to each other. We'll have to make sure to put up this sign though:

My copy of AC's Fury Road article is sitting on my desk, and it doesn't back up a single assertion you have made.

I'm looking for a bit of a sanity check on a potential cost-saving measure that a buddy and I worked up. We are currently in possession of an Arri IIc, and intended to modify it to shoot 2 perf. However, if an anamorphic lens was attached to the camera sideways (squishing the image vertically rather than horizontally), we could theoretically shoot 2.35:1-ish using only a single perf per frame. As neither of us have much experience shooting in 35mm, that leaves us with a couple questions. Is grain going to present a big issue with such a small area being used for each frame? More importantly, are we going to run into problems trying to get it scanned? Are there hardware/software limitations on scanners that might limit our options as far as scanning goes?

I didn't intend for this to be a film v. video argument Chris. My comment about it being the "70s equivalent of miniDV" was more a analogy to how it was a popular, low-cost format that delivered poor quality images, much like miniDV. Your proselytizing about film in general in interesting, but that's not what I was asking. What is it about Super 8 that makes you use it over 16mm? Is it just cost, or are there other tangible elements of Super 8 that you find appealing? Oh, and about this: I am a filmmaker. Save your condescension for someone else.

The title is pretty clear, but what makes you guys choose to shoot on Super 8? Last week, I saw a real cheap Canon 814 at my local thrift store and bought it on a lark, thinking it'd be fun to experiment with. Of course, once I got online and started pricing everything out, I was stunned at the cost. I mean, between the cartridge, processing, and telecine, it's like $25 a minute. Not to mention that I'll have to ship the film twice to opposite ends of the country before I know if it turned out any good. I mean, it seems absurd to go through that process all to be able to shoot on the 70s equivalent of miniDV. So, I'm really interested to hear what attracts you to shooting Super 8. I'll admit it's got an interesting aesthetic quality to it, but outside of film nerds I can't imagine most people care.

I know what you're probably thinking: "Hey, did someone resurrect a thread from 2008?" That is not the case. I bought an HV30 way back when it came out, and haven't upgraded since then. It just didn't make sense to drop another 800 bucks on a camera I'd use a couple times a year. However, a friend and I have been working on a concept for a film recently, and the limitations of DV are really starting to show in our tests. The project is going to require fairly heavy color correction and some chroma key work, both of which the HV30 is pretty bad at. We considered renting, but our schedule makes it infeasible. So here's the question: I've seen discussions about how the HDMI-out port on the HV30 will deliver video prior to HDV compression. Can anyone confirm whether the difference, particularly with regard to color information, is worthwhile? Secondly, would 400-500 dollars be better spent on a portable recorder like the Blackmagic Hyperdeck and an SSD to supplement our HV30, or on a current consumer grade camera?