The Super 8 Direct To Hard Drive Revolution. Who, Where, and How

[Chris Graham]

I'd still like to try the S8 HD. Thing is, you'd still want a reliable master if you're going to do a serious project, and its been advised to have digiBeta over a DV tape any day. If I'm going to work with 30min off a an S8 HD file from Bono, I'm going to need a big hard drive, and in fact several if I plan to continue using S8 HD, just for master storage purposes. Either that or just end up paying for an extra master layoff to digiBeta and keep that baby on lock! We all know how easy it is to lose data off hard drives, and so there goes your master from Bono!

 

What I'll end up doing is just getting the Lecias, have an extra digiBeta master (for the closet), work with the huge uncompressed file, publish it & finalize, and then get rid of the huge uncompressed file. I'll still have the digiBeta master as a mate owns a deck. Or who knows, I'll probably have to invest on many hard drives if that's the route... :angry: but then again what else is new.

 

I'm also a music producer, and I already have 4 external drives plus two internal. i dont know. we'll see.

[steve hyde]

Steve Hyde. You get it. Saw the website. You're an artist.

 

Thanks for the complementary words on my website. I have included a link to it in my signature under "work in progress" for anyone interested. I have not had time make the updates badly needed, but want to show what I do have, which at this point is one little kodachrome composition and one roll of handprocessed 7265 that has been intentionally distressed.

 

I'm sending 800ft of super 8 to CineLab in Boston for a 10bit SDI to hard drive either Friday or Monday.

The reels are a mix of all sorts of material: everything from handprocessed b&w negatives to found Kodachromes to cross processed 7280. I will plan to get some results posted for review when I get it back.

 

Steve

[Matt Sandstrom]

just in case anybody's interested my suggestion is to take santo's sample images with a large grain of salt. same for his conclusions. i obviously agree that 10 bit uncompressed is better, anything else would be stupid to claim, but anyone who's not getting pristine results with black and white transferred to dv is doing something wrong. remember that the resolution is exactly the same as digibeta and aside from some dct artifacts that should be minor the main difference is in the color sampling. as for the 10 bits that's of course completely irrelevant unless you want to do color corrections. the *only* difference is the dct compression, and if you ever get the kind of artifacts shown in santo's post you need to change labs, deck, computer, brain, and everythign else involved asap. ;-)

 

/matt

[timHealy]

Good question. I guess the only real reason is for it's look. I have been pricing out shooting a 20 minute short on 7217 Super 8, transfer to hard drive as uncompressed HD. Both Super 8 budget and the Super 16 budget have the same scary minimum shooting ratio of 6:1, and both cost roughly the same amount of money. So it must be for the look.

 

chris

 

Of course the look of Super 8 is a great quality for many things but I don't understand the assumption that Super 8 and 16mm cost the same. I agree that the cost of the two formats are roughly the same in a per foot basis for rawstock and processing. But shooting the same project, with the same shooting ratio, with the same FPS, you will certainly shoot more 16mm film than 8mm based of the running footage per second.

 

just my 2 cents

 

best

 

Tim

[Chris Burke]

Of course the look of Super 8 is a great quality for many things but I don't understand the assumption that Super 8 and 16mm cost the same. I agree that the cost of the two formats are roughly the same in a per foot basis for rawstock and processing. But shooting the same project, with the same shooting ratio, with the same FPS, you will certainly shoot more 16mm film than 8mm based of the running footage per second.

 

just my 2 cents

 

best

 

Tim

 

 

It is not an assumption. Go out and get some prices. Kodak charges 15.50 per 50 foot cart. Sure the 16 cost a little bit more, but for the bump in quality and running time, the cost savings means less and less. You pay a little bit more than 30 cents a foot for Super 8 raw stock and another 30 or so to process. Telecine to hard drive as uncompressed HD, which is what I would do with the Super 16, cost exactly the same amount. My point was and still is, the prices savings isn't a whole lot, so you really are only going for look.

[Alessandro Machi]

Thankfully the era of crappy Kodachrome 40 is now behind us and rapidly vanishing with it are the notions that acceptable results for super 8 video transfer can be had with some kind of video camera aimed at a mirror box, or even a transfer to miniDV. The K40 was killed wisely by Kodak. Now we've got nothing but excellent film stocks. The DV transfer era is now being killed by the emergence of direct-to-harddrive. Don't be fooled by a DV dump onto a hard drive, real direct-to-hard drive usually involves a 10-bit process with a Blackmagic Design universal codec, and always requires scanning with a real telecine machine (Rank/Shadow/Spirit/etc). The difference between DV and digibeta shooting on video is noticeable. The difference between transfering super 8 film to DV compared to digibeta is devastating.

 

Just to recap a little from another thread I started on the basic current standards for quality super 8 filmmaking, below is another sample picture from two super 8 frames. It's pretty self-explanitory. Both are Plus-X super 8 in origin. Both the same size of the frame. The 10-bit image is a frame I shot. The DV transfered frame is courtesy Steve Hyde.

 

 

The cost difference for a typical short film project to choose uncompressed standard def over DV? Hang on to your chair. It's usually about a hundred bucks to two hundred tops plus the cost of a portable hard drive. No poop.

 

Obviously, if you have any ambitions at making short films in super 8 or other projects for public exhibition, digital beta is the minimum standard to use. HD is obviously going to be terrific, but it becomes questionable how important it is for super 8. I say it is worth it for negatives, while digibeta is all you need for reversals. What is important is that you observe this minimal digibeta standard for your work to look good in exhibition. Ideally, a very simple workflow can now occur which was impossible before maybe 6 months ago. Send in film, transfer direct to hard drive, you get back usually mov files and you download the free Blackmagic codec from their site, you edit with Final Cut, Adobe, Vegas 6, (preferably using DV proxy files to make it easy on your system and for real time effects until the final assembly when the proxies are replaced with the uncompressed files) then the final edited file is brought to a post house and dumped onto digibeta for a finished project.

 

At present, as of this writing, the following post houses offer direct to hard drive super 8 transfers. Here's what I know as far as basics. Details/prices you should contact them or maybe other members of this forum can fill us in. In no particular order. But these ones are in the US.

 

1) Cinepost -- They will transfer your film to digibeta and then dump the digibeta onto hard drive. Just to clarify, for all practical purposes, it is pretty hard to detect any difference between uncompressed direct to harddrive and digibeta, if you can actually see any. http://www.posthouse.com/

 

2) Bono Labs -- You can get direct to hard drive standard definition and also high definition here. http://www.bonolabs.com/

 

3) Cinelab -- Direct to hard drive. 10 bit. Standard def only. Cheap. http://www.cinelab.com/

 

4) Debenham Media Group -- Direct to hard drive. 10 bit. Standard def. Cheap. http://3516.com/

 

5) Flying Spot -- I believe both a digibeta dump to hard drive and HDcam with a dump to hard drive are possible here. http://www.fsft.com/

 

No doubt there are at least one or two places in Germany that offer this. Somebody must know. Please post if you do!

 

As can be seen, it has become, virtually overnight, a buyers market for true professional transfer of super 8 for anybody on the internet. Truly a revolution. Because of it, and the new super advanced filmstocks in super 8, we will see more and more quality super 8 shorts and projects finding wide audiences. Super 8 is approaching a virtual critical mass as a filmmaking tool for low budget filmmakers, with no end in sight.

 

 

Santo, are you jealous that you missed all the great Kodachrome that was available and that was shot in the 60's, 70's, and 80's and perhaps the early 90's? Don't let your apparent bitterness affect many of your posts, bud, you're touretting Kodachrome at every turn. Watch Kung Fu Rascal and Polish Vampire in Burbank before taking on the role of the grim reaper of Kodachrome.

 

As for your pictures, what the heck are you even comparing? Clearly the 8 bit picture on the bottom has been blown up way more than the black and white 10 bit picture above it. Did it ever occur to you to use the same frame for both the 8 bit and the 10 bit frame samples?

 

As for your raving about DigiBeta, BetaCam sp IS the poor mans digibeta, and frankly, mini-dv is considered almost identical to Betacam SP.

 

A 10 bit transfer will look better than an 8 bit transfer not just on digital betacam, but also on BetaCam SP and mini-dv as well.

 

I would say you brought up three issues, Kodachrome, Digi Beta, and 8 bit versus 10 bit transfering, throw out the first two (Kodachrome & Digi Beta) and stick to the 8 bit versus 10 bit, and then you have the beginnings of an interesting topic. But PLEASE, compare the same film frame if you are to show samples of 8 bit versus 10 bit.

[Alessandro Machi]

Hi,

 

What I don't quite get is why you'd want to shoot super-8 when super-16 is barely more expensive in terms of consumables and consumables are by far the greatest expense.

 

Phil

 

It kind of depends on how much crew one can afford. Most Super-8 projects have far fewer people working on set than 16mm or 35mm. Camera Power consumption requirements consists of between 2 to 6 double A batteries and are actually housed inside the super-8 camera. Super-8 cameras come with all kind of filming frame rate options built right in to the camera, no external motors or connected drive shafts which then require much much bigger power supplies and tripods are required.

 

No film magazines are required for Super-8, no changing bags, no TRUCK down the street carrying all the camera cases because the experienced filmmaker knows that every component in their 16mm package they use has it's own case.

 

Some people use their Bolex's like a Super-8 camera. My initial experiences with both the Bolex and Super-8 cameras found the Super-8 to be so much simpler to use so I could focus my energies on the actual film shoot, and there seems to be a higher error rate with the Bolex camera because the film has to be manually loaded.

 

I like intervalometer and time-exposure options, and I like having an extra Super-8 camera or two, each camera with a different "strength" it is known for. When it comes to video shooting, I'm completely the opposite, I prefer the bigger, bulkier cameras for live-event and interview situations, and I'll also bring along a portable digital camera or two to grab spontaneous shots which allows me to leave the tripod mounted bigger camera alone.

[timHealy]

It is not an assumption. Go out and get some prices. Kodak charges 15.50 per 50 foot cart. Sure the 16 cost a little bit more, but for the bump in quality and running time, the cost savings means less and less. You pay a little bit more than 30 cents a foot for Super 8 raw stock and another 30 or so to process. Telecine to hard drive as uncompressed HD, which is what I would do with the Super 16, cost exactly the same amount. My point was and still is, the prices savings isn't a whole lot, so you really are only going for look.

 

 

I did look at the prices and I guess we have a difference of opinion of what one would consider savings.

 

As an example lets say you want to make a movie one hour long with a shooting ratio of 6 to 1

 

one roll of 16 mm negative cost $135 per roll (at Kodaks will call in NYC) for ten minutes of film at 24 FPS.

6 rolls for one hour, times 6, times 135.00 equals 4860.00 for rawstock.

 

processing 36 rolls for $80.00 a roll (approximate DuArt price) $2880.00

 

one roll of super 8 negative costs $15.50 per roll (I trust your price is correct) for 2.5 minutes at 24 FPS (three for 18).

24 rolls for one hour, times 6, $15.50 equals 2232.00 for rawstock.

 

processing 144 rolls for 13.00 (Forde price) $1872.00

 

cost of stock and processing for fictional 1 hour project

16mm $7740.00

Super 8 $4104.00

 

cost savings using Super 8 $3636.00 or 45 percent over the cost of 16mm.

 

Obviously these are approximates and only rawstock and processing (transfer to video would be even) but I think a savings of perhaps 45 percent or $3600 would be welcome to most IF they were making a decision where cost was a concern. Also the longer the project the more one would save and the shorter the less. The length of a project may be an important part of the decision process.

 

Like I said before I agree with you that Super 8 and 16mm costs are very close on a per foot basis, but since each format uses different amounts of film for equal running times. Super 8 is clearly cheaper.

 

respectfully

 

Tim

[S8 Booster]

alex, some like to compare lobsters and cockoos and squeze a "new" appleorangejuice out of it without the slightest comparable reference.

 

dont waste your time on this alex.

 

anybody here which really know the real life difference of 8 n 10 bit depth? i do.

 

s8h00t

Edited February 3, 2006 by S8 Booster

[Stephen Williams]

As can be seen, it has become, virtually overnight, a buyers market for true professional transfer of super 8 for anybody on the internet. Truly a revolution. Because of it, and the new super advanced filmstocks in super 8, we will see more and more quality super 8 shorts and projects finding wide audiences. Super 8 is approaching a virtual critical mass as a filmmaking tool for low budget filmmakers, with no end in sight.

 

Hi,

 

I am not sure that the quality of these 'true professional transfers' is that good at all. I recently transferred S8 on a Spirit, the results were good, but it was not an economy option.

 

Stephen

[Robert Hughes]

... BetaCam sp IS the poor mans digibeta, and frankly, mini-dv is considered almost identical to Betacam SP.

 

A 10 bit transfer will look better than an 8 bit transfer not just on digital betacam, but also on BetaCam SP and mini-dv as well.

 

I would say you brought up three issues, Kodachrome, Digi Beta, and 8 bit versus 10 bit transfering, throw out the first two (Kodachrome & Digi Beta) and stick to the 8 bit versus 10 bit, and then you have the beginnings of an interesting topic.

 

BetaSP has a practical advantage due to its analog nature; it will likely be playable longer in the future, in more different kinds of decks than the newer formats. Even Digibeta decks will play BetaSP. Of course Digibeta looks better, but for most people BetaSP looks "good enough"; I just toured the National Geographic Society's archives, and all their programming except the very recent shows are on BetaSP masters.

[Alessandro Machi]

BetaSP has a practical advantage due to its analog nature; it will likely be playable longer in the future, in more different kinds of decks than the newer formats. Even Digibeta decks will play BetaSP. Of course Digibeta looks better, but for most people BetaSP looks "good enough"; I just toured the National Geographic Society's archives, and all their programming except the very recent shows are on BetaSP masters.

 

The most important aspect to Betacam SP, when using the PVW BetaCam SP decks, is to CHECK YOUR TRACKING SIGNAL on the VU meter. If you don't perfectly align the tracking, you can lose several generations in one transfer. Fortunately, most of the time the tracking will be idealized at the 12:00 position, most of the time, but not all of the time. While I will record on a UVW Betacam SP machine, I don't trust them for playback because the tracking is not monitorable (is that a word?) it's automatic, and the UVW playback spec is slightly lower than the PVW models. If one has to use a UVW deck instead of a PVW deck, use either the component or YC output. AVOID the composite out video signal.

 

It is possible that the more grain there is swirling around on the film frame, the more likely mini-dv would fall apart before either Betacam SP or Digital Betacam would, in that instance, Santo is right on. But this means that lower ASA stocks such as Plus X AND Kodachrome would actually be very mini-dv friendly, much more so than Tri-X or Ektachrome 64, and a 10 bit transfer should pick up more of the Kodachrome contrast that is usually only visible when Kodachrome is projected.

 

I hope Kodak is able to bring out a low ASA negative Super-8 stock, as it would allay any possible grain issues when transferred to mini-dv. I would say that 200 T probably is fined grained enough to not be an issue when transferred to mini-dv, but a less grainy Super-8 film comparable to Kodachrome is still needed as a Kodachrome replacement in the near future.

[Mike Crane]

I, myself would like to see direct comparison of hard drive (SDI direct), DVcam (SDI direct), Beta SP (component direct) and MiniDV (component direct) done at the SAME transfer facility at the SAME time. If possible, alter settings to see the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit as well. This would be a true test to form help form opinions once and for all!

 

My honest opinion is that DVCAM with proper signal input could produce results nearly as good as uncompressed hard drive or Digi Beta for much less money (and, saving the money is why we shoot super 8 in the first place). Since most MINIDV decks now play back DVCAM, DVCAM seems to be the most reasonable and affordable compromise. Plus, hauling around (or, shipping) an expensive and clumsy hard drive that may easily become damaged gives me a very uneasy feeling.

 

DVCAM is a solid format and what I use all the time for professional 16 and 35mm as well as super 8. My results using this method have been phenomenal - even when I compare it directly with a Digi Beta master.

[Guest santo]

Well, Mike, this sounds like a test project for you to drop some money into. Please get back to us with your results. When you come back knowing what you're talking about from experience, frankly you'll be wasting a lot of time putting the real results up on super 8 forums if you decide to argue reality -- there's a hard core group of flakes who are only interested in arguing against it no matter how overwhelming the evidence you present or solid your deductions. BTW, miniDV and DVcam are the same thing, but DVcam is just on a larger, more robust tape. And a hard drive costs a tiny fraction of a DVcam deck. But you must realize this, don't you?

[steve hyde]

I am in agreement with the skeptics, but keep in mind the fact that a direct to hard drive SDI does not have to come at an added expense.

 

A simul record at Cinelab in Boston via BetaSP, DVCAM and direct to SDI is the hourly plus tape. The only extra cost is sending the hard drive back to Boston.

 

I will have DVCAM and SDI uncompressed files to compare sometime in the next couple weeks.

 

Steve

[Guest santo]

I am in agreement with the skeptics, but keep in mind the fact that a direct to hard drive SDI does not have to come at an added expense.

 

A simul record at Cinelab in Boston via BetaSP, DVCAM and direct to SDI is the hourly plus tape. The only extra cost is sending the hard drive back to Boston.

 

I will have DVCAM and SDI uncompressed files to compare sometime in the next couple weeks.

 

Steve

 

Good. Please post undoctored frames for all to see. And make sure the hard drive is a real 10 bit transfer using the Blackmagic codec.

[steve hyde]

Well, Mike, this sounds like a test project for you to drop some money into. Please get back to us with your results. BTW, miniDV and DVcam are the same thing, but DVcam is just on a larger, more robust tape.

 

I think the difference is the structure of the tape itself. DVCAM has metal qualities that make it more robust. (I'm not a tape expert) The DVCAM tapes I use are cased in mini-dv shells therefore the tape is the same size.

 

Keep in mind HDcam tapes are now cased in mini-dv shells too. Running time on these little bugs is about a dollar a minute.

 

Steve

[Alessandro Machi]

BTW, miniDV and DVcam are the same thing, but DVcam is just on a larger, more robust tape..... But you must realize this, don't you?

 

DV-CAM tape moves at a faster rate than mini-dv, thereby spreading out the data over more physical space and thereby making the tapes theoretically less susceptible to drop outs, Actual quality should be identical otherwise.

[Guest santo]

The codec is the same. The image quality is the same. The tape is more robust. The tape (as in physical tape cassette) is larger.

[steve hyde]

The codec is the same. The image quality is the same. The tape is more robust. The tape (as in physical tape cassette) is larger.

 

 

It can be larger. It can be smaller. It depends on which size DVCAM shell you buy.

 

Steve

[Mike Crane]

Hey Santo,

 

If I had to ship a DVCAM deck out in order to do a transfer I would agree with you about comparing the expense and risk issues with a hard drive. However, since I only send a $15.00 tape with my film, and, because the tape can take far more shock damage, I would say that you are making an unfair comparison. DVCAM is far safer, cheaper and more stable to use if travel or shipping is involved. And, most of the cheap MINIDV decks will play back DVCAM now, making it more convenient and cost effective than ever.

 

Speaking from experience, I have compared digi beta master directly against dvcam siml with no significant difference. I think it is still too expensive, risky and troublesome dealing with hard drives for what would make little or no difference to the super 8 format.

 

Remember, the idea is to keep super 8 affordable at the highest possible quality - within reason. For those who shoot fast and need cheap and convenient methods to get film in and out of a computer, DVCAM, BetaSP and MiniDV is still the way to go.

[timHealy]

Personally I think getting transfers to harddrives is a great way to go especially for budget minded no budget filmmakers. I am just starting to look into this myself, but it would seem to make sense that one could get a transfer to a hardrive, take it home and hook it up to you system and delete a digibeta or better tape, remove the necessity of renting or buying a digibeta deck, and a breakout card.

 

Like I said I am just starting to look into this, but I am optimistic and looking forward to trying it out.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

best

 

Tim

[Mike Crane]

Personally I think getting transfers to harddrives is a great way to go especially for budget minded no budget filmmakers. I am just starting to look into this myself, but it would seem to make sense that one could get a transfer to a hardrive, take it home and hook it up to you system and delete a digibeta or better tape, remove the necessity of renting or buying a digibeta deck, and a breakout card.

 

Like I said I am just starting to look into this, but I am optimistic and looking forward to trying it out.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

best

 

Tim

 

Hey Tim,

 

I agree! It is good to see another transfer option available. I have hopes for it becoming easier/safer to use and less expensive in time. At the moment, however, you should compare the rate of 10 bit hard drive transfer against MiniDV, DVCam and BataSP rates. I think you will find that hard drive transfer is anything but for the "budget minded". Remember, a consumer MiniDV deck (or camera) that plays back DVCam can be bought very cheaply these days. From that point forward all you need is inexpensive tapes to send back and forth.

 

In addition, you must still rent or buy hard drives to ship back and forth. What happens if the shipper drops your box and the data is not retrievable off the drive? Do we have to pay for yet another transfer to hard drive? And, will we need to replace the portable hard drive on top of that? What will this do to people who have serious deadlines with money involved?

 

I also think we still need to see a valid comparison to see the true difference between the formats all done at the same place and time with the best input methods possible. I still have doubts as to what significant differences there will be between them. Especially where super 8 is concerned.

 

Nope! I'm still gonna stick with tape for now. Keeping it safe and cheap is what its all about!

[timHealy]

Hey Mike I have a few thoughts.

 

First I am saying this without having done it yet so bear with me..

 

But perhaps it would make sense at the time of the transfer to transfer to hardrive and make a backup tape to whatever high quality format one is working with. I would imagine that there would be a way to easily do that.

 

I can't think of anyone who would want to do a transfer again if something happened to your hardrive. If a back up tape was made I assume one could make a dub from a tape to hardrive later if needed.

 

However, I am feeling that the rewards could outweigh the risks. Sure someone could drop a hardrive or a hardrive may fail, but in reality how often does this really happen? It is kind of like working on sets: Someone could drop a $10,000 lens but how often does it really happen? Hardly ever. But you don't want not to use one just because it could be dropped.

 

There would be an extra expense of hardrives but as we all know, storage like RAM gets cheaper all the time.

 

But being a small time filmmaker for my personal projects (and a lighting guy on big time professional projects) if I had the chance to do a transfer of one of my 16mm or S8 films to HD or SD on a hardrive where I could bring it home and plug it into my system at home without the purchase or rental expense of digibeta equipment it think it is worth a shot.

 

Right now I get my footage transferred to digibeta and get a DVcam or mini DV dub (I am using a Sony DSR-11) and I am tired of seeing artifacts being added to my work after color correction and other digital effects added. And even though everything is digital, I am seeing too much compression and artifacts through the DVD process too. (That is another hardware issue as I am using FCP and DVD Studio Pro which uses software compression which just isn't as good as hardware compression for DVD files)

 

So basically I would just love to take a shot at this to see if there is improvement during every step.

I too would like to see such a comparison if anyone with access to all the various formats does one. At this time I do not have that sort of access.

 

Best

 

Tim

Edited February 4, 2006 by heel_e

[steve hyde]

...apparently the important point I made a few posts back was missed.

 

The SDI direct to hard drive at CineLab does not cost extra. This is what makes it so appealing. They send their hard drive along with your tapes at no added charge. If you don't send the hard drive back they charge your credit card for it. Simul records to BetaSP and DVCAM are done at the cost of tape stock if you ask for them.

 

Other post houses charge extra for the SDI to hard drive. CineLab told me they do not.

 

Steve