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

[nathan coombs]

Someone raised the question of why shoot super-8 anymore?

 

I basically concur with the lo-fi approach that Steve advocates, of getting the most of the cheapest and lowest budget equipment.

 

As this thread proves it also possible that working in super-8 you can also be on the cutting edge with pioneering new processes and workflows. Because super-8 is so niche and its capacities so underestimated, shooting on the format is always a talking point and mark of differentiation for your work. In the clamor for HDV short filmmaking, shooting on 8mm will give you a drastically different aesthetic look.

[Guest santo]

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

 

Join the club.

[Guest santo]

I basically concur with the lo-fi approach that Steve advocates, of getting the most of the cheapest and lowest budget equipment.

 

Sorry, but you have to spend a little money to get something worthwhile. You own a serviced Beaulieu 6008, don't you? So you already understand that you have to spend a little and can not use the cheapest and lowest budget equipment to get worthwhile results. You don't have to spend a lot, but you have to buy top quality in the format and make sure it's in good working order. In super 8, top quality means thousands of dollars cheaper than 16mm.

 

As this thread proves it also possible that working in super-8 you can also be on the cutting edge with pioneering new processes and workflows. Because super-8 is so niche and its capacities so underestimated, shooting on the format is always a talking point and mark of differentiation for your work. In the clamor for HDV short filmmaking, shooting on 8mm will give you a drastically different aesthetic look.

 

Agreed about underestimated. That's being proven multiple times recently with a bunch of film festival honored super 8 shorts. We're soon going to see a lot more because now we can do things not possible before the past two years or so. It is inevitable.

 

HDV is an interesting development, but those people who think their "film" is going to look like STAR WARS or the (flat and flavourless looking) ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO are going to be really disappointed. The evil emperor Lucas and his personal Vader/lackey wannabe use $100,000 cameras with cine prime lenses, and they are not consumer HDV, they are real HD. Meanwhile, those that use super 8 and transfer it to a pro grade format like 10 bit uncompressed, digibeta, or real HD, will get results that look just like they do when they project the film (if they're using reversal, that is).

 

Drastically different aesthetic is right.

[Robert Hughes]

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

 

IIRC, the shell isn't the issue; linear bit density is. Just like VHS SP vrs EP mode; DVCAM tape travels faster through the transport, thereby allowing for wider consecutive tracks on the tape. MiniDV tries to squeeze as many bits onto less tape. Something's gotta give; I suppose its Block Error Rate.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[nathan coombs]

Sorry, but you have to spend a little money to get something worthwhile. You own a serviced Beaulieu 6008, don't you? So you already understand that you have to spend a little and can not use the cheapest and lowest budget equipment to get worthwhile results.

 

Yes but to me a 6008 Pro at Bbay prices (even including Bjorn's overhaul) is low budget compared to any quality super-16mm camera like an Aaton XTR or A-Minima.

 

In terms of image quality I don't know if the camera makes a huge difference, it was more the fully manual controls over everything that made the Beaulieu a must by to me. In any case almost all s8 cameras are dirt cheap compared to a DV or HD camera.

[steve hyde]

Yes but to me a 6008 Pro at Bbay prices (even including Bjorn's overhaul) is low budget compared to any quality super-16mm camera like an Aaton XTR or A-Minima.

 

In terms of image quality I don't know if the camera makes a huge difference, it was more the fully manual controls over everything that made the Beaulieu a must by to me. In any case almost all s8 cameras are dirt cheap compared to a DV or HD camera.

 

..This is how I see it too. A cheap kit might look like 3 Beaulieu 4008 camera bodies and a run of c-mount lenses at a cost of just a few thousand dollars and no insurance policy.

[Chris Cooke]

While we're on the topic of direct to hard drive, I find that it's a very viable option that I'll be looking into in the near future. I was wondering though about DVCPRO. I have used this format more than any other and think it's great. I have access to DVCPRO decks for free and I would like to transfer my super 8 film onto this format. Are there any labs that transfer to DVCPRO?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I imagine it'd be as hard to find as DVCAM.

 

But it doesn't offer any better pictures than miniDV.

 

Phil

[Chris Cooke]

But it doesn't offer any better pictures than miniDV.

Phil

 

So what you're trying to tell me is that if I shot a film with the SDX-900 and recorded it straight to miniDV, I'd get the same picture quality as if I recorded direct to DVCPRO? I don't think so. Try telling the engineer at my place of employment that. Drop-outs in miniDV are the major concern and then what about the bit rate. I record all of my DVC-PRO work onto 50Mbps. MiniDV doesn't have the capabilities of that. The differences are quite big actually.

I've done quite an extensive search and can't seem to find a DVCPRO telecine.

[David Mullen ASC]

So what you're trying to tell me is that if I shot a film with the SDX-900 and recorded it straight to miniDV, I'd get the same picture quality as if I recorded direct to DVCPRO?

 

You're talking about DVCPRO50. DVCPRO (aka DVCPRO25) uses the same codec as DVCAM and Mini-DV, so picture quality is the same, the only difference may be the "robustness" of the recording and resistance to dropouts.

 

It's confusing when people say "DVCPRO" when they mean specifically "DVCPRO50".

[Mike Crane]

You're talking about DVCPRO50. DVCPRO (aka DVCPRO25) uses the same codec as DVCAM and Mini-DV, so picture quality is the same, the only difference may be the "robustness" of the recording and resistance to dropouts.

 

It's confusing when people say "DVCPRO" when they mean specifically "DVCPRO50".

 

Hey David,

 

You seem to have been around the block a few times. What do you think of as an economical format to transfer to for most 16 and super 8 that still delivers solid, SD quality within the professional realm?

 

I think most of the people here are into low budget music videos, documentaries, privately funded features, and creative projects. I am sure most people would rather have some extra cash for more film, better equipment, talent, etc. instead of splitting hairs on costly video transfer with debatable micro differences that nobody will ever see in SD or HD viewed normally. What would be a reasonable video format without going into high-end overkill?

 

Is BetaSP, DVCAM and MiniDV now considered crap that must be avoided at all costs when doing SD transfer? Are all production companies that swear by BetaSP and DVCAM (I know of quite a few) for the majority of their 35 and 16 (which looks fantastic) for broadcast TV all insane?

 

I know there may be places that offer cheap 10 bit transfer to hard drive or Digi Beta. But, that still does not make them the best by a long shot. Talent and skill of the colorist and the equipment he uses makes the difference. Supervised sessions also make a difference. I know of a couple of places in LA that will still do a much better job on MiniDV than the transfer mills on the east coast offering 10 bit HD or Digi Beta.

 

For the record, I use DVCAM for most of my work. But, I would not stick my nose up to MiniDV or BetaSP either. All seem to be good formats offering ultrasharp picture for my 16mm (and super 8) at the place where I transfer.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most of what I shoot are features where there is a final transfer for making all home video masters. Before HD deliverables, that usually meant transferring to D1, but sometimes Digital Betacam.

 

Video dailies, on the other hand, were usually done to Beta-SP (I usually saw crappy VHS dubs). But this transfer was never meant to be used for the final master.

 

The few times I've ever shot film for transfer from neg to tape where that transfer was then to be edited and used as a broadcast master, I've only used Digital Betacam.

 

Nowadays, HD-D5 is commonly used for mastering for home video, with NTSC and PAL submasters downconverted from those.

 

I don't do much editing myself, just my reel, but I have a DVCAM deck for that.

 

Philosophically, I tend to believe that one should transfer to a fairly high-end format even if the final deliverable is a lesser format -- but that's not always cost effective.

 

It's funny that people consider Digital Betacam to be some unaffordable high-end format when I used to transfer features to D1 -- and Digital Betacam was considered the cheaper alternative that was "good enough" for TV broadcast work.

 

I'm not so much a fan of Beta-SP except as a shooting format (those older 2/3" CCD pro Beta-SP cameras aren't bad compared to a prosumer DV camera) -- I don't like using an analog tape format as the beginning of a post where the image will be duplicated. Even with cutting my reel at home, the dubs from Digital Betacams to DVCAM look much better than the dubs from Beta-SP to DVCAM.

 

I'm just a cinematographer, so the affordability of a tape format for cutting at home is usually not something I have to factor. Most of what I shoot is 35mm, cut on AVID's using video dailies -- and then the negative is cut, timed, and an IP is used for a final transfer. Or it's a feature shot in 24P HDCAM.

[Anthony Schilling]

I think most of the people here are into low budget music videos, documentaries, privately funded features, and creative projects. I am sure most people would rather have some extra cash for more film, better equipment, talent, etc. instead of splitting hairs on costly video transfer with debatable micro differences that nobody will ever see in SD or HD viewed normally. What would be a reasonable video format without going into high-end overkill?

That would pretty much sum up my catagory. untill now, my workflow has been miniDV dub from digibeta, NLE, to DVD. The direct to HD transfer rate would be just a drop in the bucket when all is said and done. I have yet to wittness it, but would assume the benifits of a 4:2:2 uncompressed would be quite noticable once it got to a DVD press.

[Alessandro Machi]

Even with cutting my reel at home, the dubs from Digital Betacams to DVCAM look much better than the dubs from Beta-SP to DVCAM.

 

I don't understand what two work flows you are comparing here.

 

 

Just as digital video and desktop editing have both hurt and helped the film market, HD will do the same to analog video. If you don't stretch the analog picture to fill the entire HD picture area, but instead transfer SD with borders on the left and right side of the screen, the image looks terrific.

 

I am concerned however that some HD sets do not give one the option of keeping the left/right border and instead stretch the analog image no matter what. I would recommend not buying an HD set that does not allow one to playback am analog image without stretching it.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't understand what two work flows you are comparing here.

Just as digital video and desktop editing have both hurt and helped the film market, HD will do the same to analog video. If you don't stretch the analog picture to fill the entire HD picture area, but instead transfer SD with borders on the left and right side of the screen, the image looks terrific.

 

I am concerned however that some HD sets do not give one the option of keeping the left/right border and instead stretch the analog image no matter what. I would recommend not buying an HD set that does not allow one to playback am analog image without stretching it.

 

I'm not talking about conversions to HD or 16x9 SD, just simple dubs to DVCAM from either Beta-SP or Digital Betacam masters for standard 4x3 NTSC viewing. Digital-to-digital dubs seem to look better, that's all.

[ken wood]

It all boils down to your hard drive speed. If you are going to conform your online material at home on your own system, you will need a RAID. SCSI or SATA II will do it. Here's the catch. SATA raid will set you back about 1500. I am not sure how long your pieces is or what sort of effects are in it, but 1500 is about a day at a really good post house using all their stuff; proper monitors and all kinds of tape decks for output. A SCSI raid will cost much much more. So, if you intend to do all your films this way from now on, then the SATA raid may be an option. If not, go to a post house to have it done. They have done this sort of thing many times. Good luck

 

 

SATA RAID is pretty cheap today. Depends upon what level of RAID you need. RAID 0 should be just fine if you do backups to some other media.

Adaptec sells a 2 port SATA controller available on web for about $55. And, 320GB SATA HDs are available for about $130.

 

(I've been lurking on this site trying to learn ins and outs of Super 8. I'm definetly a newbee)

ken wood

CA

[Alessandro Machi]

I'm not talking about conversions to HD or 16x9 SD, just simple dubs to DVCAM from either Beta-SP or Digital Betacam masters for standard 4x3 NTSC viewing. Digital-to-digital dubs seem to look better, that's all.

 

I guess it depends on what two video machines (aka decks) one can afford to own.

 

A digibeta deck costs 40 grand plus a few grand more for the betacam sp card. A player only can be had for significantly less, but it almost becomes crazy to have a player only when it comes to Digibeta. There now is a hybrid Betacam SX deck that is supposed to playback Betacam SX, SP and perhaps digibeta, I think the Betacam SX decks sell for somewhere around 10-15 grand.

 

While a Digibeta to DV-CAM dub, if done in serial digital mode, probably is the ideal way to go, it might be less expensive to go Betacam sp component or YC to DV-CAM for both in house or out of house dubbing. The primary reason to go this route is player only betacam sp decks can be bought on ebay relatively cheaply (for under $2,000), meaning one could have uncompressed high quality betacam sp masters AND be able to look at them as well.

 

When talking about betacam sp source material being dubbed to another format, one has to differentiate if it's a component, YC or composite dub, and if a UVW or PVW deck is being used. So there are a bunch of variables to consider. Using a PVW betacam sp machine as a source machine and going component or YC into a DV-CAM deck will yield a broadcast quality result, assuming the original material was broadcast quality as well, and probably be the cheapest way to go in terms of actually owning the equipment.

[Stuart McCammon]

I found a great article that doesn't have anything to do with Super 8, but does a nice job of exposing the price one pays for digital compression of any flavor:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...0ff2cad1ed0469e

 

Looks like it is Digibeta for this boy)

 

Stu

[Alessandro Machi]

I found a great article that doesn't have anything to do with Super 8, but does a nice job of exposing the price one pays for digital compression of any flavor:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...0ff2cad1ed0469e

 

Looks like it is Digibeta for this boy)

 

Stu

 

I can't get the link to work.

[Stuart McCammon]

Guess it would help if I posted the right link)

 

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/chrom...n_nattress.html

[Alessandro Machi]

PVW Betacam SP decks deliver a higher bandwidth than UVW Betacam Sp. I've been told that both specs are so high that it is irrelevant, but then someone does a test using the UVW rather than the PVW and is able to nit pit the signal. What I don't like about the U.V.W. is that there is no tracking knob for manually optimizing the video tracking.

 

The video tracking is supposed to be automatically done internally by the UVW machines, but it would have been cool if this test had included playback from a PVW betacam Sp with the tracking optimally set, I think the image would have been a tiny bit better.

 

And one more thing, if the tester had access to a digibeta machine, why not use the betacam sp output on that deck as well?

[Stuart McCammon]

PVW Betacam SP decks deliver a higher bandwidth than UVW Betacam Sp. I've been told that both specs are so high that it is irrelevant, but then someone does a test using the UVW rather than the PVW and is able to nit pit the signal. What I don't like about the U.V.W. is that there is no tracking knob for manually optimizing the video tracking.

 

The video tracking is supposed to be automatically done internally by the UVW machines, but it would have been cool if this test had included playback from a PVW betacam Sp with the tracking optimally set, I think the image would have been a tiny bit better.

 

And one more thing, if the tester had access to a digibeta machine, why not use the betacam sp output on that deck as well?

 

So Allesandro, did you happen to be a P.A. at Filmfair back in like 1984 by any chance?

[Alessandro Machi]

So Allesandro, did you happen to be a P.A. at Filmfair back in like 1984 by any chance?

 

It was 1985, The P.A positon was something that I actually won via the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Internship Program, and from what I was told, working there as a P.S. was highly coveted even by U.S.C. students.

 

Your last name looks familar.

[Stuart McCammon]

It was 1985, The P.A positon was something that I actually won via the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Internship Program, and from what I was told, working there as a P.S. was highly coveted even by U.S.C. students.

 

Your last name looks familar.

 

I am glad to see you still involved in film)

 

Stu McCammon

[Matt Wells]

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

 

I would have thought it was obvious.....

 

cost of equipment - you can buy a really good super8 camera for the cost of 1 day hire of an average S16 camera. Then there is the ancillary things that have to go with S16 cameras

 

Also - mabey the super8 look is what is desired?

 

Third - ease of set up, critical for low budget mabey one man operations. Add to this ease of loading.

 

Matt