Can Super 8 look as good as 35mm?

[Alessandro Machi]

In the real world, you run into issues like "am I better off with a slower, sharper stock if I end up underexposing it and shooting at a wide-open f-stop... compared to using a softer, faster stock but being able to slightly overexpose it and shoot at an optimal f-stop?"

 

It does seem odd that if one had the perfect amount of light for the 50 ASA film stock that it somehow is "less sharp" than 200 T. I could see that being the case if each stock had to be used in an identically bright environment and the higher f-stop 200T allowed for made it look sharper, but apparently that is not how the study is done.

[David Mullen ASC]

The difference in sharpness is not significant. I shot a feature with 5212, 5205, and 5218 -- I didn't notice that Vision-2 100T was significantly sharper than the other two. I think even back in the days of EXR stocks, '48 was on paper technically sharper than '45, but again, it was not a visible difference.

 

So many other real-world factors affect the perception of sharpness.

 

And again, graininess is also a factor. You may want to trade an improvement in grain for a tiny loss of sharpness. Maybe not, I don't know.

[Filip Plesha]

V2 200t resolves more detail in the red layer.

 

V2 200t is sharper both in low resolution contrast based on all observed layers on the chart and resolves higher than V2 50d in fine details in the red layer down to both 20% and 10% response levels. Case closed.

 

yea but you were talking about the green layer.

THe red layer is clearly defined to the limit of visibility on those charts, but red and green ones aren't.

Red layer has always been a kind of a junk layer, carrying less information than the other two.

 

But anyways, my point was that higher response at lower frequencies does not always guarantee that the curve will reach higher frequencies at the end.

Sharpness is not always tied to maximum resolving power.

 

Take DSLR images for example. If people followed that logic, they would conclude based on say 80% responce at frequencies close to the density of sensors that the resolution would reach higher resolutions. But what happens is that such an image has a sraight curve up until close to the resolution maximum, then falls down. That's what makes it sharper than film in most practical cases. Yet film, even though less sharp reaches much higher resolving power.

Same can happen with two different film stocks.

[Guest santo]

Take DSLR images for example. If people followed that logic, they would conclude based on say 80% responce at frequencies close to the density of sensors that the resolution would reach higher resolutions. But what happens is that such an image has a sraight curve up until close to the resolution maximum, then falls down. That's what makes it sharper than film in most practical cases. Yet film, even though less sharp reaches much higher resolving power.

Same can happen with two different film stocks.

 

What in the WORLD are you talking about and how is there any connection to this discussion? You make absolutely no sense and are in way over your head. You belong on another webboard more suited to your mentality. Might I suggest filmshooting/conspiracytheory/slotcars.com? Currently there is an in-depth discussion of the Kennedy assasination doctored film footage and ancient human skeletons being 12 feet tall. You'll fit in just great. http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/...=13382&start=30

[Tim Halloran]

You belong on another webboard more suited to your mentality.

 

Its nice to know that you're spending so much time over at filmshooting.com Santo--you should post more. Ohhhhh, but you can't, can you? YOU were banned over there right?

 

Not because someone was offended and paid off the adminstrators to keep you out, but because you continously offered up nothing but lame offensive swill. Kind of like what you do over here, huh?

 

See you over at filmshooting.com! Hack.

 

Tim

[Guest santo]

My attention was drawn back there by recent posts by the S8 Boobster on here. None of which made any sense, but made me realize I hadn't looked around the laughable filmshooting/conspiracytheory/slotcars.com for a month or two. In spite of a big new "posting rules" that the website admin had to post because of wackjobs like you, sure enough, there's another flakey thread right out of Coast To Coast AM. hahahhahahahahahahahaha

 

I'm proud not to post on that board any more. Now, back to your conspiracy theories and whatever. Off with you. You are also on the wrong board. We talk about filmmaking here, super 8 specifically, and at least a few people on here actually are filmmakers. Professional filmmakers who make their living at it -- imagine that!

[Filip Plesha]

What in the WORLD are you talking about and how is there any connection to this discussion? You make absolutely no sense and are in way over your head. You belong on another webboard more suited to your mentality. Might I suggest filmshooting/conspiracytheory/slotcars.com? Currently there is an in-depth discussion of the Kennedy assasination doctored film footage and ancient human skeletons being 12 feet tall. You'll fit in just great.

 

If you wan't to continue a serious discussion on MTF curves, then reread my posts, this time actually by reading it, and if you can't figure out what I ment, ask me what I ment.

If you don't then I really have no interest in this childish flaming

[Rick Palidwor]

You are never better off underexposing super 8. This is more a real world 16mm and 35mm issue than it is in this format.

 

This seems to be a fairly ridiculous statement. In what way is underexposing more of an issue with 16 or 35 but not super 8? Educate me. Also, the whole question of enderexposing depends on whether you are talking about reversal or negative. Slightly underexposing reversal is often not a bad thing, in ALL guages.

 

Rick

 

 

I'm proud not to post on that board any more. Now, back to your conspiracy theories and whatever. Off with you. You are also on the wrong board. We talk about filmmaking here, super 8 specifically, and at least a few people on here actually are filmmakers. Professional filmmakers who make their living at it -- imagine that!

 

For someone who is so quick to dismiss it, you actually seem to spend a lot of time glancing at that forum. Kind of like a kid looking into the window of a candy store they have been forbidden from entering. And when you say you are proud not to post there any more, is that as "Santo" or all the pseudonyms you have tried there?

 

Rick

[David Mullen ASC]

It's partly a matter of taste (look at Harris Savides and his use of underexposure) but I tend to feel that underexposure is a bad thing for color negative regardless of the film format, but of course, it's more disasterous if you are worried about graininess as the negatives get smaller and smaller. It's not like Super-8 negative behaves differently to light than 16mm or 35mm, only that any mistakes are magnified.

 

Or to put a positive spin on things, some slight overexposure is a good thing for color negative regardless of the format.

[Filip Plesha]

Ok, I'll try one more time, just in case you decide to read and think about it instead of engaging in auto-flame mode

 

Here is what I'm talking about

 

Here are two curves with different behaviour. The blue one would result in higher percieved sharpness, and the magenta one would result in higher resolving power.

 

Now, let's supose the black line is the limit of what Kodak charts for these two imaginary films.

 

Looking at the curves left of the limit line, you would probably conclude that the blue one has higher resolution (that's what you did with those two graphs you posted).

But like I said, you aren't seeing the entire graph so you don't know for sure.

You might be right in that conclusion, but like in this case, you might be wrong.

 

Is there something unclear about that?

[John Adolfi]

It's partly a matter of taste (look at Harris Savides and his use of underexposure) but I tend to feel that underexposure is a bad thing for color negative regardless of the film format, but of course, it's more disasterous if you are worried about graininess as the negatives get smaller and smaller. It's not like Super-8 negative behaves differently to light than 16mm or 35mm, only that any mistakes are magnified.

 

Or to put a positive spin on things, some slight overexposure is a good thing for color negative regardless of the format.

 

David, Educate us. When you say overexposing you mean letting more light in and thus darkening the final product? Is that what you mean and how your terms relate to how a negative works?

[Rick Palidwor]

David, Educate us. When you say overexposing you mean letting more light in and thus darkening the final product? Is that what you mean and how your terms relate to how a negative works?

 

I can't speak for David but here's my attempt to clarify the issue: Yes overexposing means letting more light in, resulting in a darker negative (not sure if I would call that the "product"). The "product" will actually be a lighter image, when printed or transferred, but it can easily be corrected at this stage. One benefit of a darker negative is that it is thicker (or "fatter" as they say) and is more durable. An underexposed negative would be very light and is very thin and more prone to damage.

 

The opposite is true with reversal film: underexposed results in a darker (and "fatter") camera original and overexposed reversal is light (and thin). Slightly underexposed reversal is preferable because it can be corrected slightly, whereas an overexposed reversal has lost most of it's detail and it's impossible to get it back. Of course, with reversal you are better to expose properly as it has less room for correction in printing or transfer. Hence, the challenge of shooting reversal.

 

Rick

[David Mullen ASC]

Overexposing a negative slightly and developing normally produces a final negative that is a little denser (darker) than normal, from which you can print a positive image (or reverse the negative image electronically in a telecine to a positive one) that can be corrected in timing to look normal instead of look overexposed.

 

This allows the slower, smaller grains inbetween the larger faster grains to get exposed and developed, filling in the gaps between the grains and creating a tighter grain structure that makes the image look less grainy. You also record a little more shadow detail.

 

In some older telecines, though, too much density in the negative means that the video signal has to be boosted, creating noise in the highlights. Noise looks like grain, but it's not the same thing.

[Milo Sekulovich]

I'm simply amazed that an absurd questiion like this warranted 3 pages of dialogues.

 

 

No offense to the veteran pro posters here.....

 

Milo Sekulovich

[John Adolfi]

Overexposing a negative slightly and developing normally produces a final negative that is a little denser (darker) than normal, from which you can print a positive image (or reverse the negative image electronically in a telecine to a positive one) that can be corrected in timing to look normal instead of look overexposed.

 

This allows the slower, smaller grains inbetween the larger faster grains to get exposed and developed, filling in the gaps between the grains and creating a tighter grain structure that makes the image look less grainy. You also record a little more shadow detail.

 

In some older telecines, though, too much density in the negative means that the video signal has to be boosted, creating noise in the highlights. Noise looks like grain, but it's not the same thing.

 

So are you saying that 100% of the time you professionally are overexposing your negative film?

[David Mullen ASC]

So are you saying that 100% of the time you professionally are overexposing your negative film?

 

Unless I make a mistake, or am underexposing then push-processing for a low-light shot, but otherwise, yes. It makes more of a difference if you are printing from the negative versus just transferring to video though.

 

But some DP's don't overexpose routinely, like Harris Savides, who prefers the look of a "thin" negative. But remember we're talking about 35mm here, which isn't as grainy as smaller formats. And I'm sure many just expose as rated by the manufacturer.

[John Adolfi]

It makes more of a difference if you are printing from the negative versus just transferring to video though.

 

 

Please explain the difference since I will be going direct to video/DVD

[Robert Hughes]

Modern telecine color correction has more flexibility than the printing machines have, such as gamma correction.

[John Pytlak RIP]

As David notes, Kodak's published Exposure Index (EI) for each film is a good starting point, but for color negative film, a bit of overexposure usually results in less graininess, richer blacks, and more shadow detail in the final print or transfer. The Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films have unexcelled overexposure latitude, but be careful not to grossly overexpose, which can produce a negative that is so dense that it requires a change in basic printer setup or excessively high gains (and more noise) in telecine transfer or scanning.

 

Underexposing color negative film will reduce the density of the blacks and reduce shadow detail. More of the larger grains are used, and they are more visible in the lighter shadow areas. But this may be the "look" you want, when you deliberately underexpose and get a "thin" negative.

 

More information on speed ratings:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5209.shtml

[Adam White]

Thanks for the last few posts on this. Really usefull facts to know.

[Guest Ian Marks]

I was wondering. Is it possible?

 

No.

[Carl Looper]

Yes.

 

Carl

[Tom Jensen]

I loved the super 8 in JFK and the Doors but it was for a particular look or effect. If you are attempting to shoot a feature on Super 8, it won't look as good as one shot on 35. I believe 35 was invented before all else. 16 and super 8 were consumer films for an emerging market as a matter of economy. 65 and 70 as well as Imax were implemented to get a higher resolution negative and a higher quality image. So to answer your original question and I believe you are asking it from a quality of image standpoint, the answer is no, super 8 will not look as good as 35.

[Alessandro Machi]

I never understood why some people would get so hostile if someone brought up a topic from four years ago. In this instance, nobody has been hostile, and that's what I consider to be a normal, civil process.

[Hal Smith]

I never understood why some people would get so hostile if someone brought up a topic from four years ago. In this instance, nobody has been hostile, and that's what I consider to be a normal, civil process.

 

100% agreed. The rebirth of an old topic generally means someone spent a little time and SEARCHED the Forum first before just blindly starting a new topic.

 

It was a bit spooky to not have looked at dates first and run across posts from John Pytlak. I still miss his posts on film topics.