Carl Looper Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Hi Roberto, It's good to see I'm not the only one pursuing the idea that there is something to be gained from scanning at much higher definitions than is normally available. Can you tell me what the source filmstock was. With my own rig I'm now multi-scanning frames to work around the limitations of a one chip camera (and it's single bayer filter which limits rez) - effectively making it an n-chip sensor. Do you scan films as a business and if so, send me a PM about it. The only reason I've been building a scanning rig is because I haven't found anyone to do it. My area is in software rather than hardware. cheers Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Pirodda Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Hello Carl the filmstock in these stills is Wittnerchrome 40 (Kodachrome). Unfortunately the last generation of Kodachrome was very grainy (coarse grain). Perhaps it may be the processing K14, because the old Kodachrome (k 12 ? ) that i scanned looks better. Yes it is my business but not only, main activity is production. Ofcourse i love film look and mostly my job is film oriented. Here you can see the clip from were the stills come http://www.vimeo.com/9084852 Regards Roberto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yes it is my business but not only, main activity is production. Hi Roberto - if you are interested I'd like to talk to you about the transfer of some film. Are you also able to do standard/regular 8mm as well? I have some film shot in the 1930s that need a 2K+ transfer. But am also shooting new material, Super8, later this year for which I had been originally building a rig (while scouting for those who might have already established a 2K+ set up). I've been developing software specifically for digitally processing scans, which I've been testing on a handful of frames that were scanned by hand (manually sliding film through a gate). The software computes the optical flow between frames (and not just immediately adjacent frames) in order to establish the flow field in which pixels can interact with each other towards extraction of the latent signal otherwise encrypted in the grain structure of film - to put in a techno-poetic way. :) Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Pirodda Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Hi Carl, your software sounds very interesting ! I am scanning all film material : Regular 8, Super8/Max8, 9.5mm, 16/Super16/Ultra16 and 35mm (4perf). If you are interested send me some short/demo reels, i will scan them gratis for you, so you will estimate the quality, then you will decide, OK? my mail : cinematica@hotmail.it Regards. Roberto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Hi Carl, your software sounds very interesting ! I am scanning all film material : Regular 8, Super8/Max8, 9.5mm, 16/Super16/Ultra16 and 35mm (4perf). If you are interested send me some short/demo reels, i will scan them gratis for you, so you will estimate the quality, then you will decide, OK? my mail : cinematica@hotmail.it Regards. Roberto Hi Roberto - thanks. will talk to you soon. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) It just isn't practical when you can shoot on digital. At 24fps you get 2.5 minutes of shooting. At 18fps you get 3 minutes. Has anybody here shot a feature on short ends? What were the headaches with that? Inventory, constantly loading and reloading the camera, keeping track of inventory. This is really distracting to an actor to reload in the middle of a scene. Someone mentioned the pressure plate, the resolution, no interchangeable lenses. Most cameras have auto iris. Even with a good camera you still have a lot of these problems. Instead of poo-pooing the idea of digital, you should embrace it and figure out how to make it look better. Super8 is simply an archaic format. The quality just isn't there and it's problematic. And then, what happens if it breaks on location? What's the fix? Edited March 19, 2011 by Tom Jensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) It just isn't practical when you can shoot on digital. At 24fps you get 2.5 minutes of shooting. At 18fps you get 3 minutes. Has anybody here shot a feature on short ends? What were the headaches with that? Inventory, constantly loading and reloading the camera, keeping track of inventory. This is really distracting to an actor to reload in the middle of a scene. Someone mentioned the pressure plate, the resolution, no interchangeable lenses. Most cameras have auto iris. Even with a good camera you still have a lot of these problems. Instead of poo-pooing the idea of digital, you should embrace it and figure out how to make it look better. Super8 is simply an archaic format. The quality just isn't there and it's problematic. And then, what happens if it breaks on location? What's the fix? The wheel is archaic technology. When I find a smooth stone, by the side of the river, I skip it across the river. It doesn't matter to me that the stone age ended thousands of years ago or that there might be objects that can skip across the river better than the stone. Art is not just in the image. Amongst many things it is also in the materials and the concepts. Consider the concept work done in the 70s, where stuff was buried under ground where nobody could see it. The art was in the concept, not in the image. Or painters whose work is expressed as much by the texture of the paint as the entire image. Actors? Who says a film has to have actors in it anyway? What happens when a digital camera breaks on location? In any case who is poo-pooing digital? Edited March 19, 2011 by Carl Looper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The wheel is archaic technology. When I find a smooth stone, by the side of the river, I skip it across the river. It doesn't matter to me that the stone age ended thousands of years ago or that there might be objects that can skip across the river better than the stone. Art is not just in the image. Amongst many things it is also in the materials and the concepts. Consider the concept work done in the 70s, where stuff was buried under ground where nobody could see it. The art was in the concept, not in the image. Or painters whose work is expressed as much by the texture of the paint as the entire image. Actors? Who says a film has to have actors in it anyway? What happens when a digital camera breaks on location? In any case who is poo-pooing digital? I should also add that I'm a great advocate of the digital domain - for thirty years now. The history of digital goes back thousands of years to the abacus, and before that, stones and bones arranged in the sand. So instead of poo-pooing "archaic" technology, embrace it for what it is: a form of knowledge handed down to us. A gift. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) The wheel is archaic technology. Yes it is, that's why we use alloy rims and steel belted, carbon re-enforced sidewall tires now and not rocks like on the Flintstones. Shoot whatever you want, Carl. If you want to shoot super8, have a ball. Edited March 20, 2011 by Tom Jensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Yes it is, that's why we use alloy rims and steel belted, carbon re-enforced sidewall tires now and not rocks like on the Flintstones. Shoot whatever you want, Carl. If you want to shoot super8, have a ball. My apologies. I didn't realize alloy rims, steel belted, carbon re-enforced sidewall tires were not wheels. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Well, I guess if Roger Deakins picked up a super 8 camera with all the bells and whistles and compared his footage with that of an untrained circus monkey shooting 35mm then yes, yes the super 8 footage will look as good, if not better than the 35mm. My question is why do it? There is no real advantage. I sum it up like this: If the big rental houses do it, then that is what the industry demands. The industry demands the best quality for the least amount of money. If there were an easier, better, cheaper, more efficient way, the rental houses would be doing it. Super 8 is all but dead and there are many reasons for that. You can argue this point until you're blue in the face but I don't think it is viable. Super 8 cameras aren't even pin registered and that doesn't help your cause.Even if you are going to the web I think there are better formats that are more economical. And Carl, most of the movies that I have seen do have actors. The ones that didn't weren't all that interesting.If a digital camera breaks down, they are easier to replace and more people fix them. As far as embracing super8 for "what it is: a form of knowledge handed down to us, a gift," I hope the sender of said gift kept the receipt so I can exchange it for something more practical. Something I could use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Frazer Noakes Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It just isn't practical when you can shoot on digital. At 24fps you get 2.5 minutes of shooting. At 18fps you get 3 minutes. Has anybody here shot a feature on short ends? What were the headaches with that? Inventory, constantly loading and reloading the camera, keeping track of inventory. This is really distracting to an actor to reload in the middle of a scene. Someone mentioned the pressure plate, the resolution, no interchangeable lenses. Most cameras have auto iris. Even with a good camera you still have a lot of these problems. Instead of poo-pooing the idea of digital, you should embrace it and figure out how to make it look better. Super8 is simply an archaic format. The quality just isn't there and it's problematic. And then, what happens if it breaks on location? What's the fix? I shoot super 8 because it has soul. Digital is souless. To hell with practicalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 My question is why do it? There is no real advantage. Hi Tom, Reasons for working in film vary from one filmmaker to another. In my case a film on which I'm working involves bringing some rolls of 8mm film, shot in the 1930s, to the big screen. Now I'm actually using digital cameras and custom digital signal processing algorithms to do that. The purpose is to restore a moment in time. It's a bit like CSI. A forensic activity. To recover something that was otherwise lost. Now it doesn't involve any actors so presumably you'll find it uninteresting. Fair enough. Another film on which I'm working does involve actors and shooting Super8. The Super8 will undergo the same process being done for the 1930s film. The purpose of the process is to obtain a result that is much better looking than the way Super8 might otherwise look when projected on a big screen. But it's a good question. Why shoot Super8? The first reason is easy. I just really really like the results of what I'm getting out of Super8. The signal is just so mesmerising. Now I've worked in video, 16mm, 35mm, CGI and digital - so it's not as if I don't know what I'm looking at. I do. What's so crazy for me is that it's Super8. But there in emerges the other reason - that it is Super8. If I shot it on digital, instead of Super8, then it wouldn't be Super8. There wouldn't be that crazy amazement. I guess it's an artistic-technical-historical thing. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Carl, What you are doing makes a little more sense than shooting an entire feature on Super 8 which is what I think some people on here might be considering. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place in the artistic realm of film making. It's hard to replicate the look and quality of Super 8. It does serve it's purpose. Good luck on your projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I shoot super 8 because it has soul. Digital is souless. To hell with practicalities. I'd say that's true for about 90% of all films made regardless of the format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Carl, What you are doing makes a little more sense than shooting an entire feature on Super 8 which is what I think some people on here might be considering. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place in the artistic realm of film making. It's hard to replicate the look and quality of Super 8. It does serve it's purpose. Good luck on your projects. thanks Tom. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Pirodda Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It just isn't practical when you can shoot on digital. At 24fps you get 2.5 minutes of shooting. At 18fps you get 3 minutes. Has anybody here shot a feature on short ends? What were the headaches with that? Inventory, constantly loading and reloading the camera, keeping track of inventory. This is really distracting to an actor to reload in the middle of a scene. Someone mentioned the pressure plate, the resolution, no interchangeable lenses. Most cameras have auto iris. Even with a good camera you still have a lot of these problems. Instead of poo-pooing the idea of digital, you should embrace it and figure out how to make it look better. Super8 is simply an archaic format. The quality just isn't there and it's problematic. And then, what happens if it breaks on location? What's the fix? Hi Tom We aren't speaking about praticality here, but to push S8 film format to the best possible. Ofcourse i mean to shoot with a professional double super8 cam, with interchangeable lenses, ten minutes (at 25 FpS), rocksteady frames and so on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What you are doing makes a little more sense than shooting an entire feature on Super 8 which is what I think some people on here might be considering. Hi Tom, I don't want to raise the heat again since we're in a conciliatory spirit now, but I do need to address this particular point. I think it is quite legitimate to shoot a feature film on Super8. But, yes, one needs to know the obstacles involved. However the traditional way in which film makers have learned their craft is not to jump head first into a feature film, but to work on short films first. That still remains the case today. But if not then I recommend it to everyone. Now especially in film one learns very quickly the obstacles involved. One learns to overcome those obstacles. Or one learns it's too hard - in which case digital might be the answer. Or doing something other than film making. Now most of those working in and discussing Super8 well understand the nature of the medium. They already know the obstacles involved. The question we should be asking of those working in film should not be the rhetorical why. A far more productive question would be how. Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now