Why I miss Santo.

[John Adolfi]

His insults were calcluated,direct and distastful to many who have felt his blunt weapons against one's ego.

However the reason for his existence on this forum was to challenge us. Many of you who have taken the plunge to 16mm know that in order to complete that step it includes heavier equipment. More expense. Cartridges which once popped in and out of super-8 cameras are now larger, more difficult to change out the film and less ease of changing film mid stream. Heavy suitcases placed on pack mules. I'm beginning to see many advantages to shooting super 8 I did not before as I too dreamed of switching to 16mm.

 

However I'm with Santo, whoever said super8 had to look like well super 8. If that is what you want it to look like then fine. However with the latest Kokak negative stocks, Leicina steady transportation, prime lenses, 10 bit uncompressed digital transferes to a harddrive. It makes my hand quiver thinking about my next project. I believe that taking super 8 to the limit of its capabalities should be embraced along by every filmmaker along with making super 8 look like what we normally associate super8 with, textured. If Santo was alittle more kinder and tactfull I believe he would continue challenging us to a higher standard. I'll end here with no regrets or embarassment: "I want my super 8 to look like 16mm period!" Now if I can just scrape up the dough to buy that Leicina, and what about those ultraprimes and I'll need a 500mb hardrive too.

[Alessandro Machi]

I assume the banning happened when Santo added the J-zoom name he invented along with the definition and a picture as part of his signature.

 

I've noticed a lot more spamming seems to have coincided with his departure but that could just be a coincidence.

[jacob thomas]

Yes while santo was an abrasive character he did have something to contribute to this forum (and the filmshooting forum too) it is a shame he didn't stick around.

 

On the other hand his quest for the "ultimate" in super 8 was imho a little misguided, and he did not seem to grasp the concept of diminishing returns. Squeezing every little bit of quality out of the Super 8 frame seems like a lot of work when compared with just moving up to 16mm with all the benefits of the larger format & work flow and none of the weaknesses of Super 8.

 

That said people do forget how good Super 8 can look.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

His argumentative style was that of constant "devils advocate". That is the way of children....

 

He knew his stuff, to be sure, however his ego got the best of him. Ego should ride shotgun to pride, not the other way around,IMHO. (does that make any sense at all? Hmmm.... :lol: )

 

I'd also like to remind everyone that he left of his own accord. Again, he couldn't swallow enough pride to admit that certain things he did on this forum "offended" people, or was just downright sociably unexcusable. I for one was not offended by the japanazoom crack, it was his ardent view that it was not racially biased. Of course it was, but that doens't mean he is wrong. What makes him wrong is the fact he didn't acknowledge others feelings toward it on an open forum.

 

As far as I know (not much) he is welcome to relist as long as he follows the same rules everyone else does...

Heck, I'd probably learn a whole lot more regarding super8. I know I would.

 

The ball has always been in his court...

Edited August 29, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

[Anthony Schilling]

I always found his comments hilarious, and I own many Cannons too. But back to S8... not to mention compactability, if I want all the features for creativity packed between my Canon 814XLS and Nizo 481 macro in super16, it would cost me over 100K in cameras and still not have it all. come on 7201 and 7285!

[Guest shutter bug]

people are too easily offended. its like anything you read, avoid the crap and read the good parts. he was a bit wrong on a few things, and even those were indirect.

 

super8 is not to 16mm as was 16mm was to 35mm in the pre super16 days. i think people need to realize that before they go on about small camera size, the 'old' look, all of this would have fit 16mm in comparison to 35mm

 

do what you can for the info,avoid the crap and tell the bastard to come back

[Alessandro Machi]

people are too easily offended. its like anything you read, avoid the crap and read the good parts. he was a bit wrong on a few things, and even those were indirect.

 

super8 is not to 16mm as was 16mm was to 35mm in the pre super16 days. i think people need to realize that before they go on about small camera size, the 'old' look, all of this would have fit 16mm in comparison to 35mm

 

do what you can for the info,avoid the crap and tell the bastard to come back

 

 

If this forum/website does not want to be associated with the word J____zoom, then why MUST Santo keep bringing it up? He can bring it up on his own website if he likes, but why force that word down the throat of someone else who thinks IT IS a racist term. In case you missed it, Santo added a picture of a J____zoom camera to his signature along with the word and the definition of the word.

 

I'm pretty sure Santo had already been warned a few months earlier when he brought the J word up several times and the best defense he could muster, which was basically really dumb, was that it existed on google search therefore it was a legitimate word. What was so crazy was the only links Google could find were on this forum with Santo involved. So Santo was using his previous use of the word to justify that the word existed.

 

And he seemed sincere in that line of reasoning because it wasn't funny.

[John Adolfi]

I can tell nothing has changed in the thinking of some in regards of the potential of Super-8. If you had 300 horsepower and were ready to race and discovered 25 more horse with the difficult manuver under the dash would you find the switch and flick it? Why then do we continue to insist on less thinking it's more. For me I'm egar to try some of Santos ideas. My pride is placed in the dust and I'm open to all of you to learn. teach me how to improve super 8 and I'll listen. Insist it's still inferior to 16mm and will always look like it has and I'll listen but it will be out the other ear. With all the available equip and advances in film and digital technology why wouldn't we want to experiment with the idea of making it look like 16mm? Is it too much effort to use a heavier tripod, use negative film, try a Cinegon lens, have it transfered 10 bit to your new portable harddrive.

Man when I try this and the results are good don't you think if moving to 16 I'll be using the same work flow.

PS: \Does Santo have his own website? Where? I want to contact him.

[Charles Doran]

I hardly ever post here (mainly on filmshooting.com where he caused more disruptions) but I gotta say one thing -- if Santo's filmmaking skills were on par with his claims, he would be a genius and not have to bother anyone on these forums.

 

He submitted a short film to me a couple of years ago to this screening I was putting on in Echo Park. I can't recall the name of the film but I still have it. Something about the niece of the devil being killed and the Devil seeking revenge. It was so bad I couldn't put it in the screening. An unholy mix of mini-DV and Super-8. Completely incoherent trash, badly shot, poorly lit and horribly acted. A disaster. Maybe he's improved since then, who knows?

[Andrew Means]

I hardly ever post here (mainly on filmshooting.com where he caused more disruptions) but I gotta say one thing -- if Santo's filmmaking skills were on par with his claims, he would be a genius and not have to bother anyone on these forums.

 

He submitted a short film to me a couple of years ago to this screening I was putting on in Echo Park. I can't recall the name of the film but I still have it. Something about the niece of the devil being killed and the Devil seeking revenge. It was so bad I couldn't put it in the screening. An unholy mix of mini-DV and Super-8. Completely incoherent trash, badly shot, poorly lit and horribly acted. A disaster. Maybe he's improved since then, who knows?

 

Yeah- as a rather recent participant of the board I never had a chance to see anything Santo did save for a screenshot that "proved" that his super8 results were far superior (and maybe that was on filmshooting?), but anytime somebody talks big game without showing his work (and Santo talked his game pretty big), I'm always pretty skeptical. Santo would have a lot more cred (and I'd cut his wide-load ego more slack) if he put his work where his mouth was.

[Stuart McCammon]

PS: \Does Santo have his own website? Where? I want to contact him.

 

If Santo posted now he would have to use his real name, which means all the people he ever pissed off would be able to track him down and do a Santo on him :D

[Douglas Hunter]

I don't think anyone needs to miss Santo. He was abrasive and does not know any more about technology and super 8 than your average guy who works in post. He is right that a telecine to digibeta is going to be better than a telecine to DV but its kind of funny how he posted that information as if it was some kind of news flash.

 

His big problem (and he was not alone in this) was that he made the mistake of attempting to reduced the entire world of film aesthetics to a limited set of technical issues.

Remember a while back he said K40 was crap and it was "wisely killed by Kodak" The problem with this is he is taking his own aesthetic sensibilities as some kind of technical truth. K40 was no better or worse than any other stock out there. It has its unique technical and aesthetic characteristics that filmmakers had to balance against their individual needs. In addition the comparison of super 8 to 16 does not make a lot of sense, they are different formats with different characteristics I think if someone finds themselves obsessing about Super 8 looking like 16 they are in denial.

 

I shoot super 8 on a Beaulieu 5008 and I telecine to digibeta but I've never confused any of my super 8 footage with the 16mm that I've shot on an SRIII and telecined to digibeta or HD. They look completely different, they are supposed to look different!

 

Folks like santo should spend less time worrying about technology and more time learning to make films worthy of the investment of time and money that any film requires.

 

Sorry to thread jack you but I love shooting super 8 for the aesthetics of the medium, I always thought that Santo was trying to deny the inherent beauty of this medium to make it something that it is not.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Douglas Hunter

[Rachel Oliver]

I don't think anyone needs to miss Santo. He was abrasive and does not know any more about technology and super 8 than your average guy who works in post. He is right that a telecine to digibeta is going to be better than a telecine to DV but its kind of funny how he posted that information as if it was some kind of news flash.

 

His big problem (and he was not alone in this) was that he made the mistake of attempting to reduced the entire world of film aesthetics to a limited set of technical issues.

Remember a while back he said K40 was crap and it was "wisely killed by Kodak" The problem with this is he is taking his own aesthetic sensibilities as some kind of technical truth. K40 was no better or worse than any other stock out there. It has its unique technical and aesthetic characteristics that filmmakers had to balance against their individual needs. In addition the comparison of super 8 to 16 does not make a lot of sense, they are different formats with different characteristics I think if someone finds themselves obsessing about Super 8 looking like 16 they are in denial.

 

I shoot super 8 on a Beaulieu 5008 and I telecine to digibeta but I've never confused any of my super 8 footage with the 16mm that I've shot on an SRIII and telecined to digibeta or HD. They look completely different, they are supposed to look different!

 

Folks like santo should spend less time worrying about technology and more time learning to make films worthy of the investment of time and money that any film requires.

 

Sorry to thread jack you but I love shooting super 8 for the aesthetics of the medium, I always thought that Santo was trying to deny the inherent beauty of this medium to make it something that it is not.

 

Hi;

 

I totally agree, I've been using S16 and S8 for some years now and I choose the medium that best suits the emotion of a moment. I think folks who desperately try to convince us (themselves) that S8 is some how equal to 16 are totally missing the point. I now shoot much of my S8 as Santo does, with a Leicina and good glass and the same telecine work flow I use for S16, but I do this to insure that the inherent charm and personality of S8 is fully realized, not to make it look just like 16, infact I'd hate that. Well shot and transfered S8 holds a place all of it's own, fully formed and emotive.

 

Olly

[Robert Hughes]

Yes while santo was an abrasive character he did have something to contribute to this forum

Yeah, that Mussolini was a tyrant, but he got the trains to run on time... :D

[Douglas Hunter]

I now shoot much of my S8 as Santo does, with a Leicina and good glass and the same telecine work flow I use for S16, but I do this to insure that the inherent charm and personality of S8 is fully realized, not to make it look just like 16, infact I'd hate that. Well shot and transfered S8 holds a place all of it's own, fully formed and emotive.

 

 

Very well put, four stars! :)

[Guest paulhanssen]

Hi;

 

I totally agree, I've been using S16 and S8 for some years now and I choose the medium that best suits the emotion of a moment. I think folks who desperately try to convince us (themselves) that S8 is some how equal to 16 are totally missing the point. I now shoot much of my S8 as Santo does, with a Leicina and good glass and the same telecine work flow I use for S16, but I do this to insure that the inherent charm and personality of S8 is fully realized, not to make it look just like 16, infact I'd hate that. Well shot and transfered S8 holds a place all of it's own, fully formed and emotive.

 

Olly

 

 

The point is that for many people super 8 is "the poor mans'' 16mm. Apparantly you have the choice. Many of us don't. I think for that reason some people can't wait for the finest grain in super 8 which the 16mm shooters probably will avoid when choosing super 8mm. So, for that reason, making super 8 look like 16mm, at least as much as possible, is not a terrible ambition. It's not that I don't see your point or disagree with it completely, but Santo has a point for quite a few people as well. By the way, do you shoot s16, when you want to shoot 70mm and make it look like 70mm or do you just shoot 70 mm, when it suits the emotion of the moment best?

 

Best regards

 

Paul

Edited August 29, 2006 by paulhanssen

[Andy_Alderslade]

The point is that for many people super 8 is "the poor mans'' 16mm. Apparantly you have the choice. Many of us don't. I think for that reason some people can't wait for the finest grain in super 8 which the 16mm shooters probably will avoid when choosing super 8mm. So, for that reason, making super 8 look like 16mm, at least as much as possible, is not a terrible ambition. It's not that I don't see your point or disagree with it completely, but Santo has a point for quite a few people as well. By the way, do you shoot s16, when you want to shoot 70mm and make it look like 70mm or do you just shoot 70 mm, when it suits the emotion of the moment best?

 

Best regards

 

Paul

 

If your careful and build up a good knowledge of suppliers and affodable labs and facilities, 16mm can only be fractionally more expensive (even fractionally cheaper if your in the UK). The images from a well kept K3 can certanly surpas the images produced by a top super 8 camera and often a K3 is a fraction of the cost of a top super 8 camera.

 

Its a different world from a few years back when super 8 really was the economy format. When David Mullen talks about his experiences of trying to get the best possible quality, that must have been the case. Now you can shoot miniDV for virtually nothing, and all the amateurs who want to start making films naturally choose that format. And its actually a very good format and with a homemade mini-35, cafefull lighting and colour correction in post miniDV can look excellent.

 

So personally I shoot super 8 for a different look and for learning how to shoot film better. The camera is easy to cary and I can project it at home, so get to experience work as I shot it.

 

Super 8 is very different from Super16, 35mm or even 65mm. Super 8 will usually always look like super 8 where the larger formats overlap considerably. If you watch The O.C. and Smallville which one is shot on super 16 and which on 35mm? If you watch Sex and the City and The West Wing can you tell which is shot on which without prior knowledge or without staring at the screen. Could anyone tell which bits in The New World were shot on 35mm and which bits were on 65mm? Many of you probably can but you often need to search for these things rather than it pops out at you.

 

Super 8 tends to pop out at you - as I say there's nothing quite like it.

[Douglas Hunter]

By the way, do you shoot s16, when you want to shoot 70mm and make it look like 70mm or do you just shoot 70 mm, when it suits the emotion of the moment best?

 

You are teasing us, but your teasing does miss the point. Folks like Rachel (if you don't mind me speaking for you) and I just don't think in those terms at all. People like us are driven by well defined and specific aesthetic goals. If my aesthetics would best be fulfilled by 70mm then I would find a way to shoot 70mm. I for one am not afraid to go out and seek money for a project I believe in if I can't afford to do it on my own dime.

 

35mm is not the poor mans 70mm; 16 is not the poor mans 35; super 8 is not the poor mans 16. Many people think that way but its pretty unfortunate that they do. In many cases (perhaps not yours Paul) its a sign that the folks in question have no aesthetic goals beyond making something that looks like what they see in the theater or on TV. Naturally, that's a professional goal and can't be thought of as a well defined and personal aesthetic. Those folks will never be satisfied with 8mm, because they will always be fighting against what super 8 is best at.

[Alessandro Machi]

I hear two distinct points being made, that 16mm can be as cheap as super-8, and that super-8 really can't look like 16mm.

 

Actually, there is a way to make super-8 look like 16mm. Just commit to making the actors faces take up the same amount of image area on the super-8 frame that it takes up on 16mm. Not percentage wise, I'm talking about the same physical area.

 

Of course this will limit the variety of shots somewhat...

 

As for cost, the only way I see 16mm to be similarly priced to super-8 is if I own my own 16mm camera and can reload it on the spot, super fast, or, I am able to put a volunteer crew together from the industry. Otherwise the whole super-8 advantage is going to be that I can have five pre-loaded super-8 cameras ready to go (same model or otherwise), complete with "on the go" quick release tripod camera adapters that allow me to pop one super-8 camera off of a tripod, then pop another camera on the same tripod in like two seconds. Or simplify it even more and go with just one camera, no film loader needed.

 

If the project requires more than double system sound, meaning special film speeding effects, different lens combinations, no way the two formats are going to be evenly priced because even if one went bare bones on the 16mm project, odds are the set-ups will still take longer, unless there is a bigger crew to begin with.

If the project is basically a "talkie", the 16mm can begin to rival Super-8 in terms of set-up time, but not necessarily cost wise.

 

What some might call limitations when comparing 16mm to super-8, are also the very reasons why the odds are signficantly higher that each and every shot that is taken on 16mm has a decent probabilty of looking better than if shot with a super-8 camera.

[Rachel Oliver]

The point is that for many people super 8 is "the poor mans'' 16mm. Apparantly you have the choice. Many of us don't.

 

Hi;

 

Paul, there is always a choice....

 

regards;

 

Olly

[James Grahame]

If Santo was alittle more kinder and tactfull I believe he would continue challenging us to a higher standard.

I enjoyed Santo's 'direct to hard disk' article that appeared in smallformat. It was timely and challenged people to strive for the highest quality results from the technology. Unfortunately, his habit of lashing out personally at other board members cost him a great deal of respect and credibility.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Actually, there is a way to make super-8 look like 16mm. Just commit to making the actors faces take up the same amount of image area on the super-8 frame that it takes up on 16mm. Not percentage wise, I'm talking about the same physical area.

 

Of course this will limit the variety of shots somewhat...

 

You see there is the whole crux of the issue, varing the size of a person in the size of the frame in accordance to emotion and drama is probably the most affective and moving thing about filmmaking ever....

 

...and you wan't to deny this in pursuit of that ambiguous term 'quality,' when you could simply achieve that quality by shooting 16mm for roughly or slightly more money.

 

That is essentially a little like cutting of your legs to lose weight.

 

Shoot Super 8 because its great in its self, don't resrict your selves creatively because you believe a little format can be greater than it is.

[John Adolfi]

Shoot Super 8 because its great in its self, don't resrict your selves creatively because you believe a little format can be greater than it is.

 

 

What you may consider restricting is dueling noted. On the other hand one could regard this "restriction" to allow a different look to super-8. A paradigm shift is all we are talking about here. Many see it as useless. However if someone wants to create a grainy 16mm look I don't see why they shoul'nt be able to without going to super 8 to create it. And likewise if the latest in technology can make super 8 look like 1970's 16mm, then why not?

[Rachel Oliver]

What you may consider restricting is dueling noted. On the other hand one could regard this "restriction" to allow a different look to super-8. A paradigm shift is all we are talking about here. Many see it as useless. However if someone wants to create a grainy 16mm look I don't see why they shoul'nt be able to without going to super 8 to create it. And likewise if the latest in technology can make super 8 look like 1970's 16mm, then why not?

 

Hi;

 

I agree that well shot and transfered S8 can sometimes bare resemblance to the 16mm of decades past, but this is different to some one feeling they simply can't shoot modern 16mm and have to slavishly try to make S8 "live up to it," it wont, it can't! But it can still look like an amazing and professional gauge with perhaps more of an origional and powerful effect on the viewer, especially as modern 16mm gets more and more grainless and sharp, almost "electronic". I'm not trying to be subversive to what you and others are saying, infact I think we all agree at least that S8mm has more potential than ever right now, just that perhaps the constant comparisons to the larger gauges actually does the small format a bit of an injustice. Anyhow I think I've said enough aye, better get back to viewing my Tri-X rushes :)

 

Regards;

 

Olly

[Alessandro Machi]

You see there is the whole crux of the issue, varing the size of a person in the size of the frame in accordance to emotion and drama is probably the most affective and moving thing about filmmaking ever....

 

...and you wan't to deny this in pursuit of that ambiguous term 'quality,' when you could simply achieve that quality by shooting 16mm for roughly or slightly more money.

 

That is essentially a little like cutting of your legs to lose weight.

 

Shoot Super 8 because its great in its self, don't resrict your selves creatively because you believe a little format can be greater than it is.

 

 

Compromises are made all the time on every production ever made. What I find flawed in what you are saying is you are discounting the power of audio and how when blended with the picture it many times makes the sloppiest or poorly framed shots, work.

 

The compromise you speak of is more about the kind of film you make. I wouldn't make a car chase film on super-8, (but I would make a people chase film), nor would I make a film that requires explosions or very expensive locations, sets, or wardrobes. But a film like Clerks could work on Super-8, provided the dialogue was exceptionally recorded.

 

Blair Witch was a hit because of the sound.