Jump to content

Could a Television Show like "Lost" benefit from Super-8?


Alessandro Machi

Recommended Posts

For my first feature I am planning to use a blend of footage taken from Regular16 (cropped to 1.78:1) and Super-Duper8, as you have described. As someone else has suggested I also beleive that Super8 better blends with 16mm than with 35mm.

 

Also for artistic reasons I am interested in blending different formats. For example using Super8 for flashback-scenes. I have also thought about using a DV-format for POV-shots for that more "realistic look" of the eye compared to the magical character of emulsion.

 

But all this reasoning on my behalf comes not from a professional experience but from an amature striving for professionalism. But at the same time it strikes me how well Super8 looks today compared from my first recollections of homemade movies in the 70's. When using the same stock in different footage, as Ektachrome 100D (as I am planning) in both 16 and Super8 (from Wittner), the difference should become less.

Edited by Tomas Stacewicz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me liken this to still photography: I am shooting a wedding today. I just got a great deal on some Mamiya RB 67s, since everyone in Cleveland is dumping film photography(cheap customers = cheap photographers). They shoot an image that is approximately 6x7 cm, or 42 cm^2. Now, in order to eliminate any possibility of mishap due to lost or damaged film, I shoot backup with a 6x6cm; I used to shoot a 35mm for backup, now it is just for candids and dance pictures that are unlikely to be enlarged past a 5x7, MAYBE an 8x10. When shooting with the 35, it was far MORE difficult because I had to shoot on slower film, I had to make sure the full frame was being used because you cannot crop into it much at all; grain is already evident with 400 film in 35mm at an 8x10. Beyond 8x10 there's really no way of hiding it. Essentially though, shooting with a 110 or a minox would be equivalent to what you're proposing a multi-million dollar television show do. If I were in charge of cinematography on this show, I would NOT recommend an AMATEUR format to a director. They have 35mm cameras that are very light now, I forget exactly but I want to say 15 lb loaded? Or why not recommend shooting some 50D with an A-minima? You can shoot a 4x bigger Super 16 area, have no cartridge weave or instability, more bang for your buck, as Super 8 film and processing is far more expensive proportional to actual film area, and an aura of professionalism, since an A-Minima contributes more to a professional shooting environment than a plastic Super 8 camera.

 

"Hey, that cartridge of Super-8 you shot had a jam" or "Hey, the lab says you had jitter on that cartridge of Super-8 you shot" doesn't cut it for a show like "Lost".

 

~Karl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Also for artistic reasons I am interested in blending different formats. For example using Super8 for flashback-scenes. I have also thought about using a DV-format for POV-shots for that more "realistic look" of the eye compared to the magical character of emulsion.

 

 

............it strikes me how well Super8 looks today compared from my first recollections of homemade movies in the 70's. When using the same stock in different footage, as Ektachrome 100D (as I am planning) in both 16 and Super8 (from Wittner), the difference should become less.

 

Flashback scenes. Gosh, do they ever use those on Lost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Or why not recommend shooting some 50D with an A-minima?

 

And you can use modern lenses, modern accessories like a video tap, a modulus 3000 and a bartech.

 

Flashback scenes. Gosh, do they ever use those on Lost?

 

They typically shoot flashback scenes clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And you can use modern lenses, modern accessories like a video tap, a modulus 3000 and a bartech.

They typically shoot flashback scenes clean.

 

And you know that's not typical and could explain why the show cannot keep up with the demands of being a weekly show and instead falls behind and pisses off it's fans with endless recap shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you know that's not typical and could explain why the show cannot keep up with the demands of being a weekly show and instead falls behind and pisses off it's fans with endless recap shows.

 

I think you should call the 'Lost' producers and help them. You should tell them that filming some of the scenes in 8mm would help them save lots of money and time. You should tell them that, in your opinion, they're not shooting it correctly - which is why they're having a problem keeping fans happy and "keep[ing] up with demands of being a weekly show". :rolleyes:

 

They'll probably thank you and immediately change.

Edited by Dan Stone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting super 8 made sense when only standard definition digital cameras were available but now that cheap progressive scan high definition camcorders are available for $1500 why would anyone want to go back to super 8 ? My cheap HD camcorder also has excellent film like color reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite apart from the smaller image size, the registration isn't so good on Super 8 compared to 35mm. It's great for a distinctive look, but not for match cutting with 35mm.

 

I suspect there are other problems involved in delays producing enough "Lost" episodes than the 35mm cameras. there's a whole chain of stuff before film of any gauge runs through a camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think you should call the 'Lost' producers and help them. You should tell them that filming some of the scenes in 8mm would help them save lots of money and time. You should tell them that, in your opinion, they're not shooting it correctly - which is why they're having a problem keeping fans happy and "keep[ing] up with demands of being a weekly show". :rolleyes:

 

They'll probably thank you and immediately change.

 

 

Another dumbass statement that has nothing to do with anything I've posted.

 

Shooting super 8 made sense when only standard definition digital cameras were available but now that cheap progressive scan high definition camcorders are available for $1500 why would anyone want to go back to super 8 ? My cheap HD camcorder also has excellent film like color reproduction.

 

They use compression schemes that don't match well with "real HD".

 

Any type of film can be transferred to HD. The film stock between the 35mm and the Super-8 would be identical, for starters.

 

Quite apart from the smaller image size, the registration isn't so good on Super 8 compared to 35mm. It's great for a distinctive look, but not for match cutting with 35mm.

 

I gave my list of the type of shots that could be used for Super-8, match cutting, as in cutting back and forth between people in a room, was never mentioned by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Many people who shoot in video still want it to look like film, yet now when the subject is reversed, it's all about how HD camcorders have replaced Super-8 film, just like mini-dv did, and Hi-8, and 8mm video already have.

 

Kind of interesting how each new video format seems to keep replacing the SAME existing super-8 film format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High Definition 720p cameras that shoot at 30 frames per second use some of the cleanest compression known to mankind. I have shot out a side of a car window and even then the compression engine did not breakdown. I have about 19 megabits per second bandwidth which is enough to shoot 720p at 60 frames per second. What you are thinking about is that most people buy 1080i consumer grade high definition video cameras. First of all 1080i is not progressive scanning and second of all it is very easy for 1080i to overload the compression engine. The 720p high definition format not only surpasses super 8 but it can easily rival 16mm film and does not look to bad when blown up to 35mm film out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
High Definition 720p cameras that shoot at 30 frames per second use some of the cleanest compression known to mankind. I have shot out a side of a car window and even then the compression engine did not breakdown. I have about 19 megabits per second bandwidth which is enough to shoot 720p at 60 frames per second. What you are thinking about is that most people buy 1080i consumer grade high definition video cameras. First of all 1080i is not progressive scanning and second of all it is very easy for 1080i to overload the compression engine. The 720p high definition format not only surpasses super 8 but it can easily rival 16mm film and does not look to bad when blown up to 35mm film out.

 

 

Are you talking about your 1,500 hundred camcorder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
High Definition 720p cameras that shoot at 30 frames per second use some of the cleanest compression known to mankind.

 

The term cleanest compression is a very confusing term. Compression can look like there is no noise in the picture simply by throwing out lots of information. The cleanest compression would actually be, no compression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Name one show that does or has used Super-8 that wasn't using it for a "70's" or "Super-8" look. Maybe you'll surprise me....

 

But the irony is that sometimes shows do use Super-8 and are DISAPPOINTED when it looks better than they expected, and they scrap it's use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 720p high definition format not only surpasses super 8 but it can easily rival 16mm film and does not look to bad when blown up to 35mm film out.

 

Everything you say about HD is right until you get to 16mm. In my opinion, from evaluation on HD, 1080i & p look as good as, perhaps slightly better due to being grainless than 16mm (except of course when 1080i pixelates, which is quite often), 720p as good as 16? No way. It's probably comparable to standard 16 with a crop to 16x9.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
In my opinion, from evaluation on HD, 1080i & p look as good as, perhaps slightly better due to being grainless than 16mm (except of course when 1080i pixelates, which is quite often), 720p as good as 16? No way. It's probably comparable to standard 16 with a crop to 16x9.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

 

 

The consumer HD DOES NOT electronically intercut with the real HD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONT'

 

For example, if I was looking for a look like in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (which suprisingly was shot on 35mm but looks like 16mm from the 70's), of that black and white Fassbinder look from the 60's and early 70's I probably would choose a black and white stock of Super8 instead of degrading good 35mm, or using a vintage looking 16mm stock like FOMAPAN.

 

But that's me. The bottom line is that the professional use of Super8 shouldn't be overlooked, especially with the Super-Duper8 format around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
But the irony is that sometimes shows do use Super-8 and are DISAPPOINTED when it looks better than they expected, and they scrap it's use.

So your avoidance of the question naturally makes me assume that you can't cite one example. What would be REALLY funny is if you could find an example of a time when someone (besides yourself) thought Super-8 looked better than 35mm. That would be amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So your avoidance of the question naturally makes me assume that you can't cite one example.

 

Every week a major ad agency or television show uses Super-8 specifically for a look that that is either retro or grainy. If these same people have no desire to see Super-8 look as good as it can look and actually scorn footage whenever it mistakenly comes back cleaner than expected the deck has already been stacked.

 

DP's however have used Super-8 stocks to do low cost film stock tests for upcoming films. Spectra Film & Video is actually modifying Canon-814XLS and 1014-XLS cameras for steadicam use by basically making them as light as possible. I think they've got the weight down to under 4 pounds.

 

It seems to me if a DP will experiment with a Super-8 film stock version of a 35mm stock that an enterprising steadicam operator could experiment as well.

 

Edit note (following comment added a day later): Use of the word "avoidance" could also be applied to anyone who has access to an indoor or outdoor set, operates a steadicam, and hasn't experimented with a Super-8 camera when a no risk opportunity arose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...