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

[K Borowski]

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.

 

Citations? Examples?

[Alessandro Machi]

Citations? Examples?

 

The Dodgers commercials a year or two ago used Super-8 extensively, but it was used in the common way, made to look home movish even though much better quality could have been achieved.

 

The New Bob Dylan music video starring Scarlet Johannsen, also made to look retro.

 

A national commercial not yet out so I won't name it, but it uses super-8 in a retro way as well.

Cold Case has used Super-8, but once again, in a retro way.

[Douglas Hunter]

My production company works on two TV shows that use super 8.

 

Scariest Places on Earth: you can guess how they use the super 8 footage on this one, but it is very effective so no complaints.

 

Home for the Holidays: I just took a look at the Telecine of this footage last week, the aesthetics was all about pumping up the grain / crusing the blacks so that it will provide a contrast to the rest of the show which is being shot on 24p and 30p (panasonic sdx900)

[K Borowski]

These examples merely show that Super 8's professional potential is limited to producing a retro look or for heightened grain. Sorry, but even 7201 isn't grainless in HD. How is S8 going to cut it then? Also, who shoots 50D as the primary stock on a TV show? I'd say the only time it can be practically used are on outdoor shoots. You aren't going to get anyone to consider using 50D on a soundstage. Then there are the classic issues of jitter, bad processing, and the cost is proportionally much higher considering it is 1/4 the size of 16mm. I believe David Mullen mentioned a certain TV show or movie that shot 16mm with a S8 area extracted just to avoid all these problems. Don't get me wrong, I start my first footage with DR8 and DS8 cameras; they're great for teaching essentials to film students, but they don't cut it in the real, professional world. Super 8 is like a campy movie. Some people like the camp. Others. . .

[Douglas Hunter]

These examples merely show that Super 8's professional potential is limited to producing a retro look or for heightened grain.

 

 

No, these examples show that super 8 is effective for doing those thing, but the examples do not suggest that Super 8's potential is strictly limited to these uses.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate for Super 8 as a "profesional medium" but, its "professional potential" (to use your phrase) is greater than that, and its artistic potential is significantly greater than that. But of course, one needs to have vision and know the tools really well. Both rare (IMHO) these days in the world of super 8 (as well as the larger world of film and TV).

[K Borowski]

No, these examples show that super 8 is effective for doing those thing, but the examples do not suggest that Super 8's potential is strictly limited to these uses.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate for Super 8 as a "profesional medium" but, its "professional potential" (to use your phrase) is greater than that, and its artistic potential is significantly greater than that. But of course, one needs to have vision and know the tools really well. Both rare (IMHO) these days in the world of super 8 (as well as the larger world of film and TV).

 

Douglas, I agree that Super 8 has more potential than it is used for in the examples you and Alex give, but it does NOT have potential as a substitute for 35mm or even 16mm, especially when it comes to HD origination.

 

Regards,

 

~KArl

[Douglas Hunter]

Douglas, I agree that Super 8 has more potential than it is used for in the examples you and Alex give, but it does NOT have potential as a substitute for 35mm or even 16mm, especially when it comes to HD origination.

 

Regards,

 

~KArl

 

 

Who exactly do you think is claiming that super 8 should be shot as a substitute for 35 or 16 or HD?

[K Borowski]

Who exactly do you think is claiming that super 8 should be shot as a substitute for 35 or 16 or HD?

 

The author of this thread is arguing that you could use Super8 for selected shots in a 35mm-originated show. I'd say that qualifies as substitution, no?

[Douglas Hunter]

The author of this thread is arguing that you could use Super8 for selected shots in a 35mm-originated show. I'd say that qualifies as substitution, no?

 

you are either being disingenuous or you misunderstand the OP.

[Anthony Schilling]

I do agree that S8 has more potential, because it has a look that is "cooler" than 16 and 35mm. High resolve films like 100D and V2 50D have more of a look, or punch you a lot harder than 16 or 35mm. Grain is not much of a factor with these stocks even in S8, especially to Joe Blow crapping in the fresh water supply between sitting on his couch watching this stuff. But we live in a boring boring safe world that does not want to risk 1 penny that might rob someones 4th baby of a drop of milk.

[Alessandro Machi]

These examples merely show that Super 8's professional potential is limited to producing a retro look or for heightened grain.

 

I disagree with the word "limited".

 

My OTHER point was when the super-8 footage looks too good, the super-8 footage is scrapped. So the pattern has been set, use the Super-8 for an OPPOSITE look, but a film look nonetheless, but don't bother shooting Super-8 to make it look as good as it can because that is what the other formats are for. HOWEVER, in the context of using the Super?8 camera as a fast option to grab shots that WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRABBED due to scheduling and budgetary issues, a show like Lost could benefit. I also concur that there is a definite chance the super-8 footage won't automatically intercut, but I do think it's possible in the right circumstances and shooting choices.

 

When S-VHS Ikegami 3-chip camcorders came out in the early 90's the format was touted as being similar in quality to betacam sp, but S-VHS was not. However, I was at an associates editing facility once when he showed me some footage he took with his Ikegami of a Disney Event. I think he was doing behind the scenes work. I think shoot was of a live show performed at Disneyworld, and the outdoors daytime show was lit up with HMI's, lot's of HMI's. The S-VHS footage he shot behind the scenes was an example of some of the best S-VHS that I have ever seen and would have fooled many industry people into thinking it was betacam sp, primarly because the lighting bill was probably more than the entire budget of a low budget movie. The type of scenes that would allow Super-8 to look it's best are never actually filmed in Super-8 because once the investment in lighting is that high, only the top end film cameras will be used.

 

Also, who shoots 50D as the primary stock on a TV show? I'd say the only time it can be practically used are on outdoor shoots. You aren't going to get anyone to consider using 50D on a soundstage.

 

Which is why I suggested "Lost", which meets the criteria you describe.

 

No, these examples show that super 8 is effective for doing those thing, but the examples do not suggest that Super 8's potential is strictly limited to these uses.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate for Super 8 as a "profesional medium" but, its "professional potential" (to use your phrase) is greater than that, and its artistic potential is significantly greater than that. But of course, one needs to have vision and know the tools really well. Both rare (IMHO) these days in the world of super 8 (as well as the larger world of film and TV).

 

 

These are excellent points and you said it better and faster than I did.

[Sam Wells]

High resolve films like 100D and V2 50D have more of a look, or punch you a lot harder than 16 or 35mm. .

 

But 100D & V2 50D are 16 & 35mm stocks also, how can S8 "punch you harder" ?

 

-Sam

[Anthony Schilling]

But 100D & V2 50D are 16 & 35mm stocks also, how can S8 "punch you harder" ?

 

-Sam

The frame size gives more of a feel, or emotional impact... combined with these newer stocks you have the performance, more DOF of mucho sharpness and all the qualities of film making 3 dimensional candy on the screen. 16mm still has a good aeshtetic but 35mm bores me... it's always played too neutral or too glammed out. I'd like to see more 16mm on the big screen and more S8 on the small screen.

[David Mullen ASC]

The frame size gives more of a feel, or emotional impact... combined with these newer stocks you have the performance, more DOF of mucho sharpness and all the qualities of film making 3 dimensional candy on the screen. 16mm still has a good aeshtetic but 35mm bores me... it's always played too neutral or too glammed out. I'd like to see more 16mm on the big screen and more S8 on the small screen.

 

35mm would create more "three-dimensional candy" and "mucho sharpness" than a smaller format. The lower-rez the format it, the more two-dimensional the image looks because it lacks fine details to create the illusion that the frame is a window onto reality, rather than a two-dimensional surface. And the more grain there is in the image, the more you become aware of that surface.

 

As for "emotional impact" that's a subjective quality.

 

You're trying to argue opposite things when you say you like Ektachrome 100D because it's sharper and punchier and finer-grained but that you prefer Super-8 over 35mm, even though it's softer, more two-dimensional, and grainier. It's certainly fine to say that you prefer the look of Super-8, but not because of technical reasons like enhanced sharpness or dimensionality.

[Alessandro Machi]

16mm still has a good aeshtetic but 35mm bores me... it's always played too neutral or too glammed out. I'd like to see more 16mm on the big screen and more S8 on the small screen.

 

35mm would create more "three-dimensional candy" and "mucho sharpness" than a smaller format. The lower-rez the format it, the more two-dimensional the image looks because it lacks fine details to create the illusion that the frame is a window onto reality, rather than a two-dimensional surface. And the more grain there is in the image, the more you become aware of that surface.

 

As for "emotional impact" that's a subjective quality.

 

You're trying to argue opposite things when you say you like Ektachrome 100D because it's sharper and punchier and finer-grained but that you prefer Super-8 over 35mm, even though it's softer, more two-dimensional, and grainier. It's certainly fine to say that you prefer the look of Super-8, but not because of technical reasons like enhanced sharpness or dimensionality.

 

 

I'll take a guess here at what perhaps Anthony was talking about. 35mm allows the director more "safety" via wider shots. We may end up primarily seeing the actor in a medium shot or wider because 35mm has so much resolution and because of this the actor is reduced to being seen primarily in medium shots or wider and they begin to blend into the background. Just a guess.

[Anthony Schilling]

I agree that it's softer than 35 or 16mm, there's no denying that... but it's still very sharp... and the added DOF of the scene is more so than the larger guages, so the "mucho sharpness" comes in comparison to what falls out of focus within a scene on the larger guages... In small areas though, not big wide angle mountain shots. The point on this thread, being that the new stocks in S8 have a potential to give a look or feel that is different than 35mm in a good way... at least on the small sceen. There is more grain and less sharpness on a technical level... The technical shortcomings of S8 compared to 16 & 35mm apparent when looking frame by frame in front of a moniter, but the average viewer isn't going to notice grain with the newer stocks on a TV, just feel more texture and aesthetic.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'll take a guess here at what perhaps Anthony was talking about. 35mm allows the director more "safety" via wider shots. We may end up primarily seeing the actor in a medium shot or wider because 35mm has so much resolution and because of this the actor is reduced to being seen primarily in medium shots or wider and they begin to blend into the background. Just a guess.

 

Actors would blend more into the background with lower-rez formats with higher depth of field such as Super-8 or DV. With a subject with more detail against a more out-of-focus background as happens with 35mm more often than Super-8, they would stand-out, "pop", more, not less. Creating three-dimensionality is always harder with lower-rez formats, grainier formats, and formats with more depth of field.

 

It's one of the reasons why even in 35mm, anamorphic photography looks more "dimensional" than Super-35 photography, because of the increase in fine-detail, decrease in graininess, and decrease in depth of field with anamorphic generally. With formats with less resolution, more grain and more depth of field, you have to work harder to create dimensionality and make a subject pop from the background. This is true when using 16mm instead of 35mm, and it's even more true when using Super-8. And conversely, it's one reason why formats like 16mm and Super-8 can seem more "painterly" because instead of create a three-dimensional effect with a lot of clarity where the subject stands out, you have the veil of grain & softness to create a two-dimensional graphic effect where you become aware of the surface texture of the format.

[Alessandro Machi]

The key word in my previous post was the word "wider". 35mm can afford to be shot wider because it has more resolution whereas if someone were shooting a similar type of shot they stay in a closer mode. This could be construed as 35mm promotes wider shooting whereas Super-8 may induce a filmmaker to shoot it in a closer mode.

 

However, Negative Super-8 appears to work as a wide shot as well.

 

In the Super-8 500T wide shots that I just got transfered to video at Spectra I definitely see a "sharpness" even in the wider shots and I also see an acceptable amount of grain versus the golf ball size grain that in the past has disaffectionately been uses to describe the old 160 Ektachrome G.

 

So sharp and edgy is an intriguing way to describe the 500T Super-8 and perhaps the 200T Super-8 as well.

[Alessandro Machi]

The author of this thread is arguing that you could use Super8 for selected shots in a 35mm-originated show. I'd say that qualifies as substitution, no?

 

What I'm arguing is that shows like Lost, that are shot outdoors and on location, cannot shoot a show a week and therefore they run the risk of losing their loyal audiences who are getting sick of the recap shows that are used whenever new shows are not ready.

 

It's not robbing anyone on the 35mm side nor would the Super-8 be replacing 35mm because the 35mm is always being shot. I'm not advocating stopping the 35mm camera just to get a shot in Super-8.

 

If at the end of the day several shots are not even attempted but perhaps they could have been "stolen" in Super-8 without interrupting the shooting flow of the 35mm shooting schedule, it might be a cool way to give the show an "edge" and more material to work with without increasing the production day.

 

Intercutting the footage is an entirely different issue and would require thought.

 

Writing scenarios could be used that actually would allow the Super-8 footage to either be intercut (chase scenes, POV, obstructed POV scenes etc.) or simply be used in other ways. I'm tempted to actually record a Lost show off the air at the highest quality possible and see if I could intercut Super-8.

[David Mullen ASC]

If at the end of the day several shots are not even attempted but perhaps they could have been "stolen" in Super-8 without interrupting the shooting flow of the 35mm shooting schedule, it might be a cool way to give the show an "edge" and more material to work with without increasing the production day.

 

You could make the same argument for 24P Mini-DV consumer video, or 24P HDV.

 

But shots in narrative shows can rarely be "stolen" when other cameras aren't running -- they require actors going thru the action of the scene while the crew stops work, since once the 35mm cameras are cut, everyone floods in to set-up the next shot.

 

So what you are describing can only happen either as an extra camera rolling during the take or a 2nd Unit scenario, and in either case, a production shooting in 35mm would most likely want that extra camera to come close to the quality of the other cameras, hence why Super-16 is probably the lowest quality you can get away with, unless you want an abrupt change in look for those shots, which is another issue altogether. A show with the budget for shooting in 35mm is not going to think of using Super-8 except for an unusual look (for example, the sort of heavily-processed shots in "CSI" when they show a flashback to the murder or an imagined version of the murder).

 

For example, on the TV series I'm shooting, "Big Love", we carry three 35mm cameras, one dedicated to Steadicam, and we will sometimes rent an additional fourth camera for days where it may be useful. But I can't imagine a scenario where a Super-8 camera would be useful for anything we do on the series. And you haven't been very clear as to what sorts of shots you are talking about where a Super-8 camera would be useful for "Lost".

 

These are union shows, remember, which means every camera gets an operator and camera assistant, even if is Super-8, so trying to save money when running an extra camera and crew by switching to a Super-8 camera instead of another 35mm one doesn't make a lot of sense. I've been on union shows where I had a little Arri-2C on the side, but rarely used it because I'd need another camera crew to run it at the same time as the other cameras, so having a little camera in itself is not always useful.

 

Plus you'd could only run a typical Super8 camera while the other cameras are rolling when it is an MOS scene, plus you'd have to deal with the fact that many Super-8 cameras don't have crystal-sync motors to deal with HMI lighting in the scene.

 

That leaves basically being able to run a Super-8 camera while other cameras are shooting only for MOS scenes without HMI lighting (unless you get a blimped crystal-sync camera) and only for shots that don't have to match the surrounding footage, and only for daylight exterior situations where you could use slow-speed Super-8 stock -- a fairly rare scenario on a TV show unless they routinely use alternative processes and formats, like for "CSI" or "Cold Case", in which case certainly one could use Super-8 -- "Cold Case" already uses Mini-DV for certain flashbacks, so why not Super-8 too? I don't watch "Lost" but if they do a similar thing, sure, they could use Super-8 for creative reasons.

 

You have to understand, though, that TV shows are fairly conservative technically. I've even had to get permission on a studio feature to use 35mm Fuji instead of Kodak and was told that I could only do it for creative reasons, not to try and save the studio money. They are much more paranoid about some bit of footage being usuable because of an unreliable process or format than they are about saving a few bucks. So if you proposed Super-8 to some big TV show shooting in 35mm, the FIRST question you will get from the producers and studios is if you could fake the Super-8 look with the 35mm cameras.

 

And another thing is that if saving money was a priority for a TV series, it would make MUCH more sense to switch all the cameras to Super-16 and add one or two more rather than use a Super-8 camera alongside 35mm cameras in order to get one more camera rolling on scenes. Certainly if I were producing a TV series and getting more cameras on the show were a priority, I'd opt for more Super-16 cameras overall rather than a mix of 35mm cameras and Super-8 cameras.

 

Finally, you are assuming that a show like "Lost" feels that they aren't running enough cameras every day on the show. In most cases, I don't want to run more than two cameras at a time on a scene. Maybe they are happy with the amount and the quality of coverage they are getting.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Last monday I was lucky enough to see an exhibitors preview (occasionaly I do some freelance work for an independent cinema) of an excellent new documentry feature 'Deep Water' about the disastorous and tragic 1968 solo round the world yacht race.

 

It intercut original HD, computer graphics, new super 8 with archive 35mm, regular 16mm, super 8 and TV video through a digital internegative, viewed on a 35mm print.

 

It was astonishing how vastly different each format was from each other - the super 8, regular 16 and 35mm all seemed totaly distinguishable from each other.

 

The super 8, as good as it was had grain the size of pebbles, and though the 16mm was somewhat better it was regular 16 cropped so it was still signifiantly grainy.

 

The real revelation was the 35mm footage depsite being almost 40 years old really gave the HD footage a real run for its money - looking sharper but without that slight 'hard video look' the HD had and always seems to possess.

 

Anyway its a really well made film about a very unusual and interesting story, so worth seeing when its released - but its also a perfect example to see numerous formats, demonstrated in one film.

[Tomas Stacewicz]

So, its obvious that the Super8 format is more sutible for guerilla filmmaking.

[Brad Grimmett]

you are either being disingenuous or you misunderstand the OP.

He's not being disingenuous and he's not misunderstanding, because that is exactly what the original poster was saying. He wants to replace some shots that would have been done with 35mm with Super-8. In my opinion this idea shows a lack of understanding of the business, and besides that it's pointless. And of top of everything, everyone knows that Super-8 doesn't look like 35mm and won't cut with it. I still don't understand why people think Super-8 is just as good as 16mm and 35mm. It's just silly.

 

My OTHER point was when the super-8 footage looks too good, the super-8 footage is scrapped.

You keep saying this....but you've yet to cite an example, and I think it's because there is no example. Who would "scrap" footage that looked good just because it was Super-8? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of conspiracy?

[Brad Grimmett]

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.

Why would I want to experiment with Super-8 on Steadicam? First of all, the cameras aren't heavy enough for my rig. Second, what's the point? I could add some weight to my rig and shoot Super-8.....but in terms of operating it would be exactly the same as 35mm or 16mm. Why do I need to experiment? What can I learn?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your added comments. I've shot Super-8. I've even mixed Super-8 with DVCAM for a distinct and different look for flashback scenes. I don't know what kind of experimenting you want me to do..... And I'm not sure what you mean by "a no risk opportunity". The whole point of your original post was that you think you can replace 35mm with Super-8 for some shots on Lost. I wouldn't consider that "no risk".

 

Are you trying to say that I'm avoiding Super-8? I don't have to avoid it because very few people ever consider using it in a professional atmosphere. The reasons for this are very clear. If it was so great people would be using it all the time. Are you just saying these things to start an argument? I'm sure you realize that what you're saying doesn't make sense. Don't you?

[Alessandro Machi]

He's not being disingenuous and he's not misunderstanding, because that is exactly what the original poster was saying. He wants to replace some shots that would have been done with 35mm with Super-8. In my opinion this idea shows a lack of understanding of the business, and besides that it's pointless. And of top of everything, everyone knows that Super-8 doesn't look like 35mm and won't cut with it. I still don't understand why people think Super-8 is just as good as 16mm and 35mm. It's just silly.

 

While I couldn't find any articles about Lost (Lost being such a common word doesn't help) being behind schedule, I did find SEVERAL fan sites of LOST that complain about the overabundance of reruns and recap Lost shows. As I already stated, the idea wasn't to replace any 35mm shots, but to add in additional shots, and I've already described those kind of shots SEVERAL TIMES.

 

You keep saying this....but you've yet to cite an example, and I think it's because there is no example. Who would "scrap" footage that looked good just because it was Super-8? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of conspiracy?

 

Not at all. If I shoot 35mm, and it looks spectacular, and I've also shot Super-8, and it looks way better than I thought, I'd be disappointed because I won't get the format contrasts that I was looking for.

 

Check out some of Spectra's super-8 transfers. I saw super-8 transfer footage from the Trivial Pursuit Totally 80's commerical that Spectra transfered that was shot in both 35mm and Super-8. The super-8 was shot with 200T and looked really good, too good to cut in with the 35mm as a "contrasting" cut. Spectra has other samples of high end super-8 transfers they have done that look really really good. Just call them up and tell them you are in the industry and would like to see their best super-8 transfers, they'll find time for you I'm sure.

 

 

Why would I want to experiment with Super-8 on Steadicam? First of all, the cameras aren't heavy enough for my rig. Second, what's the point? I could add some weight to my rig and shoot Super-8.....but in terms of operating it would be exactly the same as 35mm or 16mm. Why do I need to experiment? What can I learn?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your added comments. I've shot Super-8. I've even mixed Super-8 with DVCAM for a distinct and different look for flashback scenes. I don't know what kind of experimenting you want me to do..... And I'm not sure what you mean by "a no risk opportunity". The whole point of your original post was that you think you can replace 35mm with Super-8 for some shots on Lost. I wouldn't consider that "no risk".

 

Are you trying to say that I'm avoiding Super-8? I don't have to avoid it because very few people ever consider using it in a professional atmosphere. The reasons for this are very clear. If it was so great people would be using it all the time. Are you just saying these things to start an argument? I'm sure you realize that what you're saying doesn't make sense. Don't you?

 

Why would you want to experiment with Super-8 on your existing steadicam? Because if you like the results, you can easily design or find a MUCH LIGHTER rig for occasions when a much lighter rig could be helpful. Some 35mm steadicams with camera and film weigh near a hundred pounds, no?

 

There's not one scenario you could imagine where a 20 pound steadicam rig would be exactly what was needed?