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

Alessandro Machi · November 1, 2006

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. . .

As I previously stated, I recently saw super-8 200T shot for the television commercial Trivial Pursuit Totally 80's at Spectra Film & Video.

Two passes were done. The first pass looked really good, the grain was very very tight. The second transfer pass the same film sequence was grained up. The difference in looks between the two transfer passes of the same stock was huge.

At least look at some of the best stuff being shot on Super-8 before taking pedantic positions.

Thomas James · November 1, 2006

The television show Lost is broadcasted in high definition. To my knowledge the Super-8 format is not considered a high definition format so it would be unsuitable to use Super-8. Of course it can be argued that Super-8 can be digitally scanned at high definition resolutions however I still do not think that Super-8 can resolve the fine detail of high definition. It can also be argued that Super-8 is superior because it is an uncompressed format but uncompressed standard definition is not equivalent to compressed high definition in regards to its ability to resolve fine detail. It can also be argued that Super-8 is better than broadcast quality standard definition video. However this would only qualify Super-8 as an enhanced definition EDTV format. However the show Lost requires high definition footage and enhanced definition footage would not cut the mustard.

Anthony Schilling · November 1, 2006

HD is always said to be too "revealing" for S8, but how? When you project S8, there is no resolution interference like with mini DV... so I don't know how HD would be a bad thing, just expensive. I have seen an HD scanned clip once at Flying Spot of S8 200T, and it looked almost like 16mm. You will see grain, no doubt... but it's real and adds to the aesthetic, as opposed to all the fake effects put on HD or 16mm theses days. I watched "Silent Hill" the other night, and there was an S8 flashback sequence. It looked like 200T, but they still put a whole bunch of cheese on it, fake dust and scratches that looked totally fake... and as if it was a reversal. In fact, almost every pro use of S8 I can think of has been "dirtied up" in some way.

Chance Shirley · November 1, 2006

Wow. I just found this tread and am kind of amazed that it's dragged on for this long.

Some guys keep saying "They should really use Super 8 for b-roll on 35mm TV shows." Then David Mullen, who is CURRENTLY THE DP ON A 35mm TV SHOW explains why you can't use Super 8 on such a show. That would seem to be enough info to end the discussion.

On top of all that, if there's really a need for a small camera on a 35mm show, why not just use a small 35mm camera? I know Aaton makes one.

Alessandro Machi · November 1, 2006

Wow. I just found this tread and am kind of amazed that it's dragged on for this long.

Some guys keep saying "They should really use Super 8 for b-roll on 35mm TV shows." Then David Mullen, who is CURRENTLY THE DP ON A 35mm TV SHOW explains why you can't use Super 8 on such a show. That would seem to be enough info to end the discussion.

On top of all that, if there's really a need for a small camera on a 35mm show, why not just use a small 35mm camera? I know Aaton makes one.

And I agreed with David that the aspect ratio would be an issue and require the gate to be widened on a Super-8 camera to give it the best chance of success. The point of the Super-8 camera would be if it can be intercut on some level, it can always be considered as a way to get an additional shot without having to relocate the 35mm cameras that are already shooting other things.

I gave a specific situation in my opening statement about how I used a digital 8 camera that can be picked up and used quickly as a way to get more done even though there already was a Betacam Sp camera already in use on the same job. To imply that carrying around a "small" 35mm camera on location is somehow going to be as fast or as easy as a Super-8 camera just makes the protest against the idea seem over the top, thou protests too much.

If you want to make a point that resolution is an issue fine, but when people start to imply that other formats that require heavier batteries, bigger sticks, more space, and weigh more are somehow going to be just as fast to use, you lose credibilty on your other points.

Chance Shirley · November 1, 2006

So much for "end of discussion."

> If you want to make a point that resolution is an issue fine...

I think everyone who understands motion picture film has made that point.

> ...but when people start to imply that other formats that require heavier batteries, bigger sticks,

> more space, and weigh more are somehow going to be just as fast to use...

Have you ever shot with an Arri 235? Or an Aaton 35mm camera? I haven't. Both look like they'd be pretty fast to pick up and fire off a shot, though.

For the sake of argument, we'll say they are NOT fast, though. And we'll say they're "too big" for certain situations. Even given all that, why would I shoot Super 8 over Super 16? You can get Super 16 cameras that are as small as Super 8 cameras, you know.

> ...you lose credibilty on your other points.

And you didn't have much credibility to begin with.

Going back to my original point, unless you have 35mm television DP experience that has taught you otherwise, I think you should re-read David Mullen's last post and drop this discussion.

Nathan Milford · November 2, 2006

Have you ever shot with an Arri 235? Or an Aaton 35mm camera?

We have both in our rental department.

Both look like they'd be pretty fast to pick up and fire off a shot, though.

They are. And the weight differential between it and an S8 camera and the shoulder mounting make for steadier hand-held. Lighter, isn't always better... in a lot of cases even the A-Minima is too light...

Alessandro Machi · November 2, 2006

And you didn't have much credibility to begin with.

Going back to my original point, unless you have 35mm television DP experience that has taught you otherwise, I think you should re-read David Mullen's last post and drop this discussion.

Newsflash, more than one person can have credibility on a particular topic, and don't tell me to shut up.

Secondly, I made a very simple suggestion, check out how far Super-8 has come by actually seeing a high quality transfer. If you feel you are above that suggestion, than don't participate in this topic.

Douglas Hunter · November 2, 2006

The point of the Super-8 camera would be if it can be intercut on some level, it can always be considered as a way to get an additional shot without having to relocate the 35mm cameras that are already shooting other things.

Well I guess I was wrong, I didn't think you were talking about replacing 35mm footage with super 8. My apologies to Karl.

I thought the OP was saying something, well, more sensible. I've shot second unit on shows where we used a different format for establishing exterriors and for chase scenes in order to make them more visually dynamic. In these cases the second unit was not replacing the 35mm or HD footage, we were intentionally mixing formats. It was calculated, specific shots were done this way. I think a show like Lost might be able to apply a similar aesthetic, such as in the many scenes of characters running through the jungle. Shooting hand held running shots on super-8 100D or Velvia could be an interesting aesthetic choice, but not in any way as a *replacement* for 35mm, only in *addition* it. (of course this could be done with any format not just super 8)

The idea of using a totally different format to just grab shots here and there, does not make sense, it reduces editorial choices, not broaden them, which is what we hope for in post.

Edited November 2, 2006 by Douglas Hunter

Will Earl · November 2, 2006

Getting back more towards the original post, while your original example of having a small DVCAM on a Betacam shoot (or doco) to pick up additional shots that you may miss with your A camera is a good idea (and practical). There have been plenty of valid answers as to why that workflow isn't helpful or useful in a drama shoot like Lost.

I'm not going to repeat all the points people have made, but a lot of them have informed me as to why it's an impractical workflow - not having worked on a union production, I never knew union rules required an Operator and an AC assigned to each camera on a shoot.

Alessandro Machi · November 2, 2006

Getting back more towards the original post, while your original example of having a small DVCAM on a Betacam shoot (or doco) to pick up additional shots that you may miss with your A camera is a good idea (and practical). There have been plenty of valid answers as to why that workflow isn't helpful or useful in a drama shoot like Lost.

I'm not going to repeat all the points people have made, but a lot of them have informed me as to why it's an impractical workflow - not having worked on a union production, I never knew union rules required an Operator and an AC assigned to each camera on a shoot.

The point about two union people per camera, was that brought up on this thread or did you mean that you read it elsewhere and are now contributing that information here?

I watched a portion of Lost Tonight and one thing I found strange was some of the commercials looked much cleaner than a couple of the shots from the show. (note I said a couple) Perhaps they got caught shooting either early in the day or later in the evening and really had to pump up some of the shots during transfer, these occasional shots seemed to be on the edge of showing milky blacks yet no detail was present in the blacks.

Right now I'm viewing "Dog Park" on a cable movie channel (channel number in the high 200's) and the picture looks spectacular, perhaps sometimes the 1-13 channels vary in quality from night to night, especially during sweeps months. I'd really like to make a high quality copy of a short clip from Lost and see if I could reshoot something in Super-8 that would intercut but frankly I don't know if I can trust that I am getting a true representation of the real quality based on what I saw tonight.