Film vs Video Article

[sk360]

(quote) i think super 8 is way inferior to modern video cameras in most ways but one, it looks cooler, that's why i use it.
/matt (/quote)

It's the aesthetics that count 8)

[mattias]

To what degree they share them is an issue on which two people might disagree, no?

not really. the difference is what you can do with them in the grading.

/matt

[mattias]

i think super 8 is way inferior to modern video cameras in most ways but one, it looks cooler, that's why i use it.
/matt

As subjective as that may be, does'nt that qualify for complete superiority in it's own right?

yes. it's just that some people on this board seem to think that it's the number of lines and level of shadow detail that does it. :-)

/matt

[James E]

I'm definatly hard-core Mr give me film or give me death. I actually Project my super 8 shorts. There's simply no substitue for film and projection of film. At the same time if I want to share my films I have to scan them and put them on a DVD or other digital medium. There's a movie theatre here in Portland called Living Room Theatres that plays all indies: Digitally. 720P using digibeta. Even I can see that in all likelyhood digital, sadly, will ultimately completely replace film in all uses. Film will hang around as long as there are enough people to shoot it and somone can make money manufacturing it. Still film will long outlast cine film. As sad as that makes me it's simply the way it will be. You can never stop technology. Especially when it saves people money and time. I've seen plenty of films projected digitally and the same film w/ a 35mm print. There's no compareson. The digital looks no better than my big digital projector at home. I go to the cinema for the cinema experience: to look at a FILM on a big screen. Digital has a LONG way to go to even come close to the look of a 35mm print. Digital will someday do just that. And when it does and becomes widely accepted by DP's and big studio execs, it's all over for film. Me I'll keep shooting film as long as I can get it.

[Mitch Perkins]

To what degree they share them is an issue on which two people might disagree, no?

not really.

Not really = yes, to varying degrees. ~:?)

the difference is what you can do with them in the grading.

/matt

Since the grading device isn't a variable, once you've chosen one, the difference originates in the capture medium. This difference will be perceived more or less, depending on the person doing the perceiving. Hence the subjective debate surrounding "film vs. video", wherein assurances of "looks almost exactly the same" have little value; the whole point is judging with one's own eyes.

Mitch

[drsanchez]

(quote) i think super 8 is way inferior to modern video cameras in most ways but one, it looks cooler, that's why i use it.
/matt (/quote)

It's the aesthetics that count 8)

That's what I tell my friends when they argue with me about this whole thing, except I just say "I like how it looks." There's really no counter-argument.

That said, I shoot plenty of video, too. But save the S8 for special occasions.

[mattias]

Since the grading device isn't a variable, once you've chosen one, the difference originates in the capture medium.

you need to review the thread. i'm talking about how the ungraded image looks, nothing more. the fact that a raw digital image looks like crap doesn't mean anything because a raw film image looks like crap too, for all the same reasons (extremely flat, dull, desaturated and so on). it's not even necessary to discuss subjectivity because the raw image is completely irrelevant. it's only when you see the graded result that you can start using whatever subjectivity you think is necessary.

/matt

[Mitch Perkins]

Since the grading device isn't a variable, once you've chosen one, the difference originates in the capture medium.

you need to review the thread. i'm talking about how the ungraded image looks, nothing more. the fact that a raw digital image looks like crap doesn't mean anything because a raw film image looks like crap too, for all the same reasons (extremely flat, dull, desaturated and so on). it's not even necessary to discuss subjectivity because the raw image is completely irrelevant. it's only when you see the graded result that you can start using whatever subjectivity you think is necessary.

/matt

I understand but am trying to keep things clear in this thread called, "Film Vs Video Article", in the context of which the statement that the ungraded film and video files look "almost exactly the same" may be misleading.

I disagree that the raw image is irrelevant - we transfer negs here often, and though initial image is indeed thin and flat before CC, it doesn't ever look anything at all like video footage. This is on par with the technical levels a lot of folks here are working at [telecine].

Also, subjectivity isn't something one might "think is necessary", it's built in to the human experience - two people looking at the same thing and having different opinions...

Mitch

[mattias]

I understand but am trying to keep things clear in this thread called, "Film Vs Video Article", in the context of which the statement that the ungraded film and video files look "almost exactly the same" may be misleading.

not nearly as misleading as claiming that how a raw image looks means anything. for the record it seems like the original poster didn't, so my assumption was wrong. based on that assumption though i stand by my statements completely.

/matt

[mattias]

though initial image is indeed thin and flat before CC, it doesn't ever look anything at all like video footage

which i obviously never claimed, neither did anybody else here as far as i can tell. you're fighting windmills. the red one raw files don't look anything like video either.

/matt

[mattias]

btw does your telecine produce raw images or with video gamma applied? the latter is a form of color correction that changes a lot already.

/matt

[Mitch Perkins]

I understand but am trying to keep things clear in this thread called, "Film Vs Video Article", in the context of which the statement that the ungraded film and video files look "almost exactly the same" may be misleading.

not nearly as misleading

= misleading, to some degree. ~:?)

as claiming that how a raw image looks means anything.

Any practical application of the film vs video question is informed by the properties they *don't* share, beginning *prior* to the "raw"/scanning stage, before image capture, and maybe even before manufacture; in the initial conception.

With or without gamma, and at every stage, they're going to consistently ~not~ share some of these properties. The degree to which, at any stage, they are perceived to not share them is subject to, I don't know...whoever you're asking at the time. ~:?)

You're right about my telecine - video gamma, ~check~.

Mitch