"It is one of the pains of videography that you want to make it look like film so much. I, as a cameraman, helped to start the project because I couldn't stand the video look any more," he says.
:roll:
And so say all of us!
I myself,cannot understand WHY movie phorographers try to replicate the 'film look' electronically.Just shoot the proper stuff anyway.Whilst this website is intended in the main for users of Super8,then one would assume that their product would end up projected,or on some kind of rust-based format or chips (we eat those here in the UK-they are made from potatoes!).Film look is achieved by using the product,if you wish to recreate it electronically then to my mind you have chosen the wrong format and are just trying to emulate what was there long before pixels.
Further to this,why dont you technical guys who wish to talk electronic imaging focus your interests on a website that more suits your skills than this one that deals with real film?
This,will no doubt draw a hail of flak from contributors,but I am unrepentant,if you want film THEN SHOOT IT.
One of the most repeated and silly things I hear people complain about is how the extended depth of field of super 8 or miniDV makes it look amaturish. Hogwash. The truth is that 35mm shoots are a pain in the keester, due to SEVERELY limited depth of field, and the element of follow focus is just one more thing to go wrong on an otherwise *perfect* take. Seen it happen many times.
Oh, sure, I like isolation with the background soft and often use longer lenses to get that effect. However, I don't particularly like shallow depth of field on medium to wide angle shots where the intention is to see things more clearly and with more scope. Anyone that thinks deep focus is amaturish needs to check out Citizen Kane and other works from the golden era of Hollywood. Personally, I think it is silly to "down grade" the depth of field characteristics of smaller formats like these guys are doing with the XL-1. All it does is increase the number of people needed on the set as well as the odds that the operator won't get the shot.
Beyond that, considering the incredible depth of field that super 8 has, why do we keep getting so many rolls to transfer that are soft focus on wide angle?!!!
MovieStuff wrote:
Beyond that, considering the incredible depth of field that super 8 has, why do we keep getting so many rolls to transfer that are soft focus on wide angle?!!!
just looking through the viewfinders on the super 8 cameras I have explains it all (well not all, but atleast gives you an idea), IMHO the microprism focusing screens that most super8 cameras seem to use are a horrible way to judge focus. Yes they do work, but I still hate them :-) On the Sankyo I have there even apears to be something wrong with the focusing indicator making it totally useless. You can probably also blame some of the problem on people not adjusting their viewfinder correctly, and not paying enough attention to focus.
The only focussing system that really works is the Beaulieu ground glass. I tryed it all. And even that is not as good as I would like to have. But ALL the rest is of not any use for precise and quick focussing. Therefore, many S8 footage in not only "soft" but simply "out of focus"!
jessh wrote: You can probably also blame some of the problem on people not adjusting their viewfinder correctly, and not paying enough attention to focus.
~Jess
Bingo. The viewfinder issue is a biggie. Pedro said the only system that works is ground glass. While ground glass is the BEST system available in S8, it's not the only one that works -- you can also use the good old-fashioned tape measure. Most every S8 camera I've seen has distance markings on the lens...
Pedro is right but I just recently found out that if I adjust the eye piece properly to my sight the split halfs and microprisms works excellent on my Canon 1014 Xl-S too.
Anyway, have always zoomed in to focus and then zoomed out to shoot.
Works fine with any camera really. (with zoom lenses that is)
Unfortunately, it is never too late to learn something and yes, I remember exactly where I was when Kennedy was shot, and Yeah when "The Four Lads Shook The World" as well.
What is inherent in the Super8 format that gives it a better depth of focus than 35mm? I thought that the factors affecting depth of focus were only aperture and lens length.
The film plane size also is a factor. Actually, Circle of Confusion is the proper technical factor, but for this discussion film plane size will suffice.
Basically the larger the format the narrower th DoF in a equivalent focal range and aperture.
One of the reasons Circle of Confusion is used because:
say with a 35mm camera you are using 50mm lens
that lens used in super 8 is equivanlent to about 350mm. HOWEVER, its actually STILL a 50mm lens - its just that with Super8 you can only see a small portion of that lens giving you a view of a 350mm lens. What you see is limited by the size of the film format.
think of this way - pretend you have a window looking out to a lake with a duck in the middle. If you cover the window and just leave the duck in view it looks like you have "zoomed" in to the image. In fact its the same window. Now pretend that window is a 50mm lens. Used in a Super8 it "becomes" 350 lens because you can "only see the duck" (a 35mm lens in a super8 camera is 7 bigger / 7 x factor).
So 50mm is 50mm lens, even when used with Super8. Its just the size of the film format has given it an "illusion" of being 350mm.
Since focal length and aperture determines DoF - the same lens in a different film format yields a different DoF.
Last edited by crimsonson on Tue Jul 09, 2002 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
bfjames74 wrote:What is inherent in the Super8 format that gives it a better depth of focus than 35mm? I thought that the factors affecting depth of focus were only aperture and lens length.
and you sort of answered your own question, lens focal length is the key, atleast how I understand it (which could be wrong :-) think about it this way, the shorter the focal length, the larger the depth of field. a 50mm lens is "normal" for 35mm, but with 8mm you only get about 1/16th of the image area as 35mm, so this smaller image area makes a 50mm lens be telephoto with 8mm. so basically a "normal" lens for 8mm will be a shorter focal length than for 35mm, therefore have more depth of field. If that didnt make any sense let me know and I will try again :-) and if I am totally off then someone please correct me.
Using a Tape measure for focusing seems to really be the best way with most super8 cameras. I still need to try and get my hands on a 50' tape measure, mine are all too short. And I still havent figured out a way to do tape measure focus of most subjects when you are working alone.
Hi,
Sorry but I do not agree with Roger when saying that it is a chance for us ( S8filmmakers ) to have such a big dof ( depth of field ). Like one of the greatest first assistant camera we got here ( france ) said to me : there's no details in the grounds. Yes, the "everything is in focus" on citizen kane was brilliant but he was shooting 35mm with a small grain emulsion : details everywhere. Getting our grounds out of focus is a way to make public forget he is seeing S8 because. Close ups too. In a word, to make him only see the front, the caracters or whatever. Voila...
Agrre with jessh : tape measure is the only way for excellent focussing in S8, but also in 16, s16, 35, s35, video & so on...
Matt
Depth of field is the measurement of the area in front of and behind the subject that is held in acceptable focus. You can get a simple understanding of the phenomenon by holding your hand quite close in front of your face – and then focusing your eyes on your hand. Notice the quality of the background. It is very soft and out-of-focus. Now slowly move your hand away from your face, continuing to focus your eyes on that hand. Notice that, as your hand moves away from your face, the background comes into sharper focus.
This is a demonstration of one of the factors, distance to subject, that determines the depth of field of a given shot. There are two other variables that the photographer or cinematographer controls – focal length and f or t stop. And then, an inherent characteristic of any given imaging system is the actual size of the aerial image as it converges on the focal plane. This determines the “resting†depth of field. For example, a larger image (like you get with 65mm film) has very shallow depth of field while a relatively small image (like that of Super 8 film) has much greater depth of field.
But, overall film capture systems have a naturally shallow depth of field that can be easily manipulated. This is extremely important in terms of trying to focus the viewers’ attention to different areas in a scene.
The 2/3" chip size of current digital video equipment results in a smaller capture area than that of film, giving it an inherently deep depth of field – which is not easy to manipulate. That’s usually how you can tell the difference between reality-based television programming, for example, and dramas, sitcoms, TV movies or high-end commercials.
