Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

[super8man]

Reality TV exists thanks to digital. It's terrific.

hahaha

In all seriousness, jorgerondao's comment captures the essence of filmmaking:

"a whole ritual that takes time and preparation and the of ecstasy is reached at the time it is served"

Nicely put.

If you don't care how your pixels originated, you are on the wrong forum.

Cheers,
Mike

[MovieStuff]

Cute and clever comment from Schjeldahl re: Rockwell, to which I would heartily agree. But the analogy doesn't quite illustrate the parallel conflict between the two seperate technologies of film and digital.

But the argument is what you make of it. To me, it's all about what it "looks" like.

The Rockwell debate concerned questions of individual style, market valuation, and institutional validation of a particular artist's mode of expression, not the "technology" (ie the medium) of his work.

Since this about viewer opinion on how something looks, I would say the analogy is spot on.

And the question that you, or anyone else, have still failed to answer about digital is: WHAT EXACTLY IS SO "TERRIFIC" ABOUT IT? Artistically speaking, that is.

What isn't? This is like debating the difference between acrylics and oils. Are the two mediums different to work with? Sure. Can you work with both of them exactly the same? No. Does one have advantages over the other during the creative process? Yes. Both can make that same claim.

Digital is the acrylic of the movie canvas.

Roger

[Will2]

Digital is the acrylic of the movie canvas.

Nicely put, but is it more the "paint by numbers" of the movie canvas?

[vickersdc]

Nnnnooooo! Not anotherfilm vs digital debate. Haven't we got past this yet? Can't we just accept that they are two different mediums, some people prefer digital, some film. Others don't mind which they use as long as they get the effect they're after. Both have their merits, and disadvantages.

You pays yer money and takes yer choice.

So, please, I'm begging you, let's put a stop to this pointless debate about film vs digital, and use the forum for more constructive things like helping each other out, supporting each other through constructive criticism and just sharing knowledge.

[S8 Booster]

no, stuff the dslrs....easily....

shot some 35mm with my Ricoh XR2 (K mount) SLR + Fuji 800 neg last summer which incidentally turned out very good - on paper prints - stunning to me:)

4 fun i also scanned the negatives on my el-cheapo Epson Photo TRX500 and the images improved even more.

to me the imagery turned out stunning and - even iof i never doubted the imagery quality of film it for the umyten time made me decide to go soley film - also moving images of any format as long as it goes.

directly comparativity could be made vs a brand new Canon 50D something - the film looks W - A - Y better.

ill try to re-image my results on the net somehow later.

so as the dslrs/digital at all go... i dare to say that NO-ONE would touch digtal imaging if film and dig fought on equal terms.

unless one is shooting jack-crap-ass films then - they should not look to good by-any-way-how.

shoot fim....

[grainy]

It is a tired arguement -- I agree with Roger, they're different media. The difference to most is probably more like acrylics vs. expensive, hard-to-find oils that no one outside the community really understands or cares to.
That said, I think the question DSLR vs. Super 8 is designed only to spark digital vs. film debate, because anyone interested in throwing over Super 8 for another format can/will do it any old time. There's alwasy going to be a new version of the latest digital. Super 8 is what it is.
G

[S8 Booster]

certainly a bit rusty shooting this old SLR, but.....here is a few random picks:

2010 Fuji Neg ISO 800 - exposed at 640 good for paper prints.. DIY scan. click image for bigger view.


Hand held at very slow shutter speed, 1/15th or so


1980 Kodachrome 25 - 2 versions: - probably the most "true"..


slightly adjusted...


really do not care what you think - i likem.... - a lot.

shoot more film ;)

[super8man]

You need to clean your lens - it's leaving huge flesh-tone circle spots on your negatives!

[Tscan]

This isn't a film vs digital debate concerning preference or quality this time. It's a question as to whether small guage film can hold its market next to DSLR? The short answer in my opinion is not likely. Not unless the analog to digital gap can be simplified. If preference was the only factor, the market would be split evenly.

[S8 Booster]

You need to clean your lens - it's leaving huge flesh-tone circle spots on your negatives!

yes, but no, as they say in Nihon.

its the digital guys which flushed beyond the colour range of the Fuji when the became aware of the fact that their 50Ds would swallow a digital Kadafi Camel when their results were to be compared to latest generation cruisemissile-o-film ;)

shot....

[MovieStuff]

This isn't a film vs digital debate concerning preference or quality this time. It's a question as to whether small guage film can hold its market next to DSLR? The short answer in my opinion is not likely. Not unless the analog to digital gap can be simplified. If preference was the only factor, the market would be split evenly.

I agree. A lot of people using super 8 these days are doing so not because of the specific "super 8 look", which has many different looks depending on the stock you use but, rather, simply because it looks different and more interesting than digital. But if you can get anything close to that different look through manipulation of digital, that often makes the difference in whether someone will bother using film of any size, 8mm or 16mm. WE like the random characteristics of 8mm and super 8 film but, for many, that randomness is not considered a benefit. Certainly the added cost of processing and transfer, even if the results were predictably usable (a totally different discussion) is enough to dissuade many from using film at all.

Roger

[carllooper]

This isn't a film vs digital debate concerning preference or quality this time. It's a question as to whether small guage film can hold its market next to DSLR? The short answer in my opinion is not likely. Not unless the analog to digital gap can be simplified. If preference was the only factor, the market would be split evenly.

I agree. A lot of people using super 8 these days are doing so not because of the specific "super 8 look", which has many different looks depending on the stock you use but, rather, simply because it looks different and more interesting than digital. But if you can get anything close to that different look through manipulation of digital, that often makes the difference in whether someone will bother using film of any size, 8mm or 16mm. WE like the random characteristics of 8mm and super 8 film but, for many, that randomness is not considered a benefit. Certainly the added cost of processing and transfer, even if the results were predictably usable (a totally different discussion) is enough to dissuade many from using film at all.

Roger

In terms of how film looks (the observable) it is very simple (for those in the know) to reproduce the exact the same look in digital. No question.

For those who are just interested in the look then I recommend using digital and the appropriate algorithms. You can get any look you want with enough technical creativity.

But from a conceptual/philosophical point of view the look of something is only half the equation. The other half of the equation is the realitys that went into producing a particular look.

What's the difference between a computer synthesised image of a teapot (photorealism) and a photographic image of a teapot, if both images were, pixel for pixel, exactly the same ?

The difference will be in the realitys that went into creating each. The absence of difference in a blind test speaks only to the prison in which the test is conducted.

Art is best appreciated in the context of a wider field of view that encompasses both the inside and the outside of the prison in which an audience might otherwise be trapped.

In the years just prior to the invention of photography there was a flurry of activity in painting that precedes the photorealist movement of the 60s and 70s by more than a century. These pre-photo paintings, were technically indistinguishable from photography. And yet the first photograph was still a few years away. What was happening here was the idea of photography. The paintings were like a previsualisation of what could be achieved if the technical problems could be solved. Eventually the idea of photography consolidated into an actual implementation. The first photograph took place. It was nowhere near as good as the paintings that prefigured it, but it would only be a matter of time before the photographs lived up to the idea of what was being previsualised by the paintings.

But if the paintings that previsualised the idea of photography were so good then why would actual photography be necessary? Because the paintings could only remain at the level of an idea. They could not be what the idea was suggesting - that one could produce the same images by photographic means.

The same goes for film. While digital can simulate and look exactly like film, you can't actually make a film (so defined) using digital.

Now for many people that may not matter. They are only interested in the image. But why those interested in film should suffer the slings and arrows of such imagists is beyond me.

[etimh]

But from a conceptual/philosophical point of view the look of something is only half the equation. The other half of the equation is the realitys that went into producing a particular look.

What's the difference between a computer synthesised image of a teapot (photorealism) and a photographic image of a teapot, if both images were, pixel for pixel, exactly the same ?

The difference will be in the realitys that went into creating each. The absence of difference in a blind test speaks only to the prison in which the test is conducted.

Art is best appreciated in the context of a wider field of view that encompasses both the inside and the outside of the prison in which an audience might otherwise be trapped.

WHAT. HE. SAID.

Tim

[S8 Booster]

yes, but no, grain/s are sort of unpredictable (unstable) sort of like uranium atoms.

pixels are not - they can be created/re close enough but not still - like sea waves and snow xtals theyll never replicate ;)

shoot .. film like hell......

[carllooper]

yes, but no, grain/s are sort of unpredictable (unstable) sort of like uranium atoms.

pixels are not - they can be created/re close enough but not still - like sea waves and snow xtals theyll never replicate ;)

shoot .. film like hell......

Grain is just an observable. Of all possible patterns in the universe grain/noise is the easist pattern to simulate.

But consider this. Lets suppose I want to lose some weight. Well I could simulate what's required to lose weight - eg. simulating a run around the block but then I don't end up losing any weight. So what I could do is simulate that I've lost weight, eg. by pulling my belt in tighter so it looks like I've lost some weight, etc.

So according to an economic rationalist argument I really should just sit in my armchair and just pretend to run around the block because it will be a lot easier.

Now I really like the analogy of the "tea-making ritual" mentioned ealier in this trhead. Film making as a ritual. It's as much about the process as the result. Now Roger understands this difference as well. His second post was very much an acknowledgement of that difference.