K40 COMPARED TO DV

[Cheezy]

What do you mean; that one should focus with the split image exclusively and not with the aerial image?/ I got my first split image cam just recently..so I would like to know.

Paul

Well, I think aerial focusing is yet another focusing system. With split focusing, you have to trust the circle in the middle of your viewfinder. If vertical lines of the objects that cross that circle are discontinued they are out of focus. To get things simpler: what you want in focus mustn't be split. You have to beware of your own eye because, though you may have set the dioptric to match your vision, your eye can get accustomed to what it sees in the viewfinder and tends to correct focus on its own. That's why Beaulieu's are better because they use ground glass focusing, just like in still cameras, and thus, what you see is what you get.

[Tom]

"and in my opinion Super 8 @#$%^&%$# all over the video! "

Scot,

What criteria are you using? I had a look at your comparison shots and in pure technical terms I don't see what you mean - the DV shots are clearly sharper, less muddy with greater punch and contrast.

If you are talking aesthetically then I would agree with you - film is film and video can never offer the temporal and rich qualities it has to offer.

As this started out as a pure technical comparison of resolution I would like to make one further point. If film has 900 lines resolution or whatever it will certainly not end up that way once it is telecined, even with Rank Cintel!

These comparisons are at the end of the day futile and nothing can beat the craft and joy of shooting on film be it Super 8 or other formats and it is in a way a shame that we have to put Super 8 on to video at all (for a wide audience). We should just enjoy film for what it is whilst it's still here - we may be the last generation able to do so.

Regards.

[S8 Booster]

Dump the resolution issue as it is of no interest because it is plenty good enough on S8 and rather bring up the IMAGE QUALITY issue.

Any video format SUX.

R

[Scot McPhie]

Whe I said it's heaps better than video - I meant in a feeling way - theres just something so beautiful about film - and all the big budget features I've seen with digital effects in my opinion look pretty poor - Star Wars 2 - Lord of the Rings etc

Scot

[Tom]

Scot

I agree I much prefer film although true progressive scan video can look very good these days, however I can't imagine Hitchcock's wondeful VistaVision "Vertigo" shot on video. I applaud your descision to shoot a feature on Super 8, but sadly I imagine you won't do it again for cost and logistic reasons - I hope I'm wrong!

S8 Booster

"Any video format SUX."

In your opinion and a very intelligent response if I may say so. Clearly the resolution issue is of great interest as I've seen many postings here about it. Also it's a huge interest if like me your trying to use Super 8 professionally because you love it and want to - unfortunately I can't lug round a Super 8 projector for distribution. And many people here have the WorkPrinter and that to keep Super 8 alive it has to move forward - and that means post-production on video and distribution on video/DVD, where original acquisition rez is of crucial importance.

Super 8 might be plenty good enough but it is 30 times more expensive in stock terms than Mini DV and so it needs all the help it can get from those of us striving to keep it alive.

Image quality is entirely subjective and was not the original point of this thread.

Regards.

[S8 Booster]

S8 Booster

"Any video format SUX."

In your opinion and a very intelligent response if I may say so. Clearly the resolution issue is of great interest as I've seen many postings here about it. Also it's a huge interest if like me your trying to use Super 8 professionally because you love it and want to - unfortunately I can't lug round a Super 8 projector for distribution. And many people here have the WorkPrinter and that to keep Super 8 alive it has to move forward - and that means post-production on video and distribution on video/DVD, where original acquisition rez is of crucial importance.

Super 8 might be plenty good enough but it is 30 times more expensive in stock terms than Mini DV and so it needs all the help it can get from those of us striving to keep it alive.

Image quality is entirely subjective and was not the original point of this thread.

Regards.

Not meaning that video isn´t useful. I use it VERY often for my business activities but it never, under any circumstances, trigs my entusiasm for making any films on it despite its convinience and nice price. S8 on the other hand does.

I think the resolution is a blind alley in this context.
The S8 is technically better than Mini DV but more important the image quality is better.

If you project and blow up the MinDV images you will see that they fall apart in the background (contour effects, things start to "float" just like the old VHS did more expressed.

S8/K40 manage this noticably better when projected. It is absent event when projected from a digital format.

K40 transferred via the Workprinters got to be the ultimate combination even if I have not seen the results other than those posted here.

Very economic, unlimited NLE creativity and very high quality.

This is why I mean that the resolution issue is a blind alley.

Maybe I am too old fashioned, OK - I buy that.

IMHO, no offending.

R

[Scot McPhie]

Actually I'm planning to shoot my next feature on 16mm - this is for the following reasons:

1. I definately want something that can be shown in a cinema - 16mm blown up is quite viable - Super 8 isn't really

2. I want longer running times between having to relaod the camera. At 25fps you get 2mins 20 secs on Super 8 - now as we were filming I didn't think it was that big a problem - but in editing I can see how the constant breaks have adversely effected some of the performances

3. I want a quicker turn arouind time - and more control over the film - what I mean by this is - I don't want to have to Fedex mys stock overseas to get it developed - I want to get it developed locally and have true dailies so we can get some feedback and re-assess as weeeee were filming. I also want a lab we're it's not a production line - and you can have some direct relationship with the people developing it. Kodak in Switzerland were great to me - I spoke to them a number of times ont he phone - but they're just not set up to look at individual orders in much detail - and the distance and delay in getting the stuff back is a problem. Of course if it's this or nothing I'd much rather this - but if I go to 16mm there are more options. I also want more control in the films in regard to if there are problems - ie I was hit hard by that jitter problem - I definately want a camera with more than one pin registration - and if there are technical problems I want to know about it right away - not months later.

The decision to shoot on Super 8 was totally vindicated - I just think if you can afford it you can do better - and that's 16mm - definatley not video. I would hate to try and go ionto the next one on 16mm if we'd only shot this on video - that would be a recipe for disasrer.

Video has definately got it's place though - I bought a camcorder the other day - and I love it - especially for home movies - just point and shoot - it's exactly what you want - except for the picture quality - it's the way it burns out actually. But anyway it's jsut a trade off and you accept that .

So would I work on Super 8 again? - yes, which is why I haven't sold my camera - but hopefully I can get the 16mm thing going.

Scot

[S8 Booster]

Scot, have you seen my recent S8 / MinDV side by side compare video posted?

Just add that my favourite S8 film is K40 though.
This was a test only but extremely good when projected compared to the MinDV projected on a LCD projector.

The below is a very preliminary working copy of 200/250/500 film vs the MiniDV video on split a screen. Due to compression, the grain is increased and it hits the film more than the video. MPEG4 format 18.6 MB.
Where there are no split screen it is the S8 only.

Film: ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/S8DVx.mp4
Film left, DV video right.

Sample image


R

[Tom]

Scot

That's my point given a choice you will use something else other than Super 8. Ok I take your point that your going to film on something even more expensive and it's not video but logistically you found that Super 8 does not cut it when used as the main acquisiton format for large projects. Sadly people will take you much more seriously with 16mm.

As I said I applaud your descision to shoot on Super 8 but have you considered how many films you could make with the same outlay on DV. I have shot on Super 8 for many years and made my own sync sound shorts over 25 years ago, I have shot on 16mm, 35mm and all formats of video and I have to say that in productivity terms video outstrips film 10 to 1 - not a reason I grant you to forsake the aesthtic qualities of film but certainly something for struggling filmakers who want to distribute and have their films seen, to consider - and this is why so many young filmakers turn to DV.

Yes consumer MiniDV cameras leave a lot to be desired but I shoot both Super 8 and progressive scan video and I think we have achieved some very beautiful images with video - not film but certainly not typical video. It's about lighting and exposure with careful filtration - as it always has been.

S8 Booster I agree with a lot of what your saying but you say that Super 8 when projected beats the hell out of video. Yes but unfortunately that is not a very practical way to make and distribute programs - sadly. We have to transfer to video and wether you are using the Workprinter or Rank Cintel your resolution is restricted or compounded even by the video format - many people using the Workprinter are using MiniDV cameras to transfer - resolution must suffer!

I'm not trying to make a case for video believe me but merely trying to point out some practical considerations. As far as I'm concerned I will never, ever part with my Super 8 gear!

Regards.

[mattias]

Well, you should use your eyes, boys... because my estimated 1300 lines come from this very web site! Haven't you seen something called "A big guide to a little format" by Phillip Fitzlaff, on the home page?

yes, i've seen it and it's actually not that accurate in every aspect. you should be more critical and not just directly use information posted on web sites. the theoretical numbers can be found on kodak's web site, and there are plenty of other places to get information regarding registration, lens sharpness and real world tests contradicting what mr fitzlaff says. the only time it's perfectly ok to use information without questioning and/or cross referencing it it is if you're quoting, in which case that should be clearly pointed out.

"according to the 'big guide' the resolution of super-8 is 1300 lines" is a correct statement, while "the resolution of super-8 is 1300 lines" is not. please join us next week for our next lecture on logic and rethorics... ;-)

/matt

[S8 Booster]

650 lines ok?

Can live well with that too.

R

[mattias]

650 lines ok?

it depends, that's all we can be sure of... ;-) that and the fact that it doesn't matter much at all. i'll always consider all claims that super-8 transferred to dv is sharper than dv originated material a joke. i also consider all claims that dv looks as good as super-8 a joke, but that's probably just a matter of taste...

:-)

/matt

[Pedro]

S8 had been designed in the 1960ies as an economic film gauge for private use and projection. No printing and transfer issues.
And I think, it is the best using it that way - First of all at home or in small --- mid clubs, projecting the original reversal film stock, that had been in the camera during shooting.
This does not exclude higher ambitions and film art, in contrary. Art is much better without comercial influence and restrictions, the only directors are the ideas of who is shooting - independed art!

S8 is NOT the ideal gauge for comercial productions and distributions. It´s too small for real cinema, too small for easy transfers, the spools are too short for long scenes, etc etc, it is too good for compressing the original quality to ordinary video tape and too expensive when having only the video option for distribution.
Commercially, S8 had been used in the 1970ies for TV because it is cheaper than 16 mm, and it is used for special (grain structure-) effects in actual productions for cinema and music video or commercials.

So I see not much chances for a really prof use, also having more quality potential than video.
But on a small... mid range screen, you can achieve MUCH BETTER results for your own fun as with any actual electronic picture registration system, right in your home! It is analoge like the human body, human thinking and human feeling.

Pedro

[Cheezy]

So I see not much chances for a really prof use, also having more quality potential than video.

Wait until I have finished the project I'm working on...