FILM AND DV COMPARISON TESTS

[DIEFTHINTIS]

Hi
Since sound recording is practically impossible in super 8 and editing much more difficult and restricted than in video, many of us use super 8 for artistic reasons. That is we shoot super 8, then transfer it to video and edit it in a PC, or Mac. Then comes the usual question, how video compares to film in terms of resolution, color reproduction and latitude. But which film? There are a lot of films available, so for a specific project someone has to run a lot of (time consuming and expensive) tests.
So I suggest that someone (maybe Andreas?) could run a test, shooting with a good DV and a super 8 camera a test target with a color, a resolution and a grayscale chart, so that we can actually compare how much resolution gives each film, what latitude and what color quality. Ideally, all films should be shot with the same aperture, so that the lens resolution stays the same each time.
Talking about latitude, I had read (I think in American Cinematographer) that a DV camera gives a latitude of 5 stops, a professional video camera of 8 stops and the vision film (with flashing during development) of 13 stops. I wonder, especially in workprinter transfers (where a video camera is used), if the film's latitude is restricted by the video camera's latitude.

Michael
Athens

[tim]

many of us use super 8 for artistic reasons

I use film because it is cheaper and more fun - and the images are more detailed and will last longer!

Cheaper?? Yes, to replace my film facilities (camera, editor, striper, projector etc) would cost around £5000, right? And, with video manufacturers cunningly making their stuff obsolete every few years, I would have to pay a similar amount regularly to update the kit. The interest on the original capital pays for all the film I use.

More fun? Yes - I enjoy hands-on fiddling about with editing and effects. I spend enough time staring at a computer anyway, without using the damned thing for film as well.

Images more detailed?? Yes, of course, as long as the final display is consumer TV standard.

Last longer? Electronic image storage media are still unsuitable for archive purposes. Few have a reliable life that exceeds ten years. Even if they do, they will need copying to new standards regularly just because the equipment to read them will disappear. I have KI from 1939 that still looks like new - and it hasn't been copied!

Finally, this is a (real) film forum. I don't come here to read about the latest electronic wizardry. Each advance only makes me glad I've stuck with film and won't be tempted to spend more money on stuff that doesn't give as good results as film and will be obsolete in a year or two.

[matt5791]

Since sound recording is practically impossible in super 8 and editing much more difficult and restricted than in video,Michael
Athens

Why?

Sound recording is perfectly possible.

Editing is the same (if you are cutting digital non linear)

Matt

[DIEFTHINTIS]

Maybe I was misunderstood. That's exactly what I wanted to say. It is almost impossible to record sound and difficult to edit, if somebody wants his films screened (no transfer to video) directly from the original film. If you decide to transfer the films to video, then you come up with questions, like the ones I mentioned. For instance, if the transfer is made through a videocamera, do you get a narrower latidute than the original film? But most of all, the issue for me is 20% how film compares to DV and 80% how various filmstocks available in super8 compare in terms of resolution, color reproduction and latidute. Consider it like a flim test you would read in Anateur, or Popular Photography.

Michael

[sunrise]

80% how various filmstocks available in super8 compare in terms of resolution, color reproduction and latidute.

The info on kodaks web site will give you 99% of that answer.

michael

[Scotness]

Search through the archives there's alot on this already

Scot

[tim]

With regard to sound: 'live' sound is very difficult with any process. Unless you have very elaborate facilities (like a sound stage) or are very lucky, live sound will be cluttered with extraneous noise. Thus, the majority of sound tracks are assembled and applied during post, whether the medium is film or one of the plethora of electronic gadgets.

[DIEFTHINTIS]

Search through the archives there's alot on this already

Scot

To be honest, I haven't seen anything since the new Vision stocks arrived.

Michael

[Scotness]

Search through the archives there's alot on this already

Scot

To be honest, I haven't seen anything since the new Vision stocks arrived.

Michael

To clarify: a few people replied before I hit send which meant my reply cane in out of order and therefor context - i was refering to general discussions and tests on film vs digital - particularly in regard to resolution - there's been quite extensive discussions on this - dont know about the new V2 stocks though

Scot

[mattias]

the new vision stocks don't offer any dramatic changes. they just have less grain and less saturated colors, much as if you were shooting a slower stock with higher speed (which actually isn't very far from the actual truth).

/matt

[DIEFTHINTIS]

Just to get an idea, why ask all these questions, I am to shoot a short film (20-22 minutes). 70% of it will be video. The rest of it (mostly action shots) shot with a handheld camera, in a documentary style will be S8. So I have to choose between Kodachrome, TriX and Vision2 200. I know they don't compare but they are 3 different options, with different aesthetics and different lighting needs. I know Kodachrome is sharper with less latitude than Vision 200, but how much? Before of making my own tests, wouldn't be great if there were available some test shots of resolution, or grayscale cards (as i mentioned), or a specific theme (i.e. a man against a window, or a coroful theme to compare Kodachrome and nision reproduction of colors). OK, all figures are available, but isn't it different if you read a test between - let say - Ectachrome, Pronia and Velvia, before you start shooting a photo session?

Michael

[mattias]

k40 is the least sharp stock there is now that vnf is gone, it just looks sharper than most due to the high contrast and low grain, so a resolution test won't help you much. as for shooting test subjects that's a good idea, but i'd recommend you did it yourself. shooting tests is great fun and teches you a lot about a lot of things besides helping you pick a stock.

/matt

[francis]

i think youll find the 200t v2 is the sharpest of the lot. if you can find a double super8 camera cheap and want to use 100t negative, i have an order happening in double super8. itll be cheaper to process than normal super8 negative cartridges