THE FAMOUS 360 OR DOES NOBODY EDIT FILM FOR PROJECTING ANYMO

[S8 Booster]

RE?

Although S8 on DV is fun S8 nothing beats the real stuff projected.
Anybody shot, edited & sound tracked real film lately?

Just add this little clip to remind you that some stuff is (almost only) possible on film! Yadda, yadda, Yadda FCP!!

Now, here is a sample of the famous 360.

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/mov/The360.mov



R

[mathis]

am i understanding right? you did that in post?

to the first question i have to say, that i´m currently switching from video and video editing to super8 and editing super8 for projection. that´s the magic!

best,
- mathis

[S8 Booster]

am i understanding right? you did that in post?

to the first question i have to say, that i´m currently switching from video and video editing to super8 and editing super8 for projection. that´s the magic!

best,
- mathis

Great, then we are 2 at least. Magic, that´s the projction name of the film game!

The 360 clip was made in a camera which backwinds the film approx 100 frames and makes an auto lap dissolve.

The auto lap dissolve button, when activated when shooting, will fade the exosure to black while the film is stopped automatically after about 100 frames and then ran backwards without exposure for about 100 frames at 36 fps (no expsore)

Next, when I start shooting again the camera makes an auto fade in which makes an "overlap" (gradual dual exposure).

When I start filming I rotate the camera either 180° slow or 360° fast to make a "spin" on the imagery.

It is easy to make this in NLE DV editing by using 2 separate shots/scenes (one straight and one with rotating start (or end - no fade) and use a cross fade function between the 2 clips.

R

[tim]

Of course the whole point of using film is projection!

Unless you are using film for (generally pointless) commercial TV, why put up with displaying your film with weird colours, losing about 75% of the original detail?

My theory is that most video/dvd stuff on this (and other) S8 groups is just spam trying to promote plastic digital rubbish.

[Old Uncle Barry]

Shoot,edit & project S8? You bet I do.Have done for donkeys years and now I enjoy shooting and projecting in cinemascope/widescreen call it what you will bt it beats transferring to video/dv,or whatever is the latest trend that will be obsolete in two years time (probably sooner!)

Say what you like,the film form has survived the war of the trendy formats.I know,as I too have some video equipment scars to bear that I thought wre the all and end all when they were introduced.Now they are crap.The same will apply to all current dv formats too,mark my words.
No matter what it ends up on film is still king and is proven conclusively upon projection.
So there!

[studiocarter]

My P1 does dissolves by hand very nicely. Fade out, back wind, fade in.

[Maurizio Di Cintio]

Hey guys!
Count me in the number and needless to say I agree 100% with all that has been said so far.

(Keep shooting on film!!!)

[David M. Leugers]

It should go without saying, but in todays digital craze, projected film is still where it's at. I just read with sadness the passing of a great craftsman with a movie camera = Conrad Hall. To those of you who missed seeing his last movie (Road To Perdition) projected on the big screen, you missed what may be one of the best arguments for film instead of video. I was so bowled over by the subtle beauty of the images I had to go see it again just for the cinematography. And no, it was not filmed on the latest no-grain stock with flat lighting so you can see everything like a shot on the beach during the afternoon. Film images have a lattitude and structure that allows for artistic expression through the manipulation of light, shadows, color etc. The same holds true for our beloved 8mm gauges and it's big brother 16mm. I just got back the four rolls of 16mm VNF 7250 I shot of my family's Christmas and projected it on my trusty Bell and Howell Filmo. No sound and yet-to-be edited, it still is a rich experience to watch beautiful images of our Christmas on the big screen. My DV camera collects dust in the closet. I say project your films to see the true essence of what you captured on film. Having a video copy is nice to share with others, but without seeing it on a big screen with a bright image and sharp picture, you are missing out on the whole point of film IMHO. 8)

[Angus]

Yes I still edit by physically cutting the film and splicing it, and my preferred method of exhibiting is projection. Sometimes this is not easy or even possible so I do my own telecines on occasion.

I have a sound striper and a few hundred feet of stripe but I'm working in silent at the moment until I get my paws on some decent but cheap portable sound capturing device.

Currently waiting for 300 feet of film to return (150' of K40 from Kodak, 150' of 7240 from Andec) from my recent trip to Las Vegas....will of course be edited the old fashioned way and projected.

[wallnuts]

You bet I do!!


I once tried to copy some of my grandmothers S8 films to video and was appalled by the results. The greens were darker and more black in nature, the reds were more orange, and the blues were more turquise in nature at least in comparison to the Ektachrome 160 originals. After seeing the results, I was convinced that projecting is the only way to see the true picture.

[bobby]

video is lifeless, flat.

digital is a fake, virtual image made up of 0's and 1's.

film is an actually photograph or represntation of the light and colour available at the time of filming.

you cannot be a serious filmmaker and shoot on video.

i own a splicer and a projector and im not afraid to use them.

[tfunch24]

I agree with most everything posted above.

HOWEVER

as an aspiring amateur filmmaker, in order to improve I need unbiased and critical opinions of my short films. My family and friends are not filmmakers or film enthusiasts and their relationship to me is hardly unbiased. Therefore, the easiest and most efficient way to get the unbiased and critical opinion I desire is to upload telecined compressed film clips to the internet and ask people here (and on Brantley's Hostboard) for their critical and unbiased views. Most people oblige.

A telecined clip is no match for the original projected reversal image; that is not arguable. Until we can upload clips that can match the original projected image's quality, I'm afraid people like myself must be forced to make do with the lower quality telecined video copies.

My $.02.

Tom

[mattias]

film is an actually photograph or represntation of the light and colour available at the time of filming.

i know there's more emotion than facts behind that, but i'm still a bit confused by those statements. i do agree that film looks more "authentic" or whatever than video, and i generally don't like the video look, but why would chemistry be a more true a science than physics and electrical science? i'm a firm believer that as soon they manage to produce ccd's which can provide the resolution, color space and contrast range as film, and that will happen, video will look much better than film. the best digital still cameras already take much better pictures than you can get on film, which is why many nature and landscape photographer have actually switched.

/matt

[S8 Booster]

Seem to me like all written above is correct and I want to emphasize that my intention with this post was only to remind of the, at least to me, "magic" of projection. Not to disregard anyone who preffer to transfer their film to DV for editing/post production.


Short note partly off topic:

When it comes to 24P DV productions on TV I have noticed the following:

Colours are improved (light settings etc?) but the cam shutter speeds are too fast so when there should have been the "optimized" 170° shutter 50/50 strobe/blur pan the electronic devices use so fast shutter speeds that only the hard strobe effect remains and that at least batters my eyes.
Jerky pans or motion all over.

I think there is a comedy on running Swedish TV (Produced by TV4?) right now where this appears to be very visible. Do not remember the name.
DV will eventually get better or people will eventually not care.
My guess.

Amount of (un compressed) data storage/flow capacity is probably the most limiting factor for really high end DV motion.

The ever changing fine grain structure in every film frame may also be a smoothening factor itself for the "eye registration". Guess this effect is not easily obtainable with DV but who knows what a plugin might do? Random grain structure superimposed?

Well, until then