THE FUTURE OF SUPER 8

[super8man]

I enjoy looking stupid since other people's opinions don't affect what I think of myself. If they did, it would be a sorry world indeed.

changed my mind...not worthy of a reply...

[audadvnc]

I think there is a significant difference in crossing that line between embracing the beauty of film texture and grain and feel and purposely degrading your images to try and fake like it's a trashed out print from the 1920's or somebody's ineptly shot home movie. There's an honest beauty to the first approach, and implicit deception in the latter and it becomes gimmicky really fast.

Getting back to this discussion on technique (and hopefully observing more appropriate quoting protocols), I now perform a 180 degree flip and agree with Santo's observation of the potential for deceit in many film techniques; for whatever reason some audiences respond to gimmickry that drives other people crazy. We see the two faces of the Dream Factory; the modern world as theme park.

A fancy hotel in town has dressed their restaurant in faux paintings and antiqued furniture, giving a superficial resemblence to an old Louisiana bistro (all except the prices). I despise faux painting; some of my friends admire the look, but I chafe, seeing the work of accountants and executives that view aesthetics as mere numbers on a profit/loss statement. Taste, style, honesty have no weight on this balance. Yet it can be a cozy evening place, a retro southern escape from our endless winter, if only for an hour or so. As Joni Mitchell said, "After the first drink you ain't so choosy."

So should I continue to use Super 8, knowing its retro look has built-in associations with the audience? Does that inherently make the work dishonest, or if I shoot for pay? Or is "intention" the deciding factor?

[Juno]

As for bandwidth, who cares...

do i have to spell everything out for you? just read what i write. all information you need is in there. locking onto an arbitrary word in a post and start writing a reply based on that only makes you look stupid. and if you actually did read my post and honestly thought it was about bandwidth, then you *are* stupid. why don't you just admit that you completely misunderstood my first post and made a fool out of yourself?

oh, and it's really hard to follow your post since you don't use quoting to indicate what you're replying to in the different paragraphs. see what i mean by the difference between *use* of bandwidth and *waste* of it now?

/matt

Mattias,
Do you have some sort of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder where you always have to be right or is it just one of those typical arrogant Nordic (Swedish/German) qaulities?

[mathis]

Mattias,
Do you have some sort of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder where you always have to be right or is it just one of those typical arrogant Nordic (Swedish/German) qaulities?

Watch your tongue.

[Juno]

Watch your tongue.

I'll try.

[mattias]

Do you have some sort of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder where you always have to be right

that's an idea that i've heard many times and never quite understood. either you're right or you're not, right? maybe some people are afraid of conflict so they say they're wrong even when they're not because they're challenged by some idiot who they don't feel like arguing with, but i'm not like that. you will never ever see me claiming that i'm right when i'm not however. make no mistake about that. so if what you were really trying to say was that i can't admit when i'm wrong, you're so off track you can't even imagine.

as for the culture and geography of it all, i've never actually heard that nordics were supposed to arrogant. that's normally reserved for americans and parisians.

/matt

[thebrowniecameraguy]

I dont try to be, but it happens.

I do agree, arrogance is a large part of the american way of life, it always has been and will always be.

If the world was to reach nirvana, wouldnt all but 1 religion be wrong?
hmmm?

Cheers,
Jordan

[BonnutFilmStudio]

Unforturnately, you are absolutely correct my friend. All movies are soon going to be made using the HD video equipment and then we are all going to see film vanish from existance. Lets face it, film is expensive and video is cheaper. The results are clean, clear, crisp images that can be mastered directly on a PC Editing system, and no need to transfer it. The thing is that if you look at "Open Water" and look at the way it looked originally, it looked like a cheap porn video, without the sex. The reason it looks like film is it was transfered to film and optically remastered to make it look more rich and film like. That is a very expensive process that most of us can not afford. You can buy a DV movie look'a'like program that is suppose to make your video look like film. I'm not impressed with those.

It's a cultural thing. As we film buffs die out, the next generation of movie fans growing up will be much more ready to accept video movies as the norm. Then we'll all see the end of the movie theaters and the end of an era. Home theaters will be it.

I like the look of film. I prefer it. I think it preserves the illusion of reality that we need to have with our movies. If it looks too real, we tend to say it's not acceptable or believable. That is the essence of film.

God save film....and Super 8


Dave Sipmann
Inventor of the Supermag 400

The future of film is not that dark. Being a member of the next generation to carry one Super 8 film and general movie film for that matter I can say that many of my peers (ages 16-20) hate digital. More and more people are getting into super 8 and ditching digital. In fact, this being my senior year in high school I've become involved in S.R.O. (Standing Room Only) a variety show performed and organized by the senior class. Although most skits are done on stage, there are 4 filmed sketches and the format perferred and in fact used in the skits was Super 8. I shot them myself and have several friends to help out with editing etc who have experience with Super 8. But beyond that film to be properl rercognized as an art form would still use movie film, think about it, why would people still have dark rooms, why do real photographers use SLRs with real film? Why hasn't everyone sitched to digital? Digital is the consumer's medium for video and photography, Super 8 is not as publicized as much as it was say 30 years ago because it's not the consumer's product anymore, it's the artist's product. And what's wrong with that? All it means is, it has more integrety, what's wrong with that. DV decomposes faster than film by the way
K-40 for life.

[sarmoti]

I agree with you Bonnut.

The film vs. video argument has been going on since the 40's and it ain't going to end anytime soon. Right now 99% of high end productions are still shot on film and at this rate of adoption (about 1% every 7 years for high end production), digital has a long way to go before it's a major adquisition force for quality artistic productions. I'm pretty sure that 20 years from now I'll still be able to pull out an Arri SR and put the latest stock in it and produce quality artistic images much better than those we are able to produce today, or I could still sell it on Ebay for a few grand. I'd be surprised if the Sony Cinealta goes for more than a couple grand on Ebay then.

[wahiba]

Some people still ride horses, sale sailing ships and build steam engines. So why not perpetuate film, still and moving, into the future.

[Angus]

what Wahiba said.

[MovieStuff]

Some people still ride horses, sail sailing ships and build steam engines.

Some still do but the majority don't and it is the majority that determines whether these are affordable practices or whether they are rare, expensive hobbies.

I've stayed out of this discussion because my thoughts on this subject have already been noted in similar threads and I didn't want to seem like a party pooper. But, really guys. While these endless discussions about the superior quality of film over digital are fun and make us feel better, it doesn't change the reality that the majority doesn't care about that difference anymore because digital is now good enough to create viable commercial products. That all-important threshold has been crossed and the more inroads that digital makes, the more people will abandon film in favor of the immediacy and cost effectiveness of digital and will internally rationalize the use of it in a million different ways despite the difference in quality. Economics will dictate whether any of us can afford to shoot film in the future; not baseless, feel-good proclamations that "film isn't going anywhere." Film is on life support. Just look at how many people shoot digital stills now compared to only a few years ago. And don't try to argue the superiorty of film over digital still cameras because it is meaningless in the overall equation, even if it is true.

So why not perpetuate film, still and moving, into the future.

The difference is that an individual can raise a horse, build a sailing ship or construct their own steam engine for sheer enjoyment, as long as they have the money. But the existence of film depends on the cooperation of a major manufacturer, even if you are going to perf it and cart it on your own, ala Pro8mm. Without the vested interest of a film supplier, we will shoot film only as long as we are allowed by economics; not by choice. Embrace it and shoot it while you can but don't fool yourselves into thinking there isn't any real danger of film becoming unavailable due to a lack of stock or processing as we know it today. We control nothing regarding film's destiny because we aren't really film makers. We are film users.

Roger

[PITIRRE]

Wow , I was the one who start this topic and I want to thanks everybody for writing about the future of super 8.

I think super 8 still and will be the choice for those who like the texture of film instead of the cold video images, I have nothing against video as a matter of fact I have a couple of video cameras and I done several experiments with them and I like it.

I just remember when digital animation was an alternative for stop motion and one SFX guy said that people who work on stop motion would became extint, and now most effects movies used computer animation so much that you go to the movies and no matter how spectacular the scene is you said "Oh another computer effect,great." The magic is gone I also remember the first time I saw "JURASSIC PARK" I said, "Wow very real dinosaurs" and now I wish if a major film can do stop motion or in camera effects.

[wahiba]

- we aren't really film makers. We are film users -

Film making - or manufacture to differentiate requires only a clear base and an emusion and some way of putting them together. It is possible to buy liquid emulsion to paint onto non paper surfaces so that images may be enlarged onto them.

I realise this is only monochrome, but the genesis of DIY film is there.

If anything it will the necessary chemicals being legislated out of existence that is most likely to scupper my hypothesis. Unles someone comes along with a completely new emulsion.

Hang gliders were around in the 1890s, but bamboo, silk etc. were too heavy. Synthetic materials and aluminium and magnesium alloys changed all that.

[wahiba]

- we aren't really film makers. We are film users -

Film making - or manufacture to differentiate requires only a clear base and an emusion and some way of putting them together. It is possible to buy liquid emulsion to paint onto non paper surfaces so that images may be enlarged onto them.

I realise this is only monochrome, but the genesis of DIY film is there.

If anything it will the necessary chemicals being legislated out of existence that is most likely to scupper my hypothesis. Unles someone comes along with a completely new emulsion.

Hang gliders were around in the 1890s, but bamboo, silk etc. were too heavy. Synthetic materials and aluminium and magnesium alloys changed all that.