whick format ?

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:36 pm

hello everybody!
I like super8 a lot but a few days ago, I made a test with my friends and a new camera. With stunning a results... Here are some stills:

Please have a guess on which format these pictures origined.
Thanks, Nicolai

scooterbird · Post by **scooterbird** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:53 pm

Well lets see. If it's "new" it can't be super 8mm unless it's a Beaulieu. My guess is some new digital camera. Probably not even Super 8. Whats the point?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 2:23 pm

scooterbird wrote:Well lets see. If it's "new" it can't be super 8mm unless it's a Beaulieu. My guess is some new digital camera. Probably not even Super 8. Whats the point?

It's not Super8, neither some ultra-new-electronical-hd-gizmo-cam.
Well, what's the point? - I want to get some impressions from other filmmakers, how they judge the pictures without knowing anything about the technical aspects. Mmhh. Maybe I should ask some questions: What was your first idea when you saw the pictures (DOF,colour etc). How do you like the aesthetics? Please let me know your opinion, add some comments.
Bye, Nicolai

Post by **jean** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 2:39 pm

they are good photography, colors are a little 70's - but it fits the composition very good. The use of dof works good, especially on the frame with the two guys. It's definitely a "motion" still, you feel that there was a "before" and will be a "next" to the frame (as opposed to a static composition of a photo).
Whatever media it was shot on.

Post by **Carlos 8mm** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 8:19 pm

Anonymous wrote: It's not Super8, neither some ultra-new-electronical-hd-gizmo-cam.
Well, what's the point? Bye, Nicolai

Obviously, It seems to have been filmed in 16:9 aspect ratio (or more panoramic) and really looks like film. (Can be seen a little bit of grain in the second pic).

If It is not new HD video cam, not super 8, What it is?
Mini DV, DV, DVC, et-cetera, processed with a new software?

Perhaps this is the "Ultra 8" format? :roll:

Carlos.

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 9:56 pm

Oh, I hate these questions. They do my head in. It could be anything!

DV always seems to come off well in these on computer comparisons. If it's not DV, perhaps it's an analogue format, like Hi8? The depth of field suggests that if it is digital, the camera must be a long way back to get such depth from an intrinsically small apperture lens (most DV cams are about f4.5 max, I believe.)

The pics look nice, well lit, good focus etc.

My guess is 16mm or Super16 with a 100mm(ish) lens and Vision 500...?

Lucas

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 10:37 pm

thanks for your input!
here are 3 more pictures:

wide angle lens

here we used a 50mm lens

50mm again

it is not super8. I got the 16/9 aspect ratio by cropping the 1.37 images
nico

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 11:16 pm

16mm or 35mm stills camera

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:05 am

It's easy, it's a jpeg image...

Fernando, Spain

Basstruc not logged in · Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:17 am

XL1 with mini35 adapter

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:45 am

Yeah, interesting point Basstruc..what's with all this tiny depth of field? It's obviously mimicing 35mm - which can work on a computer screen, if nowhere else. If it were the real thing, you'd have to use ND filters to get that DOF with a 50mm lens. I'm with Basstruc, or there'd be no point in posting the question.

Anyway, who cares.

Impatiently,
Lucas ;)

Post by **Mr_Floppy** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:46 am

MiniDV, for sure.
Mini 35 adapter, probably.

XL1s with the mini 35 adapter and Canon Eos lenses?

Mr Floppy

Post by **Mr_Floppy** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:06 am

ag dvx100...

but the focus thing...

Post by **jessh** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:29 am

Whatever it is it looks as if it is trying hard for a "film look"
Not that there is anything wrong with that, it could be the exact look you are going for.
It looks as if heavy grain and a shallow depth of field were the goal, and it was achieved...
It also looks as if the quality has been heavily degraded by some means, and I am not even viewing it fullscreen, I would hate to see this on a big screen, that is unless the origional is better quality (which it very well could be). I would say it looks like either filmlook software/mini35 adapter, or really grainy film and a bad transfer. But I could be very off....

Either way it doesn't matter, I shoot both video and film, and it isn't always a budget issue. Some things are better suited for video, and some are better suited for film. I am all for using whatever method of processing helps to achieve the look you are going for, but I personally find the whole video "film-look" craze rather amusing.

how do you define what film looks like anyways? What if I shot 65mm on an ultra-no-grain stock at 60fps and put it next to cross-processed ektachrome super8 at 24fps....

I reallly have no idea where I am going with this, so the rant will end here

~Jess

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:55 am

jessh wrote:Whatever it is it looks as if it is trying hard for a "film look"
Not that there is anything wrong with that, it could be the exact look you are going for.
It looks as if heavy grain and a shallow depth of field were the goal, and it was achieved...
It also looks as if the quality has been heavily degraded by some means, and I am not even viewing it fullscreen, I would hate to see this on a big screen, that is unless the origional is better quality (which it very well could be). I would say it looks like either filmlook software/mini35 adapter, or really grainy film and a bad transfer. But I could be very off....

Either way it doesn't matter, I shoot both video and film, and it isn't always a budget issue. Some things are better suited for video, and some are better suited for film. I am all for using whatever method of processing helps to achieve the look you are going for, but I personally find the whole video "film-look" craze rather amusing.

how do you define what film looks like anyways? What if I shot 65mm on an ultra-no-grain stock at 60fps and put it next to cross-processed ektachrome super8 at 24fps....

I reallly have no idea where I am going with this, so the rant will end here

~Jess

OK, I see...you're a little pissed of by my post. (I won't do it again, promised.)

You got it, basstruc and jess. It is miniDV. Well, here's the story:
I am going to shoot a music video with my friends (on the first picture) in a couple of weeks. It will be done on a very tiny budget, let's say even no-budget.
First, we thought Super8 would be the best way to go. The look of K40 would have fitted our aesthetic demands very well. But even the cost for filmstock and telecine would have exceeded our budget (which the producer of the band pays for our services in advance). So we had to think about another resolution. miniDV looks like crap, and absolutely not like film. Well, some colour-correction is possible, one can try to mimic film, use a good light setup etc. But even then it would not have fitted our demands.
Then we thought about renting a mini35-system (a least 350 EUR (340 $) per day), too expensive as well. We had already heard of a german cameraman who had build a setup with a NIkon-camera, a F3-viewfinder and a panasonic DVcamera. We adapted this construction, bought an old Pentacon Six middle-format camera, some Zeiss prime lenses and fitted a Sony 3Chip-DV camera on the camera case, so that it would film of the ground-glass. The pictures above are from our first test shooting a few days ago. The grain is quite visible, I used some plugin to de-grain it a little bit (with some loss of detail as well) and did some colour-correction.
Surely you have noticed the darker corners - the ground-glass is curved and has a fresnel-lens attached to it, which yields in shaded corners.
The picture with the two guys is lit with 2 500W-lamps and a 150 W from a hardware store. The results look the same on a TV-set and because the music video is not intended for projection, only for tv-broadcasting, we think DV-pal resolution is quite acceptable.
Sorry again for my prior post, I didn't want to bother you with annoying questions, I just wanted to see what filmmakers think about our approach to mimic filmlook characteristics. I hope we can shot our next video on super8, maybe I upload it when it'll be done (perhaps it's more interesting for you than the whole DV-stuff).
Thanks for your comments! Nicolai

PS.: a test clip: http://home.arcor.de/moebiusfilms2/dv35m_test.rm 839 kB

Filmshooting

whick format ?

whick format ?

more pictures

ok..ok