K40 Resolution vs. 50d -- Dreamers, Facts, Feature Potential

[Alex]

As I stated earlier, the mini-dv release 28 days was paritally made as a marketing gimmick to show how digital video has arrived and that films days are numbered.

I agree that the film could be made in 16mm for the same money. My point is if a film can also be made in Super-8, then the obvious inference is that mini-dv is the equivalent of Super-8, NOT 16mm or 35mm.

[S8 Booster]

Not that I give a fuck Paradise, but your references to me or my material contains 3 direct errors or inaccurancies and I am not going to correct it for you.

R

[Freya]

Actually when you look at the whole picture, and depending on your shooting ratios, it's probably cheapest to shoot on 35mm because then you don't have the huge cost of the optical blow up. The cost of the blow up is many times bigger than the cost in difference between 16mm and super8 that is for sure!

I guess the idea is that you shoot on dv, 16mm, S8 and convince the distibutor to pay for the blowup which is okay if you are en established director but much harder if you are nobody.

DV has this problem too and this is why there is the big push for digital projection.

I don't see a great deal of evidence that even dv is being blown up to 35mm, except in the case of established directors working in the format for whatever reason. When the dogme thing was still going there was a certain amount of people riding the back of dogme certification, now I don't really see much in the way of dv blow ups. In fact I have never actually seen a single film that was blown up from DV. The nearest things I have seen were, "the Idiots" which I saw on tv a long time ago, "28 days later" which I saw on video, and that thing that George Lucas made.

Almost everything I have ever seen at the cinema was shot on film, bits of cgi being maybe the exception.

Quite frankly it's even rare to see anything that was shot on 16mm but I certainly have.

I think you should shoot on whatever you like or whatever suits the film or you can afford. Sometimes that might even be dv. I've been quite taken with super8 lately because the cameras are very small and portable which means I can throw them in with the other stuff at the last minute. You can also get cheap cameras and not have to worry about theft so much. Lastly K40, seems to have a feel of high quality documentary footage about it. It seems like just the thing for documentary film making. At least for cutaways or small pieces anyway.

But you just have to work with what you can, to get the best results.

love

Freya

[MovieStuff]

I've seen super 8 blown up to 35mm and it sucks. I've seen DV blown up to 35mm and it sucks, too. The fact that super 8 doesn't suck as much does not make it suddenly more viable as a serious production format for theatrical release.

But your point should have stopped the making of 28 days in it's tracks, and yet 28 days was made anyway, for 15 million dollars. Sure they made the film work to mini-dv's "advantage", and the same could be done with Super-8mm.

Again, they were willing to deal with the resolution issue on DV because it offered many, many advantages that super 8 does not. The minimal resolution difference between super 8 and DV isn't enough to warrant the increased production costs of super 8 when those same costs could be applied to 16mm production with better results.

I mean, you keep trying to make this related to theatrical release and it really has nothing to to with that. The real question is "Why does anyone produce in DV?" The answer to that question is the same regardless of where the final product is seen; theatrical or TV. Likewise, the same reason that Super 8 isn't used for regular production on TV is the same as why it isn't used in theaters. If they want a film based production on the cheap, they'll use 16mm. If they want convenience, they'll use DV. That's it.

[Freya]

I mean, you keep trying to make this related to theatrical release and it really has nothing to to with that. The real question is "Why does anyone produce in DV?" The answer to that question is the same regardless of where the final product is seen; theatrical or TV. Likewise, the same reason that Super 8 isn't used for regular production on TV is the same as why it isn't used in theaters. If they want a film based production on the cheap, they'll use 16mm. If they want convenience, they'll use DV. That's it.

Advantages of 16mm: higher resoloution, nicer colours, various filmstocks, people and actors take you more seriously. Long term storage,
film look. Good availability of telecine and lab services. Easier to get good results for 35mm blowup.

Advantages of DV: Instant feedback/dallies, almost infinite "filmstock" for virtually nothing - so infinite shooting ratio. Small cheap equipment, synchronous sound, no processing, no telecine. Smaller crews, less noticeable. Cassete loading. Video Look. Easy availability of "filmstock"

Advantages of super8: Cartridge loading, medium resolution, nicer colours, small, cheap, portable equipment. Less noticeable, smaller crews, film look. Easily available filmstock (K40), long term storage.

[S8 Booster]

Another factor which probably benefits the MiniDV is that it can be edited and "processed" in a "lossless" approcah while and (S8) film will drop some its resolution/quality by the initial transfer process and probably more further down the line.

Note post I made some time back about the huge losses in resolution encountered with 35mm (reduced by approx 65% from neg to projection print).

R

[mattias]

Actually when you look at the whole picture, and depending on your shooting ratios, it's probably cheapest to shoot on 35mm because then you don't have the huge cost of the optical blow up.

"depending on your shooting ratios" is more important that you make it sound. if you're shooting anything over 3:1 or so 16mm is cheaper. i've just researched this thoroughly for my next short. and i don't agree with your choice of words when you say "huge cost" either. optical blow ups are less than double the cost of 35mm contact printing. you can save some more in 35mm since you can strike multiple release prints from the neg without the need for an interneg, but this usually isn't recommended and it only saves you enough to maybe shoot 3.5:1 instead of 3:1. :-)

/matt

[Freya]

Advantages of 16mm: higher resoloution, nicer colours, various filmstocks, people and actors take you more seriously. Long term storage,

Ooops, actors are probably people too I imagine?

love

Freya

[Alex]

The real question is "Why does anyone produce in DV?" The answer to that question is the same regardless of where the final product is seen; theatrical or TV.

It would actually be a good thing for 16mm and 35mm production if a Super-8 feature could be made for less money than mini-dv and equal quality, and I think that is quite possible.

[Freya]

Actually when you look at the whole picture, and depending on your shooting ratios, it's probably cheapest to shoot on 35mm because then you don't have the huge cost of the optical blow up.

"depending on your shooting ratios" is more important that you make it sound. if you're shooting anything over 3:1 or so 16mm is cheaper. i've just researched this thoroughly for my next short. and i don't agree with your choice of words when you say "huge cost" either. optical blow ups are less than double the cost of 35mm contact printing. you can save some more in 35mm since you can strike multiple release prints from the neg without the need for an interneg, but this usually isn't recommended and it only saves you enough to maybe shoot 3.5:1 instead of 3:1.

/matt

Yeah you are right, that makes it sound like I meant working in 16mm is loads more expensive than working in 35mm, because of the optical blow up, wheras what I meant was working in 35mm could be cheaper than working in 16mm because the cost of blow up is so huge.

I wasn't actually suggesting you ought to shoot in 35mm over 16mm, just suggesting it could theoretically be cheaper, to be honest, I think the idea of working in 35mm is ridiculous (from where I am), but I was making the point that the blow up is often the most expensive bit, especially for dv and super8, I suspect that in 16mm it might be a bit cheaper as it is done more often.

To be honest I don't even want to think about 35mm, it just makes my head hurt.

I think you made the right descision to shoot in 16mm, especially S16. I mean a lot of 35mm prints I have seen, 2/3 of the film stock is wasted as they just crop the frame down, I can't imagine most people being able to tell the difference between S16 and 35mm.

I really don't believe in 35mm but then from where I am the cost of blows ups and 35mm is all just completely crazy! I'm strictly a dvd girl, everything else is just too scary.

love

Freya

[Freya]

the huge cost of the optical blow up. The cost of the blow up is many times bigger than the cost in difference between 16mm and super8 that is for sure!

Actually in the bit you missed off, I'm even suggesting that by the time you have paid for a blowup, the cost difference between 16mm and super8 is probably insignificant.

It's getting that way anyway, where I live, regardless of blowups.

I like S8 tho, it's got a few advantages, even over 16mm sometimes.

love

Freya

[Nigel]

It is a common misconception that it is better to shoot reversal stocks for blow-ups. I even thought that at one point until I sat down and looked at what it would take to to do a S16:35 blow-up and talked with the lab who was doing it. It turns out that it is better to shoot neg--Make a 35mm I/P then from that I/P you can Xfer or make an I/N for striking prints. You don't loose much if anything really. And, as far as costs go it really isn't all that much more in the end---It depends on the lab of course and how much you have.

Contact Interformat/Monaco they will tell you all you want to know about print and intermediate stocks.

Good Luck

[sunrise]

First of all the Dogma thing is still going. There are still being made films that are certified Dogma films.

The dogma thing was NOT about mini-DV. Although it was a big part of it.

Some dogma films was shot on 35mm!

The dogma thing, and the miniDV thing was meant as a stunt to cut productions costs.

In sweden most of the film industry seem to go over to HDTV, in Denmark we use DigiBeta and DVcam. HDTV is on it's way though.

All the films being made on the digital format has been mare expensive than it would have to shoot them on film. Because of the huge post production work.

I think you should look toward aesthetic reasons rather than finacial for choosing miniDV.

I would also agree that 28 days is not Anthony's best work, and could easily have been done on any other format. The problem I think was that producers tried to make it more mainstream, which put pressure on Anthony to make it more like a classic film.

Cheers
sunrise

[MovieStuff]

Previously, I had written:

"The only stock that is really going to be obviously superior to DV resolution is going to be the K40 stock. Nothing else in super 8 even comes close or would lend itself to the blow up process."

Though simple logical deduction with the facts, backed by my own testing, Roger's statement was not even true with Plus-X (in its original formula, things may have changed).

First, Plus-X original formula vs. K40

I read this over and over again, here on this forum, and on some other sites: "K40 is sharper than Plus-X".

No it's not. Or wasn't.

More importantly, I never said that K40 was sharper than Plus-X. My quote (you took out of context) was in response to Alex's question about DV versus super 8 in reference to "28 Days", which was color. K40 is the only color super 8 stock that would offer apparently higher resolution than DV. If the discussion had been about a DV production in black and white, then I would have used Plus-X as an example.

Of course, none of this matters for reasons that have nothing to do with resolution. People shoot DV because it's cheap an easy. Shooting a theatrical feature in super 8 would be neither. Shooting a theatrical feature in 16mm would cost the same or less than super 8 and would definately be easier than super 8 but harder than DV. Given those realities, super 8 is going to get left out of the game. It's not cheap enough to take the place of higher res 16mm and not convenient enough to compete with lower res DV.

Besides, anyone here want to write a 15 million dollar check for several thousand potentially jittery carts of K40? Not the kind of risk I'd want to take. ;)

[Alex]

Jittery carts can be found out before the cartridge is shot. Just see if the film pulls through easily from the top of the cartridge to the bottom.

-----------------------------------------

Let's try a Star Trek analogy.

A Romulan space shuttle (mini-dv) approaches the Starship Enterprise (35mm) to do battle. Kirk has several choices, he can go into full battle mode and obliterate the enemy, Warp speed away out of range, Get his "Number one" aka second in command, (16mm) lieutenant to fight the Romulan space shuttle, or Kirk can send his own Super-8 Space shuttle out to meet the intruder and handle the situation.

Kirk chooses to send his Super-8 space shuttle because it also sends a message that he won't even acknowledge the presence of the Romulan Mini-DV space shuttle as being a real threat to the Starship Enterprise (aka film). It's a way to test the Romulan Space shuttle's firepower capacity without revealing everything that the Enterprise can actually do.

Kirk will mete out the proper response (the Super-8 Space Shuttle) rather than create a scenario where the Starship Enterprise's Firepower (35mm) is directly compared to a Mini-DV Romulan Space Shuttle.

OH NO! Klingons at Five O'Clock!!!