getting on your super 8 nerves

[S8 Booster!]

Roger, if you go back to Pedro´s post that´s the core of my statement. S8 is projecting primarily. Whatever else it is used for is basically secondary issues.

If anyone wants to watch their movies on TV, fine. But then stick to video origination. Much better. Then this forum is not the right one for them.

To me the S8 DV transfer is excellent when I want to use the S8 for commercial stuff. No problem. But then again it might be better to run video all the way since most companies who use my services would not sepearate between the two unless I made the comparisation directly. They would be fine with any video origination, S8 or DV. I have even produced quite expensive commercial use videos originated on Video8 PAL and for my customers and they were way more satisfied with my productions than the ones from other companies using BETA etc, not saying that their images weren´t better but their productions weren´t.

Film projection is the reference. Like it or not. Since this is a 8mm film forum it is no way to bypass the projection factor whether it is S8 or DV. Watching TV is a very different story that belongs elsewhere.

24P is just another distaster in the line of products that will probably not influence on S8 unless the S8 cams breaks down in unison.

The comparistaion I did on LCD projection between DVDV & Ranked S8DV was very useful whether you like it or not: Since the projector is quite daft in colours compared to a monitor the difference in projected colours became even more astonishing. I mean real big.



Another factor that might influence on the DV analysis is that you use the NTSC 29.Xx while we use the PAL 25. I do believe that the image quality of the PAL is much better in general and what you will get with the 24P is something closer to the PAL 25 which we always had.

Possibly it is a discussion over (un)similar formats in the end.


Now, lets go S8 filmmaking. Thats my last word on this subject anyway.

[S8 Booster!]

Crimson:

I also use the Handycam Hi8 along with the S8 (might eventually buy a DV sometime) for documentation work in my regular job. For fast documentation it is excllent and there is a lot of stuff the video can that the S8 can´t like instant work on images in the computer and low light filming.

For my most precious filming, the home movies, I soley use the S8 intended for projection and recently I have started to eveluate the PRO8mm neg film intended for commercial film production.

I just wanted to make the point that Super8 is a great format but lets us not bury our heads from what is out there. I use both formats and I dont think DV is in competition with S8. I want to work with borth formats for as long as I can.

[MovieStuff]

S8 is projecting primarily. Whatever else it is used for is basically secondary issues.

Well, that's your opinion. Others aren't required to agree.

If anyone wants to watch their movies on TV, fine. But then stick to video origination.

Well, again, that's YOUR choice. Others do not have to agree.

Film projection is the reference. Like it or not.

I have no idea where you get that. I mean, no offense, but clearly this thread is about the new 24P minidv VIDEO camera and how that will compare to super 8 transferred to video. I don't think anyone has made an issue of how 24P will look when projected on a screen like super 8 original. And why would they? Who wants to project video? Consumer level LCD projectors are terrible, compared to even the cheapest home grade CRTs.

Again, you seem to skew the rules here a bit. When you talk about the superiority of super 8, you do so only from the standpoint of original projection; something that no one is asking about, has a desire for or expects from any type of video, even the new 24P miniDV. Projecting video and noting its deficiencies compared to super 8 projected is like saying that super 8 original doesn't work very well with a Sony RM450 edit controller compared to a beta tape. Who in their right mind would expect it to or even try?

Then this forum is not the right one for them.

To say that the people on this thread should go somewhere else to talk about the relevance of 24P in a dwindling super 8 world is a bit narrow minded, not to mention a tad territorial. Like Crimson said, we can't bury our heads to what is coming. 24P isn't a "what if" sort of thing. It exists and you haven't seen it so you can't really claim that it isn't comparable to super 8 or that super 8 is superior in every respect. You can make definitive statements all day long but you simply have not seen the new 24P format so you simply don't know what you're commenting on.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE super 8 and I agree that when projected it rocks, compared to any type of video. But I think that you are being a little overzealous in your defense of super 8 when constantly comparing the results of projection from original stock to that of video when this entire thread has nothing to do with projection of original and everything to do with 24P video production as an alternative to telecined super 8 film production.

As far as telling people they should go to another forum, check the title of this particular thread and see if it isn't YOUR comments that are out of place. ;)

Roger

[mattias]

I agree with Crimsonson that format is more of deciding factor if you are working with decent cameras.

but that's backwards thinking. "working with decent cameras" implies that the difference between the ccd's is minimal, which *obviously* makes the format the deciding factor.

however, what we are doing here is comparing video with super-8 transferred to video, and in that context the video format hardly matters at all. the difference between super-8 and ccd originated material in any video format will be a lot bigger in "look" than the difference between even the highest and lowest end video formats, using the same ccd or not. if this wasn't true, there wouldn't be such a thing as a film look. you can even recognize the film look in a 160x120 web movie.

/matt

[mattias]

With the other way you began lower quality already.

yes, exactly, and that is mainly due to the ccd being inferior, i promise.

Format is the first factor that dictates the quality of video.

no, the ccd is the first. you obviously know that there's a *huge* difference in image quality between a high and a low end mini dv camera? how do you explain that? how do you explain that a professional svhs camera often produces better loking images than a consumer dv one? and so on...

/matt

[MovieStuff]

I agree with Crimsonson that format is more of deciding factor if you are working with decent cameras.

but that's backwards thinking. "working with decent cameras" implies that the difference between the ccd's is minimal, which *obviously* makes the format the deciding factor.

I'm glad you agree!

however, what we are doing here is comparing video with super-8 transferred to video, and in that context the video format hardly matters at all.

Hmmm. I see what you are getting at but I think you are mixing up a few things. If you are talking about super 8 transferred to video, then you have to establish by what means? If you are going to be using a Rank for the transfer, then it isn't fair to use a home video camera as evidence that cameras make the difference. Super 8 transferred using a home video camera compared to raw video shot on the same home video camera would be a fair comparison, I suppose, but I'm not sure what that would prove. Obviously, it's a no brainer than the better the video camera, the better the image is going to look but the question is do you LIMIT that potential via the format or do you maximize it? Even if you use the Rank, super 8 footage transferred to Digital Beta is going to look much better than the same footage transferred to VHS.

the difference between super-8 and ccd originated material in any video format will be a lot bigger in "look" than the difference between even the highest and lowest end video formats, using the same ccd or not. if this wasn't true, there wouldn't be such a thing as a film look. you can even recognize the film look in a 160x120 web movie.

I understand your point and even agree that you can't get an acceptable image from a crapola video camera, even if you record that image on Digital Betacam. However, I don't really think that anyone is suggesting that here. Take a lousy camera and record an image simultaneously on a VHS deck and a Digital Betacam and the Digital Betacam will look better; not acceptable or comparable to super 8 but relatively better. The same will hold true if you use a broadcast camera for the experiment, though the better camera will yield a better image on both. But, despite the better image, the obvious limiting factor is going to be the format, not the camera, since the format either maximizes the image potential or chokes it. I mean, plug the same broadcast camera into a Fisher Price Pixelvision unit and see if the camera still gives you superior results!

To that end, think of the difference between super 8 and 35mm with both cameras using the exact same film emulsion and the exact same lenses. One format is going to maximize the the image potential and the other is going to limit it. The cameras themselves have nothing to do with it; it's the format that dictates the ultimate quality since, as you pointed out earlier:

the difference between super-8 and ccd originated material in any video format will be a lot bigger in "look" than the difference between even the highest and lowest end video formats, using the same ccd or not.

However, that doesn't mean that the relative difference between video formats has to be as dramatic to be valid. Today's single chip cameras put out images that many broadcast cameras could never achieve 10 years ago and the gap is getting more narrow by the year. However, the difference in formats is HUGE, compared to the minimal differences in CCD performance. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to suggest that using the same or similar CCD array as the source, the format is going to dictate the difference in quality.

Ironically, I think you are actually proving my point when you make the comparison of super 8 transferred to video as opposed to raw video origination. After all, one looks better than the other, not because of the camera used but, rather, the choice of format! Use a broadcast grade video camera with a C mount lens to produce original video footage and then use that same C mount lens on a S8 Beaulieu and have that footage Ranked. Take a look at the end results and THEN tell me that choice of format doesn't make the difference.

Roger

[mattias]

> After all, one looks better than the other, not because of the camera
> used but, rather, the choice of format

i don't agree. what you call "format" is the equivalent of a camera or a ccd. the format as we're discussing it here is the video format used for the final projection.

> Obviously, it's a no brainer than the better the video camera, the better
> the image is going to look but the question is do you LIMIT that potential
> via the format or do you maximize it?

no, that's not the question i replied to, starting this sub-thread. again, you're approaching what i say backwards. the question is "how can super 8 trasferred to video possibly look better (colors, contrast) than video since it's also video?" the answer is: film emulsion is better than a ccd at recording the light. this is the limiting factor in all phography, no matter what format the image ends up in.

see it this way: the format is *a* limiting factor for sure, but the limit has already been set by the camera. no matter how much further you limit the original image, the one that was better to begin with will always look better than the other. it's a very simple application of the gigo rule... ;-)

/matt

[mattias]

sorry, missed this one:

> Therefore, I think it is reasonable to suggest that using the same or
> similar CCD array as the source, the format is going to dictate the difference in quality.

obviously, but in this case that's completetly irrelevant. in fact, we have a very simple situation since it's all well defined: two videos of the same format, one comes from a telecine device and one from a video camera. compare them. is it possible for one of them to have better colors and contrast, or does the video format dictate that?

/matt

[mattias]

sorry roger, one more thing: i agree with almost everything you've said. i just don't get what it has to do with this discussion. i suggest you go back and read the beginning of the thread, and the question i originally replied to in particular.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

what you call "format" is the equivalent of a camera or a ccd. the format as we're discussing it here is the video format used for the final projection.

That's news to me. Perhaps I missed something. But, really, how many people consider "format" to be determined by the type of camera or CCD? No one that I know. You can plug an Ikegami 3 chip camera into any video deck of any format. In fact, that is what "format" means in video, hence the term "video format".

"how can super 8 trasferred to video possibly look better (colors, contrast) than video since it's also video?" the answer is: film emulsion is better than a ccd at recording the light. this is the limiting factor in all phography, no matter what format the image ends up in.

Exactly. The film FORMAT is better than the video FORMAT for recording the original image. But for your comparison to really have equality, you would have to transfer the super 8 image with the very same video camera that you refer to as a "format", otherwise, you're leaving out the existence of the Rank in the equation.

In other words, yes, if you shoot super 8 and transfer to video using a Rank, it will look better than raw video origination from camera X. But if you use Camera X to transfer the super 8 film then all bets are off. Furthermore, if you could possibly take a Rank out in the field and image directly to it instead of a typical video camera, then the super 8 transfer from the Rank isn't going to look better at all since it is going to be second generation. Therefore, even if you want to refer to the imaging tool used as the "format", then one format is going to produce better results than another.

But again, I don't know anyone that refers to "format" as the type of CCD or camera used but, rather, the medium the image is recorded on. But I do agree that super 8 film Ranked to video is going to look better than raw video origination.

Roger

[mattias]

But, really, how many people consider "format" to be determined by the type of camera or CCD?

i don't know. you're the first i've seen. how else am i supposed to interpret you claim that the choice between film and video is a choice of format? to me that's clearly a choice of "imaging tool". especially is the result from both will be transferred to the same video format.

But for your comparison to really have equality, you would have to transfer the super 8 image with the very same video camera that you refer to as a "format", otherwise, you're leaving out the existence of the Rank in the equation.

you're making my point here. why would you have to use the same camera if the video format itself was the limiting factor?

In other words, yes, if you shoot super 8 and transfer to video using a Rank, it will look better than raw video origination from camera X. But if you use Camera X to transfer the super 8 film then all bets are off.

i don't agree. when i tape my super-8 footage with my mini dv camera the result looks like super-8, and has much more shadow and highlight detail as well as saturated colors than anything i've shot with the camera to begin with. this, of course, is easily confirmed by theory and common knowledge. or at least i thought so before this thread. i thought i was simply pointing out the obvious to a clueless person, and all of a sudden i find that a pro like yourself takes his side and starts a discussion? i'm still a little puzzled...

Furthermore, if you could possibly take a Rank out in the field and image directly to it instead of a typical video camera, then the super 8 transfer from the Rank isn't going to look better at all since it is going to be second generation.

disagree again. rank scanners don't have much more latitude than video cameras. it's not needed since the contrast of the super-8 film (or any other film for that matter) isn't very high at all.

Therefore, even if you want to refer to the imaging tool used as the "format", then one format is going to produce better results than another. [...] But again, I don't know anyone that refers to "format" as the type of CCD or camera used but, rather, the medium the image is recorded on.

but come on? *you're* the one who referred to the imaging tool as the format. you must have seriously misunderstood me somewhere, since i've been saying the *exact opposite* all along. i even specified it as the "video format used for the final projection" several times. i don't see how that could be misinterpreted...

/matt