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

[sunrise]

I think the "28 Days." people had an agenda. Yes, they did a wonderful job with DV video.

You shouldn't think of 28 Days as the prime of miniDV work. It's a rather large production and I believe director and DOP was under pressure from producers to make it more mainstream.

Try watching a film like "Vacuming completely nude in Paradise" by same director and DOP. There you'll see how far you can go with miniDV.

The basic point is this. MiniDV makes completely different images that only DV can make. It should not be used for long shots etc. because film is far superiour making these shots.

Freya, I actually thought "Mifune" was shot on 35mm, but it's 16mm. What comes closest to dogma on 35mm is "Breaking the Waves" which was hand held Panavision. Also a lot of "The Kingdom" was shot using existing light (Where you can see you can shoot) on both 35mm and 16mm.

Cheers,

sunrise

[Astro]

Hi
I've had some Super-8 blown up to 35mm via Digital Intermediate.
It looked good, but hand held work really does the eyes in.
On a High Def transfer K40 looks fantastic and so does Plus-x, especially shot with a 2x Anamorphic. However shooting a feature on Super-8 is not for me. But Super-8 looks great Film Projected or Video Projected. As for 50D, it all down to the transfer. The Pro8 demo DVD makes it look all digitised. The Techs @ Pro8 seem to digitally sharpen too much.
I remeber a British Heart Foundation cinema Ad shot entirley on K40, it looked fantastic.
Astro

[calgodot]

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.

Then do it.

The bottom line of why features get made on DV vs. why they don't get made on Super8 is that people get off their asses and shoot features on DV, whereas those interested in shooting a feature on S8 seem to be determined to talk about it until Kodak stops making film.

You can banter about $2 mil for S8 vs. $15 mil for DV for days on end. Unless you are comparing possible budgets for an actual production, the numbers mean nothing more than a couple of other random numbers. For a budget comparison to mean anything the numbers have to be related to the same production. I doubt any movie that would take $15 mil to shoot on DV could even be done for $2 mil on S8.

But again, DV features get shot because those who are interested in shooting features on DV get out there and do the work. In 1995 I started working around filmmakers in Seattle, most of whom were scrounging money to make 16mm and S8 shorts. Because of my obsession with tech stuff, I'd already read about DV in the trades (and seen stuff from friends at Sony & Canon). Everyone knew it would be the next big thing in indy film.

There were a lot of people who resisted, mostly because of the issue of "look." But the few who'd try to mount feature productions on film suddenly saw an opportunity. Those few went out and shot their films. Said films may not be memorable or successful (I edited my DV feature down to 40 minutes because I hated the 90 min version), but the filmmakers in question did it. Some of them have now gone on to do things in both film and DV. (I know, vague history wihtout names, but I hate name-dropping, and I've forgotten most of them anyway.)

So if you really believe it can be done, and you're committed to using S8 to shoot a feature, then do it. If it's a good idea, you'll find the money. (And I don't just mean good idea for a film: I also mean good idea to use S8.)

Because that's the proverbial bottom-line of filmmaking, whether you're shooting s 35mm epic or a VHS short: somebody gets off their ass and does the work. It's film MAKING not film TALKING.

[nonkjo]

I doubt any movie that would take $15 mil to shoot on DV could even be done for $2 mil on S8.

It would be intersting to see the budget breakdown for "28 Days" because I personally don't think it should have cost $15 million from just a technical standpoint...Does that $15 million represent the overall total spent from concept to delivery (including advertising, distribution, duplication...etc.) How much of that money went towards paying for the director and talent? Quite a bit I think...

James Green

[mattias]

I personally don't think it should have cost $15 million from just a technical standpoint...

duh...

/matt

[nonkjo]

nonkjo wrote:
I personally don't think it should have cost $15 million from just a technical standpoint...


duh...

/matt

My fault...i meant to clairify but I lost my train of thought right before i sent it....
What I meant to say after that was that it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that one could shoot a Super8 feature for under 2 million...kust don't hire that director.....there's a lot that that money paid for other than the film.....er.....video

[mattias]

What I meant to say after that was that it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that one could shoot a Super8 feature for under 2 million...kust don't hire that director.....there's a lot that that money paid for other than the film.....er.....video

quite correct, although there are lots of people you have to pay, and even at scale it will cost you hundreds of thousands.

/matt

[nonkjo]

even at scale it will cost you hundreds of thousands.

hundreds of thousands is still not $1 million...

James Green

[David M. Leugers]

Great discussion! My utterly useless two cents (since I have not made a feature in any format) is that I view S-8mm and R-8mm as two very viable formats for VIDEO completion. 16mm is the least format one should resonably pursue theatrical release projects with IMHO. The good by FAR outweighs any disadvantage when comparing 16mm production with S-8mm production.
Not the least of which is the lack of a proper pressure plate in S-8mm which causes so many issues for a good blow-up it becomes hard to defend... By the way, I have always shot Plus-X and still do. It looks absolutely fabulous projected on the screen, especially when a high quality print is made from the original. Plus-X has comparatively low contrast and prints made from it (or video transfers) gain some extra "snap" by the slight increase in contrast going from original to print. One of my treasures is a 600ft film I shot of my two sons at a kiddie amusement park in 1985. I shot Plus-X 16mm reversal film in my B+H Filmo. Projected onto an 8 ft screen, it takes my breath away it looks so beautiful. Who always needs color? 8)


David M. Leugers

[sunrise]

Since this has turned into a case study of "28 days", with the question posed: Would it be cheaper to do on S8?

Have a look again at "28 days" and see how many locations, crane shots, steadicam, SFX are in that film.

I don't think you can do a straight miniDV tape vs. Super8 cartridge cost comparison. Doing that film on super8 would have turned it into a completely different film.

sunrise

[Jack]

"actually imx is the most common format these days. it's basically a hd camera recording in sd resolution on normal digibeta tape. the benefits over digibeta (at least the eng type) and dvcam is the film like gamma response, wider exposure latitude, progressive scan and true 16:9. i've seen tests transferred to 35mm and it looks fantastic. about as sharp as 16mm but without the grain."

IMX is MPEG-2 compression at 3.3:1 with 8 bit 4:2:2 colour space, whereas DigiBeta is 2:1 MJPEG compression with 10 bit 4:2:2 colour space; therefore DigiBeta is superior to IMX in almost every way and there are very good progressive scan DigiBeta cameras. Images from both would transfer to 35mm very well.

I don't understand what "it's basically a hd camera recording in sd resolution on normal digibeta tape." means - There is a world of difference between HD and SD, and there is nothing HD about IMX.

Regards.

[Alex]

Since this has turned into a case study of "28 days", with the question posed: Would it be cheaper to do on S8?

Have a look again at "28 days" and see how many locations, crane shots, steadicam, SFX are in that film.

I don't think you can do a straight miniDV tape vs. Super8 cartridge cost comparison. Doing that film on super8 would have turned it into a completely different film.

sunrise

I agree.

Keeping in the spirit with what Roger originally said abot 28 days using the benefits Mini-dv offered, one would have to craft a Super-8 feature with the advantages of Super-8 in mind. This topic has grown to four pages now and it's difficult to keep track of every response but the style of what type of feature film could be shot in Super-8, for way less than 15 million, was discussed by me in a couple of my earlier responses.

[marc]

It seems that if someone was serious about doing a super 8 feature they would want one of those andec pressure plates. How much do those things cost in U.S. dollars?

[mattias]

I don't understand what "it's basically a hd camera recording in sd resolution on normal digibeta tape." means - There is a world of difference between HD and SD, and there is nothing HD about IMX

well, it's hardly my fault if you don't understand. come back once you've either shot some tests using the imx camera or talked to somebody who did. i'm so sick and tired of all the resolution freaks on this board. why won't you just *look* at the image for once? as for whether there's anything hd about imx, read my post again. i was commenting on the camera and not the format. fact is that the imx camcorder borrows *a lot* from it's hd big brother and it shows in the image.

/matt

[Old Uncle Barry]

Here we go again! The bullshit brigade believing all they read.
If it LOOKS right then it IS right.
Why get all hot under the collar studying graphs and charts.What time wasting non productive crap!
If you were shooting 35mm then fine,but for S8? Come on guys,get filming.get it right and dont waste time on differences in resolution you can only measure in laboratory conditions.Or must you get bogged down with all this stuff before you press the button?