Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

[super8man]

Did anyone catch the super 8 shots in the opening credits of Californication? Awesome. I was watching the frame-uglies - they even changed from scene to scene indicating that different cameras were used. Cool.

Or did I just fall for a look-like-super-8 digital algorithm?

[Tscan]

Roger Evans Wrote: " A lot of people using super 8 these days are doing so not because of the specific "super 8 look", which has many different looks depending on the stock you use but, rather, simply because it looks different and more interesting than digital"


Recently the Canon 5D/7D has become the standard for almost every amature video artist or film maker accross the board. As a result, pretty much every project I see has the same look and color palate. Even B&W variations are obvious of the same origination. Just go to the home page of vimeo, click on any random piece and you'll see what I mean. It's almost played out to the point I can't watch anymore.

[carllooper]

There was a question regarding what is so terrific about digital.

So just to throw a spanner in the works I might say that the digital domain can be appreciated in terms of it's central object: the computer. The artificial brain. The digital camera is really quite peripheral in relation to that. An art of the digital would be an art of the operations taking place inside the artificial brain.

Now in order for a an artificial brain to see the world it needs eyes. If one attaches a film camera system (and associated analog to digital interface: the datacine) to a computer it means the computer would have to wait a few days (for the film to be processed and connected via a datacine) whenever the brain wanted to see anything.

So digital cameras make sense in terms of artifical brains (computers). They beome the corresponding artifical eyes. Machine vision.

Now there is an art movement called physical computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_computing) that is about this very thing - connecting software (the central art of computing) to hardware and the outside world. The camera is just one device out of any one can imagine.

Seen in this light the debate between the art of the digital and the art of film can be seen as what someone once said: apples and oranges. At a fundamental level they simply have very little to do with each other. They can, however, interoperate with each other.

Carl

[etimh]

So just to throw a spanner in the works...

This is interesting. And just for the record, I'm not against everything "digital" per se--I'm very much into electronic and digitally produced music for example. And I also believe in the usefulness of video devices and imagery for practical purposes (getting that "reality" footage! )

My personal preference for analog is two-fold, both relating to experiential issues: first, the experience of actually working with analog material and data and all that that entails (so eloquently described by yourself in that earlier post). There is something fundamentally different about the analog process that is both uniquely satisfying for the artist and has profound effects on the finished object.

The second issue has to do with aesthetics, and consequently, I will agree, with matters of taste. I simply have a preference for the way analog film looks and feels when I experience it. This has no real relevance to how anyone else responds to it, or its value in the commercial market paradigm--it is simply my prerogative to state that, yes, I think that ANALOG FILM IS BETTER THAN DIGITALLY-PRODUCED ELECTRONIC IMAGES (there being no "digital" film).

Do what you want and work with whatever you find "easiest" (ughhh). It doesn't mean anyone's going to really like it. The best you're going to get is ignorant bliss from those who no longer care, or never had the privelege of knowing the difference in the first place.

Tim

[etimh]

Nnnnooooo...

So, please....

Move along, then. Nothing for you to see here.

Tim

[carllooper]

And just for the record, I'm not against everything "digital" per se--I'm very much into electronic and digitally produced music for example.

Excellent points Tim.

Now just for the record as well - I should say I'm not against reasons/arguments for shooting film (or digital) that revolve around the aesthetics of the image. It is only when push comes to shove that I'll push back on the image aspect as the least of the reasons I personally shoot film. But that said there are attributes of the film image that I do in fact very much appreciate. And that I do consider technically superior to digital. But the exact nature of that argument will have to remain for another time - as it relies (in a very important way) on a particular film (on which I'm working) coming into being. The film itself is a necessary part of the argument.

On another front, with respect to Roger's argument that Norman Rockwell is terrific doesn't really answer the question why Rockwell's work still makes me (amongst others) want to dynamically fluid.

[CinemanUK]

Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced.

I really don't think so!

R & D is driven by the need for more and more sales, and the improvement in image is merely a by-product. If manufacturers ceased R & D, they would, I guess, sell a relatively small number of cameras to replace those which failed, or got lost, or were stolen, and yes, to satisfy any videographers who wished to upgrade, etc. However, they would sell nothing like the number they do when they bring out a new standard which has the advantage of rendering obsolete all those sales before. Add to this the refusal to support earlier products, and there lies the licence to print money. The big advantage to manufacturers of "researched obsolence" is that it enables the corporate existence to continue to be profitable. One should not mistake the purpose of R & D. It is not to improve a product, but to point the way to continued existence and high profitability.

Film, on the other hand, still receives the benefit of R & D, but its modesty reflects the fact that cameras 40 years old which can still be serviced are able to use newly developed film stock which results in images that manufacturers in the video world cannot reach, even now and notwithstanding the money invested in R & D.

[MovieStuff]

Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced.

I really don't think so!

R & D is driven by the need for more and more sales, and the improvement in image is merely a by-product....

But you attempting to make a distinction where there is none since Kodak spent the better part of 100 years using R& D to improve sales. Would you say that image improvement was just a casual by-product of that effort? This is where the bias against digital comes in. When Kodak uses R&D to push film technology, they are hailed as trying to maximize quality as if they didn't really have an eye on increased profits from their efforts. But when a company does the same by trying to improve digital, they are simply branded as greedy.

Roger

[Will2]

R&D expenditures also have to do with keeping the other guy from making your product obsolete. Kodak needed to innovate with film chemistry because someone else would have stepped in like Fuji or BASF and created an emulsion that everyone loved and leave Kodak on the sidelines.

I think the product innovation that makes earlier cameras/formats obsolete is not necessarily just about making people run out and spend more money but more about making sure that another company doesn't do that and destroy their business.

All the same argument of course, two sides of the same coin. No one is saying companies spend money on R&D just out of a love of the art although I bet there were plenty of Kodak scientists that loved their job for the art as well as the money.

[CinemanUK]

But you attempting to make a distinction where there is none since Kodak spent the better part of 100 years using R& D to improve sales. Would you say that image improvement was just a casual by-product of that effort? This is where the bias against digital comes in. When Kodak uses R&D to push film technology, they are hailed as trying to maximize quality as if they didn't really have an eye on increased profits from their efforts. But when a company does the same by trying to improve digital, they are simply branded as greedy.

But there is a distinction to be drawn ... When Kodak or Fuji improve film stocks as a result of research and development, the improvements they achieve do not result in cinematogaphers having to throw away their cameras and projectors because the research and development is within user friendly parameters. 8mm stays 8mm, 16mm stays 16mm, and so on, and so there is no requirement to go out and buy expensive new cameras or projectors. In short, they do not engage in "format wars". With videography, however, there are so many examples of where research and development has not been within defined parameters. VHS and all that went with it was replaced lock, stock, and barrel. So was Beta, 8mm video, and Hi8 video, and now we see the beginning of the end of DV tape based hardware. Manufacturers seem to simply take the view that research and development is free to render earlier equipment obsolete and that they are relieved from providing continued support and spare parts, so forcing the purchase of new equipment. Indeed, it almost seems to be the case that their record demonstrates that research and development is charged with developing something which is not an evolutionary improvement, but something which is revolutionary in the sense that it ensures that new hardware will have to be purchased in order to take advantage of the "development" - thus ensuring that sales and profit are maintained.

That is the distinction which is to be drawn.

[MovieStuff]

But you attempting to make a distinction where there is none since Kodak spent the better part of 100 years using R& D to improve sales. Would you say that image improvement was just a casual by-product of that effort? This is where the bias against digital comes in. When Kodak uses R&D to push film technology, they are hailed as trying to maximize quality as if they didn't really have an eye on increased profits from their efforts. But when a company does the same by trying to improve digital, they are simply branded as greedy.

But there is a distinction to be drawn ... When Kodak or Fuji improve film stocks as a result of research and development, the improvements they achieve do not result in cinematogaphers having to throw away their cameras and projectors because the research and development is within user friendly parameters. 8mm stays 8mm, 16mm stays 16mm, and so on, and so there is no requirement to go out and buy expensive new cameras or projectors. In short, they do not engage in "format wars". With videography, however, there are so many examples of where research and development has not been within defined parameters. VHS and all that went with it was replaced lock, stock, and barrel. So was Beta, 8mm video, and Hi8 video, and now we see the beginning of the end of DV tape based hardware. Manufacturers seem to simply take the view that research and development is free to render earlier equipment obsolete and that they are relieved from providing continued support and spare parts, so forcing the purchase of new equipment. Indeed, it almost seems to be the case that their record demonstrates that research and development is charged with developing something which is not an evolutionary improvement, but something which is revolutionary in the sense that it ensures that new hardware will have to be purchased in order to take advantage of the "development" - thus ensuring that sales and profit are maintained.

That is the distinction which is to be drawn.

I totally disagree.

Let's say that you shoot $2000 worth of film and processing a year. While it is true that you can always put the latest and greatest film in your camera, thus taking advantage of better image quality without rendering your film camera obsolete, you do so knowing that each year your operational costs go up, even if your film camera was free. Why? Because, as film is used less and less by the public, it costs more to buy and process. But if you put that $2000 into the latest digital camcorder, you can shoot more than $2000 dollars worth of footage; indeed you could shoot 100 times more footage with only a minimal increase since the media can be used over and over.

But what if the manufacturer comes out with a new digital camera with more features?

Well, you don't have to buy it if you don't want to any more than you have to switch to a better film stock if you don't want.

But what if the manufacturer will no longer service your digital camera?

Obviously, you buy another camera which, thanks to ebay, could easily be a used version of your favorite digital camera that broke.

But what if ebay doesn't have a used version of your favorite digital camera?

Well, while the latest and greatest digital camera will certainly cost more than a film camera, there is zero comparison in the overall value in terms of the amount of footage you can get for the money. Even if you spend another $2000 on the latest digital camera, you are still ahead of the game if you were going to shoot $2000 worth of footage anyway.

Ironically, the only way your distinction is valid is if you simply don't shoot anything so that your primary investment is in the hardware. In that case, a $2000 unused digital camera is obviously not as desirable as a $150 unused film camera. But if you shoot enough to make this argument meaningful, the economics of shooting digital are obvious.

So, in the end, the image quality R&D that both Kodak and digital companies engage in are designed to increase sales. But the degree to which Kodak produces a better image is offset by the sheer economics of digital, even if it has less quality. Thus digital gets the bigger market share. So goes the market share, so goes the money for R&D to improve the product which services that market.

Or, to put it another way, if Kodak had the market share because film was cheaper to shoot and process, then they'd have the money for R&D to stay king of the hill. I mean, that's how it was for decades where the simplicity of film was obviously more efficient than trying to lug tons of 80's era video equipment around. But digital eventually became "good enough" to capture the majority of that market share, even if it wasn't good enough to completely replace it. And with the increased profits from digital sales, R&D into digital imaging closes that gap more and more every year.

Roger

[carllooper]

Another thing to keep in mind is that standards are irrelvant in terms of the central idea of digital systems. At the core of digital systems is the idea of a universal machine by which is meant that the hardware (if only as an idea) can do anything.

A universal machine would be one that does not need to limit itself to any specific standard because it is built around the idea that it can support any standard.

Standards such as 8mm, 16mm, 35mm etc. (like rail gauges) were necessary because cameras (projectors, trains, etc) were not (are not) universal machines.

But at the heart of a digital system, the whole idea of standards is made redundant. Now of course, standards do come into play - but it is no longer due to any limitation of the hardware. For example, why have an image that is 640 x 480 pixels? A 643 x 477 image is just as easy for the digital system to support.

Most of the standards that propogate through digital systems have nothing to do with the hardware. They have everything to do with:

a. what we expect, or how we might want to use, or otherwise want to interact with these machines

b. how software developers, using creativity, mathematics and statistics, can satisfy such expectations.

Software development is simply the means by which you configure a universal machine to become whatever machine you want it to be. There are no standards to which you need to conform. You can create any standard you like. The hardware doesn't care.

Now it would make sense for non-universal machines to be made in a way that was like a universal machine - a bit like those Transformer robots that could change shape. And research continues along those lines (lego, nanobot reassemby etc).

In the meantime non-universal machines attempt to be universal machines in another way: the camera you buy today, can change into a new camera by you simply throwing it in the bin and buying a new one. Disposability is the way one object can become another.

There is huge paradigm shift and conceptual gulf operating here between that world in which things were made to ideally last forever and those which are just made as transitory versions of an idea that is still evolving.

Note also that it is not the physical computer which is the universal machine. It is the idea it embodies which is the universal machine. Peripheral hardware is in orbit around this idea.

Now creative objects are a different idea. The Mona Lisa, for example, is not universal (or disposable). Nor a photograph of your daughter. Or Ingmar Bergmans Seventh Seal. They are considered specific. Unique. Special. But technology can often become a similar thing - our collection of cameras testifying to such.

And the reverse ...

One of the unfortunate things of machines wanting to be universal, and being disposable as the next best thing, is that the creative result of using such machines risks the same disposabilty. Creative work can just vanish into thin air.

[CinemanUK]

I totally disagree.....

You have missed my point completely.

The point I was making is that manufacturers of film, with very few exceptions,(as long as there is more than one manufacturer) have not and do not now have the power to render obsolete the hardware used to expose their filmstocks. As they improve their products, owners of cameras, as you say, theoretically, have the choice whether to use the latest stock or not, although in reality this not necessarily the case when, for example, the introduction of a new stock is in replacement for an earlier stock and the earlier stock is discontinued. In other words all of one's eggs are not in one basket, so to speak. One is able to continue to use one's camera using the latest stock if one wishes to do so and one certainly does not have to throw away one's camera simply because of the introduction of a new filmstock..

Manufacturers of video equipment, on the other hand, have already demonstrated that they have no hestitation about forcing the regular replacement of expensive equipment by changes to the basic recording and processing systems their products employ, and the power to do so is not lost on them.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice whether one wishes to board and continue on the digital merry go round of periodically replacing one's video equipment just because the manufacturer changes basic operating systems and ends support for the earlier ones.

[MovieStuff]

The point I was making is that manufacturers of film, with very few exceptions,(as long as there is more than one manufacturer) have not and do not now have the power to render obsolete the hardware used to expose their filmstocks....

Respectfully, this is historically incorrect. The very existence of super 8 was to replace regular 8. Ever try to put a super 8 cart in a regular 8 camera? Can you honestly say that super 8 has superior image quality compared to regular 8? Do all super 8 cameras handle Vision 200 stock? E64 stock?

Manufacturers of video equipment, on the other hand, have already demonstrated that they have no hestitation about forcing the regular replacement of expensive equipment by changes to the basic recording and processing systems their products employ,....

How do they force you to buy something you don't want? I still have a tube type VHS camera that works perfectly fine if I felt it had good enough quality. And, if it ever stops working, I can certainly get another one on ebay just as you can buy another Canon 1014 on ebay.

...and the power to do so is not lost on them.

Power? No. But certainly they have a desire to sell you something new. This was no different when super 8 manufacturers did what they could to maintain their market share in the face of Betamax home video cameras. The advent of home video was probably THE driving force behind the increase in more and more sophistication in super 8 cameras. I'd say we owe a lot to the home video camera manufacturers of the late 70s and early 80s. It has provided us with an unprecedented number of groovy super 8 cameras that otherwise would probably never have come about without the influence of electronic competition.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice whether one wishes to board and continue on the digital merry go round of periodically replacing one's video equipment just because the manufacturer changes basic operating systems and ends support for the earlier ones.

Ever try to put a sound cart in a silent super 8 camera? Just because a manufacturer comes out with something new does not mean you have to abandon what you already have. Ebay is a wonderland of choices, both new and old. The fact that we are discussing this on a super 8 forum undermines your position that we are forced to buy into something new. ;)

Roger

[Angus]

Manufacturers of video equipment, on the other hand, have already demonstrated that they have no hestitation about forcing the regular replacement of expensive equipment by changes to the basic recording and processing systems their products employ, and the power to do so is not lost on them.

I am not sure that I am sold on this difference. In the electronic age (analogue and digital electronic formats), systems have sprung up often to huge mainstream acceptance...and then disappeared much quicker than with popular film formats. But that doesn't alter the fact that the dynamic is essentially the same.

Where there is perhaps a difference, is that improvements in the days when film ruled the domestic roost were most obviously in the film. Sure the cameras became more sophisticated, more features, often cheaper and smaller....but there was a lot of research into improving the film too.

With digital there are as yet no cameras with interchangable sensors (more's the pity) so the research into improving the image via the sensor will mean upgrading the camera every so often. But formats still come and go. Do you really think the ubiquitous SD card of 2011 will still be around in 2020? For a digital format it has had a great run and still does it's job. But it won't be around forever.