A Taste Of V2 200T, S8, Berlin, Potsdam 2008

[S8 Booster]

shoet post. more info later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHchBoDl5ss

shoot,,,,,

[alex-rus]

I like how it looks. V2 200T is great. Where it was transferred?

[S8 Booster]

hi Alex. Andreas who runs this forum transferred the film to SD minidv PAL. it became a simplified transfer due to some problem with his scanner but i still like it and the "sharpness" is stunning looking at the original. the V2 is a big improvement over the V1 in my opinion.

the camera is my brand new Canon 1014 XLS and it works flawlessly.

i used the internal 85 filter plus a cooling 81C filer to match the film´s 3200K rating and i think this works very well.

this posted clip is an excerpt from an 18 min total where i mix E64T, V200T and Fuji 500T neg. the E64 works ok but is far more grainy than the 200 and the Fuji is really sharp although grainy.

all films are shot at 18 fps, transferred 1:1 at 25 fps and is not speed corrected so it runs at 25 fps.

update:
clip is also available on vimeo.com: http://vimeo.com/7531067

link to the tube: http://vimeo.com/7531067

just found out that theoriginal looks sooooo much better, colour sharpness etc compared to the posted clips.

shoot.....

[alex-rus]

Hi, thanks for your answer

I also worked on my small documentary with negative stocks this summer. And also with the 1014XL-S. It makes just great images. Haven't tried the Fuji 500T but the E64T surely looks like Kodak's V2 500T with its grain...

Best regards

[S8 Booster]

I agree with you. The E64T is useless compared to the V2 200T in every which way, as grainy as a V2 500T is my judgement too.

as for now the V2 200T even outguns the K40 if properly transferred, if transferring is the destination.

seems like V2 200T will be my future standard from now.

the Fuji F500T is probably an old film now, some leftovers, if is grainy but still very sharp in reproduction. is is very different form the Kodak negs, seems to like spot on exposure where it also shines. unlike the Kodak neg is gets quickly washed out at slight over exposure. each shot has to be "measured" while the Kodaks are much more forgiving and seems to like quite a bit of over exposure.

Ill post a short clip of the 3 different film kinds later.

shoot......

[Will2]

These clips look good, a little desaturated perhaps but sharp for Super 8.

Everything depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to make Super 8 look like 16mm then negative of course gives you that latitude. If you're shooting professionally and can't afford hot spots and improper exposure then negative is the way to go. But sometimes even when shooting professionally those imperfections are exactly what you want.

Reversals give the look that I generally love about Super 8. (with the exception of low light work where negative is necessary). I even like sending reversals to some of these DVD mills and get transfers with all the hair in the gate and dust bunnies.

When I want that sharp, accurate color look I'd usually rather shoot 16mm.

[S8 Booster]

hello Will, thanks for your feedback.

no, there were no intentions at all with these films other than "Nigel´s Delight" ie just point and shoot shitty S8, just grabbed a mix of existing film carts and went off.

some day i may ask Andreas for an High Q neg transfer just so see how good it may look.

i agree in that reversal film is enjoyable for S8 but i tend to believe that V2 200T may be an fabolous film stock for DVD making or digital projection.


shoot.