Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

[kontrabass]

Since DSLR can shoot movie clip, even professinals are giving up to use 16mm for TV comercials. also the super 8 market is getting more and more unpopular in amateur market.

Consider the cost and the quality, I really couldn't see any advantage of small gauge film compare than DSLR, except the style and the feelling when filming.

So if I am right, I just hope that 35mm will stay in movie industry a bit longer, other wise we will can not buy and process film stock with reasonable prise any more.

But unfortunatly, there is only one or two weak point left on DSLR at this moment, for example they can't store raw file for movie clips. or can do fast pan...but is that a impossible issue for Canon or Nikon?

How to save the life of film? It gives me the feeling of art, but the market is based on money only.

[aj]

You are describing a non existing problem.
There were/are so many cheap modes to create high quality movies before the advent of the DSLR that it really makes no difference to the existence of S8 or 16mm.

The DSLR are cheap, compact and shoot high quality. Hardly the properties of Super-8
Super-8 survived on its own merits. And will continue to do so until resources are really fully depleted. And according to Wittner that will NOT be soon.
Plenty of choice now and they have acquired machines to produce ciné from any base material.

[MovieStuff]

Super-8 survived on its own merits. And will continue to do so until resources are really fully depleted.

I dunno. Rising cost of a rare commodity will be the arch enemy of super 8. When film gets too expensive to shoot and process, consumer usage will stop long before resources deplete.

Roger

[kontrabass]

Yes, that what did I mean in my first post. In Wittner, 1 cartrdge + processing + shipping is more than 40 EUR for 2.5 min. A new Olympus Pen EPL cost 400 -500 EUR shoot as long as the memory card can afford.

[aj]

You wrote "cost and quality". Quality was never an advantage of Super-8. Cost is apparently neither a problem as cameras cost very little and the price per minute may seem steep compared to electronic registration but that is apples and pears compared.

Wittner actual cost for a standard film:

Incl. Entwicklungsgutschein (Versandbeutel) für Deutschland und Europa mit Rückversand, gültig 12 Monate. Standardentwicklung / Standardversand.
Best.-Nr. 1600E
ab 1 Kassette (21.76 EUR netto) 25.90 EUR brutto

This is including EU return shipping. Mailing-in takes about Euro 1-2
Considering inflation it may very well be cheaper then in 1980


DSLR is only competition for other digital registration tools. Who also cost next to nothing

I don't think the Olympus Pen is a real SLR. I.e. no mirror and/or prism. And the memory comes for free?

BTW I don't own a modern DSLR but I suppose the mirror is up when filming. I.e. what is point of it being a SLR? You don't need to take two cameras?

Good luck.

[kontrabass]

Yes you are right that any DSLR or M4/3 .... can't give the comfortabllity for shooting as a real cine cam, because they are desinged for still photography. but, who knows if they developed this weak point on the newer model?

The price, 25 EUR include processing is for 100D only, Negtive and other type film is not include processing.

I wish the film market will keep runing, so I can still shot movie in the way I like. But what can we do to help the market?

[MovieStuff]

Cost is apparently neither a problem as cameras cost very little and the price per minute may seem steep compared to electronic registration but that is apples and pears compared.

I'm sorry but that statement really makes no sense since rising cost is THE biggest hurdle facing film across the board. If there was no quality electronic alternative to film that was cheaper, then your statement would be valid but that's clearly not the case. Film costs aren't going up simply for the hell of it. The more that digital is used instead of film, the more R&D money goes to digital and less goes to film. So advances will happen faster in digital and slower in film and, at the same time, film will get more and more expensive as it becomes a rare commodity due to limited consumer demand. To suggest that the steep price of film per minute is irrelevant compared to electronic media ignores the obvious trends in the market place the equally obvious rise in film and processing costs that result.

Roger

[MIKI-814]

I agree this time with aj. Recent Kodak actions concerning the small format does not suggest at all that the end is so near nor the costs are increasing.

[Blue Audio Visual]

If I recall correctly the trade price for B&W stocks from Kodak is not very different now from what it was about 20 years ago, it has increased by only something like 25%.

In real terms that must be a price drop.

[etimh]

The more that digital is used instead of film, the more R&D money goes to digital and less goes to film.

But we're not really talking about "R&D" costs related to film production and use anymore, are we? Research and development costs may have some impact on the future of digital but it's really just diseconomies of scale that may, or may not, influence film.

Tim

[MovieStuff]

The more that digital is used instead of film, the more R&D money goes to digital and less goes to film.

But we're not really talking about "R&D" costs related to film production and use anymore, are we?

All the time and never ending, really. Look at it like this: Long ago, before video tape, everything on television was recorded via Kinescope, which for the unfamiliar is simply a movie camera pointed at a live, black and white video monitor. Eventually, Kinescopes got really, really good and were capable of producing an image that was virtually indistinguishable from the live video feed that produced it. But then Bing Crosby and others put money into developing a video tape system that was, quite frankly, a piece of shit compared to the quality of Kinescopes of that time period. So why did the industry suddenly abandon something tried and true in favor of something so obviously flawed? Because they gambled that, eventually, video tape would be as good as Kinescopes or better and would have all the advantages of cheaper cost and rapid access. So all the R&D money started flowing into video tape, despite its terrible image quality. Soon, superior Kinescopes were abandoned long before videotape even began to catch up, quality wise.

Now, film is terrific but has also kind of reached its apogee, in terms of quality. Oh I'm sure that Kodak and Fuji have a few tricks up their collective sleeves but, unlike early swimmy video tape that displaced Kinescopes, digital looks quite good compared to film and is already a standard within the commercial and consumer market. So for those convinced digital is good enough, then film is already dead. Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced. Conversely, there's little point in spending R&D money on increasing film quality when A) there isn't much more they can really do to improve it and B) it would be easier for the market to leave film where it is and let digital simply "catch up". Or, worse, we see the "dumbing down" of film quality through the use of smaller frame sizes like 3 perf or super 16 blown up to 35mm, or 2k scans for release that don't begin to compare to something like 70mm, etc; all of which are a reflection of the ever increased cost of working with film in a rapidly expanding digital world. And the more that digital is used, the more money they have to keep making digital better. The less film is used, the less money they have to make it better and, more to the point, less financial incentive.

So, yeah, so goes the R&D money, so goes the market.

Roger

[etimh]

Yeah, I think we're in agreement--you just said it better.

Tim

[super8man]

And then we end up with something like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091 ... lmx100.asp

We start all over again!

[MovieStuff]

And then we end up with something like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091 ... lmx100.asp

Wow. That's actually very cool. Thanks for the link. Now I know what to get my wife for christmas!

Roger

[super8man]

It's not out yet...March 2011 I believe from what I've read up on it. Yeah, looks like an interesting camera...like I need another one. Just finished shooting with a Nikkor 85-250 F4 lens on my Nikon D50 DSLR for my kids soccer games. Fantastic combo. Can't imagine using that 23mm for anything like that. That camera would be best suited for sailing (shots in tight spaces). I like though. Very tempted.

On a side note - shot some video with my Canon S90 at the Buffalo Springfield concert in Mountainview, CA. Used my trusty Agfa Movex 8x30 monocular in front of the S90 with the camera set to macro movie mode. Worked great! Now to fabricate a holder of some sort. I could see people doing that with a camera like this.