Super 8 Stories

[Pj]

I have being giving lectures about working with Super 8 and have covered everything from cameras, lighting, editing and sound recording. I am sharing them by putting them on my website www.lightbreeze.co.uk .

P

[carllooper]

With respect to the take on Super8/Film on the website, I'm not so sure, these days, that film remains (or will remain) the king of dynamic range. For example the new Red EPIC HDR prototype seems to be ready to recieve that particular crown.

That doesn't mean film should fail as a good choice. It just means that a choice of film can't necessarily be argued (sooner or later) on technological criteria such as dynamic range.

I sometimes wonder on what technological grounds a choice of film (over digital) can be (or will be) grounded at all.

But if we look at what choices inform the various other aspect of making a film/video (script, acting, staging, documentary content, etc) there need not be (and usually isn't) any "rational" rules governing any of those choices. So why should we necessarily do anything differently regarding choice of technology?

In other words we don't need to necessarily choose technology on technological grounds.

I'm currently enjoying Super8/Film as an opportunity to do something I didn't know how to do with Super8/Film as a teenager in the late 70s. But that's just one non-technological reason amongst many/any that can be made.

Carl

[Pj]

Interesting thoughts I'm not sure how to respond. Firstly the website is there to promote Super 8 as another realistic choice. I've decided to put up my lectures, I have loads more, just need to proof read them before they are on the website.

Lightbreeze is not a company and I'm not out to make money, it's just me [a former BBC producer and a lecturer] and a few like minded people, we have all used Super 8 in our professional work and prefer it, because at the end of the day it's not all aout slick quality and expensive gear, but all sorts of things that influence ones storytelling. We have been using Super 8 since the late 1980's and we have used 16mm, 35mm and digital, I used to train television producers how to use Avid.

We like Super 8 because of all sorts of reasons like its portabilty, its unique look and we have found working with it cheaper. Advances in digital has made working with Super 8 much easier and now so much can be done with the image without loosing the charm of film, sure one day soon there will be no more film just digital, I've been hearing that for 15 years.

I do see Super 8 as having an important role In terms of small non broadcast work like making a video for a local youth club, community centre, a small business and so on.

I think these are difficult times in an industry which is over-crowded where people are finding getting commisions for paid film/video work increadibly difficult. In such an environment Super 8 can bring a fresh breath of air, add to ones style and make you stand out and help you get more work.

P

[etimh]

With respect to the take on Super8/Film on the website...

Whatever. Who cares what the latest red can do? Apples and oranges.

Excellent stuff Pj. Thanks for posting.

Tim

[carllooper]

With respect to the take on Super8/Film on the website...

Who cares what the latest red can do? Apples and oranges.

Well - that was the point I was making - but perhaps you've said it better:

Who cares?

I don't care - but I guess I care enough to express where that attitude has it's origin.

Carl

ps. My discussion on film and digital follows on from what I was reading on the LightBreeze website. I should say I very much enjoyed the site, and very much recommend it.

To clear things up, this is the quote I was addressing:

"Many believe that film is still the best looking thing to create motion images. Film still renders light in a way that video or digital photography still cannot embrace, with regards to full-range tonality, dimensionality within the frame and image signature. While digital video is known for producing ultra clean images, which are sometimes described as sterile and soulless, film sees and produces images the way the human eye sees things. Creating motion images with electronic digital doesn't have the same thrill, aesthetic, or creative possibilities as film. Film gives greater latitude, which is needed to shoot quickly and manipulate light for different looks."

source: http://www.lightbreeze.co.uk/Super%208.htm#three

[carllooper]

Interesting thoughts I'm not sure how to respond. Firstly the website is there to promote Super 8 as another realistic choice. I've decided to put up my lectures, I have loads more, just need to proof read them before they are on the website.

Hi PJ,

thanks for the website. I did in fact read your articles and very much appreciated them. I should have been more specific about which part I was addressing. There is a lot of good material there. And look forward to reading more.

Super8 is used by many people for many reasons and those reasons I find really interesting. Good work.

cheers
Carl

ps. as a filmmaker I've worked in Super8, 16mm, 35mm anamorphic, and various forms of video/digital. But my favourite - for reasons I can't fully rationalise - remains Super8.

[Pj]

In relation to the specific points that you were addressing; It is a fact that many in the professional industries regard film as something better, 8in many respects digital and HD is not quite there yet. Actors have said to me that they'd prefer it if film is used because everything [especialy them] looks better, I have been in television galleries and edit suits where technicians, directors etc have comented that what they've shot on digital looks like film even when they use HD [I'm talking about some major British prime time television shows that are currently been aired]. Film is a benchmark and most people strive for that film look.

Change is inevitable and things will change as digital technology improves, it's improving all the time. Digital technologies have come a long way, but then so has film. There are more filmstocks available in Super 8 now than ever before. For the low budget filmmaker the investment in 16mm or Super 8 cameras is so little, whereas digital equipment is much more expensive often is replaced and becomes obsolete more quickly. I say we should be using film while it's here, soon and I hope not too soon film/celluloid won't be an option as it won't exist.

P

[carllooper]

Yes - there can be many reasons why film might be preferred over digital, but all else being equal, greater dynamic range wouldn't be one of them.

But of course, not all else is equal.

There are all sorts of constraints/intents operating on what is possible/desireable to achieve - both inside professional contexts such as television, and outside of such.

The cost of different technologies plays an important role. Or that actors might not like every pore of their skin sharply in focus. Some actors from the silent era of film failed to move into the area of sound film because they didn't like the sound of their voices (or the director's didn't).

... Film still renders light in a way that video or digital photography still cannot embrace, with regards to full-range tonality ... Film gives greater latitude, which is needed to shoot quickly and manipulate light for different looks ...

Until a few months ago, I also would have said film was superior in this respect. But I would have been mistaken.

But when I considered this new information about digital, in relation to my own particular situation, I could see it didn't affect the choices I was making. I could see that what was informing my choice of Super8 for a particular project was not being constrained by such information.

Carl

[VideoFred]

Yes - there can be many reasons why film might be preferred over digital, but all else being equal, greater dynamic range wouldn't be one of them.

This is 2010. New technology gets better and better. A good artist will still make good pictures, no matter the medium. Good use of DOF is very very important. And a good eye for picture composition. And light..... It's all about light.

A good film is good because of the story and the way it has been filmed, not because of the used medium. The same for music. Pet Sounds sounds good on any medium. Even on a 1960's transistor radio.

Fred.

[etimh]

A good film is good because of the story and the way it has been filmed, not because of the used medium. The same for music. Pet Sounds sounds good on any medium. Even on a 1960's transistor radio.

What about films that are not necessarily about "story?" Are they by definition "bad?" Well, newsflash--there have been many, many great films made that have not been about story and have no interest in "story" at all.

Also, there are many films that are precisely about the medium used--experimenting with it and exploring its unique characteristics. Many of these are also important and "good" films.

And the Pet Sounds analogy doesn't fly--we're not talking about the inherent qualities of the work's reproduction, but its production. Your argument implys that Pet Sounds would sound just as good if it was originally performed on trash cans and kazoos--probably not the case.

Tim

[carllooper]

And light..... It's all about light.

Indeed.

[VideoFred]

What about films that are not necessarily about "story?"

There's always a story. The artist always wants to bring a message. If there is no message, then the message is that the artist has nothing to say.

And the Pet Sounds analogy doesn't fly--we're not talking about the inherent qualities of the work's reproduction, but its production. Your argument implys that Pet Sounds would sound just as good if it was originally performed on trash cans and kazoos--probably not the case.

OK you have a point here. To be honest, I prefer the digital version. But the magic behind Pet Sounds will still be there, even when it is performed on trash cans and kazoos. Because of the simple fact that Brian Wilson is a such great artist. A real one. We need more of those.

Fred.

[carllooper]

Also, there are many films that are precisely about the medium used--experimenting with it and exploring its unique characteristics. Many of these are also important and "good" films.

And even when the medium isn't the central character it can still play an important part. For example the fact that Jackson pollack uses house paint in his work is as much a part of his work as the superb way he manipulates that paint.

There's always a story. The artist always wants to bring a message. If there is no message, then the message is that the artist has nothing to say.

I'd argue that there isn't always a story - but even when there is, it isn't always the artist's story. Especially in photography. Quite often a story can emerge from the subject matter more than the artist's manipulation of that subject matter. Indeed the artist can effectively say nothing while the work does the opposite. In these circumstances the silence of the artist isn't the message. it is simply the silence required for the real message to be heard.

[VideoFred]

Indeed the artist can effectively say nothing while the work does the opposite. In these circumstances the silence of the artist isn't the message. it is simply the silence required for the real message to be heard.

Of cource! Silence can be very powerful.

Fred.

[Blue Audio Visual]

You can hear a kazoo towards the end of Trombone Dixie, one of the outtakes from Pet Sounds...

From about 2 mins 13 secs in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbq5laN2cIM