The strength of film

[David M. Leugers]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111804 ... endly=true

I have said it before, I believe this digital revolution is a Hollywood mogul wet dream. Nothing increases profits like planned obsolescence. Just recently I projected film I shot 25 years ago with a camera that was made over seventy years ago on a projector that was made over 65 years ago. Most of the video that was taken by my relatives 10 to 20 years ago either no longer exist or are no longer viewable. Same result. Most people have no archival tendencies or even attempts to preserve images in any format. Film is so robust it survives the abuse of neglect. Put away in closets and inside shoe boxes stuffed with paper, 100 years later someone will be accessing the beautiful images thereon.

Kodak, like so many large industrial giants, has been brought down but they are not out yet. The biggest hurdle with S-8mm is the cartridge. It seems without Kodak, there is no really viable path for cartridge based film. The cameras are another issue as so many have died or are in the process of failing with no replacement parts or service capabilities for most models. Roll film may be the last standard. I think Kodak will probably say goodbye to reversal film at some point. Then there will be a real debate on the merits of shooting R-8mm film versus DS-8mm film. I think both should survive, but in that scenario, DS-8mm has more to offer.

[marc]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111804 ... endly=true

Then there will be a real debate on the merits of shooting R-8mm film versus DS-8mm film. I think both should survive, but in that scenario, DS-8mm has more to offer.

I think that it is a matter of quantity of cameras with respect to R8 vs DS8. Also, with all the 16mm film being used, R8 is more compatable and thus it would be much more feasible to tool up a perfing system based on the same sized sprocket holes. And as film technology improves ( if that is allowed to continue), you can get a lot more value out of that little frame than you could in past years. Imagine V3 50D in regular 8mm. That would be awesome! Combine that with state of the art transfer technology and I think that you have a viable format again. for those concerned about the difference in resolution between S8 and R8, one option ( if you have a multispeed camera up to 64 ps, and any speed in between like a Bolex) you can shoot at 30 fps. This will raise cummulative resolution and bridge the gap in quality compared to S8 at 24 fps. It also makes an easier transfer to digital. Of course the 30 fps would only benefit NTSC users.

[David M. Leugers]

I love R-8mm, but DS-8mm has more image area, can be enlarged to Max 8 width for better HD transfers, there are lots of Canon and Bolex DS-8mm cameras out there that WORK and can be maintained, tons of Bolex H8 cameras can be modified to DS-8mm etc. Sure R-8mm has great cameras out there, but as things are going, 16mm may become an endangered format. Professional use is rapidly drying up. Few if any amateurs shoot it. I don't have a crystal ball, and I don't want R-8mm to disappear, but I think DS-8mm may be the format to keep Super 8 alive. One thing is certain, the registration of the Canon and Bolex DS-8mm cameras can not be surpassed by a S-8mm cartridge camera or a R=8mm camera. One area where R-8mm has it all over DS-8mm is projection. The availability of reversal film will be crucial.

[Will2]

It's the perf size of DS8 that messes you up in a transfer on some machines. Regular 8mm that is un-split will work great on a Spirit but DS8 perfs are two small and won't work.

http://vimeo.com/24659460

[David M. Leugers]

So you can't transfer S-8mm on the Spirit? Thanks for the info Will. I find my transfers more pleasing than the harsh but sharp grainy images of your link, and for a fraction of the cost but that is just my preferences. There are compromises and choices to be made and it is only up to the individual what they like. Maybe R-8mm will be the way to go, either way I'm covered.

[carllooper]

So you can't transfer S-8mm on the Spirit? Thanks for the info Will.

You can transfer S8 on the Spirit but it's currently a fudge. The optics/sensor architecture can't go closer than 16mm so the best actual scan def achievable for Super8 on Spirit isn't 2K (as you might otherwise think), but less than 1K. I assume the conventional wisdom of the time had not anticipated improvements in film and digital post that might warrant a better system. One way would be to find and use a 4K Spirit with S8 gate. Output is limited to DPX but a simple program can be written to convert this to digital 2K formats (if one wanted to avoid the cost of the 4K Spirit post system called (ha ha) "Bones").

That said Spectra are promising (in a "coming soon" way) proper 2K Spirit transfers of Super8 (ie. with correct optics). Which will be great.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Their passion not withstanding I suspect the DS8 user base is quite small relative to R8, S8, and 16mm. In fact the UP8 users are the tiniest.

But UP8's utilization of the exact perf dimensions and exactly half the pitch of 16mm ensures it's film stock longevity. If you can purchase 2 perf 16mm (2R-2994) in can be currently reperfed into 2 perf R8 (2R-1497).

UP8 doubles run time relative to 16mm magazines and is a 119% and 39% increase in imaging area relative to R8 and S8 respectively. It uses standard 16mm optics.

Unlike R8, UP8 transport does not utilize the left perf (A wind) for "eventual" transport. Unlike R8 there is no "flipping" of the film to expose the other side. Think about that implication.

It's hybrid nature leverages perhaps the largest user base of 16mm cameras...Bolex. And by extension it piggybacks on the brilliant manufacturing and interchangeable design of Bolex H16 and H8 parts, transport, and optics.

UP8 can be scanned globally on either sprocketless or sprocket based 16mm transfer bays. I find it interesting that in fact the reference standard for DS8 cameras are Bolex conversions. DS8 Bolex cameras can also be converted to UP8 but are restricted to sprocketless 16mm transfer bays.

[marc]

Being that UP8 is R8 film, if UP8 thrives then R8 will thrive by default of requiring the exact same film. I don't see anyone making the effort to create 1R 16mm film with R8 pitch. So R8 film can satisfy both UP8 and R8 users.

[carllooper]

I have said it before, I believe this digital revolution is a Hollywood mogul wet dream. Nothing increases profits like planned obsolescence.

But obsolescence is also good for the consumer as systems built with such are cheaper to build and cheaper to buy. At any given moment in time a systems engineer is typically aware of how a design could be made better (if more time were spent on such) but that could also mean the design process ends up going on indefinitely without anything being made. If you know a design can be better and at the same time decide to build an implementation of a current design (because we are only mortals with limited patience/life) then you don't necessarily want to chisel that design in stone because while it might last like the pyramids, it will also cost more and be immortalizing a design that could have been better.

Perhaps what is more disconcerting is not the built-in obsolescence of digital hardware but the fragility of the information acquired through electronic/digital means. There is a kind of backdraft from the hardware, where the corresponding fragility of the information becomes inverted: where the information becomes devalued as a function of it's fragility, rather than the other way around - where images end up being treated as having only momentary use value (facebook youtube etc) beyond which they then disappear from the historical record, at best lost in a digital archive for a few years (potentially recoverable), and then gone, ie. disconcerting is that this becomes acceptable. The norm.

Carl

[Will2]

I find my transfers more pleasing than the harsh but sharp grainy images of your link

I need to make clear that that particular transfer was just a test. To actually transfer Regular 8 properly on a Spirit you have to do more calibrating and machine adjustments. Look at Cinelicious' Super 8 samples to see how it would really look. This was done for fun one afternoon on a machine setup for 16mm. I had the same reaction to the grain but Paul at Cinelicious said they had to do some major tweaking to get the awesome results they get on Super 8.

[Will2]

if UP8 thrives...

No offense but how could it thrive if there's one guy making these modifications only to one particular camera?

[marc]

if UP8 thrives...

No offense but how could it thrive if there's one guy making these modifications only to one particular camera?

Not that I personally think it will. I was just induldging his argument to make a point. If there is anything to be learned about UP8 it's this: we may be in a renaissance period of filmmaking and the resourceful individuals will come up with a myriad range of formats through tinkering. This may be especially important as film options dwindle and filmmakers need to make the most of their options. Hollywood's history is pretty much the same way. In order to achieve certain effects, the industry had to be resourceful and tinker around with thier equipment in order to create certain optical effects. Machinists and other technical staff were often consulted an "as needed" basis to accomplish hollywood's filmmaking goals.

[etimh]

Perhaps what is more disconcerting is not the built-in obsolescence of digital hardware but the fragility of the information acquired through electronic/digital means. There is a kind of backdraft from the hardware, where the corresponding fragility of the information becomes inverted: where the information becomes devalued as a function of it's fragility, rather than the other way around - where images end up being treated as having only momentary use value (facebook youtube etc) beyond which they then disappear from the historical record, at best lost in a digital archive for a few years (potentially recoverable), and then gone, ie. disconcerting is that this becomes acceptable. The norm.

And an unending loop of shit is formed and perpetuated.

Tim

[carllooper]

And an unending loop of shit is formed and perpetuated.Tim

Yeah - the digital system as a digestive system, in which the route from mouth to arse is optimised through a stomach bypass.

[Lunar07]

This is indeed the case. To preserve information it is as though one has to always apply energy. Otherwise information is dissipated, forgotten, thrown away with a dead hard drive. It is amazing. I have a photo album from long ago that I can open and browse the pages. I have NOTHING from recent times. I gave up on digital cameras, keeping track of miniature drives. Who came up with this miniaturazation nonsense.
You know, the funny thing is that in addition to the latest PCs, I still run a DOS machine and I have FOUR motherboard spares in case something fails along with 512K SIMM RAM chips that I buy on eBay for change money along with a 4 GB WD hard drive. Running the great DOS Ver 5 Because there are programs on it that I still run. Totally outdated programs in the digital life span of an insect. Totally useful programs written in Assembly language with fantastic TEXT BASED colorful GUI's to process audio and render to high qaulity multi-channel WAVs etc..... Truly makes present day programmers a bunch of modiocre sissies!

[..........]
Perhaps what is more disconcerting is not the built-in obsolescence of digital hardware but the fragility of the information acquired through electronic/digital means. There is a kind of backdraft from the hardware, where the corresponding fragility of the information becomes inverted: where the information becomes devalued as a function of it's fragility, rather than the other way around - where images end up being treated as having only momentary use value (facebook youtube etc) beyond which they then disappear from the historical record, at best lost in a digital archive for a few years (potentially recoverable), and then gone, ie. disconcerting is that this becomes acceptable. The norm.
Carl