This is my first post. I reached this site after looking for a decent projector to run our old S8 movies after not having played them the last 20 years. My plan was to archive them to mini-DV with my 3CCD camera.
It is surprising to me there is still a lot of interest in the S8 format. Why is that? Is S8 film resolution still better than what exist today for consumers like mini-DV? Or is it only because you want to get that cinema look?
The JVC GR-HD1 camera can now be had for $2,400. This is a 1080i, 30 fps on a 16:9. Is S8 still a better media than this particularly the world is now moving to 16:9 widescreen?
My objective is to preserve the highest possible resolution and best quality for my family movies for our future generation to see. I am wondering if I should invest in S8 or journey on to JVC's HD. I currently have a Sony TRV-900 as my main camcorder.
-end-
Should I jump in the S8 bandwagon?
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
For me personally the choice is easy: Go S8 or any other smal gauge film format.
Have you ever though of how much fun you can have in the S8/K40 world for $2,400?
Sky´s no limit
R
Have you ever though of how much fun you can have in the S8/K40 world for $2,400?
Sky´s no limit
R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
Hi (new member, got to be nice)
I've got a sony TRV 900, but I use my 8mm cameras just as much.
Main reason, you are more careful about what you film. I've got hours of mini DV tapes, it's just so much panning and waiting for somethin exiting to happen.
Viewing with projector adds the special feeling:-)
Best tip is to buy a camera, $30 and film $15 (including developing)
Good luck and have fun
Hans g
I've got a sony TRV 900, but I use my 8mm cameras just as much.
Main reason, you are more careful about what you film. I've got hours of mini DV tapes, it's just so much panning and waiting for somethin exiting to happen.
Viewing with projector adds the special feeling:-)
Best tip is to buy a camera, $30 and film $15 (including developing)
Good luck and have fun
Hans g
-
focusgroup
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:01 pm
- Contact:
I must say I totally disagree with these posters. Shooting S8 is not an either/or proposition. It is a tool like any other. When I paint do I prefer a round vs a flat brush? Is charcoal better than ink?
8mm possesses a very unique look that is all its own. Super 8 is only good for that look however - make no mistake about it. It is also cumbersome and diificult to sound sync. Telecine transfer is time consuming and expensive. And HELL YES
IT IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Look at the numbers. K-40 at 24fps = around 2.5minutes for 15 meters. Process and purchase at $16 per 15 meters if you're lucky. Using the $ 2,400 HD number quoted. $ 2,400/$16 = 150 rolls. 150 rolls x 2.5minutes = 375 minutes= 6.25hrs of footage!!!! For $2.400 - Not including telecine fees. And 6.25hrs of footage isnt shit!! If you are a great pro you may have a 4 to 1 use ratio. 6.25hrs/4= a 1.5 hours work.
You dont need to be a math major to figure this out. I have at least 400 hours of DV footage. At lot of it is irreplaceable footage. So over the last 2 years. 400 hours x60 minutes = 24,000 minutes. 24,000/2.5 per roll= 9600 rolls. Guys and girls that would be how much money?
In summary S8 is great - but is extremely limited in its use. Digital is here to stay so get over it. It would be better to encourage quaility increases and support the advancement rather than cry over the horse and buggy.
For the non- pro HD is still far far cheaper over the long haul than S8.
Of course I shoot S8 all the time and love it - for what it is.
George
8mm possesses a very unique look that is all its own. Super 8 is only good for that look however - make no mistake about it. It is also cumbersome and diificult to sound sync. Telecine transfer is time consuming and expensive. And HELL YES
IT IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Look at the numbers. K-40 at 24fps = around 2.5minutes for 15 meters. Process and purchase at $16 per 15 meters if you're lucky. Using the $ 2,400 HD number quoted. $ 2,400/$16 = 150 rolls. 150 rolls x 2.5minutes = 375 minutes= 6.25hrs of footage!!!! For $2.400 - Not including telecine fees. And 6.25hrs of footage isnt shit!! If you are a great pro you may have a 4 to 1 use ratio. 6.25hrs/4= a 1.5 hours work.
You dont need to be a math major to figure this out. I have at least 400 hours of DV footage. At lot of it is irreplaceable footage. So over the last 2 years. 400 hours x60 minutes = 24,000 minutes. 24,000/2.5 per roll= 9600 rolls. Guys and girls that would be how much money?
In summary S8 is great - but is extremely limited in its use. Digital is here to stay so get over it. It would be better to encourage quaility increases and support the advancement rather than cry over the horse and buggy.
For the non- pro HD is still far far cheaper over the long haul than S8.
Of course I shoot S8 all the time and love it - for what it is.
George
-
synthnut
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 10:04 pm
- Real name: Ben Marshall
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
Hia,
I agree that Super8 is not really an direct replacement for the video. But I think that you just exemplified the difference. How often are you likely to view that amount of tape??? If you want to document every second of an event, video is OK, but Super8 is great for distilling your shots into a length that means you have a fighting chance of haviing enough waking hours to view them. It's like trying to tape the TV all day and not having the chance to catch up! If I was to bring out an hour long wedding video my guests would fall asleep, but, a five or 10 minute holiday film is just the right length.
I personally would gladly choose Super8 over video...
Regards,
Ben
Keep on shooting film!
I agree that Super8 is not really an direct replacement for the video. But I think that you just exemplified the difference. How often are you likely to view that amount of tape??? If you want to document every second of an event, video is OK, but Super8 is great for distilling your shots into a length that means you have a fighting chance of haviing enough waking hours to view them. It's like trying to tape the TV all day and not having the chance to catch up! If I was to bring out an hour long wedding video my guests would fall asleep, but, a five or 10 minute holiday film is just the right length.
I personally would gladly choose Super8 over video...
Regards,
Ben
Keep on shooting film!
I think most of the people shooting S8 today would be considered
amatuer filmmakers. Its an aesthetic choice for some. Others are budding
cinematographers and are using a cheap S8 camera to learn how to light
for film before moving onto 16mm or 35mm. And there are others who
still use it for home movies but its very rare. The colour you get with S8
is its big advantage over most video. But the greatest advantage of S8
as a home movie format is its shortness. In my family collection we have
entire holidays packed into 3 minutes. Just the highlights and no 3 hours
of people milling about disney land.
If you are shooting home movies stick with the camera you got. That HD
camera is super nice but its a lot of money to invest. The problem with
video (which is why the manufactures like it) is that cameras seem to be
in vogue for 2-3 years then there is a hot new model. Its constant upgrading for a medium whose picture quality has yet to equal 16mm
film. For home movie purposes what you got should do you fine for many
years. HOWEVER if I were to buy a prosumer camera today it would be
the Panasonic DVX100. I've seen video shot with this camera and it has
amazing colour. 24p is where its at!
amatuer filmmakers. Its an aesthetic choice for some. Others are budding
cinematographers and are using a cheap S8 camera to learn how to light
for film before moving onto 16mm or 35mm. And there are others who
still use it for home movies but its very rare. The colour you get with S8
is its big advantage over most video. But the greatest advantage of S8
as a home movie format is its shortness. In my family collection we have
entire holidays packed into 3 minutes. Just the highlights and no 3 hours
of people milling about disney land.
If you are shooting home movies stick with the camera you got. That HD
camera is super nice but its a lot of money to invest. The problem with
video (which is why the manufactures like it) is that cameras seem to be
in vogue for 2-3 years then there is a hot new model. Its constant upgrading for a medium whose picture quality has yet to equal 16mm
film. For home movie purposes what you got should do you fine for many
years. HOWEVER if I were to buy a prosumer camera today it would be
the Panasonic DVX100. I've seen video shot with this camera and it has
amazing colour. 24p is where its at!
-
LastQuark
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:11 am
- Location: Silly Valley, California/Philippines
- Contact:
Good discussion going on here. Just a short recap:
Fun factor goes to S8
Cost goes to HD
Can anyone talk about resolution and overall quality? If I want my great great grandchildren to see their grand dad as real as I can be, they will probably view me on a widescreen and super high resolution TV much greater than what HD is today. Resolution of still photos in film is still much better than any of the 5 or 6 megpixel cameras of today. How do you compare film vs HD resolution-wise and quality aside?
Fun factor goes to S8
Cost goes to HD
Can anyone talk about resolution and overall quality? If I want my great great grandchildren to see their grand dad as real as I can be, they will probably view me on a widescreen and super high resolution TV much greater than what HD is today. Resolution of still photos in film is still much better than any of the 5 or 6 megpixel cameras of today. How do you compare film vs HD resolution-wise and quality aside?
-
Cranium
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:00 pm
- Real name: Mikel Zwissler
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Let's put it this way:
I'd much rather have my high school graduation recorded on K40 that on the (by today's standards) crappy early '80s 2-piece VHS video system is was recorded on.
Super-8 will lose out in the resolution wars at some point, but if you're looking for a "timelessness," then I think film is a good bet.
I'm still not sure that the statement, "Fun factor goes to S8
Cost goes to HD." In the land of Super-8, $2400 is a LOT of money, even if you get a bitchin' camera. Even if you pay Roger or somebody to transfer it, you can re-transfer down the road, no matter WHAT the next big thing is.
I saw this Sigfried and Roy thing in 3D IMAX. Within the film they had a bunch of stills and older film and maybe some video stuff. While the stills and everything obviously didn't look like IMAX, they still retained their original beauty. Video, OTOH, just looks worse and worse over time. My opinion of course, but I'm usually right! ;)
Anyway, it's certainly a lot cheaper to try Super-8.
I'd much rather have my high school graduation recorded on K40 that on the (by today's standards) crappy early '80s 2-piece VHS video system is was recorded on.
Super-8 will lose out in the resolution wars at some point, but if you're looking for a "timelessness," then I think film is a good bet.
I'm still not sure that the statement, "Fun factor goes to S8
Cost goes to HD." In the land of Super-8, $2400 is a LOT of money, even if you get a bitchin' camera. Even if you pay Roger or somebody to transfer it, you can re-transfer down the road, no matter WHAT the next big thing is.
I saw this Sigfried and Roy thing in 3D IMAX. Within the film they had a bunch of stills and older film and maybe some video stuff. While the stills and everything obviously didn't look like IMAX, they still retained their original beauty. Video, OTOH, just looks worse and worse over time. My opinion of course, but I'm usually right! ;)
Anyway, it's certainly a lot cheaper to try Super-8.
I have a sony trv950e. I did not film with it a lot and I still prefer to shoot on super 8 for the above quoted reasons but also because I feel that with filming on super 8 you learn much more of a craft than when filming with video, and I do like the feel of it an awfull lot (really), and I do not like te feel of video (mini dv in this case) too much, or not at all actually. Generally I believe super8 will learn you more. I think I will film more with video if a next generation mini dv progressive scan cams comes out (and have the money to buy them, or a rental house will have them).I've got a sony TRV 900, but I use my 8mm cameras just as much.
Main reason, you are more careful about what you film.
But why not do both. Super8 will not cost you an arm and a leg, so why not do both or try super8 first?? If you decide for that video cam, you can always use you super 8 cam, for great stylistic images. I am sure you won't regret it.
Also, if you want to do a lot of sound work, super 8 is a bit more complicated then video. But that isn't necessarily a disadvantage, since learning to base your stories on images is not a bad thing to do.
Paul
I would not buy that new JVC. Wait!
If you are only going to take home movies, say with Digital video. If you want to be a filmmaker get a super 8. If you want to be artsy, get a super 8 and still shoot video.
Plan on re-dubbing your source tapes and videos to the latest and gratest video format every what, 5 years. By the way Kodachrome film if properley stored will last about 100 years, I'm told. Extachrome maby 15 - 20 years. Your films will way out last your video tape. My best advices is shoot on film, edit on tape. do not project your camera originals.
Tape is not forever, CD can get broken and scratched. Keep your source material, even if you are happy with the dub. What a shame people who dub there Super 8 film with a low quality system to VHS, only 240 lines of res.
When and if you do get a new video camera go with high rez, native wide screen 16 x 9. with 24p. A 3 chip camera is a must.
You do not need the more expensive hard drives mobels that will be comming out soon, nore do you need the little brother DVD drives cameras. DV tape is just fine, and these cameras will be cheeper.
A good used Beta-SP (analog) will give you a better picture than a prosumer DV. better lines per inch, signal to noise, bigger ccd and better glass all make a difference. If you don't mind the weight.
On the cons side, sometimes it easier to shoot in places if you look like a amature, small hand held dv camera.
It's up to you and what you want to do.
Yes, it is true that as soon as you buy your new dv camera it will be outdated. But also remember that it will never take any worse picture than the day you got it. so don't be compeled to go out and get a
new camera just because yours is a year old.
If you are only going to take home movies, say with Digital video. If you want to be a filmmaker get a super 8. If you want to be artsy, get a super 8 and still shoot video.
Plan on re-dubbing your source tapes and videos to the latest and gratest video format every what, 5 years. By the way Kodachrome film if properley stored will last about 100 years, I'm told. Extachrome maby 15 - 20 years. Your films will way out last your video tape. My best advices is shoot on film, edit on tape. do not project your camera originals.
Tape is not forever, CD can get broken and scratched. Keep your source material, even if you are happy with the dub. What a shame people who dub there Super 8 film with a low quality system to VHS, only 240 lines of res.
When and if you do get a new video camera go with high rez, native wide screen 16 x 9. with 24p. A 3 chip camera is a must.
You do not need the more expensive hard drives mobels that will be comming out soon, nore do you need the little brother DVD drives cameras. DV tape is just fine, and these cameras will be cheeper.
A good used Beta-SP (analog) will give you a better picture than a prosumer DV. better lines per inch, signal to noise, bigger ccd and better glass all make a difference. If you don't mind the weight.
On the cons side, sometimes it easier to shoot in places if you look like a amature, small hand held dv camera.
It's up to you and what you want to do.
Yes, it is true that as soon as you buy your new dv camera it will be outdated. But also remember that it will never take any worse picture than the day you got it. so don't be compeled to go out and get a
new camera just because yours is a year old.
Great point about saving your masters. It is not uncommon for people
to transfer their old 8mm movies to video and then toss the film. Home
video is not a long term storage medium like film. Not only does it
degrade overtime but the technology advances are fast. Beta is dead on
the home market, VHS is only around because they don't have a cheap
DVD writer yet. Hi8 was the standard 10 years ago, now its mini DV.
Who knows what the future holds?
to transfer their old 8mm movies to video and then toss the film. Home
video is not a long term storage medium like film. Not only does it
degrade overtime but the technology advances are fast. Beta is dead on
the home market, VHS is only around because they don't have a cheap
DVD writer yet. Hi8 was the standard 10 years ago, now its mini DV.
Who knows what the future holds?
-
Dave Hardy
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 7:08 am
- Contact:
I have worked for over 3 decades in film & television. I fell in love with super 8 in 1975 when Lenny Lipton run some of his super 8 films at a week long festival of experimental filmmaking that was hosted jointly by by the Pacific Cinematheque & the Vancouver Art Gallery.
After the screening I invited Lenny to join my friend Roy Crowe & myself for a beer lounge of the Ritz Carlton Hotel up the street. I told Lenny as we drank ourselves into a stupor how impressed I was with the quality of his films. Lenny had just a couple of months earlier got what was the 1st Beauleiu 5008 camera to arrrive in America & most of the films he showed were shot with that camera although acouple had been shot on original Kodak super 8 sound cameras.
Lenny at that point in time was a big advocate of single systom sound on film, although Ricky Leacock at this time teaching studends to shoot double system sound at MIT. I met & had a chat with Leacock the following year (but no beer).
I hadn't actually gone to the screening because I was interested in super 8. The reason I had gone was that a year or so before he had authored a marvelous book on 16mm filmmaking called Independent Filmmaking.
Never having seen any super 8 footage at that time I was a 16mm bigot & felt that super 8 just had to naturally be crap. I had gone to screening to tell him how impressed I was with his book & ended up being totally blow away with the quality it was possible to achieve with super 8.
I told Lenny that I felt his films looked better than most 16mm films & I couldn't understand how this could be. Lenny had what was the best Super 8 projector on the market at that time an Elmo ST1200. He explained to me that he was screening the original K40 film (this was in the period before 16mm negative film was in general use) & that K40 film had a better resolution than the 16mm reversal stocks that were being used in production at the time.
Lenny asked what wewre doing with film. I explained that I had made about a half dozen 16mm films & that Roy & I were close to a fine cut on a half hr. documentry film that we made through the Challange for Change dept. of the National Film Board of Canada called "It's Almost Like Home" a film about how impoverished people in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver were doing things to make their community a better place to live.
Lenny explained that he had made about a dozen films in 16mm but hadn't made a dime frome them. He said that super 8 had been a godsend to him. He was having fun & was actually making some money for the first time in his filmmaking career.
I think the situation today between superr 8 & the digital video formats is somewat similar. If your primary interest in motion pictures is photographic quality, then super 8 wins hands down. Ifon the other hand yourr interest is storytelling, either drama or documentry then the creative freedom that digital video allows to do a body of work to develop your talent is terrific. I edited a 9min 16 sec. drama this past Sunday for a production made for a 48 hr. film competition, & although it has some rough edges, it's not a bad production considering the constraints. This type of effort would not have been possible in super 8. Of the 62 productions that were shot & edited this past weekend, a lot of them will probably be crap, but there will probably be some gems in therre as well.
Super 8 cameras can take great pictures but they make a lot of noise & the shot run times are not favorable to dramma & documentary production. Definately I got better photographic quality from my Double Super 8 Bolex 20 yrs ago than the cameraman with his Sony DV2000 3 chip camera. Even though there was a Kodak Lab locally & the K40 film could be picked up 2 days later the problems trying to complete a similar production would have been substantial.
I think that 62 groups of up to 10 crew members each competing to make the best production in one city alone is an indication of the potential of digital video to develop talent. Many of these people work on 35mm film production on a daily basis. This competition allows them to show what they are capable of doing under extreme pressure & digital video makes this possible
Dave
After the screening I invited Lenny to join my friend Roy Crowe & myself for a beer lounge of the Ritz Carlton Hotel up the street. I told Lenny as we drank ourselves into a stupor how impressed I was with the quality of his films. Lenny had just a couple of months earlier got what was the 1st Beauleiu 5008 camera to arrrive in America & most of the films he showed were shot with that camera although acouple had been shot on original Kodak super 8 sound cameras.
Lenny at that point in time was a big advocate of single systom sound on film, although Ricky Leacock at this time teaching studends to shoot double system sound at MIT. I met & had a chat with Leacock the following year (but no beer).
I hadn't actually gone to the screening because I was interested in super 8. The reason I had gone was that a year or so before he had authored a marvelous book on 16mm filmmaking called Independent Filmmaking.
Never having seen any super 8 footage at that time I was a 16mm bigot & felt that super 8 just had to naturally be crap. I had gone to screening to tell him how impressed I was with his book & ended up being totally blow away with the quality it was possible to achieve with super 8.
I told Lenny that I felt his films looked better than most 16mm films & I couldn't understand how this could be. Lenny had what was the best Super 8 projector on the market at that time an Elmo ST1200. He explained to me that he was screening the original K40 film (this was in the period before 16mm negative film was in general use) & that K40 film had a better resolution than the 16mm reversal stocks that were being used in production at the time.
Lenny asked what wewre doing with film. I explained that I had made about a half dozen 16mm films & that Roy & I were close to a fine cut on a half hr. documentry film that we made through the Challange for Change dept. of the National Film Board of Canada called "It's Almost Like Home" a film about how impoverished people in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver were doing things to make their community a better place to live.
Lenny explained that he had made about a dozen films in 16mm but hadn't made a dime frome them. He said that super 8 had been a godsend to him. He was having fun & was actually making some money for the first time in his filmmaking career.
I think the situation today between superr 8 & the digital video formats is somewat similar. If your primary interest in motion pictures is photographic quality, then super 8 wins hands down. Ifon the other hand yourr interest is storytelling, either drama or documentry then the creative freedom that digital video allows to do a body of work to develop your talent is terrific. I edited a 9min 16 sec. drama this past Sunday for a production made for a 48 hr. film competition, & although it has some rough edges, it's not a bad production considering the constraints. This type of effort would not have been possible in super 8. Of the 62 productions that were shot & edited this past weekend, a lot of them will probably be crap, but there will probably be some gems in therre as well.
Super 8 cameras can take great pictures but they make a lot of noise & the shot run times are not favorable to dramma & documentary production. Definately I got better photographic quality from my Double Super 8 Bolex 20 yrs ago than the cameraman with his Sony DV2000 3 chip camera. Even though there was a Kodak Lab locally & the K40 film could be picked up 2 days later the problems trying to complete a similar production would have been substantial.
I think that 62 groups of up to 10 crew members each competing to make the best production in one city alone is an indication of the potential of digital video to develop talent. Many of these people work on 35mm film production on a daily basis. This competition allows them to show what they are capable of doing under extreme pressure & digital video makes this possible
Dave