Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Post Reply
super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by super8man » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:39 am

Angus wrote:
reflex wrote:
Angus wrote:Hmm...that's what they said when I created loads of 256 colour gif files on my Atari ST back in the period 1989-1992.
Photoshop will open a 256 colour GIF. Or google Atari Image Viewer for a program that handles NEO, PI1, PI2, PI3, SPU, PC1 files.

Photoshop is not cheap or shareware/freeware.
I use IRFANVIEW at work since my work does not support purchasing photo software. It seems to open a whole lot of file types. Check it out - it's free.
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by super8man » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:44 am

Patrick wrote:
super8man wrote:Angus, are your lenses on the Praktica screwmount (M42)? If so, get a converter and hook them up to your Nikon D50 - make sure the one you get has an internal element for infinity focusing. I bought mine from some dude in China for like $17.
Wow that is cheap. I was once speaking on the phone with some guy who was an authorised repairer and parts distributor for Beaulieu about getting a lens adapter. This was a few years ago and he was trying to convince me to purchase an adapter with a fairly hefty price tag (was over $100, maybe even $200 - I can't recall exactly.) He was saying that the price reflected the quality of the precision involved in the fit and distance etc. Does that sound like a load of baloney? This was for mounting a Canon FD lens (still 35mm format) to C mount. And I'm not talking about a custom made adapter either.
For better or worse, ebay is your friend...
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by super8man » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:54 am

Angus wrote:
Is there a PB adaptor for the D50? Would also come in handy for the F601 and the wife's F50.

Thinking of dudes in China...my dad went out there on business in 1985 and managed to drop his M42 mount zoom lens (he had a Praktica MTL5 back then). It was bicycled to some elderly Chinese watchmaker 50 miles away who repaired it...bicycled back...all for US$5. Amazing. And the lens works to this day.
Perhaps you can email these guys and ask for the Nikon version?

AF Confirm Prakticar PB B Bayonet Lens to Canon EOS EF
on ebay:

Item number: 370444393380
Item location: Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Ships to: Worldwide
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

kontrabass888
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:32 pm
Real name: kontrabass
Location: Belgium

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by kontrabass888 » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:33 am

I bought Canon 550D in January,but I use it with my Nikkor manual lenses to shoot movie only. because I have Nikon system for still photo. I took the canon with me to Prague in the begining of March. Well, it is very interesting and could see the result right after the shooting. however I don't like the digital looking and the nerrow exposure range. It is a useful tool but ...

So, I will continue to shoot 16mm and super8mm for my self and family , and shoot digital for comercial.

User avatar
beamascope
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:47 pm
Real name: Jim Gibbons
Location: Oklahoma City, OK.

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by beamascope » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:57 am

People put too much stock in DSLRs as video cameras. The only thing they do better is interchangeable lenses and shallow DOF. No doubt those are biggies but companies are starting to build normal bodied video cameras with interchangeable lenses and large targets for shallow DOF and they still have audio options which DSLRs lack. I think DSLRs as dedicated video cameras will die down. As for Super 8? Who knows really but video cameras in the 80s didn't knock super 8 so why would DSLRs now? Image quality isn't what it's always about. Sometimes it's about lack of image quality! :lol: It's not the gear it's the content. That's something lost on many people. Youtube is filled with great image quality productions that are not worth watching for 20 seconds.

User avatar
beamascope
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:47 pm
Real name: Jim Gibbons
Location: Oklahoma City, OK.

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by beamascope » Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:12 am

etimh wrote:I finally got around to watching the nearly 4 hour (!) making-of documentary Dangerous Days, about all of the trials and tribulations of getting Blade Runner made and bringing it to the screen. One of the most interesting sections was the discussion about all the analog special-effects processes--real 70mm film of course, and motion control, and actual miniatures (particularly interesting was the set-up for the "Hades flyby" at the beginning of the film).

All incredibly difficult and time-consuming and, as several of the folks interviewed said, this was probably the last great analog science-fiction film to be made using this technology and these processes. But you could tell in all of their conversations that they missed this way of working, and all said that you will never be able to achieve the look and effect of doing sfx this way--the tangible and solid feel of everything, its "realism."

Well, do you think it would ever be possible that a big-budget film would go back to working this way--despite the ridiculous cost--simply for the unique "look" of the processes and effects? I doubt it, but I swear after watching this doc you get the feeling that people are itching to go back to this more artisanal way of working, actually touching things, instead of the abstraction of work within the computer.

I know it's silly to propose and it will never happen (mainly because these "artists" are not the ones financing films), but I think many who actually work on films would prefer it. Question is, would the audience prefer it? Or even care?

Tim
I know I'd prefer it. I wouldn't mind CGI if they knew when enough was enough. Big budget CGI films (Star Wars) NEVER leave you wanting more. I find myself checking my watch wondering when the hell this insane chase scene/pod race/light saber duel will end. The reason I saw The Empire Strikes back 10 times or so in the theater at the age of 14 was because the Hoth battle probably only had 2 whole minutes of model animation in it. Now films have battle scenes that last for 20 minutes, ugh.

carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by carllooper » Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:34 am

I know I'd prefer it. I wouldn't mind CGI if they knew when enough was enough. Big budget CGI films (Star Wars) NEVER leave you wanting more.
We should keep in mind that the original Star Wars film (and the two that followed) were not CGI films. CGI is short for "computer generated image" rather than special effects. The art of CGI was in it's infancy at the time of the original Star Wars. If you look at the wireframe animations on the computer monitors in the film - that's about as advanced as cinema CGI was at that time. The great effects sequences in Star Wars - as being discussed - were done using non-computer techniques that had been around for decades. An exception (apart from the "simulation" of computer screens) is perhaps the motion control rigs for the cameras. This was an innovation that owes something to computers.
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/

carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by carllooper » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:26 am

Many people thought photography would be the death of painting. For may types of painting it was. Photography took over. Portraiture being one use case. But painting didn't die. In fact it was liberated. Some of the best paintings ever painted were made after the invention of photography.

When discussing film making (or art in general) there is often an emphasis on the image making side of such. However image making is not the only aspect of an art. Materials play an important part.

A painter, for example, can enjoy the paint as much as the image. Even more. As can admirers of painting.

Likewise a film maker can enjoy working with film as much as with the moving picture component of such.

How does one enjoy working with film using a DSLR? The DSLR doesn't use film.

:)

Carl

The invention of photography represents a convergence of at least two things: optics on the one hand and chemistry on the other. Optics is something that has precoccupied artists for centuries and no doubt many centuries to come. From the point of view of optics, one may find it easy to swap materials: paint, silver halide, electronic sensors, cerebral plug

But from the point of view of chemistry a question becomes: to what end can silver halide be used if not photography? To what use can a photo-sensitive resource be put if not for a photo-sensitive purpose? From an artistic point of view there is an abstract symbiosis there. It's like finding a smooth rock by the water. to what use can the stone be put? Getting it to skip across the water is one such use. Sure, there may be other objects that can skip along water better than the stone. But then what to do with the stone?

Skip it across the water I say.

Now it wasn't that long ago that many people feared that the world's limited supply of silver would spell the death for film making: within 50 years time. Prices would climb to the point where even the biggest studios couldn't afford film. But the move by image-makers, to digital, means the rate of silver consumption will slow down. The problem then is not whether we'll run out of the resource (causing the cost of such to rise), but whether companys such as Kodak will continue to manufacture film stocks. Presumably there should be a threshold below which demand drops and the Kodak accountants fail to see enough profit to justify making filmstocks.

On the other hand, you can still buy a top hat today, despite the fact that wearing top hats has not been a widespread activity for 100 years.
Last edited by carllooper on Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/

carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by carllooper » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:47 am

<snip>
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/

super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by super8man » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:28 pm

Reminds me of the phrase: The stone age did not end due to a lack of stones.

Same too will be the case for film and may as well include gasoline/petroleum. We will simply do something else and no one can say whether or not the current status quo will be available for people in the future.

Like we did with Kodachrome, use it or lose it. Same goes for all film. Hurry up and shoot for today and don't worry about tomorrow's availability.
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by carllooper » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:05 am

super8man wrote:The stone age did not end due to a lack of stones.
I've never heard that phrase before but it's a good one.

One of the things that took hold of some mindless cultural critics/philosophers, in the late eighties, early nineties, was the idea of an "end of history". This idea wasn't an end-of-the-world idea. On the contrary it was the idea that the past (history) would come to the end. History would become irrelevant - that we would enter some age in which we lived in some sort of indefinite present, somehow free of history, as if history was something to be abandoned - or moire radically - was never there in the first place - that it was a fiction of some sort.

But the idea of an end-of-history has been around for a very long time. If you have abandoned history or otherwise reinterpret it as fictional then you wouldn't know it was an old idea. You might think it was new.

The word "tsunami" is, interestingly enough, a Japanese word. Words can cross language barriers when there is no other word, in the other language, for the thing being referenced. Now I mention tsunami because once upon a time people knew from stories told by their grandparents (oral history) that if the sea suddenly recedes while you're at the beach the appropriate response is not to chase the sea, but to run very quickly the other way. The tsunami that occured in the 2004 Indian earthquake apparently had many spectators at the beach walking towards the receding sea rather than in the direction their grandparents would have been told about.

If and when the universe eventually ends what will remain forever after that is that it once did exist.

Where am I going with this? I have no idea ...

... Derrida.

Derrida is an interesting critic. His take on history differs somewhat from those looking forward to an indefinite present. There would be an age in which all eyes were instead focused on the past - recycling the past - unable to look forward. As an antidote he recycled some Jewish mysticism in order to construct the idea of a future we couldn't see (or foresee) but of which we could still be excited - like that buzz we might get from a film trailer. We have no real idea of what the film might be, but we nevertheless get excited and look forward to seeing it.

Hmmm. I still have no idea how to bring this back to DSLR and Super8 ...

... Derrida.

Derrida also reframed the present in terms of the idea of ghosts. This differs somewhat from a recycled past. Instead of a present observing and recycling the past, he introduces, or reintroduces, the idea of ghosts - the past (or history) inhabiting the present in the form of a phantom. History would haunt us - in order to get us not only thinking - but physically responding - as in an adrenaline rush, when you consider a thousand possible options in milliseconds. The past as something that can bring us to life rather than sending us to sleep. Hauntology instead of ontology.

How to get this back to film ...

Okay. As film recedes into history in one narrative, it returns from the dead in another. That'll do.
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/

super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by super8man » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:43 pm

Your post brings to mind, for me anyway, the concept that film is a true "capture' of something that never was: a moment. Digital has something of an algorithm that interprets "a moment" for us and that interpretation is almost a copyright of the company that made the camera. We have to trust them on this. With film it is a little more like oil paint in a tube - there is no pre-interpretation of what will happen with the paint. But DSLRs all have a "look" that is almost unnatural.

Don't get me wrong, for 99% of everything, the DSLR is good enough. But it's a far different animal no matter how many pixels they ultimately offer.

I found it touching that the photograph of the rescue guy looking at a photo album in the wake of the tsunami (in Japan - an AP photo or similar) was illustrative of this discussion. Ultimately, everything is analog in order for us to make sense of it.
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

User avatar
beamascope
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:47 pm
Real name: Jim Gibbons
Location: Oklahoma City, OK.

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by beamascope » Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:14 pm

carllooper wrote:
I know I'd prefer it. I wouldn't mind CGI if they knew when enough was enough. Big budget CGI films (Star Wars) NEVER leave you wanting more.
We should keep in mind that the original Star Wars film (and the two that followed) were not CGI films. CGI is short for "computer generated image" rather than special effects. The art of CGI was in it's infancy at the time of the original Star Wars. If you look at the wireframe animations on the computer monitors in the film - that's about as advanced as cinema CGI was at that time. The great effects sequences in Star Wars - as being discussed - were done using non-computer techniques that had been around for decades. An exception (apart from the "simulation" of computer screens) is perhaps the motion control rigs for the cameras. This was an innovation that owes something to computers.
True, when I said Star Wars I meant the recent three. My bad. The first three had little to none CG anything in them. Even without CGI I felt Jedi (1983) was still too busy for my taste. I like to know what the hell I am supposed to be focusing on in a film instead of 30 ships buzzing around at once.

Tscan
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:44 pm
Real name: Anthony Schilling
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by Tscan » Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:18 pm

I've thought the same thing. There is a lot of experimantal cinema and music videos happening in my town. Almost none of them are using film, and almost all are using DSLR's. Even the cost of a roll of B&W S8 scares anyone here from using it over the cost and quality of the Canon 5D or what not.

When it comes to major MP, Film still looks way better than any digital. But it takes a lot of expensive post grade to get something that looks cool. I think Kodak needs to go another direction from V3. People like film not for the technical factors, but for asthetics. That's why the still film market is seeing a nitch revival with Lomo stocks... because they look really cool and different, more into the abstract where digital and newer slocker Kodak still stocks just look mundane. Any future film stocks need to aim more toward it's film like potential, as opposed to ultra latatude, fine grain, and neutral colors. They can keep V3 around, but they ned to offer up something more unique... like what film is supposed to be.
Reborn member since Sept 2003

super8man
Senior member
Posts: 3980
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
Real name: Michael Nyberg
Location: The Golden State
Contact:

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by super8man » Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:33 pm

PS - Watch out on buying a "used" DSLR in the future - most will probably be worn out if they had been used as a movie camera. Everytime I read about someone making a movie with one they typically state they ended up getting a new camera after wearing out the shutter. They are not designed to be used as movie cameras for anything serious/lengthy.
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/

Post Reply