50D looks great!

[kuparikettu]

Have you seen this yet? https://vimeo.com/62358313

must ... resist ...the temptation ... Wittner ... order....

BTW, please be sure to download the original file. Looks much better than the Vimeo encoded version.

[gaugefilm]

That does look great!

[joelpierre]

I can not believe this is Super 8.

https://vimeo.com/62358313

[mr8mm]

very impressive. But how dependent is the quality result on the lab and transfer? Will all labs and transfers achieve similiar results? I understand that all film results are dependent on initial processing and transfer but this is outstanding.

I am offering a limited amount S8 V3 50D at discount. Contact me for details. J.S.

[aj]

I can not believe this is Super 8.

https://vimeo.com/62358313

Why would it not be? The filmer has his own site: http://www.joseluisvillar.es/
Clearly states Beaulieu 4008ZM2 50D Andec processing and teleciné locally.
The clip has incredible sharpness. What lens did he use? Or was it enhanced after teleciné

There is another clip with a fashion theme. The one model looks very much like young Christie Brinkley

[Will2]

very impressive. But how dependent is the quality result on the lab and transfer? Will all labs and transfers achieve similiar results? I understand that all film results are dependent on initial processing and transfer but this is outstanding.

Just like with 16 or 35mm negative, most of the look is in the transfer & colorist. Processing & handling quality is probably more important with Super 8 negative because every grain of dust is so much larger when blown up from Super 8mm.

[joelpierre]

I can not believe this is Super 8.

https://vimeo.com/62358313

Why would it not be?

Why is the left edge of the film (on the side of the hole) is clear then it is a negative film inverted in positive?

It seems to me that if the image is positive, the film edges and perforation must be black.

They are transparent when the image is negative.





This, is more credible : https://vimeo.com/47505358

The videos of the director are used by a site that sells transfer:

http://ochoypico.com/super8-telecine/?cat=5

There would not it be a temptation to do too much?

[kuparikettu]

I too am tempted to make an educated guess that the footage has been degrained by the author (in this and the fashion film). He hasn't answered that question really. However, the example you have posted is just plain bad qualitywise. There is no camera mentioned. If I had to guess I'd say it's not one of the high end league so no real comparison can be made.

Regarding how good super-8 really can look, take a look at this super-8 clip shot on Fuji 64D (by Pro8mm) with an Beaulieu 4008 ZM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJZG2Bc162E. Compared to that the Vision3 50D seems a lot more plausible, even though degrained.

[Scotness]

I can not believe this is Super 8.

https://vimeo.com/62358313

Why would it not be?

Why is the left edge of the film (on the side of the hole) is clear then it is a negative film inverted in positive?

It seems to me that if the image is positive, the film edges and perforation must be black.

They are transparent when the image is negative.





This, is more credible : https://vimeo.com/47505358

The videos of the director are used by a site that sells transfer:

http://ochoypico.com/super8-telecine/?cat=5

There would not it be a temptation to do too much?

I can't explain the difference in the colour of the sprocket hole Joelpierre - but 50D is definitely a negative stock -- I don't understand what you're point is? I don't think what we're seeing is actually a reversal stock as the contrast is way to flat for that. Maybe just something in the post processing on it as a video file changed the colour of the hole??

Scot

[joelpierre]

I think it is a fake. It seems to me that this is a video that was embedded in a framework of Super8 to give an aspect of Super8.

However, I wish it to be truly the Super8 and that we can actually get such images with Kodak 50D.

I hope I'm wrong.

[nikonr10]

I think it is a fake. It seems to me that this is a video that was embedded in a framework of Super8 to give an aspect of Super8.

However, I wish it to be truly the Super8 and that we can actually get such images with Kodak 50D.

I hope I'm wrong.

Some how i think you are right , Joelpierre It's look's way to clean for a super 8 film still ,

[MovieStuff]

I have seen commercial prints where the film edge is clear but, if this were negative, then the edge should end up black or very dark, to be sure.

The problem is in this area here:



The image crosses into the sprocket hole edge, making the edge lighter. That could never happen. The edge is dark for the same reason that scratches on reversal are dark; they refract the light and prevent it from reaching your eye. That edge would never be affected by any kind of image on the film.

And, of course, it has the most amazing detail of any S8 frame I've ever seen, even for negative.

Roger

[JeremyC]

Roger,

Excuse my technicla ignorance on stocks but are you saying that the way the edge beyond the frame turns to white can't happen with a transfer of a neg stock? If so could it instead be a processing artifact?

BTW. Over on cinematography where this is also a thread Jose, whose film it is, said he used the GK metal pressure plate he bought through Andec in answer to a query I put.

[JeremyC]

Just to be clear I mean a processing artifact post the scanner.

[MovieStuff]

Roger,

Excuse my technicla ignorance on stocks but are you saying that the way the edge beyond the frame turns to white can't happen with a transfer of a neg stock?

I'm not talking about the edge of the film. I am talking about the edge of the sprocket hole. (see photo) The dark sprocket hole edge is an optical artifact caused by light hitting the physical edge of the sprocket hole and then being diverted away from your eye. It would not matter what image was on the film or if any image was on the film. The edge should remain dark.

Now, having said that, if this were a film print (positive), the edge could look as it does in the photo if the light area of the film where to flare in the telecine lens and, therefore, obscure the edge a bit. But, if transferring directly from negative, the light area of the film is actually dark so that could not happen.

In fact, if this were from negative, the entire sprocket hole edge should therefore look light and not dark. The second photo clearly shows what a transfer from negative looks like when telecined. The only way it could look as it does would be from a print.

I would love to be proved wrong as the image looks just great. But, based on my experience, I don't see how the edge of the sprocket hole could appear as it does.