I bought a super 8 camera !!!

[FlameOfCallandor]

Check out this badass camera I got.



I want to make a horror film about a guy who is in the process of getting abducted by aliens and has to cut himself open to get rid of an alien object thats inside of him. Probably like 3-4 minutes total.

[brawndolicious]

why didn't you just get a digital camera?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Because I want to make films. Not shitty youtube videos.

[Cheebs]

Tell that to the ever growing list of film makers switching to digital, which will be the majority by the time you get in the industry(assuming you do

[G The Resurrected]

Great choice cause of the lenses. How much you pay for it?

[brawndolicious]

okay, so you don't want to make movies.  That's good.

[Cheebs]

okay, so you don't want to make movies.  That's good.

which is what I am saying, directors are switching to digital. When/If he gets in the industry shooting on film will be a minority.

[G The Resurrected]

And yeah digital is the way to go if you plan to keep in the industry cause film costs too much. You should learn more about digital and maybe broadcasting as well so if the film thang dont pan out you got something to fall on.

[FlameOfCallandor]

90% of films are still shot on film. Also, the majority of television shows are still shot on film.

I wont argue that film will die eventually, but film is going to be around for another 25 years. The technology for consumer video is terrible at the moment. The lenses are bad, the colors are bad. It just doesnt feel right.

Filmmaking isn't cheap.

[Ecrofirt]

90% of films are still shot on film. Also, the majority of television shows are still shot on film.

I wont argue that film will die eventually, but film is going to be around for another 25 years. The technology for consumer video is terrible at the moment. The lenses are bad, the colors are bad. It just doesnt feel right.

Filmmaking isn't cheap.

You know, those shots of your movie looked really bad. I'm not trying to rag on you, but since you brought it up I thought I'd ask.

I'm not referring to the oversaturation (which, though you said was intentional, I still find to be way too much for my eyes), but I'm talking about the pixelation and shitty color reproduction in the shots. Was that jpeg compression, or is that how the thing looks normally?

[G The Resurrected]

I thought that was jpeg compression of the image, FoC clear us up on that please.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Its because its a screen cap of the film from the editing program. In motion on a moniter it looks beautiful. We are editing at a lower quality and then when done, we'll get just the stuff we need in Digi-beta quality (which is the standard for broadcast). I can't really describe how beautiful it looks in motion.


FYI: Film doesn't pixalate. Thats strictly digital intervention. Another thing to remember is that 16mm has a higher resolution than HD.

[G The Resurrected]

sounds nice Foc how many more weeks till its done?

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://www.filmshooting.com/filming/page5.php

Independant film makers have always loved small easy formats to work with. Now that the digital video wave has hit, film makers have dumped their film cameras to go out and buy these expensive pieces of technology. But can they measure up to film? No. Let me explaine why.

It all starts with RESOLUTION. Resolution is the number of lines that make up the picture. The more lines you have the better the picture. So with that in mind lets take a look at the various formats:

Regular VHS cameras have about 250 lines of horizontal resolution.
Super VHS cameras have about 450 lines of horizontal resolution (a 60% better picture than with regular vhs.)
Mini Digital Video cameras have about 525 lines of resolution (another 60% better picture than with Super vhs)
SUPER 8 motion picture film has about 1315 lines of resolution! Over TWICE the amount of digital video!
Even the most sophisticated digital cameras can only deliver about 900 lines of resolution. So need I say more?

Another area that film kicks video's but is in the CONTRAST. Contrast is the control over the light and dark areas of a picture. Ever mess with the contrast knob on a TV? Same thing. Film has a wider latitude of the contrast of a picture than video does, which means that the grey scale in film is a whole lot wider than with video. You know what that means? Lighting will be easier and more controleable, and your picture will look 50 times better than any video format. Your blacks will punch through as will your whites.

Also look at the price of the cameras. A good Super 8 camera will cost about $300.00 as to where a standard D.V. camera will cost you $1,000.00 to $4,500.00 and your image still isn't as good as super 8. You do the math.

Okay, sure. People will tell you that there are professional grade high definition cameras that can give you really high lines of resolution that can probably equal film's. In that case, if you want to spend around $25,000.00 for one, be my guest. I'll stick with Super 8.

[Ecrofirt]

Its because its a screen cap of the film from the editing program. In motion on a moniter it looks beautiful. We are editing at a lower quality and then when done, we'll get just the stuff we need in Digi-beta quality (which is the standard for broadcast). I can't really describe how beautiful it looks in motion.


FYI: Film doesn't pixalate. Thats strictly digital intervention. Another thing to remember is that 16mm has a higher resolution than HD.

Here's what I mean:


Now mind you, I'm a Math & CS major. I know almost nothing about film, but this is what I mean.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Your gripes are with the picture export. Nothing there shows up on the image when played back on the moniter.

[Ecrofirt]

Your gripes are with the picture export. Nothing there shows up on the image when played back on the moniter.

Ah, I see.

[Ecrofirt]

So how do you transfer Super 8 to a digital medium when you want to edit it and stuff (assuming that's how you do it)?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Like i said, the way film operates, you cannot have jaggies or pixels on the actual film.

You do whats called a Telecine. Which is basically photoshop for film and super fucking expensive if you want it done right. I was raped up the ass with a large pole for the pinata movie telecine. I sat in with the colorist and told her how i wanted the film to look and she would change stuff for every shot.

The super 8 stuff doesn't need to look as good, so i will probably send it in to the lab. I think you can buy deals with the lab for 100 feet of super 8 and processing and transfer for $50.

[Ecrofirt]

Like i said, the way film operates, you cannot have jaggies or pixals on the actual film.

I get that. That's not what I asked you, doofus

[brawndolicious]

which is what I am saying, directors are switching to digital. When/If he gets in the industry shooting on film will be a minority.

yeah also with film you can get grain.  From what I've seen, good-looking movies use digital possibly because you can use much more subtle lighting (see collateral).  Obviously there is no necessity in going above 1080P HD because that's what theater projectors use.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Actaully film has more subtitle lighting. Digital tends to have a higher latitude which makes more stuff look lit. Another thing to think about is the camera they used on Collateral. Probably A $200,000 camera which is out of the question for me.

I personally think grain looks beautiful as long as it doesnt get out of control.


Edit: I was looking over my stills from the movie and they do look pretty bad. But I really cant stress how awesome it all looks in motion.

[brawndolicious]

I'm pretty sure any HD digital camera makes things look more lit.  The camera might be $5,000 at the time.

[Ecrofirt]

FoC, why didn't you answer my question?

I'd imagine most film is edited via digital means nowadays. How does Super 8 and stuff get transferred to digital media?

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC, why didn't you answer my question?

I'd imagine most film is edited via digital means nowadays. How does Super 8 and stuff get transferred to digital media?

You do whats called a Telecine. Which is basically photoshop for film and super fucking expensive if you want it done right. I was raped up the ass with a large pole for the pinata movie telecine. I sat in with the colorist and told her how i wanted the film to look and she would change stuff for every shot.

The super 8 stuff doesn't need to look as good, so i will probably send it in to the lab. I think you can buy deals with the lab for 100 feet of super 8 and processing and transfer for $50.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine

[Ecrofirt]

thanks

[Melissa]

90% of films are still shot on film. Also, the majority of television shows are still shot on film.

I'm pretty sure this is false. Source?

Regular VHS cameras have about 250 lines of horizontal resolution.
Super VHS cameras have about 450 lines of horizontal resolution (a 60% better picture than with regular vhs.)
Mini Digital Video cameras have about 525 lines of resolution (another 60% better picture than with Super vhs)
SUPER 8 motion picture film has about 1315 lines of resolution! Over TWICE the amount of digital video!
Even the most sophisticated digital cameras can only deliver about 900 lines of resolution. So need I say more?

+

2/3" 3-CCD @ 1920 × 1080 (2,073,600 pixels)

/thread

[FlameOfCallandor]

How much is that camera? Probably alot more than my camera. My friend shot a feature on HD with a similar camera and it doesnt look as good as my movie. There is alot more than just resolution. Color latitude, depth of field etc...

I'll find a source later tonight for my quote, but I would bet my life that 90% of studio motion pictures are shot on film and that at least 60% of television is still shot on film.

Sorry if i come off as an ass, but what do you know about cinematography? (because I don't know much)

[Vizzys]

30,000 ish

lol

[TVC15]

I can't believe people are arguing with FoC on something he probably actually knows about.

And let's face it folks, digital motion pictures still by and large look like shit.  The best are still using film.  Even Lynch couldn't make digital look good.

[Melissa]

Sorry if i come off as an ass, but what do you know about cinematography? (because I don't know much)

My boyfriend has an HD production company.  Go watch Zodiac and say shooting digital looks like shit.

Film is great, but who can afford it?

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

90% of films are still shot on film. Also, the majority of television shows are still shot on film.

How many films are shot on Super 8 these days?

[Cheebs]

I can't believe people are arguing with FoC on something he probably actually knows about.

And let's face it folks, digital motion pictures still by and large look like shit.  The best are still using film.  Even Lynch couldn't make digital look good.

   
Inland Empire looked bad?

And well you may say it looks bad but the "big" directors seem to be jumping aboard it rather quickly.

David Fincher, David Lynch, Michael Mann, George Lucas, Bryan Singer, Robert Rodriguez, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg(soon, its only a matter of time. Lucas is weaning him onto it)...etc

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Inland Empire looked fucking terrible (from what I've seen -- never felt like sitting through three hours of pretentious crap) and, from what I gather, was shot on medium quality DV.

[TVC15]

Inland Empire looked different than his previous films, and that different look was definitely a step back.

[Cheebs]

is Lynch sticking with digital still?

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Shit, I can't edit posts, but:

And, as it stands, even the best DV film to date -- Fincher's Zodiac -- didn't quite capture the "look" of film. Let's face it: no matter how much more efficient DV is opposed to film, film is still the industry standard, and will be for some time to come.

[TVC15]

is Lynch sticking with digital still?

I'd imagine so.  He made a big deal about digital and said he would never work with film again.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Isn't he one of the avid supporters of the "film is dead" movement now?

[Cheebs]

Isn't he one of the avid supporters of the "film is dead" movement now?

how do you feel shakey, your precious planet terror was digital.

[TVC15]

Yeah, and he's always been confident about doing his own thing, so even if all his fans are like "Your new movies look like shit" he'll keep doing what he's doing.

When he was using digital just to shoot stuff for his website, it was cool and all, though.  I think he just got too used to it.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Isn't he one of the avid supporters of the "film is dead" movement now?

how do you feel shakey, your precious planet terror was digital.

My precious? Lolz.

The thing about PT is its so heavily "damaged" that it doesnt quite stick out as much as Rodriguez's other efforts; Sin City, as well, fit the DV style well. But watch something like, say, OUaTiM and try not to notice how clean and ploished it is--imo, too polished and amateur looking for its own good.

[Melissa]

film is still the industry standard, and will be for some time to come.

Giant studio pictures, sure. We'll see how long FoC sticks to film when it comes time to do any feature length independent projects.  Good luck finding funding with a film-loyalist pitch.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Not even giant studio pictures, though more and more indie efforts are falling back on DV. But honestly, as long as its the norm for "giant studio pictures", it will be an industry norm.

[Bloodwake]

Again, from what I've seen, it's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive to shoot with film rather than with digital.

As an independent filmmaker, I would definitely keep COST over APPEARANCE in mind, at least at first, and work with what I have before depending mainly on film.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Again, from what I've seen, it's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive to shoot with film rather than with digital.

As an independent filmmaker, I would definitely keep COST over APPEARANCE in mind, at least at first, and work with what I have before depending mainly on film.

That may come back to bite you in the ass, dude.

Above all else, as a director you should focus on getting your VISION out there: never settle for cutting corners, and if you must, learn to work with your shortcomings instead of submitting to them.

[Van Cruncheon]

learn to work with your shortcomings instead of submitting to them.

i expect to see you filming mediocre commercials for subway in 10 years

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

learn to work with your shortcomings instead of submitting to them.

i expect to see you filming mediocre commercials for subway in 10 years

Hey, it'd be better than being a professional e-troll!

[Van Cruncheon]

but you've put so much c-level study into that career path! why forsake it now, 10,000+ posts later?

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Damn, another movie thread interrupted by Drinky's inane bickering and e-stroking.

[Vizzys]

you just got owned im afraid, shake

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Yes, I'll do Subway commercials, brilliant ownage! Drinky's e-penis is humongous!


Now, back to the DV v. Film debate please.

[Vizzys]

i was referring to the other post

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Whatever. Back on topic plz, k thx bye.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I wouldn't call HD a fad but it is definitely still in its novelty phase.

I never proclaimed there to be any super 8 features these days but the indie HD features out there look incredibly lazy. My decision to shoot super 8 short films will hopefully increase my skills with film.

Also the cost of HD is deceptive. You need flash drive to record and lots and lots of space to edit.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Well shit, you could say almost any indie feature these days looks lazy. People are using DV just as a cheap, easy format, not really working with the format to produce the best work possible.

Take, for instance, shooting dark or heavily desaturated scenes -- if it looked terrible in something like Miami Vice, it most definitely is gonna look terrible in your DV student film. (Not directed at FoC)

[Melissa]

I wouldn't call HD a fad but it is definitely still in its novelty phase.

Also the cost of HD is deceptive. You need flash drive to record and lots and lots of space to edit.

Are you young or possibly a film school student/grad?

If you're going to be doing this professionally, you're going to need real equipment. That includes a a good computer to work on your stuff, regardless of what format you shoot.  Also, there are a lot of tools that allow you to have a pleasant workflow when dealing with writing directly to files.  My boy has a cool, portable P2 editing station he uses to manage shots directly from the cards, before they ever end up on a backup drive or computer.


He spent $40K on the initial setup and it paid for itself in less than 3 months because there's such a high demand for HD acquisition and post work right now.  Calling it a novelty phase makes you sound uninformed, or maybe things just work differently in Los Angeles/Hollywood compared to wherever you're located.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Whoa, that looks pretty sweet.


Kinda OT, but here's two really low quality shots (for some reason I couldn't export a higher quality video when I converted some test footage) from my latest music video:






If I were lucky enough to have film at my disposal like FoC, I would most certainly go that route.

[Melissa]

Kinda OT, but here's two really low quality shots (for some reason I couldn't export a higher quality video when I converted some test footage) from my latest music video:

Post the video.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

I'm not nearly finished yet. The above are just taken from some test shots (which, since we liked them, will go into the finished piece). When it is done, I'll be sure to notify the boards, though.