Let’s just get this out of the way.
Film PWNS RED. It PWNS DSLRS. It PWNS everything you can use to make a photograph. It’s the original. The standard by which all others follow and aspire to. With a lot of
independent filmmakers running around, obsessing over the latest
amazing digital technology of the moment, it’s easy to forget that
there are other, just as cost-effecting ways of making a movie the
old-fashioned way.
Now let’s talk about Super 8.
There’s
been a kind of resurgence of interest in Super 8 filmmaking over the
past few years. Sure, there have always been the hobbyists, but it
behooves companies like Kodak and Fuji to constantly remind the
public that actual film is in many ways, still the superior motion picture medium,
and that it comes in all shapes and sizes. Like I mentioned before,
in light of the focus on cost-effective independent film production
and modern digital technology, people seem to need more of a reminder
now than ever before.
A few broad technical points:
a) Film has more
latitude dynamic range than any digital camera currently on the market. From total black
to pure white, the average negative film stock (for instance, Kodak
VISION3 5219 500T) is capable of around 16 stops of exposure.
(Reversal stocks are more contrasty, with about 6 stops.) The most
advanced digital cameras top out at around 13, although ARRI claims
their new Alexa exceeds that.
b) All film pretty much reacts to light in
the same way. Different stocks will exhibit different
characteristics based on sensitivity, but a century of refinement has
helped perfect the photochemical process across the board.
For these two reasons, film is an
invaluable tool for new and experienced filmmakers. Most importantly for
aspiring cinematographers, it trains your eye to recognize how light
behaves. A bonus is that it’s pretty hard to fuck up. Film’s wide latitude dynamic range means that over or underexposure (give or take 3 stops) will
still net you perfectly usable data in the negative. With digital, if
you over or underexpose, there’s simply no data there to work with,
and you’ll tear the image apart when you correct for the mistake.
(Shooting RAW digital is one way around this, allowing you to adjust
the ASA and color temperature sensitivity in post.) Digital cameras also require very specialized computer-oriented skillsets that have nothing to do with the art of cinematography – which at its core, is basic photography.
So now that I’ve said all that, let’s
get back to Super 8. For the knowledge and confidence you gain from
shooting film, Super 8 is a steal at around 30 bucks for a
50-foot roll, which gives you around 2 ½ minutes of footage. If you
purchase your film from a lab like Pro8mm (in Burbank), that price
includes processing. Most of Pro8’s Super 8 stock is cut down from
larger format film stock, which means you can shoot with premium
Kodak VISION and Fuji ETERNA stocks. They also offer bulk HD telecine
services with a pro colorist. If you’re looking for the latest
stocks, Kodak just announced Super 8 versions of their VISION3 line.
You can find the Beaulieu 4008 ZM for around $200.
Also, Super 8 cameras are cheaper than almost
any HD camera on the market. We’re talking a couple hundred bucks on
eBay. These range from the manual, high maintenance models, to
electronic cameras that do everything for you. Some cameras are
even capable of synched sound.
I understand that when it comes to
resolution, Super 8 doesn’t hold a candle to even a lot of the
low-end HD cameras. What can be done with modern digital technology is incredible and revolutionary, but let’s not count pixels here. Shooting on film
is about the experience. I dare you to take a look at some of the
following films, all originated on Super 8, and tell me that they
don’t feel… Well, real. As an organic medium, film evokes an organic
response. I don’t know if we’ve been trained to feel that way from
decades of exposure, or if it’s something deeper, more emotional. I do know that it’s the one thing you can’t cram onto a sensor.
[Top image via exp24’s Flickr stream; All videos taken from the Vimeo Super 8
Group.]
10 comments
YES. I'm glad to see more of these articles.
Also, I'd like to hear your complete thoughts on RED and the Viper HD that Fincher used to make Zodiac.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Yay film.
I mean, even the cheapest stuff is so expensive to process and convert that it bankrupted me and forced me to quit film school, but by God is it gorgeous.
Even the cheap stuff has no digital equal. Celluloid all the way.
Absoooooolutely. I've shot several times on Super 8 and every time I process it and convert it to DV tape and start to view it in Final Cut I get chills. Unfortunately, all those steps are the reason (and the price) that I don't do it as often, but you are right, it simply can't be beat. This article is getting my juices flowing again, I need to pull out the ooool' Super 8 again..
Keep these articles going, Iain, it's great to hear the tech side of film-making being discussed.
Too bad Kodak seems to be cutting Plus-X, it's my favourite S8 stock.
these arguments are always very silly. it's a filmmaker pissing contest and nothing more. it's not the medium that matters people. your audience doesnt give a shit how big your dick is.
I accidentally posted this comment on the Red article but I meant it to be here. When I was in film school in the mid to late 90s, we shot our first 2 or 3 films on 8mm. While the cameras were shitty (the one pictured above looks awesome) and editting them on those reel to reel machines with the 2 inch screens sucked, the high contrast black and white images I got are still gorgeous today.
Within 2 years of completing my thesis on 16mm, the school almost completely switched to digital cameras and editing. While I'm not near as down on digital as I used to be, it seems a bit sad that the students today could go to film school and not deal with actually film and the technical difficulties that go a long with it.
I mean John's right, if you have a good story it doesn't matter what you shoot it on. Still, I'll always love film best. When faced with the choice of editing my thesis on a computer and coming out with a video tape or editing on a Steinbeck, with Scotch tape and cutters, I chose the Steinbeck. If I was going to spend a year of my life and $1000s of dollors on my last film, I wanted to walk out with a FILM.
But that's just me.
If you keep up with stuff like this you'll be up there with Dellamorte for the best articles running on this site
I love the fact your guys are doing more articles about the actual filmmaking side of things, but the attitude displayed in this article I think is a little ridiculous. Yes, film has an aesthetic value that can be wonderful, but it's hardly suitable for everybody and everything. To act like there's a simple equation of film > digital is to ignore the incredible advantages of digital filmmaking in the majority of situations. Sure, if you want a stylised "Super 8" look, film is fantastic, but the vast majority of film and video work requires clear images first and foremost. Not to mention the fact that the cleaner the image, the more you can do with it in post. There's something gorgeous about the organic nature of film, but not all projects lend themselves to that. I've directed and shot everything from TV shows, TVCs, short films and feature docos on a range of media, Super 8, 16mm, 35mm, digibeta and RED, and RED is by far my favourite system so far. The snobbish backlash against it seems to me entirely by driven by people who have never used it, and it's ridiculous because it's a great camera with (when shooting at 4K) a full-frame 35mm frame, meaning you get incredible depth of field. I shot some station promos for an Australian TV station here on it, and even at 2K the images I got blew anything else I've ever done out of the water. Not to mention the fact that yes, with RAW you can regrade the crap out of your images (and even more accurately than film because you can choose AFTER the fact whether you want it to process light as tungsten or sunlight, making a HUGE difference to colour balance as opposed being set in stone a bit with film). Do you hear professional photographers whine about how you can't beat 35mm film these days? No. They realise digital is the future of the medium, and that you only use film for specific aesthetic purposes. Filmmakers will soon catch up with that mentality, but somewhat ill-informed articles like this don't help with that progression.
I shot two films in school on 16mm, one in b&w and one in color. There is no greater pleasure or experience than shooting film…hearing the film stock sputter through the camera being exposed. The camera pictured above…someone gave it to me free on craigslist, and I still haven't used it. It may or may not work right, but I plan on finding out soon. I HAVE shot on RED, and that experience was terrific as well. I agree with Buff, each format has its place and purpose.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.