|
Author
|
Topic: Amazing 8mm Quality
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted March 28, 2017 02:26 PM
I have started the long process of digitizing my precious 8mm family Kodachrome films, so naturally I am looking at many of them for the first time in many many years. And what a revelation!
I guess we have all got used to the digital look and marveled at what a great job consumer HD video cameras do, until you go back and experience what 8mm was capable of 40 or more years ago.
I don't know for sure whether standard 8mm Kodachrome , shot with a Bolex C8 and prime Kern lenses, is comparable or not to HD video in terms of resolution. All I can say for sure is that some of the 8mm I am looking at is just breathtaking in terms of sharpness, contrast, beautiful natural colors, and depth. Just looks so superior IMO to most HD video.
So have we really progressed in 50 years?
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted March 31, 2017 04:30 PM
Regardless of medium (digital or film), the lenses and the person behind them make a huge difference. The camera itself not as much except to the degree that it makes focusing and getting proper exposure easy for the photographer.
Sadly, there is no comparison between my father's or my own old 8mm film and modern digital video. In those old films having something both in focus and properly exposed seems to be the exception rather than the rule. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Indoor footage seemed to be especially challenging. The massive light bar that my father's camera required would pretty much blind anybody who looked in his direction. In any given 50 ft reel, there might be 10 to 20 seconds of footage that rivaled what you'd get consistently from a modern camera.
So, in my family's case at least, the quality that was achievable then with expensive equipment and skilled photographers can be approached if not exceeded so much more easily with today's relatively inexpensive cameras or even phones. Better light sensitivity, auto exposure, auto focus, image stabilization, compact form factors, etc. So yes, I think we have progressed in 50 years.
In spite of all that I still like shooting film and will continue to do so. It is possible to get very impressive results. And even with all of today's advantages I was reminded how easy it is for me to botch a shot a couple of days ago.
Probably 90% of all movies I take will be digital. I'll save the film for special occasions or shots that I think would just look better on film. It's all very subjective and I'm not going to waste a lot of time trying to convince either faction that one better than the other. I do have a tendency to defend both. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Brad: What I would say is that in some instances a film "look" is preferred. I don't think it's always preferred. Just like you might shoot some or all of a movie in black and white. It might be perfect for a particular movie or scene, but it would be wrong to conclude that it's preferred to color in general.
[ March 31, 2017, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Tom Spielman ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted April 01, 2017 11:08 AM
Yes, there are some instances where you end up with a shallow depth of field, whether desired or not. Because the subjects in a movie are often moving (that's the point after all), they may be moving in and out of the area of sharp focus. So even if the subject started out in focus, they may not stay that way throughout the shot. Using zooms and telephotos can exacerbate the problem along with increasing the shakiness.
Auto-focus was a technology that made it to still cameras that used film. Did it ever make it to consumer grade Super 8 cameras?
Going back to the original post, I agree that not all "progress" lead to an improvement in image quality. Super 8 cartridges definitely made film loading easier and the notches helped eliminate exposure mistakes. But moving the pressure plate inside the cartridge was a trade off that had downsides.
And Steve, I agree that automation has its price too. My photography has improved a lot after starting to use cameras with more manual settings and having to understand what modern cameras take care of for you. If I ever got a decent night time shot before it was luck. After getting into film, I now understand how to do it more consistently.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted April 01, 2017 02:50 PM
Tom, I do not know of any reg 8mm or super 8mm cameras with auto focusing. Bell and Howell came out with a cute poor man's 'auto-focussing' device which consisted of a pendulum inside the camera. The idea was that for close shots you first aimed the camera at the subjects feet. The tilt of the camera swung the pendulum and racked the lens focus to the appropriate position, which was then locked before you raised the camera to the horizontal position to take the shot. Crude, effective, but hardly auto focus.
As far as cartridge loading design goes, the Fuji single 8 system was the right solution, using normal in line feed and take up, and retaining the precision camera gate and pressure pad. Far better than the Kodak plastic cartridge with coaxial feed and take up.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
