Tweet
I am a member of a Super 8 community on Facebook that is quite activate. The user's range from new members, just shooting Super 8 for the first time, to members who have used it for years. Many of the new members have questions about cameras, filmstocks, etc. Last night a young member asked about which stocks would be best for general outdoor shooting. She did indicate using a few negative stocks in the past. Most of the responses were for using negative stocks, which seems to be the theme these days. I decided to chime in about using Kodak's current Ektachrome 100D color reversal. I went on to say how pleasing the colors were, and how nice the film looks projected. The user who originally posted the question replied to my post by asking, "what do you mean by project?" I had to reread that response twice LOL. It amazes me how many current Super 8 users have no idea about projecting film. It almost bothers me they have not seen Super 8 reversal projected. I guess it's the way Super 8 is marketed these days. Negative stock is fine but it's not for me. I mean why shoot film if your going to view it on a TV, etc. The great joy of filming is viewing it on a projector. Maybe I'm just a purist LOL. What do the rest of you think?
-
-
Totally agree with you there Shane. There is nothing like seeing original reversal film on a large screen projected by a high quality machine with a great lens. Digital scans don't even come close! -
That's my point! Most of the YouTube uploads I've seen of digital scans look terrible. Both negative, and reversal stocks. These current users have no idea how good Super 8 can look projected. My current projector set-up is quite revealing. A vintage Honeywell Elmo dual 8, using a Bolex "hifi" 1.3 15mm prime lens, wow is all I can say! No digital scan I've seen comes close. Believe it or not, someone at the Super 8 forum on Facebook left a comment about how he makes digital copies of his current films. Apparently this guy actually shoots negative stock, then records it using a vintage 90's VHS camcorder LOL. I mean that just defeats the whole idea of using film....Originally posted by Paul Adsett View Post
Comment
-
Spot on Shane
I have yet to see any film to video conversion that could come close to projecting the actual film, I have up-loaded video versions to both you-tube and certain Facebook pages as well for folks just to see some of this stuff. The response has been excellent, but sadly none can view them using a projector, which picture quality is light years ahead of any up-load or digital transfer that I have done or seen.
For those who are right into film making these days its a pity more don't use a projector as well. There are still good Super 8 machines out there, they might be old but can still work fine.
Comment
-
It is definitely sad that the younger generation is pretty clueless to the quality advantage of projecting film with a film projector. However.... I don't see the trend reversing. Working projectors are becoming less and less available and despite the loss in quality... digital is just more convenient and versatile.Comment
-
Projection is a localized event. With todays users being spread out and into social media. Digitizing seems a obvious step. Same with still film and scanning. Taking hours to edit a 35mm scan to stick it on Instagram. The good of all this is film being bought and used.
Buying new film is the only way to keep 8mm alive. Down the line they'll have their 10, 20, 100 reels of 8mm and wounder about this "projection malarkey". Hay Presto a new generation of 8mm projectionist will emerge.Comment
-
Thanks everyone for your comments and feedback! You all make good valid points I hadn't thought about!Comment
-
I get the demand for convenience, but as shooting on Super is vastly more expensive, why don't they shoot digital and then use a programme that gives a fairly authentic Super 8 look? I'll stress that I'm very pleased that the people in question prefer to use film, but I'm surprised they feel the difference warrants the added expense.Originally posted by Janice Glesser View Post
Comment
-
"Super 8 community on Facebook"
Link pleaseComment
-
Here you go Jeremy!Originally posted by Jeremy Rundle View Post
​​​​​​https://www.facebook.com/groups/27648968851Comment
-
Disclaimer: I'm speaking from the digital realm view, so bear with me...
As of now, I'd made no less than 50-60 scans (maybe closer to 100) of Super8 negative stock for my customers. While they're pleased to the result, I rightfully knew that something's missing. No matter how much adjustments done in color-correction process, the color will be always a tad muted, the image will be always a bit soft & grainy, etc. The list goes on and on...
However compared to the resultant scan of positive/reversal film, be it Kodachrome from yesteryear, or even newly shot Ektachorme (had the chance to scan about a few of that) the difference is MASSIVE. Color vibrancy, contrast, detail, etc. is miles ahead of the result from negative stock. Wouldn't take much attempt when color-correcting them.
My gross assumption is that all current negative stocks are/were still intended for conventional (analog
) printing process - direct to the positive print material. They're NOT designed to be captured to digital medium. That's why it would look like crap on CMOS sensor, for example.
If Kodak feels like to develop their negative film stock to work in digital workflow, they would have, at least, already removed orange cast from the film base. To my understanding this orange tint was designed for printing to positive film material. Thus it serves no purpose in today's workflow - only adding headaches to the colorist.
In the end while it's definitely possible for Kodak to "tune" their stock to make it look nice on the scan, I doubt if that's gonna happen in foreseeable future.
Comment
-
This is an interesting topic. I love 8mm and 16mm and would never give it up, and still collect it, but I would argue that from a quality point of view they do not come close to the quality that can be gotten with a good digital projector projecting a good digital source like a good 2K or 4K bluray and even streaming services these days.
I do assume that projecting a 35mm print at home may be as good as a good digital transfer, but that is an assumption as I do not have one to compare.
So 8mm and 16mm is a novelty for me enjoyed for the love of film and the mechanics of the projectors used to project them, but definitely not for the quality of the image or the sound.
be interest to hear from others that project both film and digital.Comment
-
John Clancy in his You Tube videos says that 4k with HDR is the only thing to get near to 35mm projection. It is not only the resolution but the dynamic range that is the decider for him. I would tend to agree and think that 8mm would need that too to get to look as good as projection from the actual film.Comment
-
Super 8 can definitely look good projected but it depends on a few variables. In my experience it boils down to the camera, projector lens, and the scene distant's from camera during filming. The new Ektachrome seems to have a higher resolving power, and much better sharpness compared to the previous version from years back. Super 8 really needs to be used within it's limitations to look it's best on screen. For example, my scenes depicting people at medium distant's from the camera are sharper, and more detailed compared to say a landscape scene. Also I have found the need to use a neutral density filter on sunny days to reduce the exposure, resulting in sharper, and cleaner images. Lastly, I've been projecting my current Ektachrome films on an Elmo dual 8 projector that has been fitted with a Bolex "hifi" 1.3 prime lens. That prime lens makes all the difference. Does Super 8 look as good as other formats, no. But with the right equipment, and good filming techniques, can look pretty darn good.
As Xander pointed out, it's also about the cool projectors we get to play with!Comment
Comment