How to Fake the Super 8 Film Look

[Ed Gordon]

You will find more videos on Simon Cade's Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@DSLRguide

[Joerg Polzfusz]

That’s what I will never get: when shooting with real film, you’ll always try to use the sharpest lens, focus properly, use a tripod and the most grainless filmstock.
But all those video-guys/-gals are adding tons of digital noise (to simulate grain), use the least sharp lens they can find, either add an „out of focus“-look in camera or in post and then disable all image stabilization features to get the „film look“?! (And in most cases the result is more the look of a 3rd generation copy of a NTSC-VHS-tape blown up to HD….)

[Osi Osgood]

Boy, I agree Joerg! Yeah, occasionally super 8 canbe out of focus and such, but any jerk, er, nice guy, can operate a super 8 camera properly and come up with a great looking print! Especially when one sees these at least 2K transfers, it's amazing as to how good those old prints still look and, in some cases from over 80 years ago! I have digital tape home movies/video that are damned near unwatchable only twenty years or less after having shot them! Those videos, in my opinion, are an insult to super 8!

[Brian Fretwell]

And of course Super 8 isn't always 4x3 lots was shot with various anamorphic lenses to give from 2:1 to 2.66:1.

[Steve Lee]

A few years back there was quite a stir when somebody had scaned the music video to Wham's last christmas. This video had originally been shot on a 35mm negative, and using the latest scanning technology was able bring this into the 21st century. The result is totally amazing.
It seemed that the younger generations could not understand how this is possible, with this being made so so many years ago "before my time" as this seems to be the latest get out clause for everything.
For younger generations there is this narrative, that anything appertaining to film has to be grainy, covered in scratches with tramlines running down it.
I think we know better.

[Ken Finch]

Yes we do know better, because we all learned how to use our cameras properly. I can quite understand where the younger generation get their impression of cine film from. I have seen a lot of home movies over the years and it is obvious that quite a lot of the owners never looked after their films or cleaned their projectors. Quite a large number of films I have transferred to dvd for various people are poorly focussed, over or under exposed, not to mention how they have been joined ! Quite a few standard 8 only half exposed or double exposed! It is quite surprising how many people never read the instruction books. Ken Finch.😏

[Graham Ritchie]

I would rather shoot actual film

[David Strelitz]

Oh dear, as someone who has been in video production for nearly 40 years, some of you need to get off your high horse and understand why cine look effects exist. Yes, you all shot with perfect focus and exposure; well done: watch another masterpiece and have another beer.
As Ken has eluded to, the norm amongst a large % of family cine was not great. Now add in desaturation, colour cast, dirt, scratches, burns and hairs, plus poor corner to corner illumination from bad telecine and you have a familiar look.

"....video-guys/-gals are adding tons of digital noise (to simulate grain), use the least sharp lens they can find, either add an „out of focus...." Uniformed!
We don't shoot like that as all emulation is from an NlE effect filter, often on pin sharp HD or half descent archive.

So yes, I plead guilty to using a degraded cine look a handful of times over the 25 years of having NLE, including an opening shot of a TV ad for a touring show.
The only thing I have not been able to emulate are the array of bizarre splicing I have encountered, staples, insulation tape, Sellotape, Elastoplast, epoxy resin et al 🙄
Welcome to the real world.😁

[Osi Osgood]

Well David, that's just it. Most of those ills just aren't found if one does the filming/ projection just right. As mentioned previously, I also shot in scope with my Mollier anamorphat scope lense (German lense), on Kodachrome super 8. The results were extremely good, gorgeous saturated color. It only saddens me, that so many youngsters out there assume that super 8 as well as film in general, is just the Haven of ancient, sub par illuminations. We've seen on here, as well as on various YouTube videos, when one does a good scan on the super 8 home movie, the image quality is quite striking.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

I didn’t say that I don’t understand the need to fake certain looks for certain situations. I only said that I don’t understand the complete opposite goals: aiming for perfection on one hand (and failing due to lack of skills and/or due to using devices that are 50 years old ) and adding every possible imperfection on the other hand. (And yes, my statements are uniformed. But it’s the summary of reading various forums for videographers and permanently seeing converted lenses like this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/22537221648...Bk9SR6z0xszOYQ )

I also said that the majority of „film looks“ doesn’t look like transferred film to me. (And that’s what is worrying me as this might cause the „generation YouTube/TicToc“ in thinking that film is automatically a bad medium.)

[Brian Fretwell]

On some Dr Who DVDs standard 8mm film (usually Kodachrome) taken by either cast members or people who visited the locations looks better than the 16mm used in the actual programme. OK there has been restoration on both and the programme footage often was transferred by 1970's telecine machines and the 8mm on expensive digital datacine ones, but it does say something about 8mm.

[David Strelitz]

Osi Osgood You represent, the minority as your skills and striving for perfection is a moonwalk away from the norm. Sure super 8 can look fab as can Kodak std 8, 60 year old film with chroma that jumps off the screen. A whole wedding on 4mins of film...them were the days 😜
Joerg Polzfusz I really don't think that any generation is going to lose sleep over the merits of film. I'm sure that cine effects are often over done and can look naff, but we do agree in the right situation...😁 As for buying kit to simulate, crazy.
Look how many people shoot video on their phone in portrait yet in the right hands (not mine 🙄) a short film wholly shot on mobiles won a BAFTA on Sunday.

[Thomas Dafnides]

There are a ton of recent Super films on youtube made by young people. Just search "super 8 film". Some are quite good ... but many think that shaky camera is part of the super 8 look and obviously, think its cool. I don't care for sprocket holes and frame lines being visible ... another effect many of the younger generation think is in vogue.

[Alan Myers]

Oh dear, as someone who has been in video production for nearly 40 years, some of you need to get off your high horse and understand why cine look effects exist. Yes, you all shot with perfect focus and exposure; well done: watch another masterpiece and have another beer.

Oh dear, Im not too sure what thats all about but from what I've read on this thread, I think what is being asked is, Why do today numpties who know very little about the history of home movies always want to make it look like utter crap.

The thing people seem to forget is that home movies way back in the day was the only way people could capture their treasured moments in life. Most people didn't have too much of a clue on how to use the camera properly nor did they give a crap, but what they filmed 40/50 years ago still retains the colour and most important, treasured memories of the time with a good clear image that stands the test of time if they are looked after. People still look back on their home shot cine films with joy and I dont really think anyone cares about the grain or the shaky movement of the camera. Sure some of it is out of focus and a bit wobbly, but they were never meant to be movie masterpieces.
Today, the skill of shooting film is out the window with deadheads able to press a mobile phone button and then sit for hours on a PC and spruce it up, thats not movie making.
It's similar to photography, these days morons take pictures with their phones of food on their plate when they dine out in McDonalds, they take images of one another, show eachother their phones and then, thats it.
I dont shoot on film anymore, but all the films my family shot in years gone by when projected on a big screen with great kodak colours and pin sharp images for the ten minutes of each reel far out ways all the boring hours of crap that no one is interested in sitting through on VHS or disc on the TV.
Like others, I dont know why some people feel a need to mock the look of real film.

[David Strelitz]

Alan, you may be surprised to know we are actually on the same page. I was sent a few 25ft reels of 9.5 circa 1934, to telecine, from a retired nun, from my wife's former boarding convent. They had what I assumed was water damage and really were well past having the last rites read. Realistically what was viewable amounted to no more than 100 secs. However, that 100secs were priceless to the extended family as they told me.
My point is that pristine home shot 8mm is the exception...but to the family they are priceless memories and more the point, those families "don't see" the issues that "we" see. I would also add that many here, maybe the majority will not have experienced the norm for home shot 8mm. A lot is simply not great.
Ironically, I have just run 27x 50ft of std 8, from late 60s and virtually every reel has the same piece of frame line crap that no one did anything about.
As an effect it has to be a tad beyond subtle, else it doesn't hit the spot.

Ok head above the parapet, this a promo I shot in Monte Carlo back in 2009 (omg that's nearly 14 years and 8 Kilos 🙄ago) and in post, the first 11 secs have the cine effect.https://www.spiritshows.com/view/?pe...ound-the-clock
Since then I may have used it a few more times.