Theory and Practice and Film vs Digital

[VideoFred]

I followed the telecine topic from Jan. He made a remarkable unit, with very clever electronics. And then again all these theoretical discussions....

I'm a man of practice: all my knowledge is based on results of tests I actualy did, not on theory only.

Sometimes, theory and practice are two different things.

Lately, I did lots of tests and learnt lots of -practical- things about the transfer process, both hardware and software. I also came across the limits of 8mm, but still love the format.


Now, about the 8mm film vs digital discussion:
Come on, guys, admit it! Its only 8mm film! The size of the picture is 6x4mm and thats it. If I would take a picture with my Sony digital still camera and told you it was a 8mm filmframe, everyone would say: incredible, all these details and sharpness etc etc...

If you realy want to compare film with digital, then I'm afraid you have to use 16mm or 35mm.

8mm has not enough detail in it to compare it with digital.
8mm is a format of his own, you should not compare it with anything else.

But if you compare 16mm or 35mm with digital, then I think film wins (at this moment, but in the future?).

Please do not misunterstand me.. I love film!
I love LP's, too! But I digitise them :mrgreen:

Fred.

[cinelys]

Depend of how , you compare super8 and DV , I think.

If you compare , on TV screen , telecined super8 and original DV , than
DV matches super8.

If you compare original super8 projected ( at the same size of TV
screen ) , to original DV (even on a very good TV screen), than super8
is far ahead .

The second way is the more "honest" way to compare, each medium
is seen in the best way.

[VideoFred]

If you compare original super8 projected ( at the same size of TV
screen ) , to original DV (even on a very good TV screen), than super8
is far ahead .

Yes I agree with this. Projecting on a small screen looks awesome.
But now we are comparing the projecting screen vs TV screen, not the format!

Fred.

[Angus]

Just an anecdote.

A couple of years ago I projected, side by side, the trailer for the second Harry Potter film.

One screen had the trailer from super 8

One screen had the trailer from DVD, using a well set up LCD projector and RGB input from the DVD

No contest. Super 8 won hands down in resolution and colour reproduction.

It really does depend what you are trying to achieve. Somebody tells me that their 12 Mpixel digital camera can capture as much detail as a 35mm still camera and in some respects that is true....but the CCD can still only capture 5 f-stops of contrast compared to 7 or more for film...and the colour reproduction is usually more accurate with film. On the other hand sometimes you don't want accurate colour rendition, or don't care.

If people cared much about colour accuracy then Kodak Gold and VC films would never have been launched and nobody would have been satisfied with the NTSC television standard.

electronic imaging has been around almost as long as chemical imaging (the first fax machine was developed in the 1870's believe it or not) but it has always lagged behind. It continues to do so but obviously has it's uses. As long as people appreciate the differences and choose their medium wisely...

[Superbus_]

I'm not so good in technical questions, but just think about the case of handmade mechanical swiss watches. I'm sure that a modern quarz system is more accurate: on the other hand why people pay a lot of money for the mechanical watches? I think because these watches gives you a unique feeling and these are so different than any other, ordinary and cheap wathces.

I don't think that we can compare the super 8 format with DV.
In general, we are the swiss mechanical watch users if we compare us with the growing number of dv users. We do not have to prove that s 8 technique is better, simply because it is better.

[cinelys]

On summer 2003 , I did the folowing experience :

I shot , on the same sunny day , children playing at the swimming pull ,
one time with my Canon DV camcorder and the other time with my Beaulieu 6008 and K40.

After I have got the film processed , I rented a video projector and made
the comparison on a 2 m large screen.

Sure : DV projection where brighter and steadier , but it was'nt sharper (over all in the background ), the colours were less natural and I could not
found a lot of details (over all in the darker parts) that I could see with
the super8 projection.

[mattias]

I'm sure that a modern quarz system is more accurate: on the other hand why people pay a lot of money for the mechanical watches?

but "mechanical" watches are still quartz controlled most of the time, aren't they? or aren't those considered mechanical?

/matt

[B Movie Mogul]

My film vs. digital (video) opinion from practice:

I've got some 10 year old recordings on pro grade S-VHS cassettes that are showing their age very clearly (color shifts, excess noise on the top and bottom of the image, and overall softer image than when originally recorded). I have film negatives shot from the same time that have not degraded AT ALL. Small scratches here and there, but all original image structure remains unchanged.
As well as a couple DV shorts I made that are now lost due to disk failure before a backup could be made, and the raw material is gone because someone else taped over it afterward...

So my pro film statement is that it's NOT EVEN NEARLY as technology dependant as video formats, and much more durable.

[VideoFred]

Sure : DV projection where brighter and steadier , but it was'nt sharper (over all in the background ), the colours were less natural and I could not
found a lot of details (over all in the darker parts) that I could see with
the super8 projection.

This is a very good an honest comparison. I agree with the colors and details in the darker parts, but I am truly amazed if you say the film was sharper and there was more detail in the background. It must be some kind of difference between the DV beamer and the filmprojector. It could also be an optical illusion, created by the analogue way a filmprojector works. The light through the film increases contrast and then the image appears to be sharper then it is. But, however, the fine result is there and I believe you.

But I do not see sharp details in the background on my computer monitor, from transfered 8mm footage! I always see the opposite.... No, its not my system, I see it on every possible 8mm transfer.

Fred.

[tlatosmd]

Could it maybe be a non-optimal transfer?

[VideoFred]

Could it maybe be a non-optimal transfer?

No :mrgreen:

Fred.

[Superbus_]

I'm sure that a modern quarz system is more accurate: on the other hand why people pay a lot of money for the mechanical watches?

but "mechanical" watches are still quartz controlled most of the time, aren't they? or aren't those considered mechanical?

/matt

No, I think the real valuable Sviss handmade watches are 100% mechanical.
But I just tried to emphasize that we can compare photography with painting or TV with cinematography but these are different things and we do not have to or there is no need compare to each other.

[mattias]

cool. i actually have a high end 100% mechanical watch myself. it even winds itself when i move, but it's from the 50's and weighs a ton so i don't use it much.

/matt

[Superbus_]

cool. i actually have a high end 100% mechanical watch myself. it even winds itself when i move, but it's from the 50's and weighs a ton so i don't use it much.

/matt

I have almost the same: a fifty years old mechanical one but one of my friend showed me a new one: the basis are the same mechanical structure.
Ok. sorry this was a little off topic let's continue with experience with dv and s8.
( I think for people of this forum this dispute is pointless - everybody is totally convinced of the benefits of s8 - and for the dv users: What is super 8? A coctail?? :lol:

[mattias]

everybody is totally convinced of the benefits of s8

yes, but we all have doubts we have to fight. this is really a church and not a forum, didn't you know. :-)

/matt