Super8 & 16mm - the only way for proper film look and fe

Post by **matt5791** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:24 pm

I was chatting with a friend recently and he mentioned reading an article about how recently, with ever finer grain in film technology, and ever better video technology, film (35mm) is starting to look like video and vice versa.

Now this is generalising a lot, but it made me think - Super8 and 16mm, but especially super8, really do show off real film texture - the slight imperfections and random grain, which creates a certain feel.

I thonk this os one of the reasons I like the formats so much. Some times I look at big budget films and think - they just look too good.

Matt

Post by **Scotness** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:21 pm

Yeah i agree - top end 35mm stocks are sharp now they look like video almost. I'm reworking In My Image now with the lossless huffyuv codec and it's preserving alot of the grain and really making it look like Super 8 now - alot of it was lost (smoothed out ) before - it's a very interesting look

Scot

Post by **kentbulza** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:04 am

Hmmm...but I wouldn't call the look "video", I would call it "life". I don't perceive either grain or pixels when I look out my eyes.

Post by **calgodot** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:56 am

kentbulza wrote:I don't perceive either grain or pixels when I look out my eyes.

And you live in Los Angeles! :lol:

Sometimes the air is grainy here. Sometimes the sky is grainy. With pollutants. LA is bright and very contrasty. Downtown looks like it's shot on 50D. Hollywood is 100D all the way. The valley is 500T with an 85B and over-exposed by a half-stop. Venice Beach is Kodachrome. Santa Monica is Fuji Reala 500D (or whatever stock is hip and cool).

When I lived in Seattle, where the air is much cleaner but is often filled with a fine mist, the greens were solid and lush, the blacks were always crushed because they were wet and the whole world often looked as if I were viewing it through a sheer silk stocking. At night the stars would glisten and blur into Van Gogh-like orbs in the pitch black sky. If you could see the sky. Sometimes the clouds would be there, grey and hovering, looking for all the world like somebody smeared an oil painting. Seattle should always be shot in black and white.

Post by **Nigel** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:09 am

Cal.....

I just had to laugh. Seattle "is" made for B&W--You are so dead on. It really is funny how you can see a city as a film choice.

Good Luck

Post by **super8man** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:10 am

OK, let's start a poll.Living in Sacramento, I think this place is definitely in color but more of a bleached sand color overall cast: hot sunny days are so hot that even the colors bleed into each other. Think hay fields, pastel blue skies and pastel green rivers all merging into the same color - due to the heat nad no wind- 104 degrees is cool compared to 106!

And I agree, Seattle is B&W - Tri-X at times. Vancouver, BC on the other hand is definitely Fujichrome 25.

Post by **mattias** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:12 am

places where i've lived:

dalarna, sweden is fuji f
the rocky mountains are fuji velvia
stockholm is kodachrome
manhattan is kodak vision, queens b&w

some places i've visited a lot:

paris is ektachrome vnf
san francisco is a webcam
the canaries are any stock but shot with a tobacco filter

/matt

Post by **sunrise** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:27 am

You would think that Prague is Tri-X. It's not. It's rather Vision2 500T.

Namib desert is definatly K-40.

Copenhagen is difficult. It changes with the weather, but by the part by the sea where I live is most days in the summer K-40. Winter I guess is VNF.

On the topic of the essence of film:
Barry Ackroyd told me a few years back that he always prefered shooting super16 over 35mm and how he hated it when he got updates from Kodak about how fine grained the new stocks were.

sunrise

Website · Post by **I J Walton** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:06 am

I completeley agree!

Older films, especially 70's films, have a certain "other world" look to them. I love the 16mm film look in films like Evil Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they LOOK like film (obviously due to the grain). Now if you look at something like Lord of The Rings on DVD it looks like it was shot on HD, no grain or nothing, it's far too sharp!

Although I guess its in the studios best intrest to have the film look as sharp and polished as possable. If I ever get the chance to make a proffessional film, I will definately specify that I want a film look!

But it's personal preference I guess :lol:

Number216 · Post by **Number216** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:55 am

I J Walton wrote:I completeley agree!

Older films, especially 70's films, have a certain "other world" look to them. I love the 16mm film look in films like Evil Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they LOOK like film (obviously due to the grain). Now if you look at something like Lord of The Rings on DVD it looks like it was shot on HD, no grain or nothing, it's far too sharp!

Although I guess its in the studios best intrest to have the film look as sharp and polished as possable. If I ever get the chance to make a proffessional film, I will definately specify that I want a film look!

But it's personal preference I guess :lol:

Which is why you should have gone to see films like "Lord of the Rings" in theaters! It's yet another one of them badly-cleaned Super 35 films, which is grainy as hell in theaters. (keep in mind I hold nothing against the films themselves; just their cinematographic processes)

Looking like HD, to me, would be looking like it was shot with a camcorder. Just WAY too smooth. ("Once Upon a Time in Mexico", when you see smoke, yes, it does look like it was shot on video, rather than film, and in my opinion, doesn't look as good)

If it's film look you like, though, if Kill Bill Vol. 2 is still playing in your local cinema, see it! (that is, if you've already seen Vol. 1) Tarantino made a whole bunch of different film looks, including the "degraded Sergio Leone" look. (that is covered in a previous topic, something along the lines of "Tarantino Super 8". or something)