ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

Dear Tim,

The statement about Super 8mm was actually a quote from Larry Jamieson who runs Video Station, which has been working with Super 8mm and other historic formats since 1980. Obviously, VHS has interlaced vertical lines and Super 8mm has random film grain, but I believe he was making a fair analogy between the two, not saying they are exactly alike. You may think me "terribly" inaccurate for repeating his opinion, but I know whose opinion I set more store by when it comes to you and him.

The opinion on HD and Super 8mm was unanimous and I am talking about companies that specialised in Super 8mm (or at least had a regular throughput of that guage in their TK) people like the Widescreen Centre (who at the time didn't do HD) and Todd AO. Actually, the guy at the Widescreen Centre (I think it was Jake's brother) went off on a rant about Kodachrome being an archaic stock which should have been discontinued years ago, which I found odd for a company specialising in Super 8. Perhaps HD makes more sense if you are using Vision 2, compared to Kodachrome.

I think what is happening here is a clash between two mentalities. I think often the post houses are trying to remove or clean-up dirt, scratches, flares, excesssive film grain etc, whereas to people practicing artistes' film & video (which I believe is their current preferred nonclamature) these things are exactly the appeal of using historic formats and cheap equipment. And if you can see those scratches, film burn, flares, and film grain in MASSIVE High Definition all the better.

Jeff Keen on Blu Ray, hmmm. I'm afraid my spare cash is promised elsewhere.

11 years, 2 months ago - Nick Currey

Hi all,

If I might... having used Super 8 extensively in our last feature - which was mostly HD but also had 16mm, SD and even phone footage elements - director Matt Hulse and I can vouch for the fog of vagueness you encounter when trying to acquire reliable info about getting HD telecine versions of Super 8, and I sympathise with Daniel’s difficulties in this area (it can be done though Kevan - we used Alive Studios in Devon: http://www.alivestudios.co.uk - a decision based on cost as much as anything I think).
However, I have to say that well-telecined Super 8 is nothing like VHS; Tim is completely correct in saying that they are not comparable. A film image is based on a chemical grain that can potentially be surprisingly fine and detailed (though can also be extremely crude depending on the stock and how you film, as well as whatever wilful interventions you submit the resulting physical footage to), whereas ‘VHS’ - in other words SD - will always be based on 720x576 or whatever. It cannot be any bigger. And the difference in quality of colour and depth you get from film acquisition (even modest Super 8) compared to SD video can be massive. It may have been standard procedure in most post houses to TK Super 8 to VHS or a VHS quality and this is probably all most people wanted in the past, but it’s selling the medium short to do so.
I think Daniel is right in suspecting that there is a disconnect between post houses and makers; post houses are hardwired to produce the ‘purest’ product, when surely everyone using Super 8 nowadays uses it not only for it’s lovely colours but also the flares, burn, grain, soft edges, sprocket bleeds and other analogue eccentricities.
Daniel, I’ve never met Tim but he’s always been a real gent to me on SP, so forgive his passion here. Perhaps Tim’s exclamation marks might have resulted from the formatting limitations of the SP site which doesn’t allow for italics, a subtler text emphasis style which I prefer myself.
If Kevan does manage to get HD telecine of Super 8 I’d just emphasise that arbitrary cropping is a real problem - if you want to keep the medium’s soul intact insist on ‘no cropping’. You can always zoom in in the edit.

Cheers,
Nick

11 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I don't know the size of the market, but I know a few super8 enthusiasts who get a TK as a part of the processing deal (there's someone in the US they go to). I guess if you can process the stock as week as scan the frames they might want it, but without processing they may as well go to this other place.

As for HD/2k, that's such a high oversampling of the information in a super 8 frame I don't know if it's actually ant better than 720p, or if you just end up with bigger files for the same resolution?

11 years, 2 months ago - Peter Domankiewicz

Ten years ago it was a simple matter (although not cheap) to get top quality Super 8 transfers. Now a great deal of knowledge has been lost as equipment has been changed and specialists have retired. However, it would definitely be worth talking directly to the telecine experts in all the major post-production houses. I'm sure you will find places that have both the right gates and the experience to handle it. Indeed you may find an enthusiast who would love to get their hands on some Super 8 again and would help you get a good deal. I'm sorry I can't offer specific names, but I know I've spoken to places over the last couple of years who still do it. I'm talking about people like Rushes and Encore
By the way, some years ago I made a 16mm film which contained Super 8 material reprinted that was shown on a very large screen - and the detail and grain was incredible. The difference between the BetaSP transfer and a later DigiBeta was huge and I'm now looking to do an HD transfer to truly get the best from it.

11 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

At the end of the day, the last word is the Dude's: "Well, that's just your opinion, man?"

Larry Jamieson has an opinion, you have a opinion, I have one somewhere inbetween. However, what I haven't done is present mine or anyone else's as fact and everyone else's as "terrible inaccuracies" in a ranty and illiterate post full of exclamation marks just to SHOW HOW MUCH I REALLY MEAN IT AND HOW RIGHT I AM!!!!!

At the end of the day these are just opinions and you shouldn't take it so personally.

11 years, 2 months ago - Peter Ward

Are you planning to crop it a lot (to really accentuate the graininess)? 2K has a 17:9 aspect ratio. If not, both HD and 2K will give you the same 1440 x 1080 resolution window.

11 years, 2 months ago - Matt Hulse

Och. I thought I was up for an early night but then Mr Currey dragged me into this... I started on S8 in 1987 primarily because the college tech jealously guarded the fancy new VHS shoulder-mounted camcoder. Used it almost exclusively until about four years ago, partly because of the advent of DSLR, and FINALLY a digital medium that actually looked rather gorgeous. But as I'm at pains to remind anyone who will listen, it's not the medium, it's the person behind the camera (and the sound, edit etc etc). These are all 'just' tools and mediums that come... and in fact do not (despite the whining) 'go'. We live in an interesting time of creative collision between all these things, and that's where the advances are made (and these technical questions arise). In terms of TK, it's yet another process / tool and the results depend on the skill and judgement of the colourist. By far the best TK results I got (S8, Standard, 9.5mm, 16mm and 35mm) were at the hands of the awesome John Crane at the BBC (sadly now retired - not from his POV though, he was fed up with it). He knew every little quirk and tweak of his kit and managed to get an image from ancient Soviet Quarzchrome S8 - from celluloid that, if held up to the light, appeared to have absolutely nothing registered on it. Widescreen were / are so-so and in fact on two occasions LOST reels of my film, including the final reel of a 100 mile walk I made in honour of my deceased grandfather. That was the last time I used them. So in short - yes a quality TK can look amazing, as long as the film is interesting in itself and - this is important - is projected with a decent, well set up projector. A decent PAL SD TK can also look great, as long as it is done with care. Ok. So in the spirit of forums - death to all gay foreign aliens and vote UKIP. Over and out.

11 years, 2 months ago - Tim iloobia

Thanks Deva, If i hear of any answers then I will let you know.

Peter, I wouldn't want to crop it at all, I would prefer to leave black either side of the image to maintain the super 8mm aspect.

11 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

I'm not up to speed on Super 8mm TK as things now stand, although last time I checked everything seemed to be closing down.

What I can say is that I shot a short credit sequence on Super 8 for a longer flim. Everyone I spoke to at various post houses thought the idea of scanning Super 8mm to HD was ludicrous, and as far as I could tell none of them even had the facilites to do so. It has about the same resolution as VHS.

Fast forward a year or so and said film is up for acquisition by BBC HD (now defunct). Film goes for the quality control test and fails on the grounds that some of it is SD. I didn't think it would be a problem as A) the sequence in question is very short and B) the rules make some exceptions for such stylistic decisions. (And C) How much better is Super 8 going to look in HD - answer not a lot!)

But it was still a 'no'.

I would go for HD if you can find someone who can do it properly. Maybe the BFI is the only place left?

11 years, 2 months ago - Tim iloobia

I think if you were to convert for cinema exhibition then it could very well be worth doing it at 2K. I saw the conversions that the BFI did of Jeff Keens super 8mm films screened at the BFI and they looked unbelievable. The level of detail of the frames was like being in an art gallery looking at paintings.

there is so mush detail in that tiny frame, that it really benefits from being scanned at the highest resolution possible

I still use super 8mm quite a lot for various things and would love to get more high quality conversions. Particularly for some of my older films where I paint and apply texture, distress and letraset letters to the film surface.

These are the ones i would love to get super high quality conversions of. The widescreen centre understandably wont put these through their machines but I have hoped for years to find a way.

so if you know then please do let me know.
this is a low res video of what i'm talking about
https://vimeo.com/13264991
many thanks
Tim

11 years, 2 months ago - Tim iloobia

Well Daniel,
I don't know you and you don't know me so I'm sorry you feel so easily able to dismiss my point of view or set more store whatever that means.

stay smug

Tim

11 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

Dismissing half a dozen post houses for their "100% ignorance" might be perceived as a little smug too. Being right all the time must be a real burden for you.

11 years, 2 months ago - Tim iloobia

sorry Daniel, but there are some terrible inaccuracies in your post, and being a nerdy super 8 head i can't help but respond.

To say that super 8mm has the same resolution as VHS is purely wrong, actually insane. In fact they are not even comparable.
Super 8mm can be as high resolution as you can scan it, as it is film based, VHS has a finite frame based size so the same doesn't apply.
I used to put frames of super 8mm film in a photography enlarger and make huge prints - they look lovely, all the grain and surface texture. And try putting a frame in a scanner and setting it to the highest resolution you can - its a revelation.

So these post houses are just demonstrating 100% ignorance to say it is ludicrous to scan it to HD. Thats like saying its ludicrous to scan 16mm or 35mm film. How quickly past knowledge gets lost!

you say how much better is super 8mm film going to look in HD than SD - answer not a lot…
no!!!!!!!!
answer is HUGE!!!!! its a different image in every-way.
the evidence is there in conversions of, say, the work of Jeff Keen that the BFI restored. Buy the bluray if you don't believe me.
but other people do it - the widescreen centre off baker street did HD conversions of super 8 last time i looked, albeit they cropped the frame.
Lets not all lose knowledge of past formats - its rather depressing to think that even people in the production houses disregard the beauty and high quality of super 8mm film.
Tim iloobia

11 years, 2 months ago - Kevan O'Brien

I'm glad of all the feed back and discussion on this topic.

I'd be looking at "open gate" transfers so as to allow suitable cropping by the film maker in the edit.

I'm also interested in the fact that film makers spend money on digital filters that give the image digital grain and scratches n'all to get that film look. For me I try and originate on the original medium to get the required look from the start.

Data scanning of Super 8 would allow generation of ProRes 444 (ProRes HQ is good enough in my opinion but that's another discussion), DnxHD, TIFF sequences or any other mezanine format for editing and grading. It is this type of service that I was investigating as I too believe in the information that can be extracted from a Super 8 frame.

11 years, 2 months ago - Deva Palmier

Tim - Beautiful film - Mutating canvas. Stunning!

I'm sure there is a market for it and we need it to be able to transfer super 8 to HD - Apple pro res 444.

You just need to find a good way to let everyone know. Maybe begin with all the Art schools etc.

Please update us on this. I'm in!

Best wishes

Deva

www.devafilms.com

11 years, 2 months ago - Tim iloobia

lets continue this in private dear daniel - Im sure no-one else is interested in this childish crap