January 8, 2016 at 8:13PM, Edited January 8, 8:15PM

5

Video shot on 8mm film that will blow your mind

Just wanted to share with you guys this amazing video which was shot on Super 8 Kodak Vision3 50d film with Beaulieu 4008 ZM2 camera.

https://vimeo.com/111938532
btw: do you guys think he did any color correction/grading to the scanned image?
also I am super excited because of new project from Kodak
http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/default.htm# that will hopefully bring 8mm cameras back to life

20 Comments

At $80 for every 3 minutes of shooting, 8 mm will be very expensive. And, the look of film can be mimicked in digital, and if you don't want the look of film, then digital is much better in virtually every way. And, unless your audience is made up of Kodak film enthusiasts over the age of 40, no one will care about what medium was used. There is a reason why technology marches on and things like film are left behind. It is because the new technology is better. Typewriters were really cool, but they are gone. Film will be gone as well. The aesthetic of film will be of no interest to future generations. Maybe they will miss the aesthetics of VHS or something, but it will still be inferior to their modern tech.

January 16, 2016 at 12:19PM

0
Reply

"The look of film can be mimicked in digital"

You clearly have never shot on film, nor know what you are talking about.

January 16, 2016 at 9:34PM

6
Reply
Jacob Floyd
Writer / Videographer
1318

OK. you're right, 8mm film looks way better than digital. Red and Arri are very worried about this new Kodak camera.

Oh, and ask the people at Film Convert if it is possible to mimic film in digital.

I shot my first film in 1968. I shot film for 25 years. I know all about film. I am not going back though.

January 17, 2016 at 12:09PM, Edited January 17, 12:11PM

6
Reply

You're strawmanning me. I never said 8mm was better, but films shot on 35mm and 65mm continue to look better than 95% of digitally shot films.

I've used filmconvert for years. It's a nice tool, but it's just a LUT. Filmconvert will never recapture the way film handles highlight and shadow rolloffs, the way it captures colors, specifically reds and greens, the distinct grain structure, and the look of alternative processes.

If you're happy with the look of digital, fine. But claiming that the only reason people like film is the nostalgia of it is BS. It's a very distinct tool for storytelling. That would be like telling a painter to stop using canvas because paper is so much better these days, and you can always apply a canvas effect in photoshop.

January 17, 2016 at 2:47PM

0
Reply
Jacob Floyd
Writer / Videographer
1318

I din't want to argue. Perhaps you have never used 8mm film. I have. 8mm film does not have those film characteristics that you speak of. Highlight and shadow roll off are terrible on 8mm. Blown highlights are hard to avoid. Low light is very difficult if not impossible.

January 17, 2016 at 5:09PM

1
Reply

Agreed, 8mm looks terrible compared to the 70mm or whatever it was they shot Revenant on...

January 19, 2016 at 12:33PM

2
Reply
avatar
Clark McCauley
Spaceman
2007

Revenant was shot on digital.

January 20, 2016 at 9:56AM, Edited January 20, 9:56AM

3
Reply
avatar
Michael Schmucker
Producer, Cinematographer, Animator
81

So it was :'D Saw the 65 in the post title and assumed film... I guess it was the alexa. Maybe I'm thinking of the 65mm panavision stuff that was used on hateful 8?

January 21, 2016 at 12:45PM

3
Reply
avatar
Clark McCauley
Spaceman
2007

Honestly it is very difficult to say witch one is better, for instance the last James Bond has been shot with both film and digital camera. Good luck finding which shot has been shoot on which camera.

January 20, 2016 at 8:34AM

0
Reply
AvdS
1356

Actually I could easily tell what was shot digitally. Even the bokeh changed on arri 65. Though that's a lens characteristic. But yeah it was night and day. IT was pretty much all at the end. Though some film shots were sprinkled in. I don't have a problem with digital, I just want 19 usable stops

January 20, 2016 at 4:57PM

6
Reply

Is there an article you can cite that proves the 19 stops thing? Everyone's always trying to say it's just 14.

January 20, 2016 at 5:07PM

7
Reply
Jacob Floyd
Writer / Videographer
1318

I'm saying that's what I want, not that's what digital is :P Vision 3 500T is 16+ of dynamic range. Portra 400 which is only used for photography unfortunately is 19 stops. Alexa, Weapon, F65 are 14.5+ They all need to get to this level in addition to a global shutter http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/dynamic-range-2.jpg that was 4x5 film on a drum scanner.

January 21, 2016 at 11:51AM

2
Reply

Gotta love Portra. Thanks for the information.

January 21, 2016 at 2:50PM, Edited January 21, 2:50PM

0
Reply
Jacob Floyd
Writer / Videographer
1318

I still love shooting on film and always will. Even if digital can get close to mimicking it, it still falls short in replicating it. And yes, I use Film Convert a lot and love it. But I'm not saying I shoot film because its better technologically speaking, its certainly not, I shoot it because of its texture, warmth, and unpredictability that I find enthralling. There is something romantic and nostalgic that draws many people back to Super 8 and 16mm for no practical reason other than its "feels."

January 17, 2016 at 2:18PM, Edited January 17, 2:18PM

0
Reply
avatar
John Haas
Cinematographer
649

This is maybe just being a bit picky, but I wouldn't call this a film, exactly. It's more of a fashion video that looks filmic (for obvious reasons).

Also, as to film vs digital, I think honestly if we'd had the kind of cameras we have today, when the idea of digital filmmaking became a thing, there wouldn't have been a question. But because we saw the trial and error and sort of shit quality of the technology as people figured out how to get it where it needed to go, it was written off as inferior, as soul-less, and "video" like.

I love the way film looks, but I bet I couldn't tell the difference between real film and digital footage with LUTs, etc. I didn't grow up shooting real film (mostly hi-8, VHS-c, that sort of thing) so I'm sure I'm not the best tester.

In the near future the people that want the filmic look will not be in charge of the way things look and no one will look back.

January 19, 2016 at 12:37PM

3
Reply

This fashion reel is nothing mind blowing in any way, and I'm upset that I even went for the bait, but it's cool in the way that you know it was 50 or 100 feet of film and every shot was deliberate.

The best part of choosing film is the confines and pressure it places on everyone to be on point and present.

I know with digital I end up taking more than 6 minutes of wasted footage just because I can, or hope for a happy accident because it's nothing wasted. Or I shoot an event and a camera rolls for twenty minutes waiting for the first moment of interest. That's lazy and there is no penalty for it besides the wasted time in post cleaning up my own slop. But the mentality itself has consequences.

Film will teach you the hard way how to shoot smart at every instance and there is it's lasting value.

January 19, 2016 at 1:44PM

0
Reply
avatar
Gordon Byrd
Owner, Byrd Pictures
305

It wasn't mind blowing hahahaha it wasn't , but you have validating points

January 22, 2016 at 9:45AM

2
Reply

I have seen this before and yes, it's some of the best looking Super 8 out there. 50D is really amazing and so is the 4008. I also have a max 8 converted model from Pro8mm and it was a fantastic investment for my work. I am so excited that Kodak's new initiatives are going to allow me to shoot it more. As for the resistance I'm reading to Super 8, what the hell is it to you? I choose to do my work on Super 8 because it's a unique format that inspires a certain amount of nostalgia and style. There is no part of my decision making that thinks it'll have an image quality advantage over a digital camera, and anyone making that claim doesn't know what they're talking about. Furthermore anyone saying I should NOT shoot super 8 because RED cameras exist is similarly stupid. Super 8 is unique, and is either impossible or incredibly difficult to emulate (I have not been successful, and I don't see the point of going through all the work when it's not that expensive to shoot the real thing). If you are trying to achieve a Vista Vision look, no, do not shoot Super 8. However if you're going for something more organic, grainy, unpolished, Super 8 is a great choice. If you still don't get it, go bother someone else.

January 20, 2016 at 10:37AM

0
Reply

This is the best Super 8 video out there https://vimeo.com/129700087

January 22, 2016 at 9:44AM

0
Reply

This is awesome!

January 23, 2016 at 7:35PM, Edited January 23, 7:35PM

0
Reply
avatar
Alex Ferrari
Director / Producer
890

Your Comment