Hey astral

I'm not really big on films like these, im more in the blockbuster category. I mean it looks good but I couldnt give you an accurate evaluation because I have no idea what to look for in that sort of film. I was just lettin ya know that I did view it tho.

Chris

That's okay. Thanks for taking a look at it anyway.

cool, pity it was done in 8mm.

Make Love Not War!

Why is it a pity that it was done in super8? We chose that format purposely for its rich colors and great look. The fact is that it's film, which has higher resolution and a better look than dv hands down. It also requires the filmmaker to be selective with his or her shots because they can't just point and shoot like with video. Super8 has such richness and that soft, full look. People always ask how to make video look like film. With super8, you don't have to worry about that because it is film! No pity for me then thank you! 😉

I dont think anyones ever accused 8mm of having a great look

Make Love Not War!

There have been plenty of feature films, music videos, and documentaries that have used super8.

Yea there have been, but these days 8mm just cant stand up to video, if you want that film effect why no use 16mm or super 16mm. These days even blockbusters are made with video these days, just look at the starwars prequels.

Make Love Not War!

Actually, most blockbuster Hollywood movies are still shot on 35mm, the industry standard. Star Wars and Spy Kids type movies are very few and far between actually. And they're shot on HD, not dv.

Super8 can stand up to video and has a much better image quality. Beaulieu Super8 cameras have a C-mount for any kind of lens, variable filming speeds, crystal synch control, and better exposure latitude. Shoot on this with Vision 200 from Kodak (and hopefully Vision 500 soon), get a rank transfer done, and then output to high end video and the look will blow and mini-dv camera out of the water. It's not a film effect, as you say, because it is film. Mini-dv just can't capture the same image as film yet. If you don't believe me, do a little research first on the net for super8 and find out more about the format.

Yes i do agree, most films are still filmed on film, but video is still an emerging industry. I mysef use a 16mm camera for complicated effects scenes. But my DV camera does have a better image quality than most 8mm processes. Even so i do prefer film but for one thing, videos eaze of editing and also the low costs (no processing costs). I believe that video is a better medium for the low-budget and ametuer filmmaker. Film is still far superior in quality, but far too expensive for the average joe.

Make Love Not War!

The best thing about shooting super8 is that I feel more confident about shooting film since I'm hoping to shoot my first real feature on super 16mm. I've done video before when I was just starting out, and super8 is a nice step towards shooting on bigger formats.

I agree that if you wish to get into semi-professional feature length films then larger film formats are the best option and also in quality, for instance super-16mm offers almoust 5 times the quality of 8mm. But still for the small time filmmaker video is the best format, theres also things like "Bowling For Columbine" for instance, that would have been completely impractical to film on film.

Make Love Not War!

I have also worked on both film and video and i think the comment that you made at the start about "It also requires the filmmaker to be selective with his or her shots because they can't just point and shoot like with video." is stupid. That's not even a point in this argument. That's like saying "hey i made a movie on film so I am a better filmmaker". Any serious filmmaker puts his or her all into every shot. DV produces almost 80% of all fims made in north america and yet most big movies out are made on 35mm film....why....BECASUE YOU HAVE TO BE RICH TO SHOOT ON FILM!!!! DV will take over very very soon. Wait and see ..it's inevitable. Look where computers have come in the last 20 years. In another 20 movies made on film will be few and far between.

Well I think that your comment about how dv will take over very very soon is STUPID. Film will never die because it provides a look and a process that video just can't match. I use both film and video because they provide different feels. Many people will still shoot on motion picture film just like many people will still shoot 35mm still film.

And my statement about shooting on film requires the person to be more selective is not stupid. Have you ever shot on film? Because it sounds like you haven't, which would put you in no position to say. When you pay a shitload of money from film stock and processing, you don't have any footage to waste. I don't care if you are selective with video too, but I bet you'd be more selective with film unless you can afford to waste rolls.

And the fact is that this "video revolution," or whatever you call it, is leading the way to more shmuck, wannabe filmmakers who want to be part of the movie "glamour," so they pick up a digital video camera and shoot their movies without knowing any of the processes. Look around on the web at all of these no-budget dv movies and honestly try to tell me that the majority of these people don't just point and shoot. It happened before with film too, but it's happening a lot more now with video since more people can afford it. The ratio between good films and crap film is widening at an astounding pace. If you're one of the few people out there making good dv movies, then more power too you.

But how many people who shoot on mini-dv get any wide-spread recognition these days? Who do you read about in the papers or see in the theatres? Film is still the industry standard, which means that anyone from Hollywood down to the small-time producers who like to pretend they're big time still prefer to shoot on film.

But wait, Episode 2 and Robert Rodriguez shoot on video!!!! Well, that's the smallest minority. And the fact is that they shoot on very expensive HD cameras with budgets higher than most of us will ever see. Film or video means nothing to the studios, since they'll still be forking out millions of dollars for every production towards bankable people and equipment. Yep, camera isn't everything and won't save the studios enough money to announce any revolution. Movies will still costs millions of dollars and nobody in the industry will care that something was shot on video and most likely won't care if it was shot on film either, as long as it'd make money. But if you can afford to shoot on film, chances are you can afford a named actor that'll give your movie more of a chance at making it. How many of the no-budget, no-named videos do you honestly think make it per year? Of course if your goal isn't to make it, but rather to make movies that you want to and attract a small audience, then this doesn't concern you. Finding an audience is still hard though.

My main point through all of this is to show that what camera you shoot on is insignificant. Say the majority of movies are shot on video, and then someone like me who loves films makes a movie on film that is great, no one will care about the format. Also, say someone makes a great movie with a vhs camcorder, it still has a chance of getting out there.

But if you want to take my quotes, apply additional meaning, and then use it to spit out the digital revolution speech go for it. But I see you couldn't argue with me about film having more resolution and a better look than video.

And if anyone is interested, the final cut with the musical score and a little better compression can be found here:

http://www.astralpictures.com/movies/disarmed10.wmv

Production info here:

http://www.astralpictures.com/disarmed/index.html

I think the score greatly adds to the short.