I have been looking at cheap ways (well under $1000) to aquire some longer shots than my motordrive will allow.

I've looked at tapeless camcorders and video from digital still cameras and came across:

this: (http://www.sevensmilingsharks.com/media/MOV00047.mpeg)

The 16fps frame rate and color saturation (it's unretouched) plus despite being 640X480, it's apparent sharpness it more appealing the edge-enhanced video - it has reminds me of Super 8 quite strongly.

It's from a Sony DSC-V1 that record VGA mpeg files.

Comments?

yeah it's not bad - the colours look like Super 8 - but it does lack the random grain shape of Super 8 - you can tell the image is composed of regular shaped pixels - but I thought it was pretty good - I spose 16fps is the maximum?

Scot

16fps appears to be the maximum from what I can find out.

Grain is easy to add, but for my needs, not necessary. It just solidifies my feeling that frame rate is the number one factor in determining "film look" (not "professional look" see my other thread :).

Hi Stephen - I'll have to check your other thread - did you see mine:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21238

in there I said:
=========================

in my opinion there are five main things that contribute to film look:

Image perspective - hence the anamorphic lense - but the trade off is loss off detail -- did people think there was too much detail lost here?

Colour distribution/film gamma -- something I tried to do here in Photoshop - I thought my results weren't too bad - comments?

Shallow depth of field - something I didn't try here - but will post some examples when I do try using the ND filters and wide appertures

Motion properties of film - well these are stills but when I get the other elements under control I'll try and do what I can about that with different shutter speeds and motion blur effects

And of course lighting - these were all outdoors in......
===================


of course I should have added frame rate as well - butliving in Australia where we use Pal it's not something I think about too much - although getting rid of interlacing is

As far as grain goes - Grain Surgery is the only plug in or filter I'd touch for that - anything that just adds digital noise looks terrible

Scot

It looks like it was shot with a prosumer electronic video camera with a strobe effect on top. Probably due to the fact that 16fps is done in post and 16fps on S-8 is an in camera phenomenon with lot's of things in play like the shutter. It has none of the charachteristics of film emulsion. The look of s-8 is not just 16fps. There is no way you could get the image stability like in the example shooting with even the best s-8 cameras. S-8 cameras has extremely small mechanics and getting them to feed film with the same stability as a CCD records reality is impossible. And I don't think there is any tool on the market that can deliver a believable "weave" from video footage. Perhaps if you animate it by hand with something that handles SINC scaling. Like Shake with the Algolith plugins.

The image is to flat. I can tell the recording device is limited in exposure range compared to s-8. A bigger range would make highlights look very different from the example. Even if the stock was reversal.

Stephen,
Not sure what youre going for, but have you just TRIED shooting in super 8?

Scott:

My thread is http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3659&highlight=professional+look

Martin:

The clip is raw camera footage from the digital still camera. It captures as 16fps. Secondly, the strobing is due to the fast shutter speed that whoever shot the clip was using.

I'm not sure that this camera is that limited in exposure range as consumer video cams or dv camera. It's a 5 megapixel Sony digital still camera - not 35mm film latitude but super 8 reversal never had fantastic latitude either.

Richard:

I made numerous Super 8 short films from 1988-1991. I owned a Chinon Super 8 for several years.

Obviously, if I wanted to shoot Super 8, I would shoot Super 8.