Contemporary wedding video shot in grainy 8mm black and white

Discuss

41 Responses to “Contemporary wedding video shot in grainy 8mm black and white”

  1. folkclarinet says:

    I thought the moment around :48? where you see for a nanosecond the viewscreen on some “modern” photographical equipment was really cool.

    Something about seeing a contemporary something through a very old filter…

  2. Anonymous says:

    That is pretty surprising. I think the best thing is that it immediately makes the people look like they live in an older era – which is great when you see all those vintage videos of people from the days of 8mm film cameras and you think they look very different. They’re just like people today but the technology wasn’t quite as good.

  3. silly bobs says:

    super8 + weddings = win

    no talking, short and sweet, it sits well with the memory of an event rather than a full on dv/hd/whatever epic that reminds you of every damn detail and word that was spoken.

    I have been filming family and friends weddings for years as a replacement for getting a gift and just got round to (nearly) finishing a site so people who never got to see em, get to see em.

    4 weddings up and a whole load more to come

    http://www.super8transfers.com/

    apology for the roughness of the site.

  4. Brian Boyko says:

    Yes, I can see the 8mm black-and-white look that they were going for. But the author is clearly using video movements with a film medium. Specifically, she’s shooting handheld (a no-no with film) and she’s panning WAY too quickly for the 24fps framerate to catch up.

    The result is what you get when you give the beginning painter some of the finest tools in the store; not used correctly. Personally, I got a little seasick.

    Personally, I’m not a fan of film and really don’t understand why it’s been romanticized the way it has. The only reason film is still in use in Hollywood is that Hollywood already has established workflow and sunken equipment costs in 35mm and 70mm film. But there’s really no development to make better -film.- and studios aren’t upgrading to better film processes.

    Film is a pain in the butt to work with and expensive as hell. If it’s the look you’re after, there are plug-ins.

    But film in a small production like a wedding is nothing more than an expensive indulgence; the artistic equivilent of buying a Rolls Royce to flaunt wealth and “taste” when what you really need is a Honda Civic.

    Maybe someday, shooting on film will be revered for it’s nostalgia value; the “steampunk,” if you will, of moving images. But it’s far too soon, and the results are inglorious. I think the 8mm film was used in this case for the nostalgia value, sadly, the result when you’re trying to apply modern techniques (handheld, quick pans) with old technology means that you get – well, this video.

    I mean, a video tripod is, what, $80?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Guy Maddin wannabe crap that is worse than any handheld video camera footage I’ve ever seen, given any sense of gravitas from the bagpipe soundtrack.

  6. kmoser says:

    I could have sworn I saw a guy on the grassy knoll.

    In addition to the other comments people made about the jerkiness, any motion picture (film or video) that gets uploaded to YouTube will look significantly worse because of the compression artefacts and reduced framerate.

  7. Dustin Driver says:

    @ BRIAN BOYKO: I agree, a tripod would’ve made it.

    Also, even basic camcorders have 24p cinema shooting modes.

    Seems like a real pain to actually use 8 mm.

    And real expensive.

  8. jetfx says:

    The grainy footage and the bagpipes give the film a really depressing feeling, like everyone was about to be sent to the trenches.

  9. deejayqueue says:

    So I watched this, and as soon as I did my phone rang. and this voice said “In seven days you’re going to get married.” what does that mean?

  10. lesterwaitzkin says:

    Film, video–who cares! This is utter crap. It’s made with a lens so it can’t help but suffer from the distorting power of perspective, by which the artist usurps the place of God and therein pisses me off.

    Make a medieval tapestry of your friend’s next wedding and I’ll not be so derogatory. Good day to you.

  11. Anonymous says:

    If you’re claiming that a ghost can be seen in this photograph, I beg to suggest that you look askance and avoid further litigation.

    -Schmool

  12. cprompt says:

    As Billy Idol sang, “It’s a nice day for a (black and) white wedding.”

  13. error404 says:

    Step we gaily on we go,
    Heel and heel
    And toe for toe,
    Arm and arm
    And row and row,
    All for Marie’s wedding.

    APPRECIATE CONNOLLY!!

  14. Don says:

    i considered having my wedding shot by a cameraman friend on 8mm, so i shot a few test rolls. crazy expensive. a roll of film, about 2 minutes without over or undercranking, purchased, shot, developed and cheapo transfered cost me over 150 bucks, with uber cheap student cam rental.
    better pull the trigger sparingly, and at the right time.

    i ended up not having it shot at all, and cut everybody’s home vids together, which was fine. maybe better.

  15. Rezpect says:

    Ths lks lk crp. nwtchbl.

  16. Darren Garrison says:

    “It looks as though they shot it on a handycam then ran it through a plugin.”

    “Yes, I can see the 8mm black-and-white look that they were going for. But the author is clearly using video movements with a film medium. Specifically, she’s shooting handheld (a no-no with film) and she’s panning WAY too quickly for the 24fps framerate to catch up.”

    I know that there is a filter for Virtualdub that creates a similar effect:

    http://compression.ru/video/old_cinema/index_en.html

    I used that filter on a short parody CG piece I made recently– I was going for a different aged look, but with some tweaking, the filter could probably get close to what was seen in the wedding video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkvpW56k2oc

  17. Anonymous says:

    That looks awfully fake, like a series of effects applied over normal footage. The grain doesn’t look like 8mm film and the luminance response is too good, while the damage (hairs and all) are just too much to be realistic for something that was supposedly shot recently.

  18. Gray Pix LLc says:

    This video has a lot of unexplained things in it. There are double shadows on high contrast images (Black jacket against a white object) like it was transferred off of a mirror diffusion system instead of a Rank. The Sepia color shifts are different from shot to shot. There are video edits for most of the film but a film edit is in there as well. The contrast is way soft when most BW slide film looks very contrasty most of the time from the lab. The vignette is the same from wide to tight like it was posted in. Almost all reg 8 cameras had auto aperture so the back lit shot of the couple should have gotten brighter and darker as the camera moved. Some of the dust looks the same at different points of the video.

    I’m leaning towards a video camera shot this and it was cheated in post to look film. I’m wrong often, that’s just a hunch.

    Wonderful video, I like it. Don’t care if it was shot on film or video. Great job!

    “The only reason film is still in use in Hollywood is that Hollywood already has established workflow and sunken equipment costs in 35mm and 70mm film.”

    Not true, most cameramen would prefer the hybrid work flow of film, digital transfer and output back to film. Most digital cameramen promote what ever the producers want to hear. If you want to be known as the next big thing camera wise it is a safe bet to bash film.

    Logistically (For camera assistants and steadicam) all the high end video cameras suck. You need way more fill outside in bright sun lighting wise. The only place video is the bomb is underwater and in low light (Cheaper lighting packages).

    Panning rates on the last Star Wars video were stuttering even with the top of the line TI digital projector and best digi cam of the moment.

    Film sizes are 16mm, 35mm and 65mm. 70mm is 65mm sideways for IMAX. Film is way easier to work with. After a stunt on a digi shoot the camaeraman and director always run over the the DIT tent ans ask if it was captured OK.

    With and ARRI 435 if the mag didn’t jam it worked. I’ve had processing problems that made the image unusable 4 times in 23 years as a camera assistant. I’ve seen the Viper screw up on a 5 week job more times than all the film cameras I’ve used in those 23 years. Even counting the POS Aaton 35mm. Most high end digital movies that have stunts they cover the stunts with film cameras.

    “But the author is clearly using video movements with a film medium. Specifically, she’s shooting handheld (a no-no with film) and she’s panning WAY too quickly for the 24fps framerate to catch up.”

    8mm is 18fps most of the time.

    You need to watch ‘City of God’ and borrow some ideas about when a tri-pod should and shouldn’t be used. Hand held works when the OP is great. Most of the time HH is a excuse for pore scene planning, director/DP inexperience and a ‘we’ll fix it in edit, just shoot the heck out of it’ mentality… Video promoted that process because of it’s cheapness of tape which lead to shooting rehearsals in college and then professionally.

    You cannot get a head that pans/tilts well for 80 bucks. The lighter the camera the harder a long lens pan/tilt is. I would rather have a cheap camera and a great head and sticks if what I was shooting was all on a tri-pod.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Hiya guys! I made this movie. I shot it on super8 and then transfered it by projecting the film onto a silver screen and video taping it. I edited it on my computer and adjusted the contrast a bit (it was a little over-exposed)and added the sound. Otherwise I did not use any filters or effects. I love shooting super8 film and I also make lots of super processed video. I have a very minimal website up right now with some super8 transfers, video and sound. The site changes every week so check back if you think its cool…..
    radiopticon.com

    -Sarah Halpern

  20. Wabsnasm says:

    Bad picture quality does not mean the dead are roused. I think maybe you watch too many films.

  21. Anonymous says:

    The images do have that instant antique aura. The nanosecond scenes and editing instantly un-antique the thing and make it very TV now. Alas…

  22. Anonymous says:

    I LOVE the handheld digital video camera’s screen that pops on the left side of the movie.

    I see the future in a film from the past…

    So out of place….

  23. Anonymous says:

    Thank you, WABSNASM…it’s an interesting video style (apart from the bagpipes that nearly sent me in search of a sharp implement with which to stab my eardrums)…but blurry, jerky, unidentifiable shapes in a grainy video don’t make for great memories.

    But wow. You can sure recognize the dog.

  24. Boeotian says:

    It looks good, and I thought it was almost impossible to get a good video out of a wedding

  25. NClarke says:

    There’s just something about film – other mediums don’t have that amazing quality. More excellent super 8 wedding work here: http://www.workerbeedesigns.com.

    Killer flipbooks too!

  26. Skep says:

    Yes, I can see the 8mm black-and-white look that they were going for. But the author is clearly using video movements with a film medium. Specifically, she’s shooting handheld (a no-no with film) and she’s panning WAY too quickly for the 24fps framerate to catch up

    I was going to point out the same thing.

    Just using filters in post won’t give you an old movie feel, you have to use old movie filming style two. An there were no hand held, hand cranked movie cameras. They were always on tripods. There is a language of cinema, and the video doesn’t use it.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Maybe a Super 8 film, maybe a video with filters applied- it’s still some stranger’s wedding. Nice keepsake for those involved, but any wedding film/video/photos (even artfully approached) makes me run for the hills. Next it will be pinhole photos of the new baby.

    @ BRIAN BOYKO

    “Specifically, she’s shooting handheld (a no-no with film)”

    Whaaaa? Every old 8mm home movie i’ve ever seen is handheld– I think that’s the aesthetic she is trying to emulate here. And handheld a no-no with film? That’s just silly.

  28. gypsybill says:

    I believe the tune being played is called Mari’s Wedding–just in case anyone was wondering.

  29. mdh says:

    I edited a 45 minute Super 8 film in college, measure cut, splice, measure, cut, splice. This video may have been filmed on 8, but appears to have been edited and processed with a computer, and by a member of the MTV generation at that. Lots of cuts, back and forth shots, lots of edits on the beat, etc…

    Not bad at all, though a little seasickening at times.

  30. Hawkman says:

    Might be kinda fun to show to the kids one day; Jesus Pa, how old are you?

  31. hancocks says:

    Wow! And I recognize the bagpipes. That’s a 1923 MacPherson!

  32. Gray Pix LLc says:

    I knew it wasn’t from a rank. How did you get the aperture not to vary much with back light? Nice job considering the chance of screwing up you fiend’s wedding. The screen answers for reduced contrast. Keep up the good work. Not many take those sorts of risks much any more.

    Bill Gray

  33. Gray Pix LLc says:

    I’m a camera assistant, never a printer, never a projectionist…

    All IMAX cameras uses 65mm film. Call SimEx-Iwerks in Burbank and talk to the camera rentals.

    Prints are made on 70mm.

    Quite.

  34. Takuan says:

    @17, “hand-held (a no-no with film): Dogme 95.

  35. Chris Brewer says:

    Microsoft Movie Maker -> Video Effects -> Film Age, Oldest

    That is all.

  36. DeathBoy says:

    It looks as though they shot it on a handycam then ran it through a plugin.

  37. JJR1971 says:

    The bagpipe player and the woman’s 1920s “flapper girl” hairdo help the time distortion illusion effect they were going for…

    I almost expected the movements to be more quick and jerky, like you see on some old films.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Bill! My camera actually has a switch for turning the aperture from auto to manual or vice versa, so I generally keep it on manual. It’s a Canon ‘Auto Zoom 518′ if that means anything to you….

  39. porkchop says:

    Should be labeled NSFE– Not Safe For Ears.

  40. Zan says:

    @Gray Pix LLC

    Film sizes are 16mm, 35mm and 65mm. 70mm is 65mm sideways for IMAX. Film is way easier to work with. After a stunt on a digi shoot the camaeraman and director always run over the the DIT tent ans ask if it was captured OK.

    Not quite. 70mm film is shot on 65mm film in the camera and transferred to 70mm film for projection (the extra 5mm are used for the sound). After you subtract the space needed for the sprocket holes and sound 70mm movie frames are shot 52.5mm wide and projected 48.5mm wide.

    Similarly the Kodak 8mm cameras shot on 16mm film with an image width of 4.9mm which was transferred to 8mm film with an image width of 4.4mm for projection.

    IMAX is shot on 70mm film but sideways, so that the image is actually 70mm wide (by 48.5mm tall).

  41. David Carroll says:

    GypsyBill @4

    Yep. Mairi’s wedding it is. Lyrics – Hugh Robertson
    Melody – traditional. One of my favourite wedding songs! And here is a clip of my favourite version:

    Over hill-way up and down
    Myrtle green and bracken brown
    Past the shieling through the town
    All for Mairi’s wedding

    Step we gaily on we go
    Heel for heel and toe for toe
    Arm in arm and row and row
    All for Mairi’ s wedding

Leave a Reply