Let’s face it – our modern digital photography world is all about sensor upgrading, pixel peeping, and an obsession with sharpness. And I plead guilty to all three.
I’ve pressed the little spyglass + and – button on the backend of my digital camera more times than the channel arrows on my television clicker. I guess sharpness means more to me than reruns and reboots.
Professional photographers and videographers, many of whom would never admit to pixel peeping or “chimping,” do this sort of thing to check the sharpness in their images for a very good reason – their editors and clients demand it. Today, sharpness pays the bills.
But when digital videographers return to shooting motion picture film, especially a small format like Super 8, they have to live with the analog “sharpness” that generations of 20th century directors and cinematographers accepted as “in-focus” or sharp. And I’m certainly no exception.
To the right is a short clip I made last summer to test all of the features and buttons my Canon 1014 XL-S Super 8 camera. I created a split screen layout to show before and after shots of the original DPX log file and the finished, color-corrected scene. Feel free to expand the video.
As you’ll see, the closeup shots look very sharp, even for Super 8. (The lens on the Canon 1014 XL-S is extraordinary.) The wide shots, however, lack the sharpness of today’s digital sensors. Those shots have the sharpness of film -- Super 8 film. They look good; they look in focus; but I doubt they would pass anyone’s chimping test. That’s because they’re not supposed to; they are frames exposed on Super 8's tiny format, and, therefore, have Super 8's resolution.
It’s film’s softness – among many other things – that differentiates it from digital. I recently saw an old photograph taken by the great W. Eugene Smith in 1956 of a nun on a pier in New York City, waiting for the survivors of the Andrea Doria to return home. This extraordinary image is all about expression and composition, not sharpness. Indeed the nun’s eyes and nose are in focus, but the rest of the photo (including her fingers which rest pensively against her mouth) lacks the kind of “sharpness” expected of today’s digital images. Nevertheless, the lack of sharpness in this photo does not detract from its artistry or beauty; rather, its softness adds to it. The focus is her facial expression, and that’s it.
That’s part of the magic and beauty of film – softness plays just as much of a role as sharpness. It truly is a different format, one that continues to stand on its own well into the mirrorless 21st Century.
As Oskar Films continues principal photography on “Gardens of Life,” I can safely say this will not be a film for pixel peepers. No matter. So far the film’s rushes have played nicely with Davinci Resolve 17 and Final Cut Pro X. I don’t expect to have to separate them any time soon.
And as 2021 comes to an end, I am pleased with “Gardens” progress and look forward to continuing production after the holidays. Promotional materials for the film are also in the works, so keep an eye out for future updates in 2022.
Best wishes,
Frank DiCesare