A brand new Super 8 camera from Kodak?

[Ektagraphic]

Hi Guys-

Some interesting and exciting news here! I hope this idea of a new Kodak Super 8 camera makes it all the way to production! Here is a link to an online Wall Street Journal article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/01/05/kodak-goes-retro-with-new-super-8-camera/

Pat

 

[railwayman3]

Interesting, but I would have thought that there are numerous second-hand super-8 cameras already about at quite reasonable prices, some from very high quality makers, for those who are interested.

 

[BMbikerider]

OK........Are they going to make film stock to go with it? As I understand 35mm and 70mm film used for cinema quality films are negative and prints for distribution are made from the negative. Where would the printing be done, it would be almost impossible to do by the enthusiast.

How about them re-intoducing Kodachrome........

 

[Roger Cole]

Of all the niches that seems the least likely to succeed. I looked into movie cameras just a bit because I remember wanting one as a kid. But when I saw the cost of film for the amount of time it runs evn I thought "no wonder digital video killed it." No offense to those who use it as a labor of love of course but.. it's an expensive proposition for little run time on a tiny format, now without sound ability.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

"The first new Super 8, expected to arrive in a limited-edition version in the fall of 2016, was conceived with help from the industrial designer Yves Behar. It is likely to cost between $400 to $750, Mr. Clarke estimated. Processing the film should cost $50 to $75 a cartridge, he said."


Say what! $50 to $75 for processing?

 

[horacekenneth]

Most of the Kodak-related hype this past year has been about their movie film. I think this could do well.

 

[Roger Cole]

Most of the Kodak-related hype this past year has been about their movie film. I think this could do well.

Only if someone will process it for about an order of magnitude (ok, possibly twice that but still...) of that $50 to $70! :eek:

 

[skorpiius]

"The first new Super 8, expected to arrive in a limited-edition version in the fall of 2016, was conceived with help from the industrial designer Yves Behar. It is likely to cost between $400 to $750, Mr. Clarke estimated. Processing the film should cost $50 to $75 a cartridge, he said."


Say what! $50 to $75 for processing?

looks like you'll get your film back + digital transfer for that price.

 

[Roger Cole]

You ought to get your film back, the digital file(s), replacement film, and a bottle of decent single malt...

 

[cmacd123]

Typically when Movie producers or Music Video folks use Super 8 these days they shoot on colour negative, and transfer to digital for editing and final production. Since 7285 was discontinued, only privately packaged Agfa Aviphot reversal film is available. This is one of the markets that FILMferania is aiming at.

It would be relatively easy for Kodak to offer super 8 prints from negative, as long as they can find their Super 8 Perforation tools. The moving print film was available until recent times is double super 8 and other super8 formats (like 35mm with 4 rows of super 8 perfs to be slit to 4 prints after processing.) I am sure their are a few labs who could still find their super 8 printing sprockets, and get set up to run 8mm on their 16mm printer.

{It is possible knowing how reporters interpret things that they are planing to do something like pro8mm and do a develop and scan, and the roll of film you get back is your negative.} { Dead Link Removed }

for example Pro8 has this "beginers package" for 80 dollars US. Dead Link Removed

 

[skorpiius]

You ought to get your film back, the digital file(s), replacement film, and a bottle of decent single malt...

I like the way you think

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

That is so cool! I have been getting into shooting super8 lately and it is a blast. This prototype looks like it will be really nice. There is another camera that hit the streets a year or so back, the logmar ($4000 yikes!). I think Kodak will have a lot of improvements with this camera over the old super8 cameras you can still get. One is the better registration of the film on the gate providing a much stabler image another is the use of a video sensor allowing the use external video monitors and a flip out monitor like camcorders have.

As far as the film goes, the kodak neg is awesome film. Yes it is negative but the days of making positive prints from negative film is over. With the neg film you have to scan or telecine and invert the negative and color correct for the orange mask. There are a few positive films still out there and with any luck Film Ferrania will be pumping out some new stock soon.

D.

 

[AgX]

Interesting, but I would have thought that there are numerous second-hand super-8 cameras already about at quite reasonable prices, some from very high quality makers, for those who are interested.

My thought too. I pay a fraction for a camera of what to pay for S-8 Cassette...
But there always is the risk of a fault with the camera.


The basic idea behind this new camera though is that it yields both a film- and a file-movie.
Kodak processing would include a scan and the camera has digital finder, that likely provides video-out.
Such Video-out could be very comfortable for filming.

Kodak would be going the Lomography way with this camera.

 

[MDR]

The camera does have sound it only records it separetely like most pro movie cameras in this case sound is being recorded onto a SD card. The camera will be made by Logmar Camera Solutions in Denmark. They already make the Logmar Super 8 camera which can shoot Super 8 cartridges and 400ft loads of Super8 and also stores sound files onto an SD card. I agree film is expensive but also much cheaper in the long run. Digital archiving is a few magnitudes more expensive than film archiving. The look of Super 8 alone is worth it imo it is a superb looking format that has better than HD resolution and if it the Kodak camera has a pressure plate like the Logmar the results will be much sharper than what most people are accustomed to. Also Kudos to Kodak for having the balls to introduce this camera and the service. Almost reminds me of the Kodak of the past. More info can be found on the Kodak site http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/Super8_Design/default.htm infos for the Logmar camera http://www.logmar.dk/ . Also there has been a light Super8 renaissance in the last 10 years and the new head of the MP really seems to be interested in the medium film unlike some of his predecessors.

 

[AgX]

There is another camera that hit the streets a year or so back, the logmar ($4000 yikes!).

The Logmar is camera intended at the professional user. But to gain maximum image quality the concept of handiness, inherent to S-8, was lost.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

"The first new Super 8, expected to arrive in a limited-edition version in the fall of 2016, was conceived with help from the industrial designer Yves Behar. It is likely to cost between $400 to $750, Mr. Clarke estimated. Processing the film should cost $50 to $75 a cartridge, he said."

Say what! $50 to $75 for processing?

How 'bout dem' apples?



If you are focusing in advance only on initially estimated processing costs, you might be missing the deeper point of this announcement. In fact, this new camera could eventually flop completely and the deeper point would still be valid...

Ken

 

[kuparikettu]

Oh APUG... I certainly can see why we young film enthusiasts love you:

Kodak downscales film production, focuses on commercial printing business -- APUG complains the lack of interest on film, mutters about rearranging deck seats on Titanic

Kodak decides to focus on film, brings new super-8 (!!!) camera, decides to offer in-house one-stop processing&transfer for film -- APUG complains price is too high, Kodak is too interested in some old niche product no-one uses (oh the irony).

 

[AgX]

Well, except of that one post on the high processing costs I do not see critique on Kodak here so far.
Did I overlook something?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I wish Kodak every success; I love Kodak. Though I wonder if they would be more successful concentrating just on expanding cine films first, then introducing cameras if it's warranted. There are plenty of Super 8 cameras out there already - not as much film variety. I would like to see more reversal film, color & B&W, both Super 8 but also 16mm.

 

[Chan Tran]

So if Kodak would sell and process the Super 8 film I would be happy. I don't need the camera as I have a Beaulieu 5008.

 

[OptiKen]

This is both exciting and crazy news

 

[MDR]

I am with kuparikettu on this also aside from the high cost of processing the choice of the camera's format was criticized as well.

The purchase prices of 400 to 750$ sounds very reasonable for a new movie camera especially if you compare the price to the modified Super 8 cameras more serious filmmakers used in the past (1000+ $ and 30 years old). The developing cost + telecine isn't that high either. What people that seem to criticize the cost of developing etc... are missing is that this is a low volume product. made not in China but in a high labour cost country as is the film. A decent telecine also takes some time and requires people that know what they are doing.

 

[kuparikettu]

Ebay is full of old cameras, but in those there are a lot of things not in favor of making the format more appealing to new users: Many of those have only film speeds 40/160 for inbuilt exposure meter while Kodak offers nowadays speeds 50/200/500. Many cameras are also in need of servicing and to find out that one has to shoot a test roll, costing further $$$. A new affordable camera is a solution to these problems. If there is also audio recording to a SD card that is a function that hasn't been available until last year.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And yet, you encourage Ferrania to make super 8 film!

Gee, maybe Kodak will make an E6 film or use ECN and then send you prints back. Wow!

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

As far as the film goes, the kodak neg is awesome film. Yes it is negative but the days of making positive prints from negative film is over. With the neg film you have to scan or telecine and invert the negative and color correct for the orange mask. There are a few positive films still out there and with any luck Film Ferrania will be pumping out some new stock soon.

D.

Why would the average or not-so-average amateur shoot negative film and do all this when you could shoot natively digital for a fraction of the cost into the bargain?