A brand new Super 8 camera from Kodak?

[Roger Cole]

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).

Sorry if truth hurts.

I think most of us would much, much rather see the reintroduction of E6 films, for example.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

I am encouraging Ferrania to make E6 FILM! I don't give a crap which format they think will be most profitable to introduce first, I just hope they are right enough they can move on to others!

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Roger,
Why would the average or not-so-average amateur shoot still film images when they can get a dslr and shoot on the cheap with that? Its the same reason, artistic vision. I like to shoot super 8 because of the way it looks. I always say that I never got into photography to save money.

Honestly, we should be jumping up and down at this news. Kodak, yes Kodak, is releasing a new FILM based camera! Holly S*#t!

D.

 

[skorpiius]

I really feel this is more aimed at the film student or even more established filmmaker who wants a reliable 'modern' device to create a project with, rather than some creaky ebay find.

 

[MDR]

Roger just ask Kodak Alaris to make some they are responsible for still film sales and not Kodak Eastman who is responsible for Motion picture film. Also apparently there is more money in making Super8 tools and film than making E6 films makes you wonder about the size of the E6 user base.
The camera is also not made by Kodak but an outside firm that might just have a marketing deal with Kodak. The camera it is not directed at amateur market but at filmschools and filmmakers amateur and most likely pros. Non digital movie cameras can teach something that a digital camera can't one thing is discipline and getting rid of the let's fix it in post mentality.

Also the continous heatlth of Kodak's MP Division is paramount to Kodak/Kodak Alaris still film survival and the introduction of this new camera shows that the MP division seems to get healthier which can only be good thing for still shooters.

 

[AgX]

I really feel this is more aimed at the film student or even more established filmmaker who wants a reliable 'modern' device to create a project with, rather than some creaky ebay find.

That clientele likely can find useful 2nd hand cameras or even troubleshoot something. There are great cameras out there with features the new one is lacking.
The new finder would be it an advantage though.

 

[MDR]

That clientele likely can find useful 2nd hand cameras or even troubleshoot something. There are great cameras out there with features the new one is lacking.
The new finder would be it an advantage though.

If it will have a film pressure plate + pin registration like the logmar it will improve the quality quiet a lot also the image size is bigger than standard Super8 the camera will use the Max8 Format all speeds are crystal sync ertc. There is a lot to like. A refurbished Beaulieu costs just as much if not more. The only thing it's missing is single frame capabilities.

 

[AgX]

Thank you, I did not know of these details, the Kodak page is unaccesible to me.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger,
Why would the average or not-so-average amateur shoot still film images when they can get a dslr and shoot on the cheap with that? Its the same reason, artistic vision. I like to shoot super 8 because of the way it looks. I always say that I never got into photography to save money.

Honestly, we should be jumping up and down at this news. Kodak, yes Kodak, is releasing a new FILM based camera! Holly S*#t!

D.

Avery different comparison. But "the way it looks" is fair enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Roger Cole]

I really feel this is more aimed at the film student or even more established filmmaker who wants a reliable 'modern' device to create a project with, rather than some creaky ebay find.

Roger just ask Kodak Alaris to make some they are responsible for still film sales and not Kodak Eastman who is responsible for Motion picture film. Also apparently there is more money in making Super8 tools and film than making E6 films makes you wonder about the size of the E6 user base.
The camera is also not made by Kodak but an outside firm that might just have a marketing deal with Kodak. The camera it is not directed at amateur market but at filmschools and filmmakers amateur and most likely pros. Non digital movie cameras can teach something that a digital camera can't one thing is discipline and getting rid of the let's fix it in post mentality.

Also the continous heatlth of Kodak's MP Division is paramount to Kodak/Kodak Alaris still film survival and the introduction of this new camera shows that the MP division seems to get healthier which can only be good thing for still shooters.

Yeah now THAT makes more sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[railwayman3]

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).

Fair comment, but, TBH, how many ordinary amateur users (as opposed to film schools, etc.) are likely to buy this camera. I'm a total analog enthusiast for still work, but would never think of using movie film as opposed to digital video....main reason tha tI couldn't afford it, for a start. Good luck to Kodak, but it is undeniably a "niche product", irony or not.

 

[Chan Tran]

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

I hope while they are at it making E6 films for 35mm and other formats.

 

[MattKrull]

I worked a summer as a cinema projectionist. There's no need to tell me 35mm projection film is better than current digital cinema projection. But 8mm vs good HD or 4K capture?
I'll just assume that 8mm gives us all the awesome DR we are used to from film, and that it beats typical DSLR video any day of the week.
But resolution? we are talking about a 4.01mm x 5.79mm frame. A sharp lens producing 100lp/mm is only giving us something comparable to 720p resolution. 150lp/mm (which is sharper than many B&W film stocks according to another thread here on APUG) gives us something close to 1080p. I'm no optical engineer, but that sounds like a really freaking high end lens to me (and will depend on a very stable camera to capture).
So my question to the various 8mm users here: as a director, why go with this instead of a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera (all the benefits of digital, DR approaching film, limited to 1080p) or step up to 16mm (twice the cost per frame, more narrow DOF than 8mm, all the benefits of film and high enough resolution for projecting on a big screen). If you're going to be paying $25 per minute of footage in film/dev/scan costs, why not "go big or go home"?

 

[AgX]

So my question to the various 8mm users here: as a director, why go with this instead of a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera (all the benefits of digital, DR approaching film, limited to 1080p) or step up to 16mm (twice the cost per frame, more narrow DOF than 8mm, all the benefits of film and high enough resolution for projecting on a big screen). If you're going to be paying $25 per minute of footage in film/dev/scan costs, why not "go big or go home"?

I find it a bit weird to propose on a analogue forum to go digital.

The advantage of 8mm cinematography lies in the handiness of the camera.

(And in this context my remark on a video-out is already a bit off as this typically means using a set-up like steadycam etc. that likely would enable one to use 16mm or even 35mm. With the exception maybe of having in parallel a electronic copy to be used for asessment on location and later for editing.)

Seen how big the overall cots of even a short movie can be the share of film&processing can easily become of lesser importance.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The advantage of 8mm cinematography lies in the handiness of the camera.

(And in this context my remark on a video-out is already a bit off as this typically means using a set-up like steadycam etc. that likely would enable one to use 16mm or even 35mm. With the exception maybe of having in parallel a electronic copy to be used for asessment on location and later for editing.)

Seen how big the overall cots of even a short movie can be the share of film&processing can easily become of lesser importance.

Hmm. 16 mm began as an amateur (for home movies) cine format. It was replaced as the amateur format by double 8. When enough potential customers complained that double 8 was too hard to use, EKCo came out with S8, which addressed the ease of use complaints. It was followed in short order by Fuji's Single 8. All home movie formats.

When I took up film to document field trips better (?) than could be done with still photography I found that, yes, S8 is handier than 16. Smaller gear, llighter too, and less expensive, it allowed me to work single-handed. And the cost/minute was much lower, especially when I could find short-dated film and discounted processing mailers.

My biggest production was a 66 minute epic on collecting fish in Costa Rica. Total cost of gear, including cameras, editing suite and projector and film and processing was $1100. I shot as efficiently as I could, got roughly one usable minute per five minutes of film shot. I didn't use a Steadicam,'way too expensive, I shot from tripod as much as possible. My dive photography had to be handheld.

AgX, my major expenses were travel, which I was going to do anyway, and film/processing. For me $50/3 min 20 sec off film shot is a killer. An absolute killer. Kodak's new market has to be professionals, not amateurs shooting home movies, even well thought through home movies shot with the final product firmly in mind.

Until I'm convinced otherwise, if I ever go back to making scientific/travel films I'm going to use a good grade of digital SLR. For such as me film's economics are disastrous.

 

[removed account4]

Roger,
Why would the average or not-so-average amateur shoot still film images when they can get a dslr and shoot on the cheap with that? Its the same reason, artistic vision. I like to shoot super 8 because of the way it looks. I always say that I never got into photography to save money.

Honestly, we should be jumping up and down at this news. Kodak, yes Kodak, is releasing a new FILM based camera! Holly S*#t!

D.

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.

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.

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).

YES !

fun stuff - movie film !
and an enlarged 8mm frame is a blast to make -

i hope they introduce more cameras, another brownie box type camera
now that helga has closed its doors, they invented the consumer point and shoot
its about time they sold them again ...

 

[AgX]

Dan, when I had it about costs I was thinking of a feature film. Even as a short play and yourself as writer/director/DOP/camera operator/editor in one person, you likely still have to pay for a helping hand, for actors, for travel, accomodations, for locations, for lighting, for a composer, musicians, just to start with.
Yes, I know of no-budget movies done with a 35mm full-format-digital camera and friends, but that likely is the exception for a feature film.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello,

just for your further information: Two statements of Kodak's CEO Jeff Clarke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGCKRTWiiY4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Iba3_Qolk

That there is an "analogue renaissance" in the beginning is now even realised not only by the smaller companies, but also by the bigger ones.
The Kodak Super 8 is currently introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.
There both Sony and Technics (Panasonic) have introduced new high-quality record players / turntables.Technics even has re-introduced its legendary model SL-1200.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[baachitraka]

We should create a new topic under equipment section for Super 8 et al.

Curious to learn about the availability of film and processing labs here in Germany.

 

[Henning Serger]

Curious to learn about the availability of film and processing labs here in Germany.

You can get film here:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/cinefilme-super8-bis-35mm/

Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/s8_filmm.php

S8 processing services:
http://andecfilm.de/

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/filmentw.php

Best regards,
Henning

 

[MattKrull]

Following Henning's useful links for Germans;For Canucks looking for Super8 film, processing, and scanning, there's http://niagaracustomlab.com/
AgX, I'm not suggesting that APUGGERs go with digital, I'm asking for people to articulate why they would chose this over the smaller, lighter, less expensive in the long run, similar-ish quality digital; or the larger, heavier, higher quality 16mm film. As you said, on a production, film costs are not the biggest part of it. For a hobbiest, and maybe a student, the film costs are make or break, but then, if that is the case, buy a Black Magic or rent a Arri/Red.
A couple of people have said they really like the look. Are you guys splicing and projecting or scanning and then displaying digitally? Do you have any links to HD videos that show the Super 8 Look that you like?
I'm just trying to understand the appeal of Super 8.

 

[flavio81]

The Kodak Super 8 is currently introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.

Wow...
Great way to start the year!!

Now let's see if Kodak starts making E6 again... Or at least reviving Plus-X, or at least PROMOTING and marketing their film products effectively!

 

[fotch]

Seems like a unlikely project unless the value is to get attention. I hope it works out for Kodak, however, they seem to become the company who knows how to make a small fortune, that is, start off with a large one.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Following Henning's useful links for Germans;For Canucks looking for Super8 film, processing, and scanning, there's http://niagaracustomlab.com/
AgX, I'm not suggesting that APUGGERs go with digital, I'm asking for people to articulate why they would chose this over the smaller, lighter, less expensive in the long run, similar-ish quality digital; or the larger, heavier, higher quality 16mm film. As you said, on a production, film costs are not the biggest part of it. For a hobbiest, and maybe a student, the film costs are make or break, but then, if that is the case, buy a Black Magic or rent a Arri/Red.
A couple of people have said they really like the look. Are you guys splicing and projecting or scanning and then displaying digitally? Do you have any links to HD videos that show the Super 8 Look that you like?
I'm just trying to understand the appeal of Super 8.

Matt, when portable VCRs with portable video cameras came in (this is before one piece camcorders hit the market) the economics of low-budget films favored S8 because of the costs of editing video. Camcorders didn't change that, just made carrying the gear easier.

But that was then. Like you, I have trouble seeing S8's appeal now. I've asked here and on LFPF, where's there's a parallel discussion, whether S8 shot on a good grade of negative film (5203/7203) produces higher image quality than digital shot with a good grade of DSLR. No one has answered. From which I conclude that participants in the discussion are more talkers than doers.

I'd love to own an Alexa. Fat chance. I haven't looked up rental rates, suspect that for the way I used to work (go to the tropics for 2-3 weeks at a time) the new S8 film could cost less than renting. But there's always the DSLR option.

I'd like to know what market Kodak is targeting. As you pointed out, film and processing are prohibitive for amateurs. What isn't clear is why professionals would use S8 rather than a larger film gauge or digital.

 

[baachitraka]

What are the best prosumer super 8 cameras?