Sorry if truth hurts.
I think most of us would much, much rather see the reintroduction of E6 films, for example.
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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"?
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.
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).
Curious to learn about the availability of film and processing labs here in Germany.
The Kodak Super 8 is currently introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?