A brand new Super 8 camera from Kodak?
-
A
- Thread starter Ektagraphic
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 and 2000 series ground glass with waist level finder.
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Jobo CPA 2 with Lift
- Started by Aidan Sciortino
-
Sold Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton v1
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Pentax 6x7, non-MLU. Viewfinder light meter needs calibration
- Started by gareth.ig
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,843
- Format
- Multi Format
Prosumer? Ain't no such thing. When it was current S8 was never pitched at the professional market. Strictly amateur even though a few films that made it to general release contained a little blown up S8 footage. There were, though, cheapies and expensive ones with high ratio zoom lenses and more features than the cheapies.
Buy a copy of Lenny Lipton's The Super 8 Book. It isn't about technique, its about gear. He tried out many new cameras. The bad news is that one in three was dead on arrival.
People tout Beaulieus. They're beautiful artifacts but fragile. In my limited experience (4008 ZM, 4008 ZM2, 5008S-MS) used ones always need expensive overhauls. People tout Nikon R-8 and R-10. They have the nicest "the camera does it all" in camera fades and lap dissolves, but given the way films are shot these gimmicks, especially dissolves, are rarely useful. My R-10's f/1.4 (so engraved) zoom t-stopped around T/4. Really a camera for high noon. People tout Fuji's anti-Beaulieu the ZC-1000. Mine was beautiful and had the best finder of any S8 camera I've tried, but I hardly used it. When I got it Single 8 film and processing were too hard to get. I got it with the idea of putting its lens on a 4008 ZM2 or ZM4. In those days used 4008s were often sold without lenses. And then I lucked into what seemed to be a decent ZM2 with 6-66/1.8 Schneider so I sold the Fuji. People tout high end Canons, with 8x and 10x zooms. In all but the original 814 there's a rubber ball in the manual aperture mechanism. With age they all perish.
If I had to do it now and didn't have my Beaulieus (if they still work) I'd look for a high end Bauer. Back when, I bought a number of used Bauers, always as backups to my main camera, and all of them passed acceptance testing. High end Nizos had a good reputation but I never had one.
No matter what I bought, or from whom, I'd budget for an overhaul.
How will Kodak get around the US restriction on "processing-included" bundles?
I suppose one way would be to charge for the film and processing separately and not as a 'bundle'. I don't see anyone else wanting to get into the processing/transfer market.
There were indeed cameras that had features linked to professional use. But also quite some consumer cameras at the end were filled more and more with costly gadgets.
For me cameras must serve my way of photography/cinematography. And that not necessarily means the features of professional camera.
My favourite is a consumer camera with a certain technical feature no high-end S-8 camera offers. Actually no other.
I think one of the more interesting implications of this announcement is that Kodak could be trying to tap into the ongoing film "trend". Analog photography is in vogue and I can imagine that many professionals who shoot a bit of digital and a bit of film would be interested in this sort of processing & scan included solution.
And 50-70 USD for each three minutes of digitized film in the crappiest format.
I have no idea who will buy and pay for this...
My twenty one years old is thinking of re-buying camera and gear to do video including heavy editing. But same way as she did it few years ago. Digitally.
My eleven years old making short movies with small tablet. All in one device, take it, edit it, view and share. At $200 cost paid once.
What kind of film experience Kodak is about to offer? Buy expensive gear, pay for expensive service and get digital video and useless film at the end.
"I was filming on Kodak film with Kodak camera" - how many are ready to pay for this and only this?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,843
- Format
- Multi Format
Interesting question, fellow doubter. In the fullness of time we'll find out. For now all we can say is that those who will will, those who won't, won't.
Consumer and amateurs are not the intended market if some of them buy it great if not who cares. The target market is filmschools and Super8mm is way cheaper than 16mm but still teaches you the discipline and vocabulary that is necessary to work in the mp industry.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
....
What kind of film experience Kodak is about to offer? Buy expensive gear, pay for expensive service and get digital video and useless film at the end.
"I was filming on Kodak film with Kodak camera" - how many are ready to pay for this and only this?
Current Super 8 filmstock can handle easily 14 stops.
How is that Useless?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
The reason I no longer buy a tickets to watch digital motion pictures in a theater is my sense that digital is an inferior technology for presenting that form of art. Not because of inferior technical specifications, but because of inferior soup-to-nuts process. The intangibles.
In other words, I sense that the use of digital technologies makes the overall process of movie making sloppier. I think the story lines are shallower. The screenplay writing quicker and dirtier. The scenes and backgrounds cheaper. Or even non-existent, a product of CGI. The pain of creation of the art form has been severely reduced or eliminated, thus commoditizing the output and the audience's reaction to it.
For me, this is analogous to the effect of digital still photography. Sure, the technical specifications of 35mm full-frame digital actually equal or maybe even surpass film. But the pain-of-creation threshold has been lowered to the point that little of lasting significance is now produced. In principle this should never be the case. But in reality it all too often is the case.
Everyone here who is questioning why someone would use film over digital is framing the question in terms of cost and convenience. The classic arguments for endless technological "progress". But those are the arguments of the studio executives and the accountants. The art form creators, the Nolans and the Tarantinos, seem to see things very differently. They are intentionally taking the more difficult road less travelled.
Perhaps those now professing interest in resurrected 8mm motion picture film as an art form are simply refusing to think like the executives and bean counters. Perhaps they instinctively realize that sometimes a little more pain is good for the soul. And for the final art work. In that sense those proposed film processing charges may actually be an asset, not a liability. The same is true of the cost of still photography using film.
I realize such an argument is counterintuitive to those severely market conditioned to believe that cheaper and easier is always preferable and better. But before surrendering completely, recall what Jack Kennedy said on that long ago afternoon at Rice University in 1962,
Super 8 may not be the moon. But I think the underlying principle of intentionally seeking out difficult challenges applies and holds nevertheless...
Ken
In other words, I sense that the use of digital technologies makes the overall process of movie making sloppier. I think the story lines are shallower. The screenplay writing quicker and dirtier. The scenes and backgrounds cheaper. Or even non-existent, a product of CGI. The pain of creation of the art form has been severely reduced or eliminated, thus commoditizing the output and the audience's reaction to it.
For me, this is analogous to the effect of digital still photography. Sure, the technical specifications of 35mm full-frame digital actually equal or maybe even surpass film. But the pain-of-creation threshold has been lowered to the point that little of lasting significance is now produced. In principle this should never be the case. But in reality it all too often is the case.
Everyone here who is questioning why someone would use film over digital is framing the question in terms of cost and convenience. The classic arguments for endless technological "progress". But those are the arguments of the studio executives and the accountants. The art form creators, the Nolans and the Tarantinos, seem to see things very differently. They are intentionally taking the more difficult road less travelled.
Perhaps those now professing interest in resurrected 8mm motion picture film as an art form are simply refusing to think like the executives and bean counters. Perhaps they instinctively realize that sometimes a little more pain is good for the soul. And for the final art work. In that sense those proposed film processing charges may actually be an asset, not a liability. The same is true of the cost of still photography using film.
I realize such an argument is counterintuitive to those severely market conditioned to believe that cheaper and easier is always preferable and better. But before surrendering completely, recall what Jack Kennedy said on that long ago afternoon at Rice University in 1962,
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."
Super 8 may not be the moon. But I think the underlying principle of intentionally seeking out difficult challenges applies and holds nevertheless...
Ken
Last edited by a moderator:
The effect on still photography is widely recognized and bemoaned here on APUG all the time. To argue that it would apply solely to still photography as an art form, while motion picture photography as art would somehow be totally exempt, is, I think, both unreasonable and untenable.
Cheaper and easier always come with a price. As does expensive and difficult. There are no free lunches. It's up to the hungry to choose wisely from the menu of available choices.
Ken
Cheaper and easier always come with a price. As does expensive and difficult. There are no free lunches. It's up to the hungry to choose wisely from the menu of available choices.
Ken
I've also argued in the past that writing by hand yields "better" results than writing by classic typewriter. And that classic typewritten writing surpasses modern day software abstracted (computerized word processing) writing. If one is old enough to remember the art of reading in the pre-Internet days the difference is glaring.
This difference is not because the same set of words (in any language) are not immediately available to all three forms of composition. But rather because the process of creating the overall written work using those words is progressively more difficult using the more manual technologies. When one must pay a greater price, one thinks more carefully before spending.
When I stated: "In principle this should never be the case. But in reality it all too often is the case", I was thinking of your position on this. I think you often argue the principle, while I always argue the reality.
My favorite still camera is my 8x10, because it's the biggest pain in the ass to use. I never put as much effort into using my Nikon F2. In principle I could, but in reality I don't. Because in reality I don't have to. Easier always comes with a price.
Jack Kennedy understood. Perhaps the supporters of resurrected Super 8 do as well?
Ken
This difference is not because the same set of words (in any language) are not immediately available to all three forms of composition. But rather because the process of creating the overall written work using those words is progressively more difficult using the more manual technologies. When one must pay a greater price, one thinks more carefully before spending.
When I stated: "In principle this should never be the case. But in reality it all too often is the case", I was thinking of your position on this. I think you often argue the principle, while I always argue the reality.
My favorite still camera is my 8x10, because it's the biggest pain in the ass to use. I never put as much effort into using my Nikon F2. In principle I could, but in reality I don't. Because in reality I don't have to. Easier always comes with a price.
Jack Kennedy understood. Perhaps the supporters of resurrected Super 8 do as well?
Ken
The difference, I think, is that reality (or practice) attempts to factor in the vagaries of human nature, while principle does not.
In principle, driving a car at 50 mph on a 300 mile road trip will only take 6 hours. In practice, the passengers are also going to demand multiple potty stops...
Not taking into account human nature is the root cause of lots of unresolved arguments on APUG.
Ken
In principle, driving a car at 50 mph on a 300 mile road trip will only take 6 hours. In practice, the passengers are also going to demand multiple potty stops...
Not taking into account human nature is the root cause of lots of unresolved arguments on APUG.
Ken
Long, long ago, I used Regular 8mm a lot and spent a lot of time crafting a movie story, a lot of time planning my scenes. I tried to keep my editing (splicing, as this was the 1970's) to a minimum. I really did like the look, I enjoyed the effort required to produce something that looked good and was put together well.
Much later, I shot and produced an 80-minute video for an organization I belong to - a video that they sold to people. Originally I shot it on S-VHS with a Panasonic AG-456 -- a Prosumer camera just a step below their Electronic News Gathering cameras. I had seven hours of raw video which I made an initial edit on an AG-1980 S-VHS editor and then converted it all to DVCAM and then edited to the final 80-minutes in Final Cut Pro on a Mac. This project was little fun despite the power of digital editing. I also didn't like the look all that much.
I took classes at a local community college to use their digital Betacam equipment for free Public Broadcasting programs. The equipment is totally cool, but ... it's just a different experience and something that doesn't bring me the same enjoyment I would get out of planning and shooting a sub 15-minute film. Definitely I'd project it. I'd prefer 16mm best of all, but Super-8 works for me, too. I just like the process and the look.
Watch this Kodak CEO interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Iba3_Qolk&feature=youtu.be
This is definitely a new Kodak. Even APUGers shouldn't find fault in what Jeff Clarke says about trying to get more people to shoot on film.
(and before you say anything about Clarke not mentioning still photography, please remember that it's Kodak Alaris' business nowadays...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Iba3_Qolk&feature=youtu.be
This is definitely a new Kodak. Even APUGers shouldn't find fault in what Jeff Clarke says about trying to get more people to shoot on film.
(and before you say anything about Clarke not mentioning still photography, please remember that it's Kodak Alaris' business nowadays...)
I suppose so. But my own experience has run more toward cartoonish characters spouting gibberish and shit jumping out of the screen at me. Seen at home, so thank god never in 3D. As a matter of fact, wild horses could not drag me to a 3D movie. This crap is not for the discriminating (read: thinking) viewer.
An example of the still photography equivalent? Look up my earlier posts here regard the decline of Sports Illustrated. If I have to see another hockey puck that takes up a third of the frame/page, with the sharp face of every other player staring at it, with the sharp faces of every spectator in the entire arena also staring at it, I'm gonna' heave.
It's nothing but spectacular but shallow cotton candy, culled from 10,000 automated shots at 10fps. There is no there, there. It tells me nothing about the athletes, or the contest, or the game, or the human drama, or anything else. It's just an artifact of tedious haystack editing and the massive depth of field available in digital. It's the male dog licking himself. He does it only because he can. If he couldn't, he wouldn't.
I fearfully await the day that my next issue arrives with 3D glasses.
So go Super 8. Go Kodak.
(Did I just say that? I think I did.)
Ken
An example of the still photography equivalent? Look up my earlier posts here regard the decline of Sports Illustrated. If I have to see another hockey puck that takes up a third of the frame/page, with the sharp face of every other player staring at it, with the sharp faces of every spectator in the entire arena also staring at it, I'm gonna' heave.
It's nothing but spectacular but shallow cotton candy, culled from 10,000 automated shots at 10fps. There is no there, there. It tells me nothing about the athletes, or the contest, or the game, or the human drama, or anything else. It's just an artifact of tedious haystack editing and the massive depth of field available in digital. It's the male dog licking himself. He does it only because he can. If he couldn't, he wouldn't.
I fearfully await the day that my next issue arrives with 3D glasses.
So go Super 8. Go Kodak.
(Did I just say that? I think I did.)
Ken
Ken, Ken - like Michael I agree with you on many things but 3D is FUN, and I find it actually does add a lot to some movies, IF they are shot with 3D in mind, not as an afterthought, and if they avoid the 3D cliches. Avatar is one such movie - excellent 3D work. I have it in both, as most all 3D Blu-rays come with both versions, and hugely prefer watching it in 3D. I have a home theater set up with an Epson Home Cinema 2030 3D capable 1080p projector and 5.1 surround. I LOVE it, and for most new-release movies I want to see will just wait to get on blu-ray. If a title is available in 3D I get it in 3D. There is a real feeling of being there if done well. Even in 2D my projector is obviously digital and I still love watching movies there. In fact, as far as those avoiding digitally shot movies, I confess that I cannot tell the difference. Oh if I looked closely enough I might, but I don't examine the image in minute detail and for the general movie watching experience I just don't notice any difference. Of course the speed and ease (relatively) and lack of film costs may make more crap movies shot in digital, but that just means we must be more selective, not that we stop watching new movies.
Now I CAN rapidly spot some of the crappy shot-in-low-res-digital advertisements before the movie, but who cares?
EDIT: Poison du Jour posted here about shooting 3D with a 6x7 camera and a macro rail. I wrote him a PM and he emailed me some digital files of his shots, which I put on a memory stick and viewed on my projector. Eleven foot wide screen of 6x7 Velvia shots from Sydney - it was very much like BEING in that graffiti-lined street in Sydney! EXTREMELY cool. I have uses for such in mind and shooting 3D stills is something I fully plan to get into this year. I may shoot them digitally to save the extra scanning step too, since if I shoot them on film I'll still have to scan to digital convert to a 3D file with software etc. I'll probably be ostracized from APUG.
Now I CAN rapidly spot some of the crappy shot-in-low-res-digital advertisements before the movie, but who cares?
EDIT: Poison du Jour posted here about shooting 3D with a 6x7 camera and a macro rail. I wrote him a PM and he emailed me some digital files of his shots, which I put on a memory stick and viewed on my projector. Eleven foot wide screen of 6x7 Velvia shots from Sydney - it was very much like BEING in that graffiti-lined street in Sydney! EXTREMELY cool. I have uses for such in mind and shooting 3D stills is something I fully plan to get into this year. I may shoot them digitally to save the extra scanning step too, since if I shoot them on film I'll still have to scan to digital convert to a 3D file with software etc. I'll probably be ostracized from APUG.
Last edited by a moderator:
What kind of film experience Kodak is about to offer? Buy expensive gear, pay for expensive service and get digital video and useless film at the end.
"I was filming on Kodak film with Kodak camera" - how many are ready to pay for this and only this?
"Useless" not in the original shooting but in what you get back, which will be a NEGATIVE on movie film. Since there is no longer movie print film this means you either convert it to digital (which Kodak is doing for you in this process) or you watch negative color movies.
Now if Film Ferrania gets Super 8 E6 out, you may have an option that results in "real" projectable S8 movies.
QUOTE: Since there is no longer movie print film this means you either convert it to digital (which Kodak is doing for you in this process) or you watch negative color movies.
Not true, M/P print films are available in all current formats from 8 to 70mm.
Super 8 printing is available from Andec in Germany..... www.andecfilm.de/en/e_s8_neg_pos.htm
John S
Not true, M/P print films are available in all current formats from 8 to 70mm.
Super 8 printing is available from Andec in Germany..... www.andecfilm.de/en/e_s8_neg_pos.htm
John S
"Useless" not in the original shooting but in what you get back, which will be a NEGATIVE on movie film. Since there is no longer movie print film this means you either convert it to digital (which Kodak is doing for you in this process) or you watch negative color movies.
Now if Film Ferrania gets Super 8 E6 out, you may have an option that results in "real" projectable S8 movies.
But there is motion picture print film still available. Just last September I had super-8 Kodak Vision3 200T & 500T home movies processed and printed @ Andec, Germany. Looks great!
EDIT: John was a bit faster than me!
Last edited by a moderator:
QUOTE: Since there is no longer movie print film this means you either convert it to digital (which Kodak is doing for you in this process) or you watch negative color movies.
Not true, M/P print films are available in all current formats from 8 to 70mm.
Super 8 printing is available from Andec in Germany..... www.andecfilm.de/en/e_s8_neg_pos.htm
John S
Ok, that was something I read up-thread. Is there commercial service that will take your negative movie and make you a positive print? I assume Andec will do this with film already shot, not just initial. How about in North America?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |