A brand new Super 8 camera from Kodak?

[fotch]

This part
"Clarke ....cited ....point to a “digital dilemma” as movies stored in digital bits run the risk of becoming inaccessible over multiple decades as technical standards change."
applies to all digital photos, does it not?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

It's surprising that, freed from the prohibition, Kodak didn't resume offering processing and film together. I certainly would have paid more for premium quality results that a manufacturer could claim when controlling all aspects of its own film process. Then again, nobody ever got rich basing marketing decisions on my consumer preferences.

By that time, Kodak was pretty much out of the processing business. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualex

 

[cmacd123]

So when I see "positive" film stock for sale, is that the film which the negative film is exposed onto? That is, the positive film will become basically a negative of a negative but with higher contrast?

Print stock is used to print from negatives, and yes, it therefore is a negative of a Negative. The range is narrow these days,

you can basically get http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedfiles/motion/2383_ti2397.pdf 2383/3383 there was also a deluxe Vision Premier 2393 but the link to it seems broken.

(and their is also a B&W print stock.)

 

[lxdude]

The consent decree that limited "processing included" Kodachrome was allowed to lapse/cancelled by the anti-trust authorities when it became moot.

Actually, they didn't. They still fought the decree being terminated.
Kodak moved for both to be terminated- that 1954 decree, and the 1921 decree. The court ruled in Kodak's favor, and it was appealed by the government lawyers, who, after all, have to justify their existence somehow. Kodak's motion was upheld on appeal in 1995.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1300513.html

 

[lxdude]

It's surprising that, freed from the prohibition, Kodak didn't resume offering processing and film together. I certainly would have paid more for premium quality results that a manufacturer could claim when controlling all aspects of its own film process.

Considering how bad Kodak's Kodachrome processing became, (far from premium quality) I wouldn't have considered bundled processing an advantage!
I don't know that they would have gained from it by that time anyway. At some point, Fuji stopped offering it,and like Kodak, just offered mailers. Which of course brings up another aspect. A lot of people never liked mailing film for processing anyway.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Actually, they didn't. They still fought the decree being terminated.
Kodak moved for both to be terminated- that 1954 decree, and the 1921 decree. The court ruled in Kodak's favor, and it was appealed by the government lawyers, who, after all, have to justify their existence somehow. Kodak's motion was upheld on appeal in 1995.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1300513.html

Thanks for the link. I don't remember much being said about the case here in Rochester in 1995.

 

[MattKing]

In Canada, processing was included in the price of the film until Kodak Canada stopped processing the film.

I expect that that was the case in other parts of the world as well.

And when I referred earlier to the anti-trust "authorities" I was including the courts as well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

These decisions both helped and hurt Kodak.

 

[Truzi]

I had decided to resurrect my father's and grandfather's Super8 cameras, so this is a bit exciting. However, I want to be able to project from the film, which is why I will use a reversal B&W instead of the available color options to send it out for telecine. I'd really like the computer file too, but I want a positive film more. Hopefully there will be some sort of option for this (either transfer to print, or E-6 cartridges).

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I had decided to resurrect my father's and grandfather's Super8 cameras, so this is a bit exciting. However, I want to be able to project from the film, which is why I will use a reversal B&W instead of the available color options to send it out for telecine. I'd really like the computer file too, but I want a positive film more. Hopefully there will be some sort of option for this (either transfer to print, or E-6 cartridges).

There are (or at least were) services that offer telecine transfer of Super 8 movie film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

But I have many many rolls of regular 8 taken in the 40s and perhaps earlier.

PE

 

[Truzi]

I've my Grandfather’s regular 8 camera, projector, and old movies - and the mirror-box he used to "telecine" onto VHS in the 80s. I do plan to use the regular 8 as well The film cameras and projectors still work, though the camcorder has long since died.

I know I can have both formats telecined to a digital file, but what I really want is to project traditionally - so I'd really like a positive color stock for Super8 (and regular 8 too). Yes, I've supported Film Ferrania's kickstarter.

Offering a new Super8 camera is great, though I've neither the plans nor budget to buy one, but I am hoping availability will increase because of this.
Otherwise, the options for film, development, and digitizing are not new - just the camera.
Still, I am excited.

 

[removed account4]

I would argue both in principle and practice (ie reality). That has been my experience with respect to still and motion pictures. Could perhaps be an interesting discussion.

Just to give one quick example of my position regarding you point about 8x10. In my experience, while the quality of your output might be higher when using 8x10 because it is cumbersome relative to 35mm, I have generally observed the opposite effect.

michael:

someone who shoots 8x10 and a lot of it likes the experience of shooting 8x10, no matter if the output is the same or worse than an image from 35mm film.
its not the image quality its the experience. plenty of people have taken wonderful images with every format that exists, and in this modern day
it really doesn't matter what the format is, its about having a good time, maybe gloating/bragging or being silent about how and image was made.
in this day and age with instant images so easy to make and manipulation that much easier to do, whether it is with a sensor making a digital video or a movie camera shooting
35mm lomo footage spliced together ... it doesn't really matter. the digital video shooter will be just as happy as the lomo splicer, the minox shooter enlarging to 16x20 just as happy as the full frame
or hassy phase phase one or 20x24 tintypist ... the only people who argue how awful one format is or another or style or whatever are people that just want to stir the pot, cause trouble
stoke fires of difference gather their tribe together and cause trouble. happens a lot here and elsewhere and it is pretty lame.

===

just got an email from my super8 wedding friend
i asked him what his thoughts were about
the new movie camera/link to article &c

he said: " I think its awesome. "

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
I know I can have both formats telecined to a digital file, but what I really want is to project traditionally - so I'd really like a positive color stock for Super8 (and regular 8 too). Yes, I've supported Film Ferrania's kickstarter.
...

All I have is Regular 8 film, the cameras, and a working Kodak projector. I'm happy to see more cine film offerings in amateur formats.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
its not the image quality its the experience. plenty of people have taken wonderful images with every format that exists, and in this modern day it really doesn't matter what the format is, its about having a good time...

Yes - that's it exactly.

 

[removed account4]

John, I wasn't referring to enjoyment of process, "experience" etc. I was speaking plainly about the creative and artistic quality of still images and movies made using digital capture technologies vs the pre-digital age. Ken used the 8x10 vs F2 example to illustrate his point, which was that when things are more cumbersome or difficult (or what he considers to be so), in practice the results are better. All I'm saying is that this generally runs counter to my observations regarding still and moving pictures.

i agree with you, the results sometimes are not better, it is the opposite
.... that is ...
unless YOU are the one who is lugging the camera and film and spending $45/chrome of kittens+yarnballs or exotic locations sunsets ...
in the end the results are better because to the person using whatever gear it is ( point and shoot iPhone, or 11x14 empire, LOMOKINO or bolex rex16mm) enjoys what they are doing.
its easy to point out flaws in the images, flaws in the processing, in the media, in the final print, the waste of the front mounted 60x80 enlargement one paid $1700USD for,
the perceived waste of time, effort and funds and resources .. a lot of what photography ( or video or film making and art making ) IS the experience, and that is about it ( unless the person is a professional
photgrapher, film maker videographer, artist &c ) not sure why it needs to be more than that if it is a hobby.

if someone is happy lugging camera to a virginlandscape, or making 10x8 chromes of their kitten playing with a yarn ball , isn't that all that matters ?
who cares if others might perceive the images might be trite, boring as hell, poor composition, terrible, not"artistical" /not creative at all, with the single print cost of $1700, (and resulted in a massive carbon footprint) ...

for most people it is the happy factor that over rides everything else ... from what i read online, its all a past time, with everything ending up in the dumpster anyways after someone is dead ( or so they write ).
( according to countless " what will happend to all my stuff when i am dead" threads )

i dont' agree at all that small formats are inferior to large ones, or digital is inferior to chemical photography.
one can be as "creative" with something new or old or small or lens sticking out of the back of a 18wheeler.
it just has to do with the person looking through the lens ... we all do our best with what we are given ..

 

[cmacd123]

In Canada, processing was included in the price of the film until Kodak Canada stopped processing the film.
I expect that that was the case in other parts of the world as well..

AFAIK, the without processing deal was a USA only thing. When I worked at Eatons in the 1970s we got some of our film from a grey market dealer who sold us Kodachome from the UK with processing included. we sent it through the regular channels and it came back fine. UNTIL one day they had processing problems and though off a whole batch of Regular 8, unfortunately on a day when one of our regular customers had just sent in many rolls from a big vacation. The returned films came back with a replacement roll and a letter apologising "On behalf of Kodak Limited, the manufacturers of the film" A cople of months later the stores buyer came out to our location and told us we were going to only carry film ordered from Kodak. I suspect that the incident clued Kodak Canada into the fact we were selling imported stuff.

The edge printing was slightly different on the processing included or not included versions, one with black letters on a light background and one with light letters on black. BUT i forget which was which. If someone brought in film from the states they had to pay to get it processed.

OH and in the heyday, one did not have to mail Kodachome in Canada. most photo shops had Kodak bag service, and your film was stuck in an envelope with your name by the photo dealer and placed in the bag. The bag was picked up every day and a few days later the film came in a cardboard box with the name portion of the envelope. (including the tag number) The box would be rubber stamped with teh price if your film did not include the processing.

also Processing included film had a P in the type number Like KA-459P or KR-135-36P

 

[removed account4]

The happy factor is something totally separate. I'm talking strictly about the quality of the art (output).

the quality of the output is dependant on the person using the camera ( no matter the format or media ) ..
one who is used to using a ULF camera will make masterful images with it ( and maybe everything else he or she uses )
if someone isn't used to using anything but a 35mm or iPhone, chances are the output from the ULF camera will not be as good as format they are used to.

besides quality is in the eye of he beholder. one person's quality is another person's tacky

 

[Roger Cole]

A careful worker can produce far better (in terms of technical quality) results from 8x10 (or medium format, for that matter) than an equally careful worker can produce from 35mm. However, a careful worker with 35mm, who uses it as if it were LF (slow film, tripod, careful metering) and uses the very best lenses, because the smaller format, being enlarged more, makes hugely greater demand on the lenses, can certainly produce results superior to those of a lazy hack using 8x10, or any other format for that matter.

I suspect one reason for the different observations is this: the smaller formats, particularly with automated cameras, are simpler to use, by leaps and bounds compared to large format. I've welcomed people to large format before by saying "you'll be amazed at all the new and creative ways you find to ruin a sheet of film" and anyone who has ever shot large format will agree with that. So there comes a point, I think, where one is good enough and careful enough to get about the best 35mm (or medium format, which is only marginally more complex but autofocus is rare and I'm not sure if there is matrix metering as such at all) can offer. However, one at but barely at this level of competence would probably be badly out of their element with 8x10, even if they studied the basic process a bit, and likely to produce results inferior to what they got from 35mm (or medium format) - for a while at least. After working long enough with the larger format some people would get good enough with it to blow their best 35mm results out of the water. But many don't work with it that much or that regularly, and some others are no doubt just not technically oriented in the right way, just not picky enough and detail minded enough as it were, to be as good with large format as with 35mm. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but the more complicated process takes more time to learn, more thought and more attention to detail. I think a lot of this is what Ken is praising, and I shoot (at least some) large format as well and I agree there is great appeal in that for some of us. But bad LF will always be inferior to good 35mm, even though good 35mm is probably still, in some ways, easier than even bad large format.

But good LF work will always beat equally good MF work which will also always beat equally good 35mm (which will also beat equally good half frame or Minox and...) Car people sometimes say "there's no substitute for cubic inches (or horsepower.)" We could say the same about square inches. Of course the smaller cameras are more portable, more shots per roll etc. We all know the tradeoffs.

 

[MattKing]

AFAIK, the without processing deal was a USA only thing. When I worked at Eatons in the 1970s we got some of our film from a grey market dealer who sold us Kodachome from the UK with processing included. we sent it through the regular channels and it came back fine. UNTIL one day they had processing problems and though off a whole batch of Regular 8, unfortunately on a day when one of our regular customers had just sent in many rolls from a big vacation. The returned films came back with a replacement roll and a letter apologising "On behalf of Kodak Limited, the manufacturers of the film" A cople of months later the stores buyer came out to our location and told us we were going to only carry film ordered from Kodak. I suspect that the incident clued Kodak Canada into the fact we were selling imported stuff.

The edge printing was slightly different on the processing included or not included versions, one with black letters on a light background and one with light letters on black. BUT i forget which was which. If someone brought in film from the states they had to pay to get it processed.

OH and in the heyday, one did not have to mail Kodachome in Canada. most photo shops had Kodak bag service, and your film was stuck in an envelope with your name by the photo dealer and placed in the bag. The bag was picked up every day and a few days later the film came in a cardboard box with the name portion of the envelope. (including the tag number) The box would be rubber stamped with teh price if your film did not include the processing.

also Processing included film had a P in the type number Like KA-459P or KR-135-36P

If you were in Western Canada, and dropped off your Kodachrome film at your local dealer, it went to the North Vancouver lab and was handled by the system managed by my father.

And if you were in the lower mainland area, it was often back within two days.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

At its most fundamental, my praise is for the process of thinking. As a general rule, those who take more time to think about what they are doing will produce results that are more thoughtful and meaningful. Those who don't think as much will produce results that are more thoughtless and meaningless. That's just common sense.

My experience in life, in everything and not just photography, is that those who think deeper about what they are doing almost always produce better results than those who don't. It's not even close. The biggest exception being when good things happen accidently, and thus are not directly attributable to a creator.

Processes that are by their very nature slower and more cumbersome take more time and effort to complete successfully. And this extra time affords greater opportunities to think deeper about what is supposed to be happening. In our context here that applies to both still and motion picture photography.

The reason for this, of course, is that more resources are required and demanded by harder. Harder takes more work than easier. So the worker becomes more vested in a better outcome with harder. Because no one wants to waste lots of their time, effort, and resources pursuing failure.

(But we really do digress here from the original topic...)

Ken

 

[MattKing]

The only movie I ever made was made on Super 8 Kodachrome - and based on that I have been shooting still photos ever since!

But one thing I do know about Super 8 is that it can be easy - someone with good instincts, a good "eye" and a cinematic vision can let the camera and film do its work, and concentrate on the moviemaking.

All in the context of a film based work flow.

Seems like a great way to teach new, would be filmmakers.

 

[removed account4]

That seems more like the technical quality angle. I didn't think that's what Ken meant. It isn't what I was talking about when I referred to output quality. I was talking about the creative/artistic aspect, the seeing (as it relates to photography). Ken's LF/small format analogy was an extension/illustration of his reason for not going to the movies (which had to do with story, character development, not image quality). I disagree with all of it, not only in principle but practice.

now that you have explained .. i disagree with all of it as well.
to me at least, it sounds like excuses and justifications ..
"bigger / more expensive camera syndrome" ( gear snobbism )
people who use LF gear have a lot of $, and time sunk into every image they make
sure, some insist/suggest their work is more creative and thoughtful and artistic &c because it took so long and was so expensive &C.
this is a tired old argument.
the reality is after spending $$ on everything and taking 2 hours to make the exposure, the work might be flat, and boring. ...
large format users haven't cornered that market though there are just as many flat, and boring images
made with every other format, process and medium.

what will the analog kings say next people who use holgas or LOMO hipsters aren't real photographers ?
i forgot, they already have said that...

 

[removed account4]

In my experience I might go a step further regarding photography formats, but we're off topic. Regarding movies, I'll just say there are at least as many (more, I think) excellent story/character-driven movies being made now as ever. I think Ken is missing out, but we're going in circles, so instead I'll daydream about winning the Powerball jackpot. Man, would that change things for me.

couldn'tagree with you more ...

 

[Roger Cole]

I gotta agree with all of that too. I would upgrade my home theater 1080p (digital) to a 4k (also digital) projector.


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