Figure this out (Super 8 film)

Flotsam · Jan 23, 2005

I was just the Adorama site and happened to notice that kodak still makes both Tri X and Plus X (as well as color) in silent super eight cartridges.
...And yet they discontinue Polymax Single Weight.

I know that people are (were) using PMFA SW in 2005 but who the heck is shooting B&W Super Eight?

VoidoidRamone · Jan 23, 2005

well I can actually say that I do use super 8 film (and my friends)- but we're the only people I know that do. It's very weird- I'm not happy about it since I was looking forward to using that paper.
-Grant

rbarker · Jan 24, 2005

My bet would be that there are a couple of older Kodak execs who still use the film, along with a few others who don't count nearly as much.

jim appleyard · Jan 24, 2005

And they have the balls to discontunue K-25, Pan-X, Plus-X sheets.... go figure

Mark Layne · Jan 24, 2005

jim appleyard said:
And they have the balls to discontunue K-25, Pan-X, Plus-X sheets.... go figure

And Polymax FA C surface

Helen B · Jan 24, 2005

The use of Super 8 has been growing steadily over the past few years after taking a dive because of home video. Now it is used by people who like film. That may sound unusual to you guys who think that video is the thing, of course, but there it is. Kodak should be commended for hanging in there and not abandoning Super 8. Nowadays, Super 8 is in Kodak's professional motion picture division, rather than the consumer division.

They have even expanded the line of Super 8 film available, to include 200 and 500 speed colour neg. You could say that that colour neg Super 8 is one part of the film market that has grown because of digital post production.

Kodak did drop the 200 ft cartridges and the sound film altogether, if that makes you feel happier.

Best,
Helen
PS I still use Super 8.

Andy K · Jan 24, 2005

Here in Britain Super 8 has seen a resurgence too. One of our 'gadget' mags named a Super 8 cine camera in it's top ten of Christmas 'must haves'. I think it has also become very popular with students, because of it's 'old skool' qualities! (as compared to video)

Nick Zentena · Jan 24, 2005

1 minute of film is how many feet? Those short lengths of 35mm movie film aren't worth the hassle for the filmmakers. Yet each one is longer then the most people use in a year for photographic purposes. I bet the same thing is true of 8mm.

Helen B · Jan 24, 2005

'1 minute of film is how many feet?'

At 24 fps: 90 feet (28 m) of 35 mm ('normal' 4 perforations per frame, you can also film in 3-perf for widescreen) or 33 feet (10 m) of Super or standard 16. The amount of film that was shot might be five or fifty times the amount you see in the cinema.

Best,
Helen

rbarker · Jan 24, 2005

Helen - you're probably correct about Big Yellow deserving a commendation for hanging in there with Super 8. Considering the number of other well-supported products they've dropped, however, there seems to be an inconsistency in their product strategy.

Maybe they're trying to lure "KO'ed-again Claire" into using Super 8 prior to dropping it.

Donald Qualls · Jan 24, 2005

One consideration with Super-8 in Plus-X and Tri-X Negative emulsion -- this is just a matter of slitting and perfing stock that's already being coated in other formats (these are popular emulsions in 16 mm and 35 mm as well). Polymax Fiber Single Weight is a separate coating from any other product -- Polymax emulsion on single weight fiber -- and as such, is subject to its own economic forces without support from any others. And though there are undoubtedly people who will stand in line to buy the last box or 10-pack, if the sales for that unique product have dropped enough (across all cut sizes) that it's no longer profitable "enough" to continue production, it gets the axe.

Flotsam · Jan 24, 2005

I'm not complaining that Kodak hasn't discontinued Super 8. People need something to feed their Beaulieus. I'm just baffled as to why they can't justify coating Polymax on single weight paper while continuing the relatively complex manufacturing process of making Super 8 cartridges.

Perhaps I'm being cynical but I suspect it is because making DW costs them about the same but they can charge a lot more for it. A classic "screw the customer for a few bucks" move.

Flotsam · Jan 24, 2005

Donald Qualls said:
One consideration with Super-8 in Plus-X and Tri-X Negative emulsion -- this is just a matter of slitting and perfing stock that's already being coated in other formats (these are popular emulsions in 16 mm and 35 mm as well).

Although it requires the manufacture, loading and assembly of the cartridges

Donald Qualls said:
Polymax Fiber Single Weight is a separate coating from any other

I just assumed that it was the same Polymax emulsion on either a single or double weight base.

Helen B · Jan 24, 2005

'One consideration with Super-8 in Plus-X and Tri-X Negative emulsion -- this is just a matter of slitting and perfing stock that's already being coated in other formats (these are popular emulsions in 16 mm and 35 mm as well).'

I don't think that B&W negative emulsions are available in Super 8 from Kodak - all their Super 8 B&W is reversal. To the best of my knowledge, the negative emulsions available in 16 mm and 35 mm are different.

The three colour negative stocks available from Kodak are the same as the 16 mm and 35 mm equivalents.

Many 35 mm emulsions can be slit and turned into Super 8 by others, if you require stuff that isn't in the Kodak catalogue.

Best,
Helen

Paul Howell · Jan 24, 2005

The local Community College (Scottsdale) has a very good film program and super 8 is used by all of the introduction to film students, and there was not much in the way of competition once GAF went under in the 70s. My guess is that many of the film programs use super 8 in the introduction classes. I have shot any movie film in years, does Kodak still make 16mm?

Regards

Paul

Helen B · Jan 24, 2005

'...does Kodak still make 16 mm?'

Plenty. Double perf is on the way out as a stock item, but single perf is plentiful. There is even a new-ish type of 200 ft load for the Aaton Minima.

Best,
Helen

Donald Qualls · Jan 25, 2005

Flotsam said:
I just assumed that it was the same Polymax emulsion on either a single or double weight base.

It is -- but like coating a film emulsion on a different base, and unlike (as I've been corrected on) coating the same Tri-X R or Plus-X R (you're right, Helen, it's the reversal version in Super-8 -- but that version is also sold in 16 mm and 35 mm; it's just the negative version that isn't in Super-8) on the same base and slitting/perfing for different formats, the single and double weight have to be coated separately. That means it costs relatively more to carry two weights in the same emulsion for paper than it does to carry multiple film formats of the same emulsion/base combination in film, and the single-weight has to stand or fall with less support from other base products that use the same coating.

Yes, there is a cost associated with making Super-8 cartridges -- but injection molded plastic parts made in quantity can cost less than a penny each in the size of cartridge shell halves; the film in the cartridge costs at least 10 times what the shell does, at the manufacturer level. Cost of the film, though, is dependent on how much is coated at once, how long it keeps, and how much is sold.

Paper is more of a niche item than film, precisely because film is used for motion pictures (which burn a huge amount relative to our still image use); paper doesn't keep as well as film (especially modern papers with developer incorporated), and the single-weight Polymax is as much a separate product from other papers as T-Max 100 on glass plates was from T-Max 100 4x5 film. Continued coating of TMX emulsion on 4x5 sheet film did nothing to keep up production of the glass plates.

fhovie · Jan 25, 2005

There is a "look" to super 8 that is special. I have seen it in commercials and movies - it seems to be a trend. I like the look but need to stay focused on one thing right now. It is possible to get a very similar look with software. Adobe has a pretty good filter for Premier that makes scratches and pits and speckles on each frame to imitate the efemeral qualities of small format film movies. Having said all this, the thing that kept me from getting *back* into it was I would want to tank develop it and couldn't find a tank. - Even without processing costs it runs about $15 a minute if I remember properly. I know a lot of enthusiats pull it off the spool and develop it like spagetti - I always wind up with undeveloped and unfixed spots when I do that. Then there are the reversal chemistries. To flash chemically or flash with light. - I think I'll stick to 8x10 for a while longer before I jump into that whole thing. I DO hope it is there for me if I want to try it all in the future.

Helen B · Jan 25, 2005

'...it's the reversal version in Super-8 -- but that version is also sold in 16 mm and 35 mm...'

Donald,

Is B&W Plus-X or Tri-X reversal available in 35 mm? I've only ever seen it in 8 mm and 16 mm. There would be a few still photographers who would want to use it if it was available.

Thanks,
Helen

Helen B · Jan 25, 2005

'It is possible to get a very similar look with software. Adobe has a pretty good filter for Premier that makes scratches and pits...'

Aagh. Horrors. Is that why we shoot film? Is that how people recognise film? Why does anybody want fake effects like that?

Sorry for the outburst, that way of mangling video is like a red rag to a bull to me.

Best,
Helen

Donald Qualls · Jan 25, 2005

Oops -- Helen, you're right again, Kodak's catalog only lists Tri-X R and Plus-X R as 16 mm and Super 8. It used to be available in 35 mm, but they only list color stocks in 35 mm now, none of the B&W. I wonder if the B&W stock in 35 mm is sold only through industry distribution rather than direct (I could call and order a roll of Tri-X R or Double-X Neg to feed my Minolta 16 today, they'll sell a single 100 foot camera spool without a quibble, but I'd guess they don't get a lot of private individuals wanting 1000 foot spools of 35 mm at what has to be $250 or more per spool, retail).

aldevo · Jan 25, 2005

Flotsam said:
I was just the Adorama site and happened to notice that kodak still makes both Tri X and Plus X (as well as color) in silent super eight cartridges.
...And yet they discontinue Polymax Single Weight.
QUOTE]

That pales to the fact that they still manufacture Kodabromide a graded RC paper but don't offer any graded fiber papers apart from Azo.

I've never seen anybody use Kodabromide. Ever.

Gustavo_Castilla · Jan 25, 2005

i COULD USE SOME OF THAT
My child likes to make stop animation shorts and I have a great canon super 8 so I guess is people like my 10 year old (video sucks)

Alessandro Machi · Jan 19, 2007

Gustavo_Castilla said:
i COULD USE SOME OF THAT
My child likes to make stop animation shorts and I have a great canon super 8 so I guess is people like my 10 year old (video sucks)

Or people in their 40's who learned about Super-8 when they were in their late teens. 3600 film frames in one cartridge of Super-8. I once took 50 hours and 10 nights of filming to get through one cartridge of film. Each frame was made in time-exposure mode.

When I went to have it transferred to video it dawned on me that I probably could not afford frame by frame color correction at $250 dollars an hour in a rank cintel room.

Figure this out (Super 8 film)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency