• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak new super 8 camera

amellice

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
431
Location
Snohomish, WA
Format
Medium Format
What do you guys think about Kodak's new Super 8 camera? Me never shot super 8 before but I want to try one. I like the idea that I won't be processing it, Kodak will process it, digitize it and send back the reel to you. But at price $2000 I don't think I can justify this.
 
What is the processing/digitizing cost per spool?
 
Looks like it is aimed at college and university art departments. But that is only a guess on my part.
 
The camera itself is a total failure for me.

- I don't want a video viewfinder. I want an optical reflex viewfinder, either via split prism or taken off the shutter à la Beaulieu.

- I don't want an electronic LCD control panel, I want discrete manual controls

- I don't want my output scanned to digital

So, I already have a super-8 Bolex Macrozoom and, someday, will have an H16 Rex.

Good to have more film available though.
 
Are they also coming out with a Super 8 projector, or is everyone just going to rely on the digitize film?
 
Too rich for my blood.
 
It's not a film camera, it's intended as a digital camera with a film stage somewhere in the process.

Which is exactly what the hipsters want. Which is also why it's a colossal waste of time, since you can make any digital footage look however you want in post-processing.
 


It is more than a waste of time. It is a WOMBAT ===> Waste Of Money, Brains And Time.
 
It fascinates me that there are so many comments from so many people who aren't the least bit interested in the type of workflow that these cameras are designed to work in.
Think of a lower cost and more portable option for 35mm or 16mm motion picture film capture - almost all of which is scanned and edited digitally.
And the bonus - we get film back for use in existing analogue Super 8 movie cameras.
 
Kodak did not bring this new Super 8 camera to CES did they? That says a lot I think.
 
RattyMouse said:
No projector has been announced.
Click to expand...
This is telling, for me...

Those who are most excited about this new camera are probably not intending to ever actually project the film.

I agree with others who have said they are much more excited about the film itself, which can be used in cameras you can pay $20 for instead of $2000 and probably work just as well.
 
Are there film students looking for a Super-8 camera? I remember 24FPS being a highly desirable feature for film students, rather than just 18FPS. $50 would get a good one, they seem to run forever.
 
faberryman said:
What is the processing/digitizing cost per spool?
Click to expand...
it was only a few years ago you could drop it off at any walmart or sams club and have 100 feet of b/w or color 8mm or 16
processed for 4.96/spool. you can drop it off at rite ait too ... its all shipped via fuji labs to dwaynes in parson's kansas.
http://dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/movies-ektachrome.html
dwaynes website says 50feet super8 is 12$
i know matt ..
i have a high8 camera with a fire wire plug so i can edit it in iMovie .. id rather do that
than the tedium of splice-editing ...
i have a friend who shoots 8mm wedding movies and he does the same thing, in the computer edits and
burns to a CD / DVD ..
 
I use Dwayne’s for my 8mm and Super 8, the price is right and they do a great job with developing. I don’t scan my film, I like to watch it on the projector, that’s how it looks best. I did have Dwayne’s scan one for me, it was a terrible job, it looked great on the projector though.

There are still plenty of perfectly good Super 8 cameras out there for a few bucks that will do just fine. The one thing that may make the new Kodak appealing is the ability to record sound using a smartphone app. When Kodak digitizes the film they sync the sound to it for you. If you’re just working with digital scans that greatly simplifies sound. We’ll probably never see Super 8 sound cartridges again so this is a good substitute but the price will put off a lot of people.
 
Since the film will be scanned, Kodak is working to optimize the film transport of the camera to get the best image frame quality. See the recent blog for more info: https://www.kodak.com/corp/blog/blog_post/?contentid=4295004933

Note it says (in part): "Our goal was to create a Super 8 camera which is better than the Super 8 which we have seen in the past. That means the entire mechanical transport and the core of this camera is very precise."
 
Which of course, makes it so expensive, no college student (or anyone else for that matter) can afford it!
 
Constant repair and service of purely mechanical movie equipment here

It is always a joy on my side to see the joy and happiness of customers whose spring-drive cameras purr again. Projectors that run back fine. Clean and smooth lenses.
The announced Kodak camera is one of the most idiotic projects I could imagine. Kemco Homovie of 1929 was a flop. The Bell & Howell Straight Eight camera of 1935 was a washout because ciné Kodachrome was processed only in 16mm width at the time and there was only one reversal black and white stock available for it. Now a plastic camera without a sight and still no projectable film for it, I don’t know. The timing should be film first, then camera. The best old Super-8 cameras are still useable and they’re way better.

Today you can put yourself a very nice gear together for that money. Even a professional 35mm camera can be had for less than $3,000. In the 16mm format I can offer Filmo 70-DLs, completely overhauled and with a two-years warranty for $750. Add some good lenses, a good tripod, and you’re in heaven. There are 16mm projectors around that are serviceable, too. Super-8 projectors are a more difficult subject. First you need to find a model that has no plastic in the crucial places, that can be lubricated without a manned flight to the moon, and then you still have negatives and no printing service. As soon as Kodak tells us where we can have positives made from our negatives the story looks differently. Does Kodak not make color print film?
 
MattKing said:
It fascinates me that there are so many comments from so many people who aren't the least bit interested in the type of workflow that these cameras are designed to work in...
Click to expand...

That's right: I'm not the least bit interested in what the industry is doing or the "workflow" being used in ciné or motion picture arts courses.

I'm a dinosaur that is interested in the ciné equipment and processes of the 1960's.

This camera wasn't designed for the very few like me. That's fine: plenty of old equipment left.

...And the bonus - we get film back for use in existing analogue Super 8 movie cameras.
Click to expand...

Aye.
 
MattKing said:
Which is exactly what the industry uses.
Click to expand...

And a lot of it comes back to whining/ entitled cheapskates who are seemingly wilfully ignorant of what equipment designed to perform at the level of precision/ reliability demanded by the industry actually costs. That they can achieve it for 3K is remarkable. It's a fraction of what even the cheapest S16 camera cost.

And that's before we consider what a realistic price for a new professional-grade mechanical 35mm still camera would be. 4.5K USD for a new Leica MA is cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register