Kodak new super 8 camera

[AgX]

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.

This not surprising at all, as we are in the
"Analog Workflow Forums (100% Analog/Traditional) forum.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

The original launch price for this camera was to be between $400-$700. Kodak has radically raised this price with no explanation why.

 

[guangong]

What many on APUG don’t seem to be aware of, is that the primary market for Kodak’s Vision color film stock is professional Rock n Roll video producers. It can not be projected because it is color negative film intended to be transferred to digital. Not my cup of tea, but there is a market for this stuff. Professional productions paying for studios rentals, props, etc would probably prefer a modern camera than depend on my 40-50 year old Nizos and Beaulieu Current Kodak movie films are oriented for the professional market, not the amateur.
At present, the only Super 8 reversal film made by Kodak is Tri X. Could Ektachrome be on the way? The original impetus for Ferrania was to manufacture a color reversal movie film for Super 8 and 16mm. Only heard about their still film on APUG. The only S 8 color reversal film available now is a slit Fuji reversal still film that is too thick and can damage some cameras.
There are a great many Super 8 and 16mm movie cameras starving for a color reversal film.

 

[Ces1um]

I think it's an interesting idea. My issues with it are:
1) originally listed for 400-700 bucks. Now it's $2000
2)the unit is huge. Like 1980's camcorder huge. Nobody is going to use it to take vacation footage.
Old super 8 cameras are considerably smaller. This isn't something you're just going to carry around for fun.

Pros:
1) You get a digital file AND your original film back.
2) you get sound, and kodak syncs it for you
3) the film costs include processing.

Frankly though, It makes no sense for your average consumer to buy one of these. It's cumbersome, expensive. Maybe a film school might want one of these- or a regular movie production crew might buy one for recreating 8mm footage to be put into the plot of a regular motion picture .

I barely shoot any video ever, but if this was priced aggressively I would have bought one just for fun. For 2 grand though, I'll never buy one. Obviously I'm not there target market though.

 

[Ces1um]

I think it's an interesting idea. My issues with it are:
1) originally listed for 400-700 bucks. Now it's $2000
2)the unit is huge. Like 1980's camcorder huge. Nobody is going to use it to take vacation footage.
Old super 8 cameras are considerably smaller. This isn't something you're just going to carry around for fun.

Pros:
1) You get a digital file AND your original film back.
2) you get sound, and kodak syncs it for you
3) the film costs include processing.

Frankly though, It makes no sense for your average consumer to buy one of these. It's cumbersome, expensive. Maybe a film school might want one of these- or a regular movie production crew might buy one for recreating 8mm footage to be put into the plot of a regular motion picture .

I barely shoot any video ever, but if this was priced aggressively I would have bought one just for fun. For 2 grand though, I'll never buy one. Obviously I'm not there target market though.

* their

 

[guangong]

I think it's an interesting idea. My issues with it are:
1) originally listed for 400-700 bucks. Now it's $2000
2)the unit is huge. Like 1980's camcorder huge. Nobody is going to use it to take vacation footage.
Old super 8 cameras are considerably smaller. This isn't something you're just going to carry around for fun.

Pros:
1) You get a digital file AND your original film back.
2) you get sound, and kodak syncs it for you
3) the film costs include processing.

Frankly though, It makes no sense for your average consumer to buy one of these. It's cumbersome, expensive. Maybe a film school might want one of these- or a regular movie production crew might buy one for recreating 8mm footage to be put into the plot of a regular motion picture .

I barely shoot any video ever, but if this was priced aggressively I would have bought one just for fun. For 2 grand though, I'll never buy one. Obviously I'm not there target market though.

As I noted, many “ music” videos are shot only using Super8. The old Super8 market of occasional use for vacations, graduations and weddings has migrated to video and iPhone, leaving the amateur with reversal TriX and slit and re cartridged reversal color film. For the amateur the price difference between Super8 and 16mm b/w is not that great and 16mm is easier to home process.
As for price, adjusting for pre Jimmy Carter dollars, my Nizo and Beaulieu each would come close to $2,000 today. Ditto for the better Nikon and Canon cameras. The Zeiss Ikon cameras were probably the most ingeniously designed but, like many ZI products,
available only to those who had unlimited funds since they cost about the same as an economy automobile.
Frankly, I prefer B/W reversal on 16, but occasionally shoot Super8, but would enjoy a genuine color reversal film now and then.

 

[iandvaag]

I just want to say that it might have been quite difficult for Kodak to sell many cameras priced at the ~$400 level given the amount of reasonably good Super 8 cameras on the used market. I guess the sound sync and Max8 format are selling features to some. I shoot and project regular 8 using foma R100 that I reversal process in a LOMO tank. I use my grandfather's Keystone Capri K25, which sells for about $10. I am really quite content, and it would be hard to sell me on a new camera at any price, even if it is a lovely shade of Kodak yellow. So, I know that this camera wasn't developed for me, but I bet that there are some professionals (music videos, advertizing, etc, obviously not for the big screen) out there for whom this camera would be "the cat's meow".

 

[faberryman]

So are these people shooting Super 8 and then editing/projecting the digital scan. Is that their workflow?

 

[RattyMouse]

I just want to say that it might have been quite difficult for Kodak to sell many cameras priced at the ~$400 level given the amount of reasonably good Super 8 cameras on the used market.

Then why did they bother to announce the lower price? Why not announce the tentative price at $2800? Now it looks like they had no idea what they were doing during the announcement of this new camera.

Do we even have a release date for this camera yet? Was a working prototype at CES?

 

[faberryman]

I believe it has been reported that the Super 8 camera was not at CES. Only the bitcoin mining machines.

 

[btaylor]

If someone is shooting motion picture film on a professional level, it all gets scanned and post production/presentation is all in the digital realm.

I for one would enjoy shooting and projecting some of that new Ektachrome.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Here's the part that caught my eye:


"Analog Renaissance


There are some moments that digital just can't deliver, because it doesn't have the incomparable depth and beauty of film. These moments inspired Kodak to design a new generation of film cameras."
Which seems to state that this (however tenuous it may be) is only the first of several, of unspecified type and application.

Edit: actually reading through makes me wonder of they even have a working prototype?
It reminds me of some of those kickstarter boondoggles.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

I believe it has been reported that the Super 8 camera was not at CES. Only the bitcoin mining machines.

The Super 8 camera is at CES, together with several film stocks and their film scanner.

 

[iandvaag]

Then why did they bother to announce the lower price? Why not announce the tentative price at $2800? Now it looks like they had no idea what they were doing during the announcement of this new camera.

That's a good question. I will say that from my limited knowledge, it seems like they have been speaking to some potential users, and have decided that this wouldn't be successful as a "consumer/prosumer" product, so they are targeting a different market. I think I would agree that they didn't really have a good idea of who this product was for when they first announced the camera, but I would suggest that not many people could guess what the market is for a new super 8 camera in 2018. I for one, as a home movie maker, would be very unlikely to buy a new S8 camera at any price. Pricing it at $2500-$3000 does seem like they are now clearly indicating what type of market they are after; whether that market is sufficiently large remains to be seen. It does seem a bit like they are "going for broke" on this project, perhaps in more than one sense. I do hope it is a success and that they sell lots of Ektachrome. It feels like a S8 camera bears the Kodak name a lot better than a gimmicky racing drone or straight-up scam bitcoin mining machine.

There is *some* market for a pro S8 camera in recent years, as evidenced by the Logmar, and variety of rebuilt, max8 & crystal sync modified cameras available at Pro8mm. I'm happy for anyone who is shooting on film, regardless of their post workflow. The more film sold, shot and developed, the better! Plus, S8 film can look great when shot and scanned, take a look at this test footage from the aforementioned Logmar.

 

[faberryman]

Neither the camera nor the film have been released. Looks like KodakOne and KodakCoin will beat them to the dance.

 

[trendland]

Look at the potential of Super8 in regard of a modern emulsion.
It is real remarcable in comparison to the good old days from the 70th.
Also K40 had its restrictions caused from the small format of Super8.
But VHS later 8mm video - then Super VHS/Hi 8 was also restricted.
With Full HD we saw a real advance in resolution on big screens (1080p).
The new technology from Kodak (just regarding on basis of the new Ektachrome is still amazing).
I've seen examples of scanned Super8 in 4k. Only a handfull of service companies offered such Super8/4k scanning in the past. The pricing was very high - (if I remember correct) somewere arround
150,- - 250,- bucks a normal Super8 roll with a little less pricing if you want to digitize complete longer reals of 45m,90m a.s.o........ ( A 4k video from Canon EOS is indeed much cheaper).
But the pricing Kodak is planning as metioned before (~ USD 70,- /80,- )
with modernest brand new 4k scanning
(wet scanning) Kodak machines is a giant offer in comparison.
( If you will have the film + developing + scan in 4k ).
But one technical issue is remaining - what about the sound ?
Remember the sound tracks from Super8 from the 70th (bad stereo sound to highest costs).
Therefore Kodak has planned the new camera with sound on SD cards.
Also the distribution is very interisting :
The film you get back - Kodak delivered via sent it to you - the 4 k video you can download with syncroned sound from the Kodak server.
If this all is with pricing from just USD 75,- it looks not as bad.
But this is just to people who want to have excellent 4k video from real film.
And not from much more expensive 16mm.
There (on 16mm film) you should have better a budget of some $1000,- with Super8 it should be enough with some $ 100,- (for extreme short movies)
But I don't believe on an existing target group......
And the high priced camera ($2000,-/$850,-)
is obviously a stillbirth.
I would have a try (just with some 4k scanned Ektachromes Super8 not more than $75,- each) filmed with one of mine
Braun Nizo proffessional.
Because I do not need syncroned sound.
I wanna not to film interviews. ..

with regards

PS : ( A form of my worst english - but who cares about )

 

[btaylor]

If Kodak is hitting the professional market with this camera and it has results like the Logmar (didn't they have something to do with the development?) they might have a winner, though very low production, and this can't be for making home movies. The Pro8mm stuff is ancient pro-sumer modified cameras, this would be a big step up in terms of reliability and improved IQ. The Logmar footage is amazing BTW. Back in the day K40 in my Canon 1014xls could get pretty close to a 16mm look but registration was always an issue. With modern scanning software and Logmar registration it might be a nice new look. And very suitable as a student film camera or as a rental for production work.

 

[guangong]

If Kodak is hitting the professional market with this camera and it has results like the Logmar (didn't they have something to do with the development?) they might have a winner, though very low production, and this can't be for making home movies. The Pro8mm stuff is ancient pro-sumer modified cameras, this would be a big step up in terms of reliability and improved IQ. The Logmar footage is amazing BTW. Back in the day K40 in my Canon 1014xls could get pretty close to a 16mm look but registration was always an issue. With modern scanning software and Logmar registration it might be a nice new look. And very suitable as a student film camera or as a rental for production work.

w
You got it!
This camera and system is not for the amateur (using the word with original intended meaning). I, for one, remain perfectly satisfied with my Nizos and Beaulieu cameras for Super8. Luckily, in NYC excellent repair work is readily available for my cameras. Lately I have been shooting mostly 16mm because, as I noted above, the difference in cost of a 50ft Super8 cartridge and a 100ft roll of 16mm is no longer that great and manipulating the latter is much easier, frames are steadier, grain is less intrusive. However, cameras are larger and although Arriflex, Beaulieu 16 and B&H were designed to be handheld, they do better on a tripod.
Still hope Kodak is successful and keeps movie film around for foreseeable future.

 

[aldevo]

Which of course, makes it so expensive, no college student (or anyone else for that matter) can afford it!

Truly. I don't think curtailing my college diet to strict portions of ramen noodles and pop-tarts would have enabled me to buy it.

 

[aldevo]

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.

Yes, and the tastes of hipsters are notoriously fickle.

Consider the vinyl resurgence that everybody (including the Wall Street Journal) was trumpeting in 2016 and early-2017.

Well <POOF> it's gone now and that had much lower entry costs than the Super 8 camera.

I'm doubtful this camera will be launched at all. And if it does and becomes a commercial success - I hereby profess that I am a two-headed unicorn and will change my profile signature to reflect as much.

 

[aldevo]

I believe it has been reported that the Super 8 camera was not at CES. Only the bitcoin mining machines.

Correct, although they did announce a new inexpensive film scanner (Scanza) on Thursday - which is designed to be capable

w
You got it!
This camera and system is not for the amateur (using the word with original intended meaning). I, for one, remain perfectly satisfied with my Nizos and Beaulieu cameras for Super8. Luckily, in NYC excellent repair work is readily available for my cameras. Lately I have been shooting mostly 16mm because, as I noted above, the difference in cost of a 50ft Super8 cartridge and a 100ft roll of 16mm is no longer that great and manipulating the latter is much easier, frames are steadier, grain is less intrusive. However, cameras are larger and although Arriflex, Beaulieu 16 and B&H were designed to be handheld, they do better on a tripod.
Still hope Kodak is successful and keeps movie film around for foreseeable future.

I don't agree. They would not have chosen CES to unveil it in 2017 had they not intended to market it to consumers.

Their thinking as to its target market might have evolved since that time - but whatever they now believe that target market to be - I will postulate with no small degree of confidence that it doesn't exist in sufficient numbers and that this will fly like a concrete dirigible.

 

[Chan Tran]

Are they also coming out with a Super 8 projector, or is everyone just going to rely on the digitize film?

I think when you send them the film to process you won't get it back so there is no need for a projector.

 

[Chan Tran]

I used to have a Beaulieu 5008s would this camera any better than the Beaulieu?

 

[Chan Tran]

Yes, and the tastes of hipsters are notoriously fickle.

Consider the vinyl resurgence that everybody (including the Wall Street Journal) was trumpeting in 2016 and early-2017.

Well <POOF> it's gone now and that had much lower entry costs than the Super 8 camera.

I'm doubtful this camera will be launched at all. And if it does and becomes a commercial success - I hereby profess that I am a two-headed unicorn and will change my profile signature to reflect as much.

Yeah I see the hipster vinyl, they like to play it on a portable record player. As I type this an idea just came to mind. They could have these player connects to the internet and the player read and figure out which album it is and then play the music from ITune.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I think when you send them the film to process you won't get it back so there is no need for a projector.

Wrong.

From the blog I posted earlier at. https://www.kodak.com/corp/blog/blog_post/?contentid=4295004933 : “The lab will process the film, scan the film, upload the scans into the Darkroom and notify the customer that the scans are available to begin using. This lets filmmakers access their imagery before receiving the physical film back.”