This is topic Kodak's new super 8 camera in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=1;t=011261

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 02, 2017, 08:53 PM:
Here is video from the past few days of Kodak's new camera at CES 2017, and the latest film test footage:
Posted by Mathew James (Member # 4581) on February 02, 2017, 11:25 PM:
Very Nice.
It's alot bigger than I thought it would be, especially with the big nikon lens [Smile]
The video footage looks much better this time around.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 03, 2017, 12:02 AM:
I had my doubts that that camera would ever see the light of day. But it's come a long way and seems pretty well thought out. The interchangeable lenses will give it a lot of versatility.

It is definitely on the large side and personally I can't see spending the money on one. I just picked up a Canon 518 SV for $30. That's about my speed. [Wink]

But if the existence of a camera like that makes film more readily available, I hope they sell lots of them.
Posted by Janice Glesser (Member # 2758) on February 03, 2017, 01:47 AM:
I want one [Smile]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 03, 2017, 01:49 AM:
It looks like it's made from from Lego with that shiny white plastic boxy look.

I laughed when they tried palming off on "newbies" that the reason it has an SD slot is to record the sound because of course, Super 8mm film never had sound!

Oh really.

Nah, if this is as good as it gets, downloading your 3min £50-60 film onto U Tube along with some elevator jazz, you can keep it for me.

No mention of reversal stock or a chance to have the film back in the traditional manner to view the traditional way.

Everything is either cute or cool.
well to my perspective, this camera is neither.

This is all I would ever want from the Kodak company please..

Just this thanks so I can place it into a proper camera with real aesthetic beauty and technical supremacy, not some Lego model of one!

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 03, 2017, 03:40 AM:
What a negative comment, Andrew. It is just a miracle that there is a new super 8 Kodak camera in 2017. They obviousely wanted to bring to the market something different from what is already existing. I share your regret that there is no sound on the film instead of this sd card and I personnaly don't see the interest of having film digitilizated but this new camera is still a great new as it may bring new interest in super 8 and in real film in general.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on February 03, 2017, 04:55 AM:
Kodak are bringing back reversal Ektachrome film, first for analog photography then for the new camera. This was announced at CES last month.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 03, 2017, 07:28 AM:
Andrew: I agree that aesthetically it leaves something to be desired. If it were waterproof or something I might forgive the look. [Wink]

I hope that the final version will be a little more compact.

The lack of a sound stripe I consider regrettable but understandable. I believe that this camera has a widened gate which I don't think leaves room for a sound stripe. However, in the end you end up with a better picture and better sound.

The big downside is that projecting in the traditional way is not what film from this camera is intended for. It is definitely targeted at digital output. Again, regrettable, but understandable. They aren't selling new projectors to go with these new cameras, -at least not yet. And honestly, I'd want to digitize anything I'd shoot on Super 8 anyway. I think most people do.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 03, 2017, 07:36 AM:
I project what I shoot. I'm happy about the new camera.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 03, 2017, 08:36 AM:
I'm pretty sure I will not be getting one. (Priorities...)

-but the good thing about it is at least it's a sign that Kodak is still committed to the gauge and there may be other things as a result.
Posted by Mathew James (Member # 4581) on February 03, 2017, 08:41 AM:
I may end up going this route myself since it is currently affordable:

How To Shoot On Super 8 Film:
{and how to chop wood apparently [Smile] }
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 03, 2017, 09:58 AM:
I think the big news here is that Kodak have announced in this video that Super 8 Ektachrome reversal film will be back on sale this year, and of course this can be used in the new camera, just as well as negative film stock, and you can project the film:

[ February 03, 2017, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Paul Adsett ]
Posted by Terrance Kott (Member # 5777) on February 03, 2017, 08:49 PM:
Can I use NOS film stock with this camera? I have a few rolls in my freezer from the late 1980's and early 1990's. The cartridges look similar but are they? This is film stock from "Process before 02/1990 09" As you can see I used it [in my Elmo Super 8 Sound 1000S Macro Movie Camera] for our Osborn family reunion in 2014 but have not had it developed yet. Where does one get Super 8mm sound film developed? Versus the cost of building your own setup?
Edited to add: I see that it only does the 8mm film in the old format but does the sound on an SD card. I take it this means I have to dub the sound it at a later date....

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 03, 2017, 10:58 PM:
While I'd also prefer a more compact size, I like the wheel offering the various options on the screen; that's using modern technology in a very positive way. I note one option is "viewfinder", so I hope the menu this offers includes framing for those who are shooting with conventional projection in mind.
Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on February 04, 2017, 10:12 AM:
Andrew, I appreciate what you're saying. It should be all about quality of image. The old well precisioned optics and mechanisms achieved this.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 05, 2017, 02:20 AM:
Indeed, and what Kodak always did best, was simply producing outstanding film products to place into our cameras, not outstanding cameras themselves.

Be honest, from all of the choice available in 1982, how many people would have opted to buy a kodak camera above all others?

No one I know, that's for sure.
Nothing's changed by the looks of things.

If they had spoken of offering a striping service during processing even, I'd be happy with recording on an SD card
during filming, to transfer it later after processing.

I don't want or require a wider gate, just the one we always had!

Putting the sound only on an SD card to my mind,they may as well not bother making a sound camera in the first instance, unless of course, you want to sit at home watching your 3 minute creations at £50 -£60 a throw on a digital projector or worse still a computer screen or television set.

By this time, you may as well have cut out the middle man and shot the thing on digital and used after effects.
Pointless exercise to my mind,this current marketing ploy.

Just give us the film and hopefully a global striping service. [Confused]
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on February 05, 2017, 04:53 AM:
I wonder if Sync signals are recorded on the SD card, if so it would be like going back to using a tape recorder with a sync track, before sound on film cameras. Of course, if it did there would be a chance of transfer later to striped film or running in sync with the GS1200 etc.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 05, 2017, 09:18 AM:
I'm a bit dismayed by the number of negative posts here, which remind me of the hostility I've seen from digital filmmakers elsewhere, who are clearly irritated by any implication that film - a medium they have rejected as obsolete - can still offer something worthwhile today. If Kodak executives are dropping in here to get a sense of feedback from the '8mm community', they could easily come to the conclusion "why should we bother?"

While I wouldn't say that the camera is exactly what I'd personally request - and I'd hope the non-limited edition version costs a LOT less - I still feel that we should be applauding this as great news that could be a highly-influential element of at least a modest revival in the profile and use of film. I wouldn't assume that Kodak executives are completely lacking an insight into what their potential customers want, and the remarkable number of glowing endorsements on their website from prominent directors and others in the film world has to be a good sign.

To mention two points raised, I'm far from convinced that the old-style framing and stripe sound would bring more sales from today's potential buyers, and obviously the level of sales is very important in terms of Kodak's future support for Super 8. Not long ago, practically everyone would have thought that the launch of such a camera - and the return of a colour Kodak reversal stock - was inconceivable, so another 'miracle' such as the return of Kodak striping might just happen one day, IF people get behind these first steps and encourage them to take more. As for the 'Max-8' gate, I don't see why this should be seen as a problem so long as they provide a means to see traditional framing while shooting. I suspect they will, as they are bound to think that some reversal stock will end up being projected.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 05, 2017, 02:21 PM:
So tell me Adrian, as this camera has everything you want it to have, how do you intend viewing your finished shoot?

Also please inform me of how you intend to view the whole frame on Max 8 shot film, using a traditional projection method to view your films?

If the gate can be traditionally cropped at the new camera gate to give also the traditional sized frame, then it goes without saying that the film could potentially take a stripe if they wanted to serve their loyal customer base as well as its new one.

I'd equally be interested to know if you have ever purchased a Kodak Super 8mm camera previously?

I am not condoning Kodaks new marketing ploy if anyone is interested in viewing Super 8mm film digitally, but I simply believe it could also consider and serve its traditional users better than it currently appears they are going to do.

I personally, will never shoot Super 8mm film to then view it digitally. I simply cannot see the point in it, but for anyone who can justify £60 for 3 minutes of viewing in this manner, good luck to them.

As you say, if WE get anything at all out of all this, then it's better than what we currently have.
I just feel they were way too hasty in the first place, calling time on what they now see as a good new product to relaunch again.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 05, 2017, 03:03 PM:
Andrew - to answer your questions:

"So tell me Adrian, as this camera has everything you want it to have, how do you intend viewing your finished shoot?"
I didn't say it has everything I'd want it to have, but I broadly welcome the differences in comparison to S8 cameras of the 1970s/80s, because it's not difficult to find working cameras from this period - I already have one.
I'd view my film via projection.

"Also please inform me of how you intend to view the whole frame on Max 8 shot film, using a traditional projection method to view your films?"
I DON'T intend to view the whole frame. The 'extra' part of the frame would be irrelevant to my framing of images when shooting, except if I got involved in a very different sort of project that needed the added width.

"If the gate can be traditionally cropped at the new camera gate to give also the traditional sized frame, then it goes without saying that the film could potentially take a stripe if they wanted to serve their loyal customer base as well as its new one."
I doubt if there will be a means of traditionally cropping the film. What I'm reasonably confident of is that there will be an option via the screen that enables the owner to clearly see the traditional framing, if/when that's the aspect ratio they require. I agree that the film could potentially take a stripe - and I'd be all for it. But it's so long since striped film has been produced that I suspect that at the moment Kodak are far from convinced that there's a lot of demand. If it's true that they used to throw away a lot of their striped stock due to one problem or another (and I once heard the staggering amount of 50% claimed), that won't help to encourage them.

"I'd equally be interested to know if you have ever purchased a Kodak Super 8mm camera previously?"
I haven't, but on the two occasions around 1983-84 that I've bought a brand new Super 8 camera, I don't recall seeing any available, so I wasn't actively avoiding them.

[ February 05, 2017, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 05, 2017, 03:28 PM:
Thanks for your detailed explanation there Adrian

It pleases me that I'm at least not totally alone in just wanting to watch any future films I ever may shoot, using the traditional methods of doing so

I am in no doubt whatsoever that the company does a complete swerve to avoid any such questions regarding the potential for striped stock again, purely and simply based on the financial implications of doing so.

I agree that technology has advanced so much since the old mag stripe days that more modern day systems of mixing digital sound with analogue photography would be a completely logical and sensible way to progress while still satisfying the entire prospective market for their future film products.

For this to be fully realized however, I feel they'd need to follow up with either new projection equipment that could accept and synchronize from a SD card, picture and sound, or at the very least, provide end users with a device that would do this on any traditional projector by the use of an encoder sprocketed clamp on wheel or the likes linked to a sync box that they could potentially market for all of its traditional customers.

With this in place, plus reversal stock made and given the same priority as negative stock, I feel they could attract and satisfy a whole array of customers all with their own personal intentions of end usage.

Then the project really would become a One For All project.

Potentially this could be really exciting times ahead from this company, but I feel they just have to market the project correctly to avoid similar pitfalls that have been seen previously by a whole host of photographic companies and various projects that turned out to be a total flop from a sales and marketing prospective.

Over the years I've purchased many different products from Kodak.
Not so far back I purchased a photograph printer that was standalone unit that included a docking station for its own digital cameras in the early days of their availability.

I bought one as a present for my Mum at the time as I knew she would never entertain trying to do this on a pc despite the fact she loved to still take plenty of photographs of her days out and the grandchildren etc.

The inks and paper all cost a fortune but I was happy to buy these products for her as it gave her the independence of doing these things she enjoys.

Just like with K40S then K40, 100D etc etc, they abruptly pulled the plug on these products almost overnight and therefore rendered some rather expensive equipment in its prime, completely useless

This was after a very short time since launching the initiative, and it is these kind of actions that have led to many a disgruntled customer at times, myself very much included.

All products need to be supported through good times and bad for them to have successful longevity and build up a loyal fan base.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 05, 2017, 03:58 PM:
You're certainly not alone, Andrew. I want, like you, to project my films via a projector and not Watch them on a computer or a tv screen.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 05, 2017, 04:06 PM:
Always good to hear Dominique and my frustrations with this future product release lie only with its total emphasis given seemingly with its intended digital users.

I feel it would serve as nothing more than a flash in the pan marketing gimmick to these guys.I'm sure many of its prospective customer base would soon lose interest once they realize to the full extent, the full cost of shooting and then editing using real film.

After all, most of these guys will have been used to not having a care in the world regarding wasted footage etc if they have previously only ever shot digitally.

By opening the product range and associated equipment and supporting services to all potential users, they would certainly stand a much chance of success in the long term I feel.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 05, 2017, 04:17 PM:
As long as there is still the possibility to shoot and project with film, I see Nothing wrong with Kodak's new project. I would have prefered to see sound Kodachrome cartridges back (Ektachrome sound cartridges would have pleased me too) but the market is probably not high enough to cover the Investment and production costs.
Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on February 05, 2017, 05:27 PM:
Im still not sure who this new camera is aimed at. Im not even sure Kodak knows.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 05, 2017, 05:29 PM:
Is it suppose to be aimed at someone specifically?
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 05, 2017, 05:42 PM:
I think Graham makes a highly valid point as things are currently being marketed.

It is looking entirely for a brand new customer base, basing its philosophy entirely on the current popularity of all things retro and analogue being "trendy" or "Cool" as they like to keep telling us!

As said, in my opinion, this camera to that audience, would serve as nothing more than a flash in the pan.

If they cover all possible avenues to provide a range of Film products and possibly cameras / projectors to serve for everybody's needs, I think the whole venture would capture the imagination of a far wider audience and as a result, would stand a far greater chance of a loyal Customer base and longevity.

This of course, is assuming they do nothing rash like chopping and changing their product range too frequently nor pulling the plug on niche products that may very well have a smaller but extremely loyal consumer following.
Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on February 05, 2017, 05:43 PM:
Let's review a couple of things:

The sound stripe technology, to the best of my knowledge, was canned because of the chemicals involved and the attendant environmental restrictions. Secondly, likely also because the sound format was coming at the end of the "golden age" of Super-8 and Kodak's striping gear was wearing out. New equipment was not likely at that point, with video eating into the Super-8 profits.

The new camera is a PRODUCTION-type camera....not a "shoot and show on a projector" camera. That is a different market and crowd, a crowd that in a lot of cases have never had (nor has any desire) to own or use a projector. It's for those who love film (Super-8 in particular) and the look and quality of film as used in either home videos or independent production.

It's apples and oranges to compare the two groups. We collect films and fiddle with projectors, and some of us shoot. This is for shooting, first and foremost. We should be grateful that Super-8 as a shooting format stays alive in 2017 in this way instead of slamming it for "not being what it was then."

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 05, 2017, 05:50 PM:
The "environmental" restrictions were very convenient for Kodak when they were scrapping a huge proportion of striped film.

The love of real film, is the only reason why anyone chooses to use it in this era. That can be Spielberg or the average Joe.

To market a Super 8mm product only as a "professional"
product, is seriously limiting its appeal given the obvious limitations yet undeniable charm no doubt, of the product.

If you've read all I have been saying, I'm not asking for it to be ONLY the way it was, just to give some consideration to the users who want it back as it was to use as it was, and still is being used by a minority.

To say we all should be grateful for whatever we are dealt, doesn't necessarily cut it for me.
Using it for digital scanning purposes, could initiate a whole host of changes to a product we are calling Super 8mm but may well be unrecognizable in the future.

Maybe in the future, used only as a medium to be scanned digitally, it could be made sprocketless or at least have modified sprocket holes, Then what?

Would we still be happy to say Super 8mm still exists in 2022?
Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on February 05, 2017, 07:02 PM:
The thing is... for the average man on the street who wants that filmic look it could be easier just shooting in digital and using software to make it look like film. Its a lot cheaper. Theres so much you could do on computers these days.

But also the average man wouldnt spend £2000 on a camera either. What about the pro's. Well they would probably use hi-end digital HD cams and any pro film users would use 16mm not Super 8.

Graham S
Posted by David Michael Leugers (Member # 166) on February 05, 2017, 09:38 PM:
As a production camera it would do very well with wedding photographers shooting S-8mm for that niche market. Wedding films shot on S-8mm can be incredibly beautiful, unique and shot on a medium that will outlast all marriages... truly archival. If they make one with a 200ft cartridge I don't think I could resist scraping up the money somehow. I am just happy Kodak is keeping S-8mm alive and can't wait to get my hands on the new Ektachrome reversal when it comes out.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 05, 2017, 09:40 PM:
In terms of who the camera is aimed at, I expect the most important group is the people who are already buying the majority of Super 8 cartridges! Perhaps Kodak are finding that the sale of negative stocks is holding up well, and they feel that this camera and the Max-8 gate will boost them. But I think we're all a bit premature in trying to reach conclusions, in advance of knowing the full details of the camera's specifications. Seeing an instruction manual would be very enlightening.

However, there is something of a theme running through the endorsements of industry professionals on the Kodak site, which makes me think there could possibly be an agenda with regard to encouraging more use of film in educational contexts. Here one such example:

Stephen Lighthill, ASC - AFI Conservatory
"As a cinematography educator, I know our next generations of filmmakers need opportunities to shoot on film. Now, the most accessible film format, Super 8, will be available to more filmmakers through Kodak's latest camera and film initiatives. I applaud all of Kodak's efforts to keep the film in filmmaking."

[ February 06, 2017, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 05, 2017, 09:50 PM:
I think this has basically nothing to do with the Kodak S8 cameras we remember from years ago. Those were consumer cameras and often entry level ones at that.

This is more oriented towards a professional user: somebody who might want to use super-8 film, but doesn't want to waste expensive time and risk his reputation because a 40 year old camera he picked up on E-bay went on the fritz at the worst possible moment.
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on February 06, 2017, 05:04 AM:
Personally, I can't believe anyone on this forum would have anything negative to say about this amazing development from Kodak.

With regards to pre-stripe film, it was 60% of total production that was canned due to quality control. It is therefore unlikely magnetic stripe will be resurrected for this venture, particularly when they've gone to all the trouble of getting sync' sound sorted out within the camera so thoroughly.

This project is aimed mainly at a new market. Pre-orders for the camera early on was about 3000 units so I'd be pleased to get an update on that. And I feel sure that anyone purchasing the camera is going to want to shoot a few rolls of film immediately. This is going to mean thousands of people shooting thousands of 50ft reels. The potential here is incredible and it's a wonderful - if limited - resurrection of a film gauge that was all but dead and buried. I'm hopeful of being able to shoot Super 8 again using my beloved Canon 814 and get it processed easily and potentially cheaper than is currently possible. I realize it's a business venture and therefore designed to make money, but nevertheless I feel we should all be congratulating Kodak and thanking them for taking the risk.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 06, 2017, 05:15 AM:
If Super 8 reversal colour film from Kodak is to be introduced it means I can get out my Zenit Quarz with its box-load of accessories which I bought from the Wide-Screen Centre in London.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 06, 2017, 05:55 AM:
Referring back to John's comments there above, my only issue IS the fact that these products are no doubt most definitely aimed directly at a brand new market as you highlight yourself.

So far, none of the video spiel I have seen on this project makes any reference to the people that made these type of products world famous products in the first place!

there was even a song made about them back them!

One aspect of the whole attraction of film and analogue resurgence in general, is that it is a physical and tactile medium in use. You can actually get hold of these things and see what's on them. Using them on a projector is all part of this very same appeal to view these things in their ACTUAL glory.

To then simply defer all developed prints back down to pixels again, simply eradicates and eliminates this aspect of its appeal and completely removes its whole "raison d'etra".

I find this current marketing approach by Kodak both insensitive and inconsiderate of a company which most here and elsewhere would admit, has played a huge part in their lives over the years and helped make the company what it was in the first instance.

Synced digital sound is fine and a perfect modern day alternative to Mag stripe, but I do feel it should be able to be utilized on film viewing equipment as well as digital, otherwise it defeats the object really.

If they sort this aspect out for film users wanting to view their films as film lovers do, then i for one, would be entirely satisfied so long as reversal stock stays around for many more years and doesn't continually get discontinued or superseded like so many other Kodak products have done over the years.

3000 units globally to a company this size, isn't very many in reality, so again, perhaps even more thought and diversity of product range and sophistication may be needed to guarantee the projects success.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 06, 2017, 07:30 AM:
Andrew - there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Have you gained the impression that Kodak don't actually return the film? They certainly will return it, so there's no problem projecting it, so long as it's not negative stock, and isn't filmed with a view to seeing all the Max-8 frame.

You're entitled to your view regarding it being "insensitive" but I think the majority will simply view as being a different camera for a different era - it's over 30 years since Super 8 cameras were being produced in substantial numbers. The reality is the if Kodak had developed a brand new Super 8 camera of a broadly traditional type, the response from film collectors would have been "That's great, but there's no way that I'll spend that amount of money when I already own a ___________". If people want a top quality camera that represents the best in 1980s technology, they can find them for a fraction of what they cost then.

In view of the issues stated with striping, I'd be astonished if Kodak gave serious consideration to live recording on stripe. However, I certainly wish someone could provide a reasonably priced striping service, as for me the ideal scenario (if I had one of the new cameras) would be to edit the sound digitally, and then transfer it, in sync, to the edited print of the film.

If Ferrania get Super 8 stocks into production, let's see if they feel they have to make every effort to produce a sound version, to meet the level of demand!

Incidentally, the last figure I saw somewhere regarding Kodak orders was 5,000, but no figure can be fully reliable until potential customers can see the price and full specifications.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 06, 2017, 07:41 AM:
No Adrian, I fully understand they return the actual film to you, though I believe this may well be classed as an additional service to simply sending you the digital transfer from the film by email.

My issue is what then, regarding your sound on the SD card?
So far, it is down to us and us alone seemingly with this venture to find some ingenious method of syncing it if we want to relive the moment the film was captured with sound whilst projecting it.

That surely isn't going to cut it is it for the people who actually want to SEE and hear the film as was made?

The camera itself, doesn't concern me, just what if anything they may provide those that wish to view their finished film using a projector while listening to the sound in sync from the cameras built in SD card?

I won't ever buy this camera because i simply don't like it on any standpoint. But I can make my own live sound if proviso is made to facilitate their own camera set up with an ability to view the finished article with sound in the time honoured manner.

I repeat...

"Synced digital sound is fine and a perfect modern day alternative to Mag stripe, but I do feel it should be able to be utilized on film viewing equipment as well as digital, otherwise it defeats the object really."
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 06, 2017, 09:01 AM:
i understand your point Andrew. Why capture on film in the first place if all you're going to do is convert it to a digital format anyway?

All I can say is that the look of film is largely retained in the conversion to digital. What I think Kodak is hoping to deliver is the best of both worlds, - the look of film with the convenience of distribution provided by digital formats.

I'm certainly not part of Kodak's target market. I'm not going to spend a lot of money on a new camera and actually like working with the old ones. Pro8mm sells rebuilt Super 8 cameras costing hundreds and thousands of dollars. I don't know what kind of volume they do, but I'm guessing their customers are the sorts of people that would buy this camera from Kodak.

It's definitely outside of my area of expertise but I was under the impression that sound cartridges were always a small fraction of Super 8 sales. And I think that in the past "double system sound" was something that buyers of cameras this expensive were often using anyway.

There is a definite gap for anyone wanting to project the traditional way. Loyal though they may be, it seems that Kodak has come to the conclusion that the number of people that want to produce new content on Super 8 AND project it on film projectors is not large enough to support the development of a new projector or to put magnetic stripes on film.

[ February 06, 2017, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Tom Spielman ]
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 06, 2017, 09:05 AM:
As I understand it they don't actually mail you a digital copy. They send you a code in an email so that you can retrieve it from 'The Cloud'.
Of course with reversal film they will have to physically mail it back in the traditional manner.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 06, 2017, 10:56 AM:
Maurice, this is out of topic but I was sad to discover last year that The Widescreen Centre is no longer located in central London. They moved from the Baker street area.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 06, 2017, 01:22 PM:
It's a good question Paul if Kodak's intent is to both digitize and return the film, or make one or both optional.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 06, 2017, 02:39 PM:
Kodak returning the film is part of the service; it's hard imagine many people not wanting it back. The scanned 'cloud' version is also an integral part of the service, although I'd like to see a discounted option without this.

While I acknowledge that syncing the sound to the film is a problem, at least it's a 'good' problem because a camera recording sound represents progress! If more people end up shooting reversal film, maybe we will see one or two people meeting a growing demand for striping. Surly the Super 8 re-recording experts can find a way to transfer SD card sound in sync?

Much as I'd be impressed to see a state of the art new projector with interchangeable normal and Max-8 pressure plates, plus sync sound via the SD card (as well as conventional sound), I don't think many of us can seriously be surprised that this hasn't been been announced! Life's too short to be disappointed by what we're not getting, when there's cause to celebrate clear signs of a Super 8 revival.

I can understand to some extent the "why shoot on film but then digitise" point of view, but if there wasn't a market for this, involving people who appreciate the aesthetic qualities of film, Super 8 might now be obsolete as a shooting medium. The same point could be made in relation to shooting features on 35mm, but if everyone took that view, the deal spearheaded by prominent directors that kept Kodak 35mm stock in production would never have happened. Even if the striking of 35mm prints is on a tiny scale nowadays, high profile features shot on film are a great advertisement for film's qualities, and the fact that the number is rising is a major factor in the current film revival.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 06, 2017, 03:11 PM:
There have been people who've successfully synced audio playback from a DVD or CD player to a projector and I'm sure others have done it with audio from a computer.

Having sound on the film itself would make traditional projection far more convenient but you give up part of the film for the sound track that would otherwise be available for the images.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 06, 2017, 03:32 PM:
Tomn the projectors will anyway not show this part of the picture.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 06, 2017, 03:46 PM:
We're repeating ourselves a lot in this thread, with some of the same points coming up a few times. I'd encourage anyone new to it to read all the posts so far, if they have time!
Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on February 06, 2017, 04:55 PM:
I'm surprised there are 5,000 pre-orders for the camera! That's fantastic, there's a great interest in the format. Hopefully most of them don't just run a few carts through it then set it on a shelf. As much as I would like the new camera I just can't justify the cost when I have half a dozen perfectly good working Super 8 cameras. I have no interest is adding sound, my number one interest in Super 8 is projecting it for my family. I'm sure Kodak's target for this camera is a younger generation that has not shot film like many of us have. If this does well for Kodak that's great for all of us. If it's a flop I just hope Kodak still wants to produce film going forward.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 06, 2017, 05:17 PM:
I understand Dominique, a projector with a traditionally sized gate will not show the whole image. However, a scan would. I'm just saying that the wide aspect ratio of the new camera is a desirable feature for many that's incompatible with a sound stripe.

Some folks would forgo the wide aspect ration in order to be able to project with sound on a traditional projector, but how big of a market does that really represent?

We can be upset that Kodak isn't going to stripe the film for sound (at least that seems to be the plan), but they didn't arrive at that decision without reason. They are trying to make shooting on film something that will appeal to people today, not recreate something that the market had already almost completely abandoned.

Andrew may well be right that the current analog revival is just a trend that will fade over time. I don't think a sound stripe would prevent that from happening.

I've made this analogy before and I will make it again. Sailing survived the invention of steam ships, diesel engines, gas engines, and nuclear power plants. It did so because it both asks something from the sailor and gives something to the sailor that engines don't. But it still had to adapt and falls into decline when it doesn't. For example, most sailing vessels over a certain size also have engines.

If shooting film is to survive, it has to adapt as well.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 06, 2017, 05:28 PM:
Tom, I had in mind a post striping as the shape of the new camera doesn't allow sound cartidges. You probably meant pre-srtiped stock in silent catridges as it once existed. By the way, post striping is still available in Germany but it takes time...
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 06, 2017, 05:50 PM:
Actually I meant post striping too. If you stripe in post, the stripe would cover part of the image created by the new camera. Unless I'm missing something.

"Max 8" is made possible by using the portion of the film that would normally be occupied by the sound stripe.

I could be mistaken. Super 8 sound is not something I'm an expert in.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 06, 2017, 07:34 PM:
As things stand Tom, we're simply arguing semantics.

There isn't any plans for there to even be a dilemma surrounding how to place a stripe over a reinvented frame size!

Silent movies, here we come!

Who ever said technology = progression?

I'm completely jaw droppingly astonished that i'm even reading some people would be satisfied to shoot silent footage again now, and then expect their families to be entertained by them nowadays???

Also the amount of people seemingly who never transitioned to Mag sound cartridges in the first instance??

Astonishing beyond belief. [Eek!] [Confused]
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 06, 2017, 09:00 PM:
"Silent movies, here we come!"

Here we came... in 1997!
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 06, 2017, 10:11 PM:
Let's be fair. The new Kodak camera does have sound, but in their vision of the future, the end product is digital.

For those of us messing around with old silent cameras, this is my explanation:
Photographs don't have sound yet we still enjoy them. Images can be quite powerful on their own and even more so with the right music. And I enjoy working with film.

Speaking for myself, if I want video with sound I don't need Super 8 at all. I shoot lots of film now (mostly stills) but have no intention of giving up my digital cameras. Most of my family memories will be recorded digitally. Besides, I don't think that capturing birthday parties and Johnny's football game are what Kodak's new camera is intended for. Not at that price. Not at what film and processing will cost.

Looking back I would also guess that cost is why many families never upgraded to Super 8 sound. Not only did you need a new camera, but a new projector to go with it.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 07, 2017, 12:08 AM:
Tom - I think that's a fair summary.

I think another pertinent point is that 'live' sync sound has never been the primary usage of sound in Super 8 film-making. I used to attend the annual public shows of a local cine society, seeing a selection of well-crafted Super 8 films, but a very large proportion of the sound I was hearing was not recorded by the cameras used.

But having said that, it would be impressive and innovative if the new camera also offered the option of recording sound without filming at the same time. That could be very useful when assembling a soundtrack.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 07, 2017, 01:30 AM:
Tom, since people who will not project the film will use the version, I don't see the problem : they will have the full frame. And for people like me who will always use a traditional projector, the picture will anyway, as I wrote, have the size we are used to so the stripe will not make you loose anything.
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on February 07, 2017, 02:49 AM:
I suppose we could compare it to the Super 8 shows at the BFCC when prints were synced to DVD soundtracks of the film - Super 8 DTS for home movies.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 03:17 AM:
Ok then, once again, seeing as I feel I must have been living in a parallel universe during the mid to late 80's and early 90's...

I wasn't myself talking about films shooting Johnny's first football game or panoramic views of Llandudno with live sound.

I shot 27 rolls of Film in Florida once. Tom here, has a similar planned "once in a lifetime" trip coming up soon,..

If none of it had been taken using the built in boom microphone to capture the live sound, the whole film lasting 82 minutes in total, would have sent a glass eye to sleep despite all the superb and exciting sights there were to see from Universal, MGM, Disneyland, Busch Gardens,Sea World etc etc.

Now that was in 94, wouldn't it had been great if Tom could now do a similar thing by taking his old cameras along for the ride?

Chances are, even if the cartridges are available in time, he probably wouldn't bother if he can only take some silent footage.
Some things simply HAVE to have live sound for them to make sense and to entertain a viewer. The soundtrack on the film I speak of above is just as entertaining and memorable as the images themselves.

And yes, I too used a silent camera for very short films in the mid to late 70's also. But then obviously simply progressed to the real deal later on,and that began over 30 years ago now!

I kept it with Kodak once, like they suggested.
Now, I'd just like the opportunity to do the same.
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on February 07, 2017, 03:33 AM:
I have shot both sound and silent Super 8 but have to admit that when it comes to Super 8 I always preferred silent. With the new camera's ability to record high quality sound I suspect that would change. Synching the sound from the SD card is fairly simple even if you don't have an Elmo GS1200 or similarly equipped projector. And if you want a sound stripe on the finished film to record the sound onto permanently but don't want to cover the new wide format picture area then just have a balance track applied and record it on that.

The positive thought everyone interested in Super 8 film should take from Kodak's new venture is that it gives Super 8 a new lease of life to a potential new customer base. As a result of that Super 8 film stock will be available for use in our classic cameras. If the venture is successful there could be developments in other areas of the hobby. It's an exciting time and J.J. Abrams must surely deserve a lot of the credit.

I'm looking forward to shooting Super 8 film again and right now I think that is a very realistic possibility. It hasn't been realistic for some time.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 03:39 AM:
Where are you going to find anyone who will put a balance stripe on a film now?

You can't even find packaged films now with a balance stripe.

Why would anyone prefer silent to sound filming??????
I'm even more in a parallel universe now. [Confused]

Let's not forget, even the most kindest of Film handling projectors, used the gate to handle only the outer edges of the film with no image on them.
With this now, you are placing the image inside the edges of the gate and over the sound heads.

How good is the FULL image of Max 8 going to look after its been projected just a handful of times when traditionally, the image would always sit outside the gate parts like the pressure plate as well as the magnetic heads and pressers?

Has anyone even bothered to give that some thought?

Let's face it, already this new product isn't simply ever designed to be projected.
That's not the intentions at all here with this one from Kodak, and that's just after phase one of reinventing the wheel!

What's the saying again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!

[ February 07, 2017, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 09:18 AM:
I agree Andrew, it's not designed to be projected. It is designed to go to digital.

I also agree that 82 minutes of silent film isn't something I'd likely be interested in watching. In fact I couldn't afford to shoot that much film and still have money for the plane fare home from Florida. [Wink]

So I'm content to shoot digital when I want sound or I'm going to be in the water, or when I didn't think to bring a camera with me and all I have is my phone.

The ~3 minutes of run time I get with Super 8 works pretty well actually and forces me to be selective about what I capture. But again it's a supplement to digital for me, not instead of. I may watch it on a projector now and then, but I'll transfer it to digital almost immediately and that's how it will be viewed most frequently.

The truth is when it comes to home videos or home movies, less is often more. Here's an example of a Super 8 "home movie" that I like. It's called Super 8 - 2016 and is a year out of someone's life shot on silent super 8. It's less than 4 minutes long.

Every year on mother's day my wife gets a hard bound picture book from me and I also create a slide show on DVD that's mostly still photos but has some video snippets as well. Even the year we went to Belize and visited pyramids, went scuba diving, and spent a day on a gorgeous sand bar, the slide show was only about 20 to 30 minutes long and mostly silent save for background music. I even turn the sound off for some of the clips. This was before I got into Super 8.

Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the audio is more interesting than the images, so I do appreciate the ability to capture sound.

[ February 07, 2017, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Tom Spielman ]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 11:49 AM:
So that's the end of that then. Kodak's new Super 8 products belong only in today's digital world as they are not designed with projection in mind.

Which brings me back to Grahams point early and say to myself,
Well what's the point of it then?

The deeper we delve, the less sense this whole fiasco seems to make.
Posted by Martin Davey (Member # 2841) on February 07, 2017, 12:30 PM:
I don't believe I read anything about plans for it to be projected in a conventional projector, or even a new projector with a larger gate from Kodak. It is firmly placed for the professional film production market, where the expensive costs of transfer to a digital format can be swallowed up in total production costs.
With regard to the larger gate I am reminded by Super 16mm, in which the soundtrack area is abandoned and replaced with addition picture area. The point of this format was for films to be shot cheaply on 16mm but have a suitable picture ratio to allow it to be blown up to 35mm (widescreen) with little cropping or loss of quality, which does become more of a concern using 1.133 material in such a way.
Nowadays everything has to at least fit a 16x9 format (scope excepted) so Kodak making a 4x3 camera would be a non starter in TV/ film production and become quickly a loss making product.
I doubt that Kodak have the slightest interest in amateur film production, and I can't really see Kodachrome coming back either and being sold to the masses at an affordable price. The big boys just want the neg to play with in the digital domain.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 07, 2017, 12:36 PM:
Live sound recording is useful when you want to record people talking but otherwise you will most of the time have to re-work the sound track. If you shoot a party for example, you will of course shoot small scènes of 5 or 10 seconds. Each time you stop your camera, the living sound recordind is stopped. So, if it's music you won't be able to keep it like that. Silent family films were never really silent, people usually comment what's on the screen, exactly like when you show pictures. You don't remind quiet during five minutes looking at these photos. The trouble is when those who took the film or are on the film are not there anymore to comment.
Andrew, you can have your film striped in Germany :
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 01:36 PM:
This really is a bizarre situation.

Whilst I applaud Kodak pressing ahead with this venture, I feel that they are really marketing this badly.

If this is no longer regarded as an amateur venture, then which professional market are they hoping to attract?

These days, the future of broadcast is regarded as 4K capture, with a view to HDR content.

Now that isn't to say that a fine grain super 8 stock, mastered properly couldn't offer something here, but at what cost?

Surely a "cheap" SLR camera with 4K video capture can provide much better quality than those literally awful Kodak demo videos, and be manipulated any which way.

I really do not understand what they are doing here.

Does this appeal to a professional?

Hell, no.

Kodak really need to step up their game, give us high quality examples of what is achievable and sensible, priced workflows (in terms of turnaround for processing and quality offered) or this is just a joke.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 07, 2017, 01:39 PM:
I'd be afraid if I shot live sound I'd keep having some yahoo walking up to me asking "Ya takin' pichas?!".

-I speak from experience here: a couple of years ago I was doing timelapse and my friends' dopey teenage kid walked over and looked in the lens!
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 01:42 PM:
"I'd be afraid if I shot live sound I'd keep having some yahoo walking up to me asking "Ya takin' pichas?!"

Steve, welcome to my everyday working life!!! [Smile] [Smile] [Smile]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 02:20 PM:
Well there you go then. Even a professional cameraman cannot see what Kodak seek to gain from this project or who in fact it is actually aimed at??

That tells me everything.
Thanks Rob, I thought I was going mad there at one point!
Posted by Simon McConway (Member # 219) on February 07, 2017, 02:32 PM:
Anything new in the Super 8 world or just the film world itself has to be good news. We specialists have a duty to support it; if we cannot, then who can. Perhaps those who are negative and cannot support it should move on from this forum. You are doing nothing for film.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 02:34 PM:
I know Andrew, and don't get me wrong, many of us here are all kids of the 60's / 70's / 80's who would dearly love to see super 8 make a come back as a filming format. And those who are younger, I dare say would also love to film with real "film" stock.

But this nonsense is so far off the mark that it's just fantasy.

Please, Kodak, WE GENUINELY ARE INTERESTED, but if you have any integrity left, give us proper examples of who this is aimed at, quality achievable, time scales, cost per minute, workflow, etc., etc...
Posted by Simon McConway (Member # 219) on February 07, 2017, 02:40 PM:
Wow imagine if Kodak are reading this post; they will say that even the 8mm community can't support their new product. I would ask that a moderator locks this post before our integrity is ruined.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 02:44 PM:
Simon, I'm sorry that you need to call in a moderator.

Not the first time.

Again, my views are my own.

Integrity? I have simply asked fair questions?

I really don't understand you guys any more...

I thought I was asking fair questions as a potential customer?
Posted by Simon McConway (Member # 219) on February 07, 2017, 02:49 PM:
We've got to support it. This is the very place that should do that. But what have here is tantamount to the fire brigade saying they hate water! If Elmo announced a new Cine projector, would people who call themselves members here say it was a pointless project? Probably. Would you hear vinyl collectors being negative on a vinyl forum? No. So why do this here? We don't need it.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 03:03 PM:
Really, I'm not seeing that Simon.

I'm simply asking Kodak to step up and give us real examples of what can be achieved with contemporary super 8.

If my comments seem negative, then they are only to question what is planned.

Look, 15 years ago it was alright to ask a premium brand broadcast show if you could film a few minutes on super 8 because it was "grainy" & "filmic" & "legacy".

Do that now and they'll ask A) Is it HD or 4K? B) How Much? C) When Can We Start Editing The Footage?


Oh, and BTW I spent £1300.00 having my Linn LP12 Turntable serviced last year, together with a new £2500.00 Musical Fidelity Amplifier just so I could continue to enjoy my don't get me even started on supporting causes.
Posted by Simon McConway (Member # 219) on February 07, 2017, 03:07 PM:
As a former DJ, vinyl rocks! Technics have brought out their legendary 1200 turntables again.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 03:11 PM:
Well, we agree on that much my friend.

My Linn LP 12 has been with me a long time and thanks to a great couple of guys which I don't mind plugging here;

Vinyl rules! topic again!!!
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 07, 2017, 03:15 PM:
I'm happy about the new camera and the interest in super 8 and it is sad to read all the negative (critical) comments. It's actually quite entertaining. Perhaps those that are angry (unclear) with Kodak can stop the camera from being produced.

Edited in the interest of pleasing forum members

[ February 07, 2017, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Bill Phelps ]
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 03:17 PM:
Bill, I'm not sure who is "angry" with Kodak?

I'm not.

Just unclear.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 07, 2017, 03:21 PM:
Well if you read comments on the you tube videos almost everyone sounds like andy, bitter and wonder why Kodak should even bother. Those comments are a fun read as well.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 03:23 PM:
Ok, I'll have a look, any direct links?
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 07, 2017, 03:37 PM:
Wow this topic has really taken a negative turn. Surely we can all agree to thank Kodak for bringing back super 8 Ektachrome?
And if you want live sound, you can record it separately, get the film striped, and sync re-record it. Nothing difficult here.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 07, 2017, 03:56 PM:
Rob, the links are in the first post of this entire thread.

Paul, I'm happy about the news and I support Kodak.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 07, 2017, 04:02 PM:
Paul, again, I'm at a loss...why is this taking a negative turn?
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 04:54 PM:
I don't exactly know who Kodak hopes to sell this camera to. However, if you venture to Pro8mm site, you'll see that they sell re-built cameras that cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand.

Some of these cameras have had the gates widened and some have had crystal sync added if they didn't have it in the first place. Pro8mm been selling them for years so presumably there is a market. I couldn't tell you how big it is and couldn't say how being able to buy a new camera from Kodak with more modern features might grow that market.

I do wonder whether there is a large enough market to justify Kodak's investment in this new product. I hope there is. And even though I'm not part of the target market, I hope to benefit from a potentially wider variety of film stocks and perhaps cheaper film and processing.

Dominique, to your earlier comment: Yes, you could certainly have the film striped if you wanted. Some have expressed disappointment that this camera won't capture sound in the traditional way or that Kodak isn't providing striped film that would allow one to use the audio capabilities of a traditional projector. All I'm saying is that they've opted use the space for a wider image instead and so are capturing the audio on an SD card rather than the film.

I've been very wrong before but I don't think users of old projectors are on Kodak's radar. Not with this product. From that standpoint, I understand the disappointment.

My sense of the people in this group though is that film shooters are in the minority and it's mostly film collectors. How many people that currently shoot film are disappointed in the camera?

How many would shoot film again if Kodak had instead created a camera that captured sound magnetically and brought back more reversal stock?
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 05:12 PM:
I am absolutely convinced recently, that people have never read any of the past posts and points made here before they comment.

I was beavering away for a few hours on work I have to complete, then you come back and see people saying things like no issue, you can just stripe it and sync it later.

You can't even project the stuff safely let alone Stripe it, as was established this morning!

Please read all that is written before making statements that simply are not the case here.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 07, 2017, 05:19 PM:
Andrew, why wouldn't you be able to project a reversal film shoot with the new Kodak camera ? And why wouldn't it possible to stripe it ? The filmstock is the same as the one we use in other cameras and projectors.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 05:22 PM:
Dominique, without sounding rude to you my friend, please read all that was concluded earlier today here. [Wink]
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 05:25 PM:
You would have to record the audio from the SD card on the stripe in a separate process and you'd lose the wide screen image, but yeah, I don't see why you couldn't do it if that's what you wanted.

It does beg the question as to why you'd choose to use this particular camera if that was the goal. [Wink]


Having thought about though, without pre-striped film, you have the same issue with any camera.

Rob, probably not a direct answer to your question but there are still people who shoot Super 8 and others that might be interested if there were modern equipment available and fewer hoops to jump through in order to get a finished product.

I don't think this camera makes sense for the vast majority of either amateurs or professionals. It makes sense for the minority who like the look of film and like working with it. Hopefully it's a sizable enough minority to be sustainable.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 05:39 PM:
Tom, it has nothing to do with the striping, though John's earlier suggestion to just have a balance stripe added would be nigh on impossible now from what I see.

Almost certainly, ANY projector would ruin the Max 8 Frame image in no time for the reasons said around 10 hours ago.

That is why it is not fit for purpose so far as traditional methods of viewing the product are concerned.

It would be like New vinyl Albums now being released in a 14" size instead of 12"!

It would render them useless unless you were to listen to them on the new 14" Vinyl 2017 analogue to digital record player!
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 07, 2017, 05:42 PM:
Andrew, I cannot see any message saying it would not be possible to project films shot with the Kodak camera. Some people, including you, thought that striping was no longer available but that was a false information so no problem to have a film postriped if someone wants sound.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 05:44 PM:
Understood Andrew, but if you shot in a manor that assumed you'd only be projecting a 1.33 image, presumably you wouldn't care what happened to that part of the image outside the window of a standard gate. Any scratches wouldn't matter because you've already put a big stripe through it. [Wink]

Again, I'm not arguing that it would be the most sensible camera choice if that were the case. Max 8, traditional projectors, and magnetic stripes are indeed mutually exclusive, - unless you're willing to sacrifice the "Max" part and treat it as a film with a traditional frame size which is what Dominique is suggesting.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 05:46 PM:
Yes but only on Acetate or Poly on Main stripe pasted.

The image will run over the sound heads and pressers Dom.
The image will encroach on the edges of the film gate parts which of course, should never be the case.

Result.. scratched image in no time!
You would see these marks and especially if you ever wanted to actually see the full frame even digitally if needs be.

Wait till it arrives and try it, then hold your frames up to daylight in a window. I bet I am not far off!

Normally only your main stripe or clear plastic travels over these areas. You would never really know what they look like as a result of travelling through these areas of your projectors mechanisms as you would never actually see this area on screen.

That would change now with the image and frame going more or less all the way across the non sprocketed edge.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 07, 2017, 05:49 PM:
Tom, it is obvious that if someone shoot to project and not to digitailize, he will not care about the "new" gate size and will stick with the traditonnal one [Smile]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 05:58 PM:
Again, if there were to be choices, no problems.
Trouble is, we are currently not even thought about by the company in any shape or form.

It isn't aimed at us, but then as said a million times already now, who is it aimed at?

Rob's and Graham's points earlier are absolutely spot on.
You may as well just simply cut the middle man out now in this era for what is actually left as analogue from the product in presentation.

the choice is a simple one to my way of thinking..
Do i pay nothing but the equipment cost for pixels or do i pay £60 for 3 minutes of pixels on top of the equipment costs?
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 07, 2017, 06:05 PM:
Being that the viewfinder is electronic I wonder if the user can choose various aspect ratios to shoot within.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 07, 2017, 06:07 PM:
I understand Andrew. Some sound projectors have not the "head remove" facility for projecting silent films. But even if the part of the picture you will never see through your ptojector is scratch, is that really a problem ? I asume few people will digitalize their films a second time after having run them through a projector.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 06:08 PM:
That hasn't been highlighted in their sales pitch Steve.

Does it even have a viewfinder or just the built in LCD screen to view what you shoot?

LCD screen only to my eyes. Just perfect for those bright sunny days!

Dominique, you can't accept damage to a frame at £60 / 3minutes whether you would see it or not, though I very much do suspect you would always see a permanent green edge down one side of your screen using Max 8 shot film.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 07, 2017, 07:25 PM:
One question, perhaps worth posing, is whether or not super 8 is still a viable format for casual home movies- the type of film making that was Kodak's bread and butter for decades. If I were a marketing guy working for Kodak, my answer would have to be no- that market is now 100% lost to digital cameras.
So right off the bat any film marketing project has to be aimed at the really dedicated amateur film maker and/or the semi professional user. In today's cinema world that means shooting on film, with digital post processing, and exhibition by digital projection. That's the way its now done and that's the way any film students and semi pros will be doing it from here on in. Kodak's strategy fits perfectly for that market.
And lets be perfectly honest here. Was striped camera film, and the resulting cutting and splicing of striped film in the editing process, ever entirely satisfactory? Was the problem of splicing striped film, without clicks or drop out at the splice, ever really solved? And isn't digital editing so much easier and much more versatile than the old cut and paste of film?
Food for thought.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 07:38 PM:
C.I.R = near perfection Paul.

Seamless in projection if done correctly.

As for the rest, well there simply isn't enough like minded people around anymore.

All too many with deep pockets and short arms quite frankly, when it comes down to the rudimentals of what it takes to shoot and own real film.

No pockets in shrouds as they say!

A fool and his money are easily parted...Yeah Yeah Yeah, yawn.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on February 07, 2017, 07:48 PM:
There was a time when people shot small gauge because they pretty much had to, but to be involved with 8mm film these days is to be in it for the love of it.

-love has never been, nor should it be a practical matter!

I've shot a number of family movies in the last decade. Yes they are about my family, but they were always about the film too.

(We have a camcorder you know...)
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 07:53 PM:
I am pleased to say mine broke years ago! [Big Grin] [Wink]
Posted by Daniel Macarone (Member # 5102) on February 07, 2017, 08:48 PM:
I don't mind that there is no sound for my Super 8 home movies. I love the look too much. Movies are first and foremost about picture. As long as there is reversal film and a working vintage camera, I'm happy. The new Kodak camera has things I don't need and lacks things I want. Great Super 8 cameras were made in the 70's-80's and they are not obsolete.
As far as cost of film for home movies, I can concur you have to conserve film, be selective. You find you don't need to buy alot of film stock because scenes or events without sound have to be brief to hold the viewer's attention anyway. If you are good at editing in camera, you can film an event that is a very entertaining 3 1/2 minutes, maybe even shorter. I think professionals will learn quickly as well, how to be selective.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 08:52 PM:
keep on scratchin' then Daniel!

I'm done with it personally, years ago now.

I ended it around about the Fat Boy slim era..
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 09:01 PM:
Andrew, in terms of offering choices, what is it that you would like Kodak to do?

When I look at ways that they could both support traditional sound and new features like SD Card audio capture and MAX 8, I don't see how it could be done without a great deal of expense on their part, further delaying product releases, and creating a confusing product line.

And all for how many potential customers?
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 07, 2017, 09:04 PM:

Max 8 - Traditional 8

SD card sound - Magnetic Sound Cartridge

Simples.. even for a Meerkat!

Couldnt give a flying f@%k about their profit margin given all the false pretences they have ragged me out of over the years.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 07, 2017, 09:11 PM:
Well based on your last post it is no wonder your on a non stop rant
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 07, 2017, 10:12 PM:
The debate here would probably now be more constructive if split into two different threads: Forum members who feel it's relevant for the camera to be profit-making and those who don't.
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 10:22 PM:
Is that Max 8 and Traditional 8 + SD Card and Traditional Sound all on the same camera? Not so simple. [Smile] I'm not sure I'd trust such a camera delivered next Spring to work much beyond a short warranty period.

Two different cameras? They seem to be having a hard time delivering one.

I work in software for a living and there is this constant tension between features, budget, timely delivery, usability, and reliability. To get something useful and reliable out the door in a reasonable amount of time, you have to make hard choices on features. You simply can't and shouldn't do it all. You can build on what you started further down the road.

Adrian: I did get a chuckle out of your response. FWIW, I don't think they necessarily need to profit on the camera itself, but it does have to lead to more film sales or otherwise contribute to their bottom line. Otherwise there is no reason for them to do it. Kodak needs a sustainable business model or the future of Super 8 won't be very bright for anyone.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 07, 2017, 10:46 PM:
Going of topic just slightly fellows, but dont you think this chap sporting a Italian Super 8 T shirt looks neat?... [Cool] [Smile]
Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on February 07, 2017, 11:13 PM:
Do you know the story behind that picture Graham?

Last I heard, the former president was kite sailing with Richard Branson in the Virgin Islands. Anyone who's spent 8 years in that job deserves some time off.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 07, 2017, 11:40 PM: check it out I came across it on "Super 8mm Facebook" its a public group. [Smile]
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 08, 2017, 01:42 AM:
I think one thing we could all agree on is that Kodak need to produce a really good demo video using super 8 stock.

This one is just embarrassing;

As I have said previously, I would like to see this venture work, so it would be a nice start if they had some dazzling footage out there.
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on February 08, 2017, 04:08 AM:
Rob, I too was surprised by the poor standard of that transfer. the actual film is interesting but if that is the standard Kodak will be providing for download once they have done a cine transfer it's not a very good advert.

Andrew perhaps you have misunderstood the possible importance of the new camera and you need to go back to read the entire thread yourself. But also, the history behind the new camera which saw leading big screen directors sign up to help promote it because they all feel that nothing trains new talent like learning the nuances of real film from an early age - and only Super 8 can really do that. The likelihood is that thousands of new camera owners [and mainly people new to Super 8 entirely] will be shooting multiple thousands of Kodak Super 8 cartridges. That should be good news for all of us who want to use our classic Super 8 cameras again because the film stocks will be available. If things take off as it looks like they will then we could find more variety offered in terms of post striping and other services that used to be more readily available for amateur film makers. Having just a balance stripe added has always been an option and by no means a problem. I even had just the balance stripe added to a full feature of The Empire Strikes Back when the first prints available only came with the main stripe.

Now when it comes to using the new film stocks from Kodak in my Canon 814 I will not be filing out the gate in order to shoot the same aspect ratio as the new Kodak camera. I know it's obvious but it seems it needs to be pointed out that this means there will not be a picture on the edge of the film to scratch when I project it through any of my projectors. I've said it before but this venture by Kodak (now in their rather smaller company size) means more Super 8 film cartridges being produced, available for sale and processed. This should fuel the market and hopefully mean costs become more affordable and we can all dabble in Super 8 film making once again. I know some have carried on through more recent years despite the excessive cost but most of us haven't. I for one am hopeful and looking forward to using my favourite shooting format once more despite earning my living through documentaries shot almost entirely on digital video over the past ten years.

Whilst I doubt anyone from Kodak ever looks at this site I wish them every success. I fully understand their attempt to resurrect Super 8 as a viable part of their business and I suggest that it wouldn't stand any chance at all without the introduction of the new camera, the modified 16x9 image and the synchronized digital sound. Produce a new projector to screen the wide format films too and you may even find I'm on the customer list!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 08, 2017, 05:02 AM:
New Stock, Old Camera, silent shooting for now.
That's the only way it will be of any use at all to us for the foreseeable then John.

I will give it a go of course, but would love to see more diversity of equipment from whoever inc Kodak, to make this enjoyable for us also.

Maybe it will arrive by others who join the resurgence of Super 8mm again if it takes off as a film product, who knows?
Here's hoping.

I AM also hoping their camera is a success for them, but I seriously have my doubts about that aspect. Another point
where we will just have to wait and see.

I, like you John, will be using a Canon camera or possibly a Beaulieu camera by the time film arrives, but i just hope Kodak equally begin to understand what people want from a Super 8mm camera and what one should look like! [Big Grin] [Wink]



This is not it Kodak. [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

[ February 08, 2017, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 09, 2017, 01:32 AM:
Well folks I really do like this camera. Its going to be interesting times ahead, when some serious 8mm film makers use it "and there are a few" will hopefully show the results on you-tube or vimeo. Also with Ektachrome Super 8 reversal film due out at the end of the year, plus Ektachrome slide film, which is something I also want to get back into and support. Anyway not sure you have seen this video but here it is to drool over [Big Grin]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 09, 2017, 01:48 AM:
So I take it you are going to buy one then Graham?
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on February 09, 2017, 03:37 AM:
I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from Andrew.

I forgot to mention that Kodak haven't ruled out reintroducing Kodachrome. That probably seems unbelievable but given the resurgence of film and Kodak entrenching back into their own rather dominant niche market of film I can see them trying to produced a Kodachrome III which would offer similar vibrant results but a less costly processing methodology. This new camera could just be the start. A lot depends on it for most of us on here.
Posted by Terrance Kott (Member # 5777) on February 09, 2017, 03:56 AM:
As of this date what is the projected price range?
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 09, 2017, 09:43 PM:
Andrew I would say that in a year or so when the Standard edition comes out, and if its around the $400 mark I would certainly be interested in buying one.

Terrance the Limited Edition wont be far off, but will cost around the $2000 mark, its best to wait for a while and see what price range the Standard one comes out at.

I bet that one will be a lot cheaper, although to date no price has so far been mentioned.

As far as sound being recorded, it will be on your SD card which I guess you can simply import into your computer. Once you download your image, say into something like Movie Maker which is fairly basic stuff, you can edit your picture and sound together, plus a hole lot of extra features you can play around with.

Its going to take time for all this to happen, so what I would suggest is to wait and see what those serious film makers out there do with it, and hopefully share the results, that way we will get a better idea as to what can be achieved with this camera.

Its amazing to think this this new camera is being made at all in this day and age is fantastic news for film making, which was considered by many to be a dead duck years ago.
Posted by Terrance Kott (Member # 5777) on February 09, 2017, 11:51 PM:
Thanks Graham. Each time I watch the preview I want one more and more. But I agree that the first run should be solely for those who were born with "the gift". Some people are just naturals at what they do. I'm not one of those.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on January 19, 2018, 09:47 PM:
Watch the first footage from Kodak’s reborn Super 8 film camera
Posted by Mathew James (Member # 4581) on January 19, 2018, 10:26 PM:
I don't know...
To me, that footage just does not remind me one bit of any of my nostalgia films. Maybe it is too processed. I don't get the right vibes from this at all. I just don't see the value. The processing will kill this i am afraid.
I am not sure this will go anywhere outside of some classrooms or small projects. I hope I am wrong.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on January 19, 2018, 10:32 PM:
I was not impressed with the footage.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 19, 2018, 10:58 PM:
It was interesting to hear, as to what is involved in getting this film into production and the fact that some of the chemicals are no longer avaliable made it a difficult process.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 20, 2018, 03:14 AM:
Some parts of the footage look a lot better than others, so the 74 seconds doesn't do a great job of 'selling' the merits of film. But it's still good to see that Kodak has faith in Super 8!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 20, 2018, 12:13 PM:
Here's another 2018 CES video about the Kodak S8 camera and Ektachrome
Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on January 20, 2018, 01:08 PM:
And the retail price will be "between 2500 - 3000 dollars", I would imagine this would exclude everyone bar none who would want to purchase this camera who does not have or cannot locate a camera from the past, the reintroduction of the film cartridge is a great idea, how many camera's will they sell at that price.......
Posted by Mark Norton (Member # 165) on January 22, 2018, 03:45 AM:
What a camera, with the lcd viewfinder no more would I be laying on the floor to get low angle shots. Well thought out, interchangeable lenses, I'll be able to make use of my Beaulieu & leica lenses . I can take live sound on the SD card to add to a edited sound cd to run in sync on the GS1200 via pedro's box.
Standard gate option would be nice, but the projection gate would crop it anyway, so I can live with that.
If they sell enough that the price comes down, I'm all in.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 22, 2018, 11:24 AM:
They now don't seem to be referring to the initial plan to have a limited edition first run of more expensive cameras followed by a more 'affordable' version. Perhaps it would do no harm if those of us (including me) - who were willing to consider buying the latter - made it known that a purchase is likely to be dependent on this plan proceeding. I find it credible that a lack of expertise going back to the old days of camera production was a significant problem, but they deserve credit for not letting that cause the project to be abandoned.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on January 22, 2018, 01:38 PM:
I don't see what is, in my opinion, necessary on any camera.
A tripod bush.
But perhaps there is some form of clamp.
Otherwise, viewers will be treated to a moving picture in addition to a moving film.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 22, 2018, 06:30 PM:
Maurice - some videos/photos show the camera being used without the pistol grip at the bottom. The top of this has a rotating fitting that I believe engages with a tripod bush, so with the grip removed, I'm pretty sure you can use it with a tripod.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on January 23, 2018, 02:40 AM:
The gentleman in the video didn't seem to be worrying about the camera being steady. He was holding it well away from his body as he looked at the LED screen.

In my days of filming, and I am sure, everyone else, we held the camera firmly to one's face to keep it steady, and to be able to look through the viewfinder.

But, perhaps, as you say, it does have some facility for a tripod bush. But will eventual users take advantage of it?
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 23, 2018, 02:46 PM:
Oh Goodness, is this still rattling on?

Come on Kodak, give us reason to be truly interested, or give it a rest.

Far too little, far too late...

When first mentioned, this venture was truly exciting, but now it's just a joke.

When first announced, I was really thinking of buying one, but now the cost is spiraling, the quality is awful and there literally is no real market...what is this nonsense???
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on January 25, 2018, 04:54 AM:
You would think knowing you can easily get a decent super 8 camera just about anywhere for free even !!!

They would make a sensible choice to just push a decent reversal stock out at a lowish price to get things moving that way.

I hope someone sees sense there or this ship will of sailed as well as the Farrania one.

Best Mark.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 25, 2018, 01:09 PM:
Absolutely Mark, bring back Ektachrome film for all those fabulous existing super 8 cameras. That new camera is a total non-starter at that price.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 26, 2018, 12:30 AM:
I agree, let's see some new Ektachrome.

The last 100D was very good indeed; just bring that back.
Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on January 26, 2018, 01:27 AM:
Please contain your excitement.
While I agree that it's a miracle that Kodak would re introduce super 8 film, I find it baffling that they would imagine the ordinary film enthusiast paying a fortune for their new camera then a further fortune to shoot a three minute cassette that will be viewed digitally anyway (as there's apparently no plan for a projector).
You may as well cut out the middle man and shoot digitally in the first place.
Sorry to be a party pooper, but the whole thing seems a pointless exercise for Kodak to dig deeper into our pockets.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 26, 2018, 02:03 AM:
They have admitted that finding places to manufacture the precision part needed has been difficult and that the knowledge behind the cameras is decades old and has been lost. The high price for the camera is just the consumer paying for research and development costs. These cameras are certainly not going to be mass produced. I don't see a low cost version ever appearing. I like the new camera but how many older, working quality super 8 cameras can I buy for $3,000? Not to mention I already have about a dozen working cameras as it is with every function you would ever need anyway. Bringing back the filmstock would be the best option for them and get them the most sales.
Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on January 26, 2018, 04:40 AM:
Exactly, Bill. Best solution all round, just restart manufacture of stock.
Only problem being supply of processing labs. The whole idea is beset with problems, or as they say these days, challenges.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 26, 2018, 11:53 AM:
The question is, what market are they aiming for? Certainly not the every day Joe, who was they're bread and butter at one time, and who now does not even want to use a video camera, preferring to take those idiotic vertical videos with their cell phones.
Then we have the film students at Universities and colleges. Do they still use 16mm, or is all the equipment now high end video cameras? Not sure where the new camera would fit in here, but if these places have plenty of money, which they seem to have, maybe there is a small market here for introducing some elements of reel film into a film course. But there again, 16mm would make a much better learning tool than super 8.
Finally we have the film enthusiast, us guys! Are any of us going to spend 2K -3k on this camera? I doubt it very much. Many of us still have more than one S8 camera, and if we don't we can pick up a great camera for a couple of hundred on ebay.
So, who is going to buy this camera?
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 26, 2018, 01:52 PM:
Paul, you are right.

Who is this camera for?

Digital capture is so advanced now as to replicate anything during production or post as to already makes a new Super 8 camera capture no longer interesting to student or professional.

Especially when at such cost.

I would argue that for students, understanding of photo - chemical capture is very enlightening, but I fail to see how Kodak's efforts encourage this.

I've spent my life behind a camera, shooting Standard 8 age 6, and every format in between...spending the last 20 years shooting broadcast TV; I really don't get this.

I get Kodak, please see sense and just give use super 8 cartridges of Ektachrome 100D...we'll use that!

We'll also love it and promote it!

Visit for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation