8mm Forum: New Super 8 camera from Kodak

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » New Super 8 camera from Kodak (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: New Super 8 camera from Kodak

Bryan Chernick
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Bothell, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2010

posted January 05, 2016 02:02 PM

It looks like Kodak is investing in Super 8 film! Now they need to make it easier to get prints for projecting.

CES: J.J. Abrams Backs Kodak’s New Prototype Super 8 Camera

Kodak Super 8 Camera

Next Generation Film Camera

| IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013

posted January 05, 2016 02:27 PM

Hope they will bring reversal film on the market.

--------------------
Dominique

| IP: Logged

Eberhard Nuffer
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 141
From: Stuttgart, Germany
Registered: Jul 2005

posted January 05, 2016 02:45 PM

Dominique,

if dreams come true and this camera is really offered, they will!
According to an online article from Wall Street Journal Digits

quote:
"buyers of the new camera that turn to Kodak for processing will get a digital copy of their imagery as well as eight-millimeter film to use in projectors."

As it is improbable that people project a negative as well as black-and-white stock only, this contains the hidden information that Kodak is indeed planning to manufacture new colour reversal stock!

Just opened a bottle of champagne with the wife!

Link to the article

| IP: Logged

Pasquale DAlessio
Film God

Posts: 3523
From: Bristol,RI, USA
Registered: May 2010

posted January 05, 2016 02:48 PM

Either way, film is here to stay!

PatD poet

| IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007

posted January 05, 2016 03:05 PM

Camera $400 to $750. Processing $50 to $75.
For 2017 a lower cost version will be aimed at a broader audience.
Filming was never cheap.

--------------------
Maurice

| IP: Logged

Bryan Chernick
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Bothell, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2010

posted January 05, 2016 03:22 PM

If they are providing a copy of the film to project that would explain the high processing cost, maybe they are making prints from the negatives. Right now I pay about $12 for processing and another $12 for digital transfer at Dwayne's.

| IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013

posted January 05, 2016 03:30 PM

Eberhard, I hope they mean reversal stock in that article and they are not confusing with the negative stock already available. Maybe a process without digitalization could be available at lower cost. Anyway, a new super 8 camera in 2016 can only be a good new !

--------------------
Dominique

| IP: Logged

Paul Browning
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1006
From: West Midlands United Kingdom
Registered: Aug 2011

posted January 05, 2016 05:29 PM

ITS GREAT NEWS BUT, IF THE NEW CARTRIDGED IS DESIGNED ONLY TO FIT THE NEW SUPER 8 FORMAT, REVERSAL FILM OR NOT, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT IN ONE OUR OWN SUPER 8 "RETRO" CAMERAS, I HOPE I'M WRONG, I'LL WAIT AND SEE. IT DID NOT TAKE LONG FOR THIS NEW KID ON THE BLOCK TO GET KODAKS MOJO BACK, GOOD ON HIM.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted January 05, 2016 05:37 PM

No it's immoral, but fairly obvious, that if Kodak were going to begin investing again in Super 8, changes would be made to their cartridges to force you to buy their new equipment.

Better news than we could ever have imagined though this time last year!

Sort out the "live" sound dilemma and I'm in, just before the grandkids come along with any luck!

Someone like Wittners will sort out the cartridge dilemma no doubt. Time to dust off the Nizo, Beaulieu or Canon!

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Mathew James
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 740
From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2014

posted January 05, 2016 05:52 PM

It truly is incredible news!
My only concern is the 'cloud' idea for processing.
this is how it starts..and then later you find out that everything you upload to their servers becomes owned by them, and exploited.
I would like to read their policy statement on using the cloud first, otherwise, I would rather send in 'snail' mail again. Digital opens up a whole can of worms imo.
I like the thought however that one day soon, one could upload the 'digital' recording to any lab and have it printed to a super 8 reel...

--------------------
--
Cheers,
Matt 📽

| IP: Logged

Bryan Chernick
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Bothell, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2010

posted January 05, 2016 06:00 PM

It sounds like this is a re-styled Logmar camera and they are teaming with Pro-8 for the processing.

Pro-8mm

| IP: Logged

Janice Glesser
Film Goddess

Posts: 3468
From: Sunnyvale, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted January 05, 2016 06:03 PM

This is exciting news!!! I'm not worried about the "cloud" transport concept. Anything that gets film back in the loop is good. [Cool]

--------------------
Janice

"I'm having a very good day!"
Richard Dreyfuss - Let It Ride (1989).

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted January 05, 2016 06:40 PM

Me neither, nothing I shoot would be of any interest to anyone else.

I'd just love to capture memories of the next gen of my family nowadays, as I did in the 80's and the 90's with many now sadly, no longer with us.

"Keep it with Kodak" & "Wonderful World" springs to mind. [Wink]

The Logmar, to me Brian, was way too expensive without the backing of a recognized film producer behind it.
No guarantee of any longevity of film stock product without.

Lets hope Agfa jump on the bandwagon also!

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Graham Sinden
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1131
From: Kent, UK
Registered: Aug 2005

posted January 05, 2016 07:27 PM

This is excellent news for the filmmaker but slightly puzzling for a company that filed for bankruptcy protection only a few years ago that probably got into trouble because they stuck with film for too long and should have concentrated on digital (cough) because thats where the market was heading. Im glad they did stick with film but from a business point of view they should have concentrated on digital for the mass market.

I would rather they just bring Kodachrome back however difficult it would be as 100D is not a patch on Kodachrome. Would any new reversal film be as good as Kodachrome? Negative film is good but too expensive for the average filmmaker who wants to get a positive print made.

Graham S

| IP: Logged

Mathew James
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 740
From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2014

posted January 05, 2016 09:23 PM

@Janice and Andrew,
I used to feel the same way and didn't care at one point until this kind of thing happening came to my knowledge:
http://soheresus.com/2015/06/12/down-syndrome-genoma-copyright-infringement/

Now this was with a photo, but I see this can happen with anything so I am careful personally. I don't live in fear of the issue, but I do believe we have a responsibility to our family's and friends NOT to upload things without their permission. I can cite so many similar examples...
Cheers,
Matt

--------------------
--
Cheers,
Matt 📽

| IP: Logged

Alan Rik
Film God

Posts: 2211
From: New York City, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted January 05, 2016 09:50 PM

That is great news! Even if they don't revive Kodachrome learning to work with film is such a good experience. When it doesn't cost you anything to shoot hours and hours of footage we tend to shoot too much. With film it forces you to really know your craft and to shoot more judiciously I feel. The first time I showed my home films on a big screen people sat there transfixed. They saw themselves on the flickering screen and it was a moment. With video they watch for a few minutes and then they walk away. It just isn't involving. I'll get that camera if we have the option of projectable results.
Thanks to Quentin T. and other filmmakers who love film. (That would be all of us too! )

| IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007

posted January 06, 2016 02:36 AM

Following on from Alan's comment about shooting more judiciously, I remember a film maker in the Amateur Cine World magazine who had altered the footage counter on his cine camera to show cash expenditure as it revolved.

--------------------
Maurice

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted January 06, 2016 06:17 AM

Smiling Bill [Smile]

I'm with the any news on new film is good news band particularly as I still film with the stuff.
[Cool]

| IP: Logged

Steven J Kirk
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 873
From: Southern England
Registered: Apr 2008

posted January 06, 2016 08:53 AM

Am I awake? Is it April 1st? Life certainly can surprise you sometimes...

--------------------
VistaVision
Motion Picture High-Fidelity

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted January 06, 2016 08:59 AM

It's actually a pretty daring business move.

-a lot of people are going to say "They are investing in Super-What??!! Nobody has used that since the seventies!"

Whether it's "foolish" or "visionary" depends on the results.

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted January 06, 2016 09:59 AM

And people like us buying into it!

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Bill Parsons
Film Handler

Posts: 66
From: Brookland. UK
Registered: Jul 2004

posted January 06, 2016 10:00 AM

I’M with you on that Lee, interesting stuff, I bet you found my previous reply pretty interesting as well [Confused]

it must be my age !

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted January 06, 2016 10:05 AM

I don't think it is intended for people like us: this is so new and existing professional filmmakers have a new tool (-or even "toy") to try out and plant the idea of using film in their digitized brains.

I'm also guessing they have no plans of making a profit directly from this camera. It's really a marketing tool, just like an advertising campaign. Nobody makes money directly from those either.

If their film sales go up, or even go down at a slower rate than they were falling before, somebody will call it a success.

The Logmar Folks can't be very happy about this...

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted January 06, 2016 10:19 AM

I'd like one if the "live" sound issues were addressed and I know Alan also said he would if the film is reversal stock and projectionable.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Barry Fritz
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: Burnsville, MN, USA
Registered: Dec 2009

posted January 06, 2016 10:33 AM

Our Super 8 projectors just went up in value!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2