This is topic New Super 8 camera from Kodak in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010412
Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on 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
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 05, 2016, 02:27 PM:
Hope they will bring reversal film on the market.
Posted by Eberhard Nuffer (Member # 410) on 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
Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on January 05, 2016, 02:48 PM:
Either way, film is here to stay!
PatD poet
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on 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.
Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on 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.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on 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 !
Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on 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.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on 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!
Posted by Mathew James (Member # 4581) on 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...
Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on 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
Posted by Janice Glesser (Member # 2758) on 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]](cool.gif)
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on 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]](wink.gif)
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!
Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on 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
Posted by Mathew James (Member # 4581) on 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
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on 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! )
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on 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.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 06, 2016, 06:17 AM:
Smiling Bill ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm with the any news on new film is good news band particularly as I still film with the stuff.
Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on January 06, 2016, 08:53 AM:
Am I awake? Is it April 1st? Life certainly can surprise you sometimes...
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on 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.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 06, 2016, 09:59 AM:
And people like us buying into it!
Posted by Bill Parsons (Member # 244) on 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]](confused.gif)
it must be my age !
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on 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...
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on 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.
Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on January 06, 2016, 10:33 AM:
Our Super 8 projectors just went up in value!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 06, 2016, 10:58 AM:
Especially those that can lock onto digital sound from a pc feed!
Posted by Jerome Sutter (Member # 2346) on January 06, 2016, 11:53 AM:
According to Kodak press release: "Kodak, which will process it, scan it, and deliver it back to you as a digital copy and as an 8mm film that you can use in projectors." Here is my question: Right now Kodak only makes negative movie film. If that film where sent in to be process, well they make a positive print as well for the return? For the cost of $50 to $75, I can understand the rise in the price for the processing and printing a new Super 8 positive print.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 06, 2016, 07:47 PM:
I think it's great news but clearly the issue regarding whether a reversal film will be available needs clarification. It wouldn't be ideal for everyone to have to shoot on negative stock if they don't want to.
Do Logmar still sell their camera? I believe the first 20 all sold. Although their enterprise was admirable, I don't suppose anyone on this Forum would consider $5,000 (without lens) affordable, so I'm sure the Kodak camera would be far more significant in terms of giving Super 8 a shot in the arm. I'd consider buying one even though I rarely shoot Super 8.
I think we may now be seeing increasing evidence of film starting a vinyl-like revival. If so, considerable credit will be due to the high-profile advocates such as Quintin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan, who appear to be having some influence on other filmmakers.
Posted by Doug Arnott (Member # 4049) on January 07, 2016, 05:46 AM:
Hey its a BRAND NEW camera, with crystal sync and a C mount lens mount. Im getting one and screwing some of my old lenses on it !! Everything Ive read says the film cartridges are the same size as the old ones.But it has a "Super 8 extended Max 8 gate on it. So might lose some frame projecting it on my old projector. I just hope they start producing some color reversal film for it (crossing my fingers) but either way anything to help keep this format alive and viable is nothing but a good thing !!! Yeah the processing is too expensive but if your going to have it scanned anyway, why not. It could be a good option.
And the camera could definetely help with sound recording being crystal synced. Checked out how much the film group charges to add that for ya lately ?
I just hope none of this hurts ferriana's buisness plans. Im still mad at kodak for killing off kodachrome LoL .Ferrania will rule in my opinion if they ever get some film out to market !!
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 07, 2016, 06:11 AM:
You are probably right Steve but its sure fascinating to see Kodak have a go and break some new ground.
All a bit reminiscent of the Bolex D16 Cinema Camera perhaps with 2K res coming in around £2000 upwards. Excellent news and good to keep the Bolex branding about. The raw footage viewed I found dark and needing much tweaking which if you do media professionally as I do slows the workflow no end. Hats off to them though.
Hobby wise I would find it hard to leave my super 8 cine camera behind, still enjoying filming with some nice film stocks on offer. Perhaps we should all be mailing Kodak encouraging them to offer reversal stock?
Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on January 07, 2016, 02:12 PM:
If there's a enough interest and the volume increases, I hope that the prices of film will go down too. I remember a nice point betwen 2005-2010 I used to buy K40 (till it ended), 64T, and 100D for $10 a pop from Kodak with my student discount.
BH Photo sells Vision stocks for $35! Ouch.
Also, I don't know if this was cleared up yet but the CEO of Kodak confirmed at CES that it's the same cartridges they've been making. That part's not gonna change.
Also also, I just wanna say this new Kodak camera seems like one of those fun "it'll never happen" things that we post about when we talk about our new dream camera or projector haha.
Lastly, I just bought a beautiful 18-75mm // 1.2 lens. I'd love to try out on this new Kodak camera. But what I'd really love is if Canon would make a new S8 camera.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 07, 2016, 02:55 PM:
Something is not clear : this Kodak camera would have a larger gate that the standard one we know so that if you shoot with that camera and project with a normal projector you loose a part of the picture. So I think Steve is right when he says it is not for "people like us" (end of quote :-)
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 07, 2016, 03:22 PM:
What I am really saying is this isn't meant for us because we would be more likely to buy a series of 8 $50 used cameras than the one $400 brand new camera. We aren't "new" oriented. To us "new" is something 40 years old that we got yesterday! The closest we usually come to the real "new" is "mint condition".
-On the other hand a professional would be absolutely crazy to show up at a shoot with a camera older than he (or she) is. They'd be one cracked gear away from everybody else there wondering what's wrong with them and swearing never to work with them again!
From that viewpoint this is the answer to a classic Super-8 objection:
"Why would I choose a medium that hasn't had new gear manufactured since the 80s? I can't stake my living depending on equipment I can't trust."
It's also not meant for us because if WE bought it, Kodak might net 30 cartridges a year per camera. The intent is a film renaissance and miles of film in all gauges. (That's not us.)
(Doesn't mean I would never buy one, though! -priorities!, always priorities!)
Posted by Colin Auty (Member # 231) on January 07, 2016, 03:22 PM:
heres more info and pictures of this new super 8mm camera for us all to drool over, enjoy :-
www.petapixel.com/2016/01/06/kodak-is-bringing-back-the-super-8-as-a-film-camera-with-digital-features/]www.petapixel.com/2016/01/06/kodak-is-bringing-back-the-super-8-as-a-film-ca mera-with-digital-features/[/URL]
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 07, 2016, 04:01 PM:
If they are bringing out a new camera and it does say you will also get a super 8 film to show on a projector, does that mean maybe a new projector on the horizon.
Getting totally carried away I could only imagine what Sony could do with a super 8 projector :-)
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 07, 2016, 04:09 PM:
I'm looking at that electronic viewfinder and thinking if you shoot for projection I bet you can configure the viewfinder to frame an academy format (...among other possibilities). It's just a matter of using our old friends letterbox and pillarbox real time.
-yes, you'll shoot the full camera aperture on film, but the projector's gate will take you back to what you saw in the finder.
What would be ambitious is if they used LCD technology to make an electronically variable aperture!
-just saying!
Posted by Paul Suchy (Member # 80) on January 07, 2016, 04:23 PM:
It's fun to hear the details of the prototype trickle in; it's good to hear that it will shoot at several speeds including 24fps (for those of us with 2 bladed shutters). I wonder how "digital" it will be in terms of shooting different aspect ratios-imagine your next Christmas home movies in scope!
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 07, 2016, 04:35 PM:
A scope lens holder for this camera is a good idea, tough the weight may be discouraging for some people.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on January 07, 2016, 06:48 PM:
Anyone know what is happening Farrania wise at the moment. I heard they had issues at the propossed factory site.
Best Mark.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 08, 2016, 09:06 AM:
Mark, they encountered two not film related technical problems. They said they are shortening the delay but don't want to give any date anymore as you never know what can happen. The good side is that they didn't have to use the money raised for the film to solve their troubles. I can only imagine we should have fresh news soon.
Just got from a friend a link to an article in french about the new camera http://fr.actuphoto.com/34408-kodak-relance-la-super-8.html
This article has two technicals mistakes (the word "lens" in not well translated and they speak about 60 mt (200 ft) cartriges instead of the 15 mt (50 ft ones) like 40 years ago (so no doubt it's a mistake and not a revival of the large sound reels only used on some cameras). It seems that some people don't really know what they are talking about so it's better to wait for more precise and trustable détails.
Posted by Julian Baquero (Member # 2520) on January 08, 2016, 10:38 AM:
This is excellent news for all of us in the film hobby and yet another demonstration that not all new technologies are better than old ones, remember vinyl and vacuum tubes, polaroid? As far as I know Ferrania will keep producing reversal E6 film and developing it. Now that Kodak gives the step maybe Agfa, Ferrania or Fuji might come with their own cameras and services (digitizing included). 50 to 70 USD per film is pretty steep price for max 3min of film, I can just hope the price will be lower and you can opt for developing or developing + digital capture.
If new cameras are now available it is pretty sure there will also be new projectors.
Sound sync is still an issue, how will this work with this Kodak cameras?
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 08, 2016, 12:32 PM:
Yes great that a new camera is coming to the market (if it ever comes to fruition) but really! Couldn't they come up with a better cosmetic design than that? No better than their original camera. A house brick with a handle and a lens. Pity they didn't give it to Bolex to come up with a design. I cannot see that many people will be tempted to buy such a retro poor looking camera. Certainly not 'newbies'.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 08, 2016, 12:50 PM:
True Julian
I guess for "film projection" you will only have a roll of non- striped silent film. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It would be nice to have sound recorded direct onto the film as well "stripe", but I guess this product is not really about film projection, but more for the folk that like to combine the look of film with sound, to be shown on either a TV or video projector.
What I was trying to figure out is, what happens to the sound if you have to edit the Super8 film itself...how do you do it?
Another thing the old Super8 sound cameras had a "boom mike" for good reasons, with this camera its internal, will it pick up the internal sound of cartridge running?.
In saying that good on Kodak for producing a product with a film content it will be interesting to see how it works out.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 08, 2016, 01:25 PM:
Graham, I'm surprised there is no mention at all of reversal film. There is no option, neither of the possibility of having your film process without digitalization. I'm doubting that the film will really run in the projector and will not be a negative film, although what is said. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 08, 2016, 01:58 PM:
Graham, if you edit the film either traditionally or digitally, then you edit the live soundtrack also.
This would of course be easier to do in tandem digitally even if the film is being used in a projector as you have a digital photographic replica to mimic every frame with.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 08, 2016, 03:17 PM:
Andrew, if you edit a film (I mean a real one), it is much easier if the soundtrack is on it.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 08, 2016, 04:25 PM:
Dominique, ordinarily I'd agree with you, but if you have a digital replica and only that replica contains the sound, then I'd digitally edit both simultaneously, then cut the actual film to suit the digital edited version to a frame.
That way the finished digital soundtrack could always be sync pulsed with the projected "real" film and the sound would match the image perfectly..frame for frame.
We are assuming here there will be no magnetic stripe just live sound on a SD card and a silent "real" film with a digital copy of it that includes the live recorded sound in sync with the images.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 08, 2016, 04:49 PM:
I was considering the case of using only film, no digital at all. As far as I'm concerned I see no interest to shoot in super 8 to have a final result on a computer or a dvd or blu ray (then shoot in digital from the beginning...). So, I'm afraid Kodak is no longer regarding super 8 as most of us (I hope) still do : cine camera and cine projector.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 08, 2016, 09:28 PM:
Andrew I cant imagine many will no go to the trouble of trying to the sync the separate sound track to that roll of film on a film projector....
At present it seems its only silent negative film. If they can supply a "color pre-striped reversal film" that would be great, but at the moment it seems the system is more suited for a film to digital transfer. I understand the camera can give you a wider picture, which again is more suited to a 16:9 image possibly close to a 1.85:1 ratio for TV or for Video projection after the transfer.
I would really like to be wrong, but so far I cant see any of this going through a film projector.
If Kodak can bring back the stunning colors of Kodachrome ...now that would be something
Anyway I wish them luck with this new camera, and hope this will kick start more film use that would benefit all of us
Posted by Robert Lewis (Member # 1458) on January 09, 2016, 04:51 AM:
I do think that the annoucement by Kodak is great, but as yet it is clear that there is much more information to come.
Various issues have alrady been raised by a number ot contributors and I suspect these shake down to two principal topics.
The first is cost and second, it seems to me, are technical points based around the proposal.
I have filmed in both double 8 and super 8 in the past, but more recently I have filmed in 16mm, and that, in a way, helps me to comment on the issues which have been raised.
Assuming for one moment that the the film stock intended to be used is limited to negative film, one can perhaps see why the costs so far quoted appear to be high. Negative film will be shot. That will have to be processed and then a print will have to be produced and processed for projection. This mirrors the present arrangement in relation to shooting 16mm film for projection. So one has two 50ft lengths of film (a negative and a positive) with the associated costs of double processing. As to a sound and digital image version, there is no mention so far (as far as I am aware) of whether Kodak will supply the necessary card with the film at the time of purchase. If two types of film stock (negative and positive) and the processing of the both types is included in the purchase price along with a card, the cost so far being mentioned is not, in my view, excessive.
Of course, this would change if Kodak were to be contemplating the reintroduction of a reversal stock. Only the cost of one film stock and one processing cost would be involved along with the audio visual card. There would be a spin-off benefit if this were to happen, because there would be no reason why Kodak should not then be able to supply the same reversal stock in 16mm format - something which 16mm users would, I am sure, very much welcome. That would increase their sales of the stock and, perhaps, make it more viable.
It is impossible, at this stage to know how Kodak will proceed in relation to these points, but I do note that at this time Kodak have mentioned only supplying one projection film to customers along with an audio visual version. If it is intended to use negative film and produce a projection print for customers, what is to happen to the processed negative? Will they be sending both the negative and positive versions to customers? So, does the fact that Kodak have not, so far, at least, addressed it, support the speculation that it is intended to reintroduce a reversal stock?
I do hope so.
Posted by Paul Suchy (Member # 80) on January 09, 2016, 06:18 AM:
Very good points, everyone. Let's keep this conversation going because I'm sure Kodak is checking our posts as well as other forums in order to see reactions and opinions regarding their project.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 09, 2016, 06:54 AM:
I wouldn't bank on it Paul.
I think the comments regarding these as being, first and foremost, a digital film makers professional play thing to create a certain ambiance of film style, is probably quite correct.
Anyone wishing to use these in the traditional manner they were unintended, will be a minority in this day and age, and catering for their needs, will therefore fall well down the pecking order in order of Kodaks priorities I feel.
Posted by Paul Suchy (Member # 80) on January 09, 2016, 08:31 AM:
I understand exactly what you mean, Andrew. I only thought Kodak's main objective would be to sell as many units as possible and they would have at least one employee to research public reaction.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 09, 2016, 09:05 AM:
Hopefully you're correct Paul. Let's hope they do, and better still, let's hope they listen to what would be desired from a new camera and film stock by our people here. Including a magnetic stripe, if that isn't asking too much!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 09, 2016, 10:49 AM:
It seems to me that if anyone, amateur or professional, wishes to shoot super 8 there are plenty of superb used cameras available. What we need from Kodak is reversal film stock, not a new camera, although it is nice to see new S8 hardware of any kind coming to market.
Whatever happened to the Logmar camera? They sold 50 cameras and then stopped production. Why? The Logmar camera was the ultimate S8 camera, and in some respects the Kodak camera looks like a poor mans Logmar.
Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on January 09, 2016, 11:46 AM:
Everything old is new again. Assuming all of the aforementioned comes to pass, it seems to me to be a long way 'round to get back to where we were (with some tech improvements). Don't get me wrong. I welcome it. The thing is, the format never should have been practically abandoned in the first place. This being said, I sure hope they introduce a reversal stock akin to Kodachrome (one can dream, can't one?)
Posted by Robert Lewis (Member # 1458) on January 09, 2016, 01:31 PM:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but using a negative stock as the starting point seems to me to be unnecessarily complicating what Kodak say they are trying to do. They could do what they say they want to do and please many of their customers who greatly miss a reversal stock by reintroducing Ektachrome 100. This would encourage S8 users who have ceased to use their cameras because they cannot project negative stock and find having a projection print made is very expensive as things stand today. They would also be able to encourage new customers by offering the choice of using negative stock or reversal stock as well as well as satisfying those existing 16mm users who would welcome a return of reversal stock. It would indeed be good if Kodak were reading the messages being posted on this subject, and better still if they allowed themselves to be influenced by them. What happened to the old retail saying "The cutomer is always right"?
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 10, 2016, 06:40 AM:
Paul. I heard the first 20 $3500 discounted cameras shipped early last year, no idea what happened after that. The gate feed and design looked very good on the camera, if the uploaded results were anything to go by it was a nice unit although probably made to order?
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 10, 2016, 06:57 AM:
Paul, the Logmar site says : "Fifty of these cameras were build in conjunction with the fifty year anniversary of Super-8 in one batch in late 2014. Today the Logmar S-8 camera is a sought after collectors item as we no longer manufacture this camera." The reason why the production stopped is not given, nor if the limited number of 50 units was planned from the beginning.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 10, 2016, 07:34 AM:
Dom Do we know if anyone is filming with one or are they pretty much a collectors item now?
Would be nice if Kodak made its promotional material for the new product on Super 8mm.
I'm looking forward to hear how they have overcome the onboard mike picking up the mechanical noise from the film transport mechanism. Well all remember Super 8 sound cameras of old..
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 10, 2016, 07:43 AM:
I have no idea, Lee. The only thing that seems clear is that all the cameras manufactured were sold. Is the (handicraft like) production too hard to handle for a small company ? Does the lack of colour reversal stock play a role in the end of cameras production ? Is there a lack of demand due to the high price ? The only people who could answer are the people from Logmar.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 10, 2016, 07:51 AM:
Tru Dom and hats off to them for what seemed a good product.
At the end of the day its really good to see someone actually developing a film product today. Perhaps it may even turn up at one of the trade media shows over here, that I would not miss.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 10, 2016, 06:09 PM:
Lee, from some searches I made on the net, it seems that Logmar helped Kodak in the conception of its camera. That could explain why the company stopped manufacturing the product. I also saw that at least three buyers actually use the camera to shoot :-)
Posted by Paul Suchy (Member # 80) on January 11, 2016, 07:15 AM:
Regarding mag stripe on new film, I seem to remember Kodak claimed some sort of environmental law that prevented them from mag striping new stock (because we all know the oil companies and factory farming are small threats compared to manufacturing a case of mag striped film stock). Does anyone else recall this?
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 11, 2016, 07:43 AM:
Interesting that Logmar were involved as well.
Looks like the starting price will be around £250 with a basic lens making it affordable, certainly for a variable speed camera today. The big names are very much behind it so looks like it will actually happen.Worth registering with Kodak for the latest news, all rather exciting really.
Expect we all ponder why a new super 8 camera in 2016? As a keen 8mm film maker even today I can see a market for it especially when the electronic components in our old cameras will be perhaps a little past sell by date. Being a fresh design and complete with electronic side screen it will help creativity and possible users will be calling for reversal film stock once up and running. At present it seems more aimed at Kodaks Vison Neg film shooters but will see...
Top of my spec list would be will it have electronic ASA settings?
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 11, 2016, 08:31 AM:
Paul, you're right. The environmental law you mentionned is the reason Kodak gave to stop producing sound cartriges. Kodak say it would cost too much to invest in an alternative in a declining sales market. Kodak also said they were looking for a solution but it never happened. A sound cartrige would be a miracle so I would be glad with colour reversal stock :-)
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 11, 2016, 05:56 PM:
I will too, but I believe in miracles!
While ever China are getting away with building 5 coal fired power stations per week in this day and age, I don't think we or Kodak need worry TOO much about a few miles of ferromagnetic stripe!!
Posted by Glenn Brady (Member # 715) on January 11, 2016, 07:20 PM:
[deleted]
[ January 17, 2016, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Brady ]
Posted by Jeff Popper (Member # 4870) on January 12, 2016, 04:42 PM:
Hi all, I honestly wonder whether the picture quality achievable on Super 8 is going to be acceptable to people in 2016. My own experience has been that it is pretty hard to get good quality on super 8 and I wonder what sort of quality film media they propose to offer and what method of telecine they would use to meet expectations in 2016 (when people are used to True HD (or better) resolution on their LCD/plasma television.
Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on January 12, 2016, 04:53 PM:
Totally agree, Jeff -- I know some producers shoot on Super 8 to achieve that high-grain "home movie look" for segments in commercials, music videos, etc., but certainly not as a professional gauge.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 12, 2016, 05:45 PM:
I think the very best images obtainable from Super 8mm can hold their own against most others outside of Ultra HD, but only up to a certain sized screened image.
People have likened the quality of some Super 8mm prints to those that they would expect to see on screen from a 35mm print, but as said only at modest screen sizes.
You would have to sit a very good distance away from the screen for Super 8mm to look polished on anything over a 15ft wide image I'd say.
Some prints I have look every bit as good as my HD projected DVD (not Blu Ray) ones but then again, this is on only around an 8ft wide image in the home environment.
Super 8mm and it's projectors is perfect, I feel, for what the guage was intended for to begin with, amateur home cinema projection & amateur photography from it's cameras.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 12, 2016, 06:32 PM:
A few more comments:
As Lee has indicated, the price is surprisingly reasonable - I bet most of us would have guessed it would be higher. And they talk about a lower-priced version in 2016! That probably won't cost vastly more than the last 'mass market' Super 8 cameras of the 1980s.
I don't think the gate is a big problem if you take it into account if shooting for normal projection. But the ideal would be to have a setting that electronically indicates the outline of the 'traditional' aspect ratio for those who want it.
Some have questioned whether there will be much demand but we shouldn't underestimate the impact of the 'message' this sends out, especially if you read the amazing list of positive statements from prominent filmmakers on the Kodak site. This is Kodak 'saying' that Super 8 is NOT a virtually obsolete format reliant on old equipment; it's something with current relevance.
I agree that a reversal stock would be highly desirable, but even if one isn't planned yet, surely they will be more inclined to produce one if this camera boosts sales. And why shouldn't Ferrania see this camera as an incentive to get a reversal stock onto the market?
[ January 12, 2016, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 12, 2016, 06:43 PM:
Agreed Adrian, with this type of investment shown by Kodak and Ferrania, there appears to be very exciting times ahead in the not so distant future regarding Super 8mm film and it's associated equipment! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 13, 2016, 06:30 AM:
Jeff, I think that one of the Kodak targets are the students in cinema. Obviousely, Kodak understood that one of the interests of super 8 is the physical contact you can have with filmstock. Quality is important but is not all.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 14, 2016, 06:56 AM:
Good points Adrian.
The last couple of years here have very much been about re filming projects I did as a kid, sort of a filmic walk down memory lane so thinking about the age of my own favourite camera to have the opportunity now of buying a brand new model is quite something in a lifetime for me at least. The price of the camera is a keen one and will also appeal to those in media seeking 'that look', gorilla film makers and students alike I'm sure. Kodak seem committed having seen the 50 year anniversary of super 8 last year and the great man do say ..
Kodak Chief Executive Officer. “Following the 50th anniversary of Super 8, Kodak is providing new opportunities to enjoy and appreciate film as a medium.”
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 15, 2016, 05:24 AM:
Recent video of the Kodak booth at CES from the fine people of Tested:
Click here
Some questions answered: cartridges seem to be the same as the original ones, built-in microphone can be unplugged and you can connect another sound recording device into the stereo jack in, sound is recorded onto an SD card (Logmar style) and scan should be in 4K.
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on January 16, 2016, 04:34 PM:
Not Kodak, but I found this announcement/advert on Facebook today
"Hello, I would like to present our motion picture lab Movie and Sound Firenze, located in Florence Italy,
We offer every kind of 8/S8/16/S16/35/S35mm lab services such as negative /positive color and B/W processing (also E6 and B/W reversal process), 16/35mm sound recording, color and B/W positive printing, 8/S8/9,5/16/S16/35/ S35mm telecine and scan, S8/16/35mm film recording, 8/S8/16mm to 16/35mm blow up and 35mm to S8/16mm reduction.
We are specialized in photochemical restoration of motion picture film and we have a line of dedicated High End motion picture equipment (BHP, Schmitzer, Oxberry wet gate and optical printer, CTM Debrie, Arri, Lipsner&Smith, Film Lab Color Master, Westrex recorder and dubbers) for all formats.
you can visit our page: https://www.facebook.com/movieandsoundfirenze/"
Posted by Mathew James (Member # 4581) on January 17, 2016, 09:52 PM:
Thanx for that video Jean-Marc.
What a dream coming true!!
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 18, 2016, 04:05 AM:
Interesting watch Jean-Marc.
The mike socket could have been a XLR type instead on a mini jack but hey ho.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 18, 2016, 04:29 AM:
Lee, I suppose they wanted it more on the general public/user-friendly side. And it's easy to find XLR to Jack adapters. I personnaly use a Zoom H4n recording device for sound.
My guess is that the B-Type USB port will be for battery charging, the A-Type will be for sound transfer (in case you don't have a separate SD card reader), HDMI for an external monitor or connection to a recorder of some sort for digital back-up, both jack sockets at the bottom for sound monitoring and aux-out for external recording.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 18, 2016, 06:48 AM:
My Rode gun mike and Sennheiser radio mike would look rather splendid on the new Kodak. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 18, 2016, 06:52 AM:
An excellent choice of weaponry, Sir...
Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on January 21, 2016, 05:38 PM:
While I'm thrilled to know that Kodak will be producing a new Super 8mm camera, at the end of the day it's still all about digital and that's what's rather disappointing for me. Don't get me wrong I love this, but I'd be even happier if they also produced a new Regular 8/Super 8/Max 8 projector. Otherwise, for most users (if they use Kodak Vision 3) it still ends up as digital. If I shoot on negative, give me back the negative, and charge me extra if I want positive prints as well. Otherwise I might as well just shoot digital video and use a "filter" for the Super 8 look in post. I also am not really fond of the electronic viewfinder only set up. It would be nice to have an optical viewfinder in addition to the electronic one. Still, I'm glad this is happening. No, I'm elated this is hapening, actually, and the question about projectors was asked at CES, and it was said by the Kodak rep that a new projector was not ruled out.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 21, 2016, 06:50 PM:
What intrigues me about it is the possibility of shooting sound.
I have a lot of sound films, but I've never made a film with anything more ambitious than a musical score.
-Just once it would be great to jump the gap and have lip-sync sound.
Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on January 21, 2016, 06:54 PM:
But you won't be able to project that sound, at least, not from film.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 21, 2016, 07:00 PM:
Of course you will, if you have pulse sync capabilities.
Note to Steve.... time to upgrade your projector! A lover of the hobby like yourself, really needs to get pulse sync as soon as possible to get in the zone for whatever the future may soon offer.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 21, 2016, 07:11 PM:
You would need reversal film.
-at the moment you can get Tri-X and Agfa 200D.
If I sprung for the cost of this camera, a sync capable projector wouldn't be too far behind.
Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on January 22, 2016, 01:59 AM:
How does that work? No code is recorded on the film, is it?
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 22, 2016, 04:15 AM:
As sound is recorded digitally to the SD card, it can be easily transferred to a computer and synchronized to the final digital scan of the processed cartridge into a non linear editing software.
Even if some movies are still being shot on film, the postproduction workflow is being handled digitally.
I'm not sure Kodak think it should be different for super 8.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 22, 2016, 07:28 AM:
Just need a projector inventing now then with an SD card reader built in that synchronizes with the film as its projected.
Over to you Kodak
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 22, 2016, 08:19 AM:
Doug Meltzer does a lot of work with syncing up sound to silent prints. He's been taking silent Universal-8 digests, video recording them off the screen, cutting sound tracks from feature DVDs to sync up with the video and then recording the results on stripe on the film.
He showed several of these at CineSea, it was as good as any commercial recording I've ever seen (-or is that "heard"?).
about halfway down...
It seems to me if you had something very linear like 50 feet of film and the 2 1/2 minutes of sound that belong with it, this would be pretty easy compared to what Doug went through. Your greatest loss of sync would probably be whenever the camera started and had to get up to speed. You'd need to figure out how many milliseconds to subtract from the sound track at the beginning of every shot otherwise 10 shots in your sound would begin to lag your picture.
After that, you'd basically be left with the same thing you would have had if you shot a sound cartridge. You could edit it as you like. Things like inserting titles would get more complicated and of course you'd wind up fighting the 18 frame gap just like in the good old days.
Then again you could do non-linear editing of the footage and sound while you were also cutting and splicing on the editing bench and then lay down a track on the final cut.
-definitely a project!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 22, 2016, 09:29 AM:
It would certainly make things a whole load easier if we could just have sound cartridges back, like we used to have!
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 22, 2016, 09:45 AM:
I didn't think so until I actually saw one being projected.
It was a lot more impressive than I would have ever imagined!
The thing is if I could shoot sound I actually wouldn't be out to make some great artistic epic, really just some footage of what our lives are like here and now. (You can call it "home movies" if you like.)
If I were a smarter teenager I would have gone for sound back then at the very start, but it wasn't even a thought. Few people I knew had movies at all and none of them had sound. This was just a theory that such things existed!
-Of course if I were a smarter teenager I would have been a pretty rare teenager!
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 22, 2016, 09:50 AM:
"Home movies" ? that's catchy...
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 22, 2016, 09:50 AM:
-new idea I came up with!
Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on January 22, 2016, 09:51 AM:
quote:
As sound is recorded digitally to the SD card, it can be easily transferred to a computer and synchronized to the final digital scan of the processed cartridge into a non linear editing software.
Even if some movies are still being shot on film, the postproduction workflow is being handled digitally.
I'm not sure Kodak think it should be different for super 8.
That's my point, you wouldn't be able to project the sound from the film.
Posted by Paul Suchy (Member # 80) on January 23, 2016, 07:59 AM:
15 years ago, I was buying the last Bonum reels from a local camera store. The owner wanted to give me their sound striper, and I told him I would have no use for it. If I could only have seen into the future...
Dear Steve-Last century, I was so excited to change over to super 8 sound home movies, yet after the first few cartridges, I realized no one had anything remotely interesting to say and the thrill was mostly visual. With sound, I had to limit myself to longer shots unless I wanted to redub the choppy sound and coaching friends and family to speak as well as move was just too much. I have seen some really well done sound home movies, none of which are mine.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 23, 2016, 09:50 AM:
The home made sound films from a Canon I used to use were really good. I don't mean I was the next Spielberg, I just mean the quality of the live sound was on parity with that of the image.
I took nearly 1200ft of sound film with me on my first Honeymoon in Florida and because the whole theme park scene is geared up for photographic magic, this is one film I have that I cherish its content as high if not higher, than any other from my entire collection.
I spent an age editing the soundtrack once back home but it was well worth the effort put in.
I only wished I had the machines I have now to have done an even more professional job on it, but the live sound was really excellent from the cameras built in boom microphone.
Incidentally, this all happened in 93 and I did not see one other cine camera anywhere in use throughout the three week duration.
Camcorders only, everywhere!
I had a Sony TRV but I left it at home thankfully.
All I would have had would be some awful quality VHS video cassette now had I had gone mainstream at the time.
Posted by Paul Suchy (Member # 80) on January 23, 2016, 10:30 AM:
Sounds wonderful, Andrew; you avoided the trend and went your own way, and you still have a beautiful rendition of your honeymoon!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 23, 2016, 10:48 AM:
Yes Paul, I don't have the wife any longer but I do have the film! Ha ha ha
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on January 24, 2016, 03:57 AM:
Come to think of it I may have taken the only actual sound Film of Ken Livingstone unveiling the moved Shaftesbury Memorial (Eros) in Piccadilly Circus - all thr news teams were using video camcorders and I didn't see any other cine cameras.
The sound wasn't very good due to clutch squealing on the power zoom even when not in use. Those things start a up at the worst times.....
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 24, 2016, 04:16 AM:
What year was this Brian?
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 24, 2016, 07:07 AM:
quote:
Yes Paul, I don't have the wife any longer but I do have the film! Ha ha ha
Andrew....maybe that's why your current wife hates your film collection!
Bill
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on January 24, 2016, 07:42 AM:
I couldn't remember the date Andrew, but from the history of the statue it was placed in its new position in 1985. I'm sure it was still GLC days so that seems to be it
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 24, 2016, 07:59 AM:
That's a great piece of historical film you made there Brian!
No Bill it's not because of my ex wife being on an old film that she takes no interest in film. She simply doesn't get the whole appeal of the hobby when you can see it on telly for free!
We will never be able to explain to "non believers" of the hobby what the whole fascination with having the ACTUAL Film thing is, I suppose.
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2