8mm Forum: Got an update on Kodak's new super 8 camera...

This is topic Got an update on Kodak's new super 8 camera... 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=011169

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on December 20, 2016, 10:23 AM:

I signed up for updates on their website and I received one today. Sounds like Spring 2017.

They also had some sample footage on youtube from an actual prototype. It seemed like they tried to incorporate all the worst traits that Super 8 is known for rather than highlight the quality that is possible. Not sure what they're really doing.

On the one hand, I'm happy that they're apparently really working on it because I had started to believe they weren't. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's a product that will do much to promote Super 8 if it ever does see the light of day.

To take a positive spin, perhaps the jitter and dirty gate were digitally added to make it look like Super 8. Probably more interesting than a 20 second rusty truck video that have been taken on just about any phone. Not sure it's the best way to market the product though.

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on December 20, 2016, 10:28 AM:

And nothing in the shots is moving, why demonstrate cine film with what can be taken with a stills camera??

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on December 20, 2016, 10:34 AM:

Having worked for a large company at one point, here's my guess at what happened:

A goal of releasing a camera was set at the beginning of the year. Bonuses were tied to meeting that goal. But it wasn't all or nothing. A functioning prototype meant a partial payout. So they threw something together that could meet the letter of that partial goal if not the spirit.

Also the update mentioned CES 2017 so maybe they had to put something out there ahead of CES in hopes of repeating some of the positive press they got last year.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 20, 2016, 11:15 AM:

What a joke! [Frown]

Kodak are wasting their time if they think that they can promote super 8 with material like that.
Now this is the way it should be done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nh9BTMWj9M

Kodak need to show that kind of quality with their new camera or it's dead from the getgo.

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on December 20, 2016, 11:54 AM:

I think we are comparing apples with pears... First we don't know on what stock the Kodak footage was shot, and how it was scanned, color corrected or not...
The Logmar footage looks incredible but, the image has been tweaked digitally. It was also stabilized, just look at the moving sprocket hole vs the steady image itself and compare with the Kodak footage which has rock steady sprocket holes vs a shaky image...
I remain very excited at the prospect of this new camera and until the opposite is I believe in it's qualities...
But you are right. The Logmar is already out there and it will serve as a reference...

Posted by Daniel Macarone (Member # 5102) on December 20, 2016, 01:53 PM:

Both samples have impressive resolution, but need better image stabilization. They both suffer from a boat-rocking effect for all shots on a tripod. You'll notice the shots that are static can make you dizzy, feeling just like you're rocking side to side. I wonder if that's in the scanning of both of these. The Logmar has pin registration, but if the result of that is the boat-rocking, then it needs reworking.

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on December 21, 2016, 03:15 AM:

Kodak stated on that U-tube page "This footage was shot on the New Kodak Super 8 camera in and around Point Reyes, CA. The images were captured on KODAK VISION3 50D 7203. " So we do know the film stock but not the scanning info etc.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on December 21, 2016, 03:38 AM:

With the name KODAK behind them I just cannot believe that some high-up person/s approved that awful little video. It should be removed immediately.
It will not help to provide many advance orders.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 21, 2016, 01:34 PM:

Yikes thats a terrible way to promote a new product [Frown]

...whats with the hair in the gate? Kodak you better post on you-tube something better than this if you want sales [Eek!]

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 22, 2016, 12:43 AM:

Although it's odd that the video lacks moving images, I think it has been posted to reassure people that that the camera will still be produced, and hopefully something much better will be produced before it appears.

I'm surprised by the aspect ratio of the picture as I thought the MAX-8 aperture meant a 16x9 image, but it looks considerably 'squarer' in the clip.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on December 22, 2016, 08:20 AM:

No sound either, other than the recorded sound of the camera.

You're right, I think they just threw something together to reassure people. And they wanted to get it out there before next month's CES where it was so well received last year. I'm sure they will be getting questions.

Based on what we've seen, I think Spring of 2017 is pretty optimistic.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 22, 2016, 09:30 AM:

Maybe they're deliberately trying to put people off so that they don't have to make it after all!!? [Eek!]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 22, 2016, 10:25 AM:

My thoughts exactly Rob!
Anyway you look at this, it does not seem to be anything that one would expect from an iconic company like Eastman Kodak. To me it has all the elements of a 'skunk works' project, a trial balloon as it were, without any of the real financial commitment that one would expect from them.
If Kodak is serious about super 8, forget this camera and just bring back reversal color film, there are plenty of far better cameras out there just dying to run film.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on December 22, 2016, 10:27 AM:

I'm sure engineers with experience in designing Super 8 cameras are in pretty short supply. Kodak's old cameras were fairly low end, consumer focused models from what I remember. I don't think borrowing from what they've previously done would make sense for a $1,000 camera.

So that means seeking expertise from elsewhere.

As much as I would like it if they brought back color reversal film, I don't see it happening and I can understand why. They've realized (correctly) that anything produced from these cameras will ultimately end up in a digital format. That being the case, color negative film makes more sense. It is much more forgiving of imperfect exposure.

Three minutes of film costs about $45 with processing these days. That doesn't including shipping costs or digital conversion costs. If you're going to spend that kind of money and wait for it to get processed, you want your movie to look good. Otherwise, people will just stick with digital.

What I am a little bit baffled by in Kodak's current Super 8 film lineup is that the only reversal film they make is B&W. And apparently they don't sell a B&W negative film. Why is that?

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 22, 2016, 10:38 AM:

That's right Tom, Kodak always made their money from film stock, not cameras and projectors. All of which makes this project the more puzzling. All filmmakers want is for them to bring back reversal color film and processing at a reasonable cost so we can start using those glorious Bolex and Nizo cameras again.
I notice the video says the camera was running at 24fps. If that is the case, then a single cartridge will only last for about 2.5 minutes in the camera! That's going to be a really hard sell at about $75.00 a pop with processing.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on December 22, 2016, 07:21 PM:

In reading some of the comments on the youtube page, I'm now thinking that my judgement of the camera might be a little too harsh. The overscan they did does not give a flattering impression. Properly cropped it would have looked much better.

Properly cropped the movie would have looked much better, if still not all that impressive. The camera's a work in progress.

For comparison, here's a vimeo of a similar overscan done on footage from a Nikon R10, - which is a pretty well regarded Super 8 camera. Not bad for something 40 years old.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 22, 2016, 07:26 PM:

Well Tom, in comparison with your film on the 40 year old Nizo, the new Kodak camera looks like a giant step.....backwards! [Frown]

Posted by Daniel Macarone (Member # 5102) on December 23, 2016, 02:38 PM:

I'm glad companies are making this effort, but I think they still won't invent the perfect Super 8 camera. There are too many things to include in its features. What one has, the other won't. Old models are still great; Some of them, for example have optical fades in camera, which is nice to see when projecting reversal film. I doubt the new ones will have fades because they intend the film to be digitized and enhanced in post.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on December 01, 2017, 03:33 PM:

The latest update:

Super 8 Camera Update

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on December 01, 2017, 04:26 PM:

One thing I find interesting is the admission that they are having a hard time finding suppliers that can hold such tight tolerances on such a precision mechanism.....it just makes me think of the throw away society we live in now. Must be unable to make anything now that will last very long. Good thing there are thousands and thousands of still working cameras out there that they made 30 plus years ago when such tight tolerances could be manufactured. Maybe the new camera is not going to happen after all......or if it does it won't last very long.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 01, 2017, 06:33 PM:

I can't see anybody paying $2,500 to $3,000 for this camera, when you can get a far superior camera off ebay for a few hundred or less.
What's the news on the launch of Super 8 Ektachrome?

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on December 02, 2017, 12:37 AM:

They made a test batch of Ektachrome that’s being tested right now. It sounds like they have some testing and possible adjustments to do before it goes into full production.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 02, 2017, 05:33 AM:

Smoke & Mirrors.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on December 02, 2017, 06:23 AM:

Two comments made me think.

Clay said "I can hold the camera away from my body." I shudder at the thought of a waving and hose-pipeing image.

Holger said "Film has to be transported 24 times a second." What, no 18fps?

Posted by Simon McConway (Member # 219) on December 02, 2017, 07:27 AM:

Kodak is doing far more than Ferannia film.

Posted by Matthieu van der Sluis (Member # 6040) on December 02, 2017, 09:23 AM:

I rather see 24 fps for homemade film, but that's just me.
I really like to make movies on positive film again, so I can play it with my projector, but this is not for sale right?

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on December 02, 2017, 09:34 AM:

Not yet, Matthieu.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on December 02, 2017, 09:39 AM:

Home movies on reversal film shot at 18fps will give you more for your money than running at 24fps.
24fps is, of course, highly desirable for professional use, perhaps the new Kodak camera is not really designed for amateur and home movie use.

Posted by Matthieu van der Sluis (Member # 6040) on December 02, 2017, 10:46 AM:

I thought they mentioned around €700 somewhere in the beginning.
Now I believe it will be 4x that amount.
I have to find myself a nice Beaulieu instead, but not intil there is positive film again.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 02, 2017, 12:19 PM:

The whole thing is ridiculous and will never happen.

Maurice,

"24fps is, of course, highly desirable for professional use, perhaps the new Kodak camera is not really designed for amateur and home movie use".

There is no desire amongst professionals to shoot super 8.

None.

Posted by Jluis Villar (Member # 3963) on December 02, 2017, 01:12 PM:

Hi Rob,i shot in s8 professional works, see some examples,

https://vimeo.com/240297854
https://vimeo.com/111887828
https://vimeo.com/83774924
https://vimeo.com/58302232
https://vimeo.com/69642459

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 02, 2017, 02:51 PM:

What a travesty! All that engineering expertise and lessons learned over the decades - totally lost! I bet Kodak wish they could get back some of their retired engineers right now. So here they are, unable to recreate Kodachrome, having great difficulty recreating Ektachrome, and apparently unable to manufacture their new S8 camera for under $2,500.00!
I'm not holding my breath on ever seeing S8 Ektachrome reversal film again.

Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on December 02, 2017, 05:16 PM:

I think it is more crucial they bring back their reversal film as promised, there are some khal cartridges (between ASA 40 - 200) you can buy from on8mil.com of other stocks other than the AGFA 200 super 8 which i didn't like.

Otherwise the only current option is to shoot neg and have a positive print made by andec if you want to project which is the only lab which prints super 8. There are some reversal stocks out, but too expensive with processing unless like me you process your own and are hard to find. On8Mil has many.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 03, 2017, 03:40 AM:

Jluis, you should get in touch with Kodak and show them what marvelous results their product is capable of.

Maybe I was a little blunt with my comments, but what I meant was that if Kodak did launch this new, now very expensive camera, I don't know any professionals that would take much interest in it.

Presumably, Jluis, you are happy with your current camera? Would you consider this new one do you think?

I can't believe Kodak are having trouble making new mechanisms...really? Hmmm..sounds more like excuses to me...

Just my opinions. Hopefully I'll be proven totally wrong! [Smile]

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 03, 2017, 06:24 AM:

I think Rob has it right.
I love the whole rigmarole of film, it's been in my blood since my first projector as a child and subsequent career in the medium, but I think this project must be doomed to failure as nothing seems to add up.
Few amateurs would afford this new equipment, which doesn't yet include a projector, and why would they, when existing equipment is commonplace? Difficulties also with film and processing which is a major cost. Added to that, what advantage for the professional?

[ December 06, 2017, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Allan Broadfield ]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 03, 2017, 11:25 AM:

Jluis

Those Vimeo videos taken with both the Beaulieu 4008 and Canon 1014 you uploaded look fantastic.

I hope Kodak take notice of them....thanks for sharing them [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2