Author
|
Topic: Kodak's new super 8 camera
|
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted 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?
-------------------- "C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 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 ]
-------------------- Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted 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.
-------------------- "C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 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.
-------------------- Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 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.
-------------------- Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|