|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak's new super 8 camera
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted 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.
--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted 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]](confused.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted 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]](wink.gif)
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 ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted 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...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
