New Kodak super 8mm camera

[Todd Kitchen]

I think Kodak will probably continue to produce film in all the standard formats for the industry as well as amateurs. But the camera seems like a miss to me. Fully re-conditioned pro8 are much less to buy, and the platform (Beaulieu 4008) is tried and true.

[Ed Gordon]

Grabbing the spotlight one day early, Eastman Kodak announced a commitment to Super 8 by unveiling a New Super 8 camera at CES 2016. The camera, still only a prototype, is projected to be available later this year, and combines a retro design with digital functionality to bring Super 8, which just celebrated its 50^th anniversary, into the digital age. A spokesperson for Kodak has pointed out that the prototype features a flip-out digital viewfinder; audio is expected to be recorded on an SD card. He cautioned, however, that the camera is still in the early stages and nothing is finalized yet. Beyond the camera, Kodak has designed a roadmap for a new Super 8 ecosystem, including film, developing, transfer to digital, and other post-production tools.

Source: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...25e5640fad8b03

Published Wed, 01/06/2016 by B&H Photo. Eight years later, they are still saying "coming soon".

[Shane C. Collins]

I think Kodak will probably continue to produce film in all the standard formats for the industry as well as amateurs. But the camera seems like a miss to me. Fully re-conditioned pro8 are much less to buy, and the platform (Beaulieu 4008) is tried and true.

I agree with you! I really hope Ektachrome sticks around for the foreseeable future. This really is a beautiful stock projected! Anyone not using this color reversal, and viewing it on a traditional projector is missing out big time. My recent trip to the beach (August) was shot on Ektachrome, and it was just so wonderfully beautiful on the big screen! and Todd guess what projector I used for viewing these films? Yep the 709, imagine that, LOL.

I guess for me I don't get why anyone would want to shoot on negative then view it on anything other than a projector. I guess each to their own, but this way of filming defeats the purpose of using Super 8. I have yet to see a negative stock that looked anything like my Ektachrome up on the screen...

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

If I'm not mistaken the initial retail price was said to be around 1K$. That would be still quite acceptable and may attract new Super8 user to join in. 8 years later, and now the actual price is 5k$.

This is completely in the opposite of the intended direction - to repulse the new user away rather than attract them. I'm more than certain that there'll be very few private owner of this camera, and the rest would go to the rental house instead.

However Kodak might still have a chance to straighten things up - by releasing the next "low cost" model in the near future.
- It would be of plastic body, and with optical viewfinder instead of LCD panel.
- No built in audio recording capability, but should be with crystal-sync speed drive motor.
- And still with c-mount lens.
If they managed to have this done within 1K$ retail price, That would get enough momentum to keep Super8 market rolling for years to come.

[Osi Osgood]

Rediculously overpriced, especially when you can factor in 20 or 30 dollars for a good used super 8 cartridge camera from your thrift store. If they really wanted to make this take off, make the cartridges a different size that would only be compatible with they're new camera.

[Shane C. Collins]

Rediculously overpriced, especially when you can factor in 20 or 30 dollars for a good used super 8 cartridge camera from your thrift store. If they really wanted to make this take off, make the cartridges a different size that would only be compatible with they're new camera.

My biggest gripe, besides the price, is the fact you can't use the camera, then project your original film. They widened the gate, and so it's only able to work with a digital workflow. Even if I could afford the camera, it would defeat the purpose, and fun of projecting film. I am happy to use my far superior Elmo Super 110 semi professional camera built in the early 70's. Kodak isn't even promoting projection anymore, and that is sad!

[Ken Finch]

Just another toy for super rich. It is a re hash of something announced a few years ago and mentioned in this forum. If they were really interested in reviving the use of film for amateurs they would make reversal colour stocks available again. With the use of robotics even Kodachrome could be available again. I believe it was discontinued for health and safety issues which would not be relevant with the advances of modern technology.

[Graham Ritchie]

My thinking is that unless you can run the film through an actual film projector then its pointless, no matter how good scanning a film is, its still light years away from what you get viewing film on an actual film projector I have yet to see a digital transfer that can look as good. If the films are to be scanned only and that's what all the modern stuff is about, then just use a modern video camera, as even my little Panasonic can replicate the look of film in its 8mm "retro" settings. That in itself does make we wonder are some of those videos who claim its film actually shot on film?

With all the films I have sorted out for the Heritage Park, its really been a matter of going through the footage on a dual film editor, cleaning, fixing splices then finally turning the lights of and running that long ago footage through either a Standard 8mm or Super8 projector. The projector itself is the window to the past and only a film projector can do it. Digital is fine for showing others what the content might be about, but projecting it is really the best option, its the final and best part of viewing 8mm footage.

[Shane C. Collins]

My thinking is that unless you can run the film through an actual film projector then its pointless, no matter how good scanning a film is, its still light years away from what you get viewing film on an actual film projector I have yet to see a digital transfer that can look as good. If the films are to be scanned only and that's what all the modern stuff is about, then just use a modern video camera, as even my little Panasonic can replicate the look of film in its 8mm "retro" settings. That in itself does make we wonder are some of those videos who claim its film actually shot on film?

With all the films I have sorted out for the Heritage Park, its really been a matter of going through the footage on a dual film editor, cleaning, fixing splices then finally turning the lights of and running that long ago footage through either a Standard 8mm or Super8 projector. The projector itself is the window to the past and only a film projector can do it. Digital is fine for showing others what the content might be about, but projecting it is really the best option, its the final and best part of viewing 8mm footage.

Well said Graham, and I agree with everything you said here! I also have yet to see a digital transfer that looks better than modern Ektachrome I am running through a projector. Users that aren't projecting are missing out on the look of film, and the sound of a finely tuned machine running in the background. Last month I showed two reels of Super 8 footage I have shot since 2018. Everyone in the room commented on how sharp the images looked on screen. I think they also enjoyed the sounds and smells of the old Eumig as she passed film through the gate! Ah the joys of projection.....

[Todd Kitchen]

Shane C. Collins I'm glad to hear that modern Ektachrome looks great projected, because 90% of the scanned footage I see online looks, well, pretty awful. Lack of detail, highlights blown out completely--might as well shoot with an iPhone and apply some sort of "film-look" filter to degrade the image.

But let's all face it, as a distribution/exhibition medium for wide release, film is pretty much over.

As a former projectionist, it may surprise people to hear that I was very happy when local theaters switched to Digital Cinema. Why? Because I watched as film projection standards declined throughout 90s into the 2000s. Film projection is an art and you have to care, and exhibitors no longer cared.

Exhibitors simply didn't want to pay a skilled person to pull focus and framing throughout the film.

I saw absolutely atrocious examples at the multiplex. I remember we watched Coppola's Dracula in 1992 and the registration was off the entire movie. Not just a little off either. It was totally unwatchable. I went out to the lobby to complain, but the theater manager said that there was nobody onsite qualified to fix it.

I replied "So you're just going to let the entire film run the way it is and expect people to pay to watch it?" He just shrugged and offered me a free popcorn.

Later at our local art house, the same thing happened, only more gradually. They couldn't afford to maintain their old projectors and were deferring maintenance in order to invest in digital cinema projection. I knew the manager at the time and although he was someone who cared deeply about proper film projection, he said that the industry was forcing his hand. He also complained that the overall quality of release prints was declining at an alarming rate, making the switch to DCP all the more urgent.

The last feature I watched projected on real film at that house was "Moonrise Kingdom," in 2012. It looked terrible. Dirty print, soft focus, poor contrast, shaky registration. So it was a welcome relief when I watched the first digital cinema format presentation at that same theater a year later.

All that being said, I LOVE projecting film. It's pure magic. But for commercial exhibitors, DCP makes so much more sense. It's easier to set up a new run, less expensive to ship and the total experience for the viewer is more consistent.

[Shane C. Collins]

Todd I agree modern Ektachrome transferred to digital, then uploaded to YouTube looks pretty bad overall. I think the biggest issue is people aren't shooting this stock the correct way. I've been shooting 7294 since it's release in late 2018. My first cart was exposed in my trusty, Elmo Super 110 that has always given accurate exposures in auto. That first cart was way underexposed, and lacked any real detail. Projecting this very first film had me scratching my head. For one I had just recently, at that time, exposed a cart of Tri-X, and that exposure had come out perfect, so I knew it wasn't the camera. A bit of online research found me at a forum where people talked about the underexposed images from the new Ektachrome. Some recommended shooting it at 1 stop more exposure, or 64 ASA. So the next cart of Ektachrome I ran through the Elmo was shot at 1 stop more exposure. When that film came back, and was projected wow is all I can say. The brightness, contrast, and sharpness were perfect on screen. So I've come to the conclusion Kodak made this film a bit less sensitive, and not anywhere near the box speed of 100 ASA. So every film I've shot since then gets 1 stop more exposure, and the results are always spot on. I also deploy ND filter in bright light which lowers the f stops and helps with sharpness.

[Shane C. Collins]

Todd here's a quick video I made last year showcasing my Eumig Mark S Super 8 projector. At the end of the video I show a brief clip from a home movie I made on Ektachrome 7294 while at the beach. That was shot 1 stop more exposure and a ND filter. As you can see the highlights have been retained. This is off the wall of course but it will give you an idea anyways. Looks much more detailed on the projector.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eBDwq68EZmU

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

Nah, let's face it - NONE of those young people (anyone younger than me) is going to physically projecting their work to the public.

They & their work lives on social media, period.

Unless they can have their films scanned/edited/distributed on their YouTube/Facebook/Instagram/etc., they will NOT shoot Super8 in the first place. Forget convincing them to shoot on reversal stock and actually projecting it to their friend. It's NOT the way things work in their generation - they'll not swallow it. That's why I have ZERO expectation for any newly-made projector in foreseeable future - there's literally no demand, at all.

Now back to the topic. Kodak is partially right to make this camera a bit more suitable to today's workflow than cameras from yesteryear. But at this price point it just doesn't make sense AT ALL. For 5K$ everyone with sensible mind would step up to 16mm instead, and still have enough $$ left to stockpile some films to burn through. Therefore I'm still expecting Kodak to release the low-cost version of this camera before the hype dies out, and this camera would eventually have become just a footnote in history...

[Graham Ritchie]

Excellent Shane that's what Super8 is all about

Todd we never suffered the problems at the cinema that unfortunately you did. All the films I can think of that we projected were pretty good. Just the other day I was working at the Heritage Park, when a couple from the US came up to me, and we talked about films They mentioned that the last time they came to NZ they saw Avatar, I asked what cinema did you go to? the lady replied, the one at Hornby. A wee voice in my head was saying I hope they had a good experience. so I took the chance and asked them what it was like?, they said good so it was in focus? I said with a smile, they smiled back and said yes when I told them I remember screening Avatar. I am sure, had it not been a good one for them I doubt they would have held back telling me so Prints did vary a bit, but in general they were fine, never had any complaints I can think of. Digital had to come in but in saying that there is nothing wrong with film, if the people projecting it know there stuff.

[Graham Ritchie]

Sorry, but all this talk about cameras reminded me of my first one, a Bell and Howell 1230 sound camera, I only ever could afford the odd sound film, so used mostly silent, my first try out was in 1977-78 at work. I did a transfer to you-tube, but it did not come out looking very good. In saying that, film is a great way to store memories Kodachrome especially, anyway I will bore you with my first attempt. I am the one doing a very quick pre-flight at 9fps it all seems like a million years ago now.