Welcome to the new 8mm Forum!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 2003-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
I wonder, what is it that makes it's cost 1,000.00? Is it made of Titanium alloy? It looks to be plastic. Could it even be manufactured on a printer? I think it's more hilarious than anything else, but I do wonder what justifies the price, beyond it being the only new super 8 camera on the market?
10% for R&D cost
20% for PR & marketing
40% for the executive's income
and the rest is for actual manufacturing cost...
I think that video says it all Graham. Kodak are totally out of touch with reality here, and yes the camera does look like plastic junk. This whole thing reminds me of the Polavision fiasco, and the ill fated Pathe 4,75mm Duplex system.
The fact you can't project films that have been shot in this camera is a no in my book. The fun of Super 8 is seeing your creative work on the big screen! But it furthers the hobby so it's good in that regard.
As a Super-8 fan from when I was about 7 years old, I automatically feel a burst of happy adrenaline when somebody says they are going to do something like this. I personally love the idea...at least in principal, but I wonder how it sounds to everybody else. -the kind of people who ask me when I'm getting my film collection transferred, for example. (This happened after I did a show for them!)
Imagine there was a stockholders' meeting, and all these people are out in the seats waiting to hear how Kodak is going to bring the Company into the 21st Century. They are probably hoping to hear about a next generation digital cinema system that will vault Kodak back to the top of the audiovisual entertainment industry or maybe a medical imaging system or something similar. Many of them are probably wondering why Kodak is still making camera film at all, and this goes more than double for Super-8.
I'm sure there would be a lot more than just this, but I'm not sure the announcement of any new Super-8 camera wouldn't bring a few gasps from the crowd.
So I read now that the camera body is made of aluminum. Ok good, a lot better than plastic for sure, but at that price point it should be the totally non-corrosive Titanium. Also, that pistol grip looks so cheap, surely they could have done a better job on something that simple!
5,000.00 dollars? When you can get even high range cameras off of eBay for 100.00 or so dollars with a lot more features ... Man! I'd love to have what they're smoking!
I'm with you Paul. We registered as media professionals at the start and not heard anything.
My 1976 Leicina Special has delivered superb results every time so doubt I would make a change with such a masterpiece of optical/mechanical engineering now.
I did ask Kodak why put a microphone on the camera body to record camera motor noise?
Shane C. Collins I think you could still shoot reversal with it, but when you project it, some of the picture area exposed by the camera would be masked by the projector gate (unless you modified the projector gate for ultra wide). I would expect that the viewfinder has the ability to turn on framelines for conventional 4:3 super 8 to help with composition. If it doesn't, then that's a problem.
To be honest, half the fun of shooting film is 100% optical viewfinders. As you mentioned, LCD panels are often impossible to view under very bright conditions. So the lack of an optical finder kinda sucks.
I think Kodak's 2nd big miss was not offering film/lab/scanning packages for consumers.
Ridiculous for a camera that looks like a camcorder, LOL. That and the fact you can't then use the footage to watch on a projector. Super 8 is Super 8 not 35 MM. This is more like a $400 dollar camera. I probably wouldn't even buy it for that considering its limitations for digital use only.
Am I missing something here. Can't you use Ektacrome 100D with this?
Yes you most certainly can, but they widen the gate for digital transfers. So if you tried watching the final movie on a projector, the image would be cut off top and bottom.
Tweet
Comment