Kodak to produce 8mm film camera

[mico]

The specs I'm reading say its super 8 with a Max 8 gate. Thats using the area where the now defunct mag strip was. So it seems its a widescreen camera too. Since it does sound the audio must be recorded separately and digitally. Possibly have to sync?

I also read that the first cams are special editions and there will be a price drop for the mass produced ones.

I love that film is making slow comeback.

 

[Kholi]

Hmmm...

If the HDMI coming out of the camera's clean, or they can do an SDI feed so that you can record dailies to a separate device (no waiting for processing to see what you've got, only for poxies though clearly)
If it's at all possible for Metabones to concoct a speedbooster to S16 or M43 FOV (how on earth would that even work?)
If said processing yields pretty resolute (as much as Max 8 can yield) files...

Count me in.

With an external recorder you could easily roll off a few rehearsal takes and only put to film the last one or two, and still have those proxies for later. I like the idea of a "hybrid" approach. And I'm tired of debating film motion versus video motion. =]

 

[Barry_Green]

The specs I'm reading say its super 8 with a Max 8 gate. Thats using the area where the now defunct mag strip was. So it seems its a widescreen camera too. Since it does sound the audio must be recorded separately and digitally. Possibly have to sync?

You will definitely have to sync in post. Sound-striped film is no longer manufactured. There will almost certainly be a crystal-sync speed governor, and the camera records audio simultaneously, and you can presume there'll be some sort of modern "bloop" circuit to give you an exact sync point.

I mean, the only other possibility would be to do optical sound on the negative itself, and I sincerely doubt that there's any room to do so, and the fidelity would probably be awful...

 

[zijital]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but is deep DOF going to be the new shallow DOF?

Super 8 at an image size of 5.79mm x 4.01mm and / or Max 8 at (aprox) 6.34mm x 4.01mm, is about the size of a 1/2" video chip.

Which means that the camera I learned to shoot on, a Sony BetaCam SP UVW-100, might come back into hipster fashion.

 

[Gweilo66]

"you could easily roll off a few rehearsal takes and only put to film the last one or two, and still have those proxies for later."
Hmm..I'm not getting this idea. I mean..assuming matching external digital recording to film capture would be extremely difficult.

 

[jamedia.uk]

I can't see who will use this. Amateurs have access to many far cheaper digital cameras. Professionals already have the gear. Thos in the middle if they want to want to shoot film have a vast numbers of film cameras going for peanuts on ebay and flea markets (even on DVXuser). I see more and more being scrapped because they can't even be given away.

More to the point that the running costs are far higher than digital. It's like having small capacity, high price single use memory cards.

How do I get the film developed? I am in Scotland, Finland, Kenya, Chile, Singapore etc, will Kodak be building developing plants in all countries? What happens to my film if it gets lost or damaged, light gets in etc en route to a developing unit? Also what is the turn around time? I can start editing almost immediately not a week later.

Film supply and storage.... People & shops are going to have to invest in fridges again.

As noted the sound will have to be recorded separately. Even where I record separate audio I always have at one channel on the camera which helps with synchronisation and editing.

Also the vast majority of people have never used film and many who have feel no need to use it.

In any case is there anything most people will want to do that can be done with film that can't be done with digital?

 

[Gillvane]

I can't see who will use this. Amateurs have access to many far cheaper digital cameras. Professionals already have the gear. Thos in the middle if they want to want to shoot film have a vast numbers of film cameras going for peanuts on ebay and flea markets (even on DVXuser). I see more and more being scrapped because they can't even be given away.

More to the point that the running costs are far higher than digital. It's like having small capacity, high price single use memory cards.

How do I get the film developed? I am in Scotland, Finland, Kenya, Chile, Singapore etc, will Kodak be building developing plants in all countries? What happens to my film if it gets lost or damaged, light gets in etc en route to a developing unit? Also what is the turn around time? I can start editing almost immediately not a week later.

Film supply and storage.... People & shops are going to have to invest in fridges again.

As noted the sound will have to be recorded separately. Even where I record separate audio I always have at one channel on the camera which helps with synchronisation and editing.

Also the vast majority of people have never used film and many who have feel no need to use it.

In any case is there anything most people will want to do that can be done with film that can't be done with digital?

The price of film cartridges includes processing and a digital download of the transfer. You shoot, Send the cartridge to Kodak, download your footage then finish on your favorite editing software. You can make digital look like 8 mm but that's what it looks like, digital made to look like 8 mm.
The big factor is cost but one of the target markets is film school students. There is something to be said for learning to get framing and lighting right in a few takes because you can't look at it right away and you have limited rolls of film, no deleting bad takes.

 

[mico]

I can't see who will use this. Amateurs have access to many far cheaper digital cameras. Professionals already have the gear. Thos in the middle if they want to want to shoot film have a vast numbers of film cameras going for peanuts on ebay and flea markets (even on DVXuser). I see more and more being scrapped because they can't even be given away.

More to the point that the running costs are far higher than digital. It's like having small capacity, high price single use memory cards.

How do I get the film developed? I am in Scotland, Finland, Kenya, Chile, Singapore etc, will Kodak be building developing plants in all countries? What happens to my film if it gets lost or damaged, light gets in etc en route to a developing unit? Also what is the turn around time? I can start editing almost immediately not a week later.

Film supply and storage.... People & shops are going to have to invest in fridges again.

As noted the sound will have to be recorded separately. Even where I record separate audio I always have at one channel on the camera which helps with synchronisation and editing.

Also the vast majority of people have never used film and many who have feel no need to use it.

In any case is there anything most people will want to do that can be done with film that can't be done with digital?

I know I know. You can bring up all the negatives because we now live in a digital world but like someone posted earlier a polaroid like camera that makes physical copies was one of the top two sellers at Amazon. The other top seller, a vinyl record player. Vinyl record sales for 2014 were 9.2 million dollars up 52% from 2013. Its not all hipsters making these numbers. Sometimes its just a tactile organic thing that gets the blood moving when its been vapor like for so long. Something like super 8 or vinyl records force you to think differently and sometimes thats welcome for some. On top of it all some of us just like that super 8 film look and the sound of a needle scratching plastic, which by the way is a sound which has been added to most every current hip hop track.

Shinola a big up and coming company that makes watches and other things analog like are going to build a factory in Detroit to build record players. Who would have thought old tech would be a job creator in devastated Detroit. Maybe Kodak is following a financial trend that they're already setup for. Minimal cost to them. And damn Hateful 8 looked good in 70mm as well as its entre'acte, intermission and movie program. I welcome it all.

 

[Gillvane]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but is deep DOF going to be the new shallow DOF?

Super 8 at an image size of 5.79mm x 4.01mm and / or Max 8 at (aprox) 6.34mm x 4.01mm, is about the size of a 1/2" video chip.

Which means that the camera I learned to shoot on, a Sony BetaCam SP UVW-100, might come back into hipster fashion.

8 mm film has its own unique features like gate weave. Shallow depth of field isn't necessary to make it look like film. It IS film.

 

[Kholi]

"you could easily roll off a few rehearsal takes and only put to film the last one or two, and still have those proxies for later."
Hmm..I'm not getting this idea. I mean..assuming matching external digital recording to film capture would be extremely difficult.

PluralEyes or FCPx can do it as long as audio's attached or sync'd. Rather easily, actually. Or do you mean the look?

Ideally the digitally captured material on a recorder would be backup or just in case, and you'd always go with the film. I'd guess you could film convert or similar to match inserts.

 

[Gweilo66]

yes..I meant the look/characteristics.

 

[Barry_Green]

I can't see who will use this.

Simply put: those who want to shoot on Super 8 film. For whatever their personal or artistic reasons.

It's not about the "best" image quality, because standard-def DV cameras can produce images that are sharper, crisper, and clearer than Super 8. It's about "the film look" as in -- shooting on actual film. It's a tangible, organic thing, not a digital representation of it (even if, by digitizing it, it becomes digital, it still is and was a tangible thing in the first place.)

Thos in the middle if they want to want to shoot film have a vast numbers of film cameras going for peanuts on ebay and flea markets (even on DVXuser). I see more and more being scrapped because they can't even be given away.

True. However, keep in mind that those film cameras on ebay are at least 40 years old, some quite a bit older. Do they still run properly? Will they need servicing? Is there anyone left alive who even services them anymore? When I was into Beaulieu cameras, I found a magnificent elderly German gent who serviced my 16mm Beaulieu and made it run like a top. But -- he was elderly. Is he even around anymore? And if not, how do you replace that knowledge?

So while I would be inclined to get something like a Beaulieu or a Canon 1014 or an Elmo 1012S-XL or a Bauer 715 or something like that, I recognize that they're OLD, old cameras, and they're likely going to have their share of problems. There's something to be said for this new Kodak, in that it'd be "new", using new electronics, and should be much more reliable than the old vintage stuff that I pine for.

More to the point that the running costs are far higher than digital. It's like having small capacity, high price single use memory cards.

Yes, the running costs are vastly higher. But -- that's the way film has always been. So this new product will be a specialty, niche application suitable for certain artistic purposes. It's certainly not designed to replace the soccer mom's camcorder (heck, her iPhone already did that...)

Also the vast majority of people have never used film and many who have feel no need to use it.

This is, of course, true. But the answer to your question is in your statement -- there's a whole lot of folks out there who have never used film, and there may indeed be some who would want to try, to experiment, or there may be veterans who want to use it for a particular purpose.

It may only appeal to 1/10 of 1% of the filmmakers out there. But it's nice to know that for that 1/10 of 1%, there's a new option coming available.

 

[bitcrusher]

It may only appeal to 1/10 of 1% of the filmmakers out there. But it's nice to know that for that 1/10 of 1%, there's a new option coming available.

Exactly, Film is dead long live Film!

Now if someone would make a s16 camera with a m43 mount......

 

[combatentropy]

However, keep in mind that those film cameras on ebay are at least 40 years old, some quite a bit older. Do they still run properly? Will they need servicing? Is there anyone left alive who even services them anymore? When I was into Beaulieu cameras, I found a magnificent elderly German gent who serviced my 16mm Beaulieu and made it run like a top. But -- he was elderly. Is he even around anymore? And if not, how do you replace that knowledge?

Have you taken a look at Pro8mm's cameras, which except for the new Logmar are restored by their "in-house team of technicians with decades of experience"?

• Classic Professional: Beaulieu 4008 ($1,695; Max 8 and crystal sync are $995 each)
• Pro814: Canon 814 AZ ($795)
• Max1014xls: Canon 1014 XLS ($2,995; includes crystal sync and Max 8)
• Rhonda CAM: Canon 310 XL ($395)
• Logmar: modern, electronic viewfinder, audio recording, phantom power ($5,995; includes Schneider 6-66 mm lens)

I haven't used them. I just saw them on Pro8mm's website.

 

[harddrive]

I mean, the only other possibility would be to do optical sound on the negative itself, and I sincerely doubt that there's any room to do so, and the fidelity would probably be awful...

Well, THEORETICALLY it may be possible to record a digital pattern of bits between the sprocket holes, in a similar way to which digital audio tracks are recorded alongside the conventional analogue on 35mm release prints. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_sound )

There's likely to be less space than on the 35mm example, so it would need a higher level of digital compression to keep the bitrate down, but maybe......?

PRACTICALLY, I don't see it happening for cost reasons.

I also agree that the most interesting thing here is more the idea of buying a cartridge which includes processing and scanning, and the latter being available for download. It also seems that the film will be negative - great for the scn and download process, now that it doesn't need optical printing for any sort of viewing.

Coming back to format, then another possibility for widescreen could be to reduce frame height, but extend the width into the area between sprocket holes? Just a thought....

 

[Gweilo66]

Sorry if a tangent but..have theatrical releases shot on video typically gone through any film emulation processing? I mean beyond color grading.

 

[Barry_Green]

Coming back to format, then another possibility for widescreen could be to reduce frame height, but extend the width into the area between sprocket holes? Just a thought....

That was done in 16mm to create "Ultra16", a format that was basically all the good of Super16 but with none of the bad (the bad being, the S16 frame is off-center on the film, so you had to re-center the lens mount and modify the viewfinder to be able to see the right edge of the frame).

Ultra16 resulted in a frame that was a little smaller than S16, but could use spherical lenses and didn't require re-centering and all.

But that wouldn't work with Super 8, because the frame sits literally next to the sprocket hole. It's not between the sprocket holes at all; the sprocket hole is dab square in the middle of the frame height. Look at this vimeo to see an example, and why the "Max8" modification is already using all the negative area that Super 8 can do:

Super 8 normally has a frame size of 5.35 x 4.01 mm, Max8 extends that to about 6.33 x 4.01.

For pure film frame optimization, they could have actually gotten bigger/wider frames by using Regular 8mm film, which is sprocketed more like 16mm. Using Regular 8, you could have seen a frame as wide as 7.9 x 3mm. which would have been a super-wide 2.66:1 aspect ratio. But 8mm film is much more of a pain in the patoot to work with, not nearly as convenient as the Super 8 cartridge. It's too bad that they changed the sprocketing arrangement the way they did, which limits Super 8's potential width, but -- that ship sailed fifty years ago. As for what we're left with, Max8 makes the most of it.

 

[roxics]

Same thing goes with film still cameras versus digital cameras.

Honestly I can't tell the difference with still images. Sure if you pull out the loupe you can, but that's not how we view images typically. Nor does that actually matter.

What makes motion picture film different for me is the motion cadence/slight shifting/gateweave, the global shutter-like properties and the uncompressed color.
The latter two being encroached upon with new high res video cameras that have global shutters and use of film-like color grades, not to mention added grain in post if desired.

To me (and I know I'll get hell for this from some people) but I have a hard time telling the difference between modern high end digital cinema cameras and 35mm Vision3 stock. I think a lot of that has to the do with the look of Vision3 combined with modern film scanning which gets rid of the second pass of gateweave that projection and telecine had. The image is nearly as steady as digital when digitally viewed and the colors are often similar.

But it's not quite the same for cheaper digital video cameras. There is something about their motion rendering that is less cinematic to me to varying degrees depending on the camera. My old GH2 for example had a very nice high res image, but the motion characteristic was too video-like for me. So I switched to a Canon DSLR which was better, but still not close enough. I now shoot with a C100mkII and with it I've gained back the sharp picture the GH2 had while keeping the motion characteristics the Canon DSLR has. But again, it's still not like film or other high end digital cinema cameras. There is so much that goes on under the hood with these digital cameras and it's hard to put my finger on exactly what make them feel different in motion, but i know it when I see. The blackmagic cameras are pretty good in the way they render motion. Right up there with the likes of RED in my opinion, though not as good as Alexa or film.

It's hard to describe but I'm still convinced it's not the picture itself as much as the way it moves that makes the separation for me. Super 8 moves like film, even though all of its other properies are like an older small 3-chip CCD video camera.

 

[Guest]

This whole "film is better" thing gets on my nerves. Film is better in some ways, but the arguments and ideas that go into these things are so based on nostalgia and the idea of a movie theater setting, i want to vomit.

(this is not in response to Roxics comments above)

 

[harddrive]

But that wouldn't work with Super 8, because the frame sits literally next to the sprocket hole. It's not between the sprocket holes at all; the sprocket hole is dab square in the middle of the frame height. Look at this vimeo to see an example, and why the "Max8" modification is already using all the negative area that Super 8 can do.

I appreciate that, but what I was thinking of was moving the horizontal centre line of the frame so that it's halfway between sprocket holes - not on a line with them as it is with normal super 8. (So like Std 8 - the diagram top right of this page illustrates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film )

Do that and you could have a frame size with a height of slightly over 3.00mm (it's normally 4.22mm), but a width of virtually the entire film width. Even allowing for edge numbering etc about 7.5mm is quite possible - so an aspect ratio of around 2.5:1. That would have an area/frame of about 19.5 sq mm - which compares reasonably well with about 23.75 sq mm of normal super 8? But native widescreen cinema format.

Because of what you say about frameline positioning, then yes, it may make it very unlikely that existing cameras could be converted (as may be possible for Max 8), but I'm wondering about cameras specifically designed as such - but still able to use normal super 8 stock.