Kodak to produce 8mm film camera

[Barry_Green]

I have to say that if the image looks as good as the Logmar camera's image, which I will assume it will, then I really don't see the point of this. The only reason I would ever shoot in S-8 today would be to get the "look" one would associate with S-8. The Logmar footage basically looks like fuzzy 16mm. Big deal.

I totally agree; the whole thing about S8 was that it had a different "vibe" than other film formats. It was ... something unique. If you optimize it too much towards quality, then it becomes what you said -- fuzzy (and grainy) 16mm.

It's hard to argue that "better quality" isn't "better", but if you lose the "personality" of the image along the way, then, indeed, what would be the point?

 

[combatentropy]

As someone who probably won't actually spend any money on this, I thought the attraction was easy and cheap film look. If it looks like 16mm instead of 8mm, all the better.

 

[GHKAM]

Super-8 has a certain look to it...but for all intents and purposes, it's inferior to what you can get today. Even the cheapest point and shoot cameras with video will look way better. I noticed that any Super-8 samples on the net have to be announced that it's "Super-8", almost like it's an apology for the crappy quality. :tongue:

Frequently out-of-focus, smeared details, pastel colors, terrible low light ability...plus you get less than three minutes/have to mail it away/then wait...and the process is going to cost what?

If you really want to degrade your footage, you can save a lot of trouble by shooting in digital and manipulating in post:

 

[Barry_Green]

If you really want to degrade your footage, you can save a lot of trouble by shooting in digital and manipulating in post:

Sure you can. But then that defeats (what to me is) the entire purpose.

If you've never shot on Super 8, then you may not know how it affects the filmmaking process. The decisionmaking process. It's different. I would argue that the final resulting piece of art that is created is just going to be different, than it would have been if the production chose to shoot on video. Shooting on a limited-capacity, high-cost-per-minute film format changes the way you approach filming, just like shooting stills changes your approach to photography (instead of just shooting video and extracting a frame).

It's a thing. Those who know what I'm talking about, know what I'm talking about. Those who don't, well, you really should consider giving it a try, even if just as an exercise. You just approach the whole process differently when you know that you have to cram the entire day's shoot into a total of 10 minutes of footage, because that's all the budget could afford...

 

[Guest]

If you really want to degrade your footage, you can save a lot of trouble by shooting in digital and manipulating in post:

i think that is just a subpar immitation of a lofi medium. Doubly bad. But yes, as you say, less trouble and more immediate.

As a whole, i think you are missing the point.

Plus, there are benefits to film beyond the look.

 

[Barry_Green]

As someone who probably won't actually spend any money on this, I thought the attraction was easy and cheap film look. If it looks like 16mm instead of 8mm, all the better.

It's already cheaper to shoot 16mm than it is to shoot Super 8 (or, well, back in the days of "recans" and 10c/foot film, it was). 16mm has more infrastructure, more competition, more labs, more scanners, and generally better prices, and infinitely superior cameras, and shallower DOF. People graduated up to 16mm from S8 as quick as they could because it was a big leap in quality, and once you choked down the cost of the camera, your actual running costs were/are lower.

It's been a long, long while since I've looked into pricing, but it seems like 16mm costs about $15/minute to process and scan to digital, and about 55 cents per foot for fresh new stock; if you can find recans & ends that price could plummet to as little as maybe 14c/foot. Assuming a recan 400' roll (11 minutes of footage), that gives you a total running cost of about $21/minute for 16mm. If Kodak's new 8mm service ends up being $75 for film stock, processing and transfer, that'd be about $30/minute.

People (and there are few, but there are some) who gravitated back to Super 8, in the quotes I've read they usually said they did so because they wanted the specific aesthetic that the little format delivers. It has its own kind of magic. I haven't heard of anyone who had the choice to use a superior format, and chose instead to use Super 8, say that they did so because of cost reasons.

 

[GHKAM]

Sure you can. But then that defeats (what to me is) the entire purpose.

If you've never shot on Super 8, then you may not know how it affects the filmmaking process. The decisionmaking process. It's different. I would argue that the final resulting piece of art that is created is just going to be different, than it would have been if the production chose to shoot on video. Shooting on a limited-capacity, high-cost-per-minute film format changes the way you approach filming, just like shooting stills changes your approach to photography (instead of just shooting video and extracting a frame).

It's a thing. Those who know what I'm talking about, know what I'm talking about. Those who don't, well, you really should consider giving it a try, even if just as an exercise. You just approach the whole process differently when you know that you have to cram the entire day's shoot into a total of 10 minutes of footage, because that's all the budget could afford...

I took a Cinema class in high school and was required to make 3 films...I first used someone's else's Super-8 camera then eventually got my own, a cheap reel to reel S-8 editor, projector and continued after high school. I had to use these specialized pieces of tape/essentially scotch tape with holes in them to connect the splices. It was tedious and would never want to do that now, especially with the editing software I have.

I suppose it was good for the time...but getting into digital camcorders and cameras the past decade the quality and technology is miles better. You can make it look like whatever you want in post. I understand what you're saying about being limited and forcing creativity. I suppose you could impose limits on yourself such as using a cheap digital camera and lighting, etc., but I don't see the point...at least for myself.

 

[Gillvane]

I took a Cinema class in high school and was required to make 3 films...I first used someone's else's Super-8 camera then eventually got my own, a cheap reel to reel S-8 editor, projector and continued after high school. I had to use these specialized pieces of tape/essentially scotch tape with holes in them to connect the splices. It was tedious and would never want to do that now, especially with the editing software I have.

I suppose it was good for the time...but getting into digital camcorders and cameras the past decade the quality and technology is miles better. You can make it look like whatever you want in post. I understand what you're saying about being limited and forcing creativity. I suppose you could impose limits on yourself such as using a cheap digital camera and lighting, etc., but I don't see the point...at least for myself.

You cannot make it look like 8mm. It will look like digital that you tried to make look like 8mm. The caveat would be if a professional colorist and a professional fx team works on your film, something no one has the budget for and if you do then of course you could afford the actual film so you wouldn't hire the pros to make it look like a me film you would use film. But putting a few filters on it like a grain and scratch filter? Yea it looks like what it is, a cheap copy of film not film.

I forget who said it, but limitation creates art. The example is tell a screenwriter to write a screenplay and nothing more. What will they write? Who knows. They don't know either. Tell a screenwriter that the setting is Vermont in winter, the script has to be something appropriate for Natalie Portman and it's a horror movie, well now the writer has something to work with.

ive edited 16mm film on a flatbed with sync sound on Mag tape. It sucks. But you do get a digital transfer so that is not an issue. The point is when you can only do three takes because you will run out of film, and the director, actors, crew all know that it's different than shooting video and you can do 10 takes no big deal. You get a different movie because of the constraints. Not necessarily better but definitely different.
kodak is pitching this camera to film schools and I think it's a great idea for film students to at least try shooting film knowing you can't do endless takes.

 

[GHKAM]

You cannot make it look like 8mm. It will look like digital that you tried to make look like 8mm. The caveat would be if a professional colorist and a professional fx team works on your film, something no one has the budget for and if you do then of course you could afford the actual film so you wouldn't hire the pros to make it look like a me film you would use film. But putting a few filters on it like a grain and scratch filter? Yea it looks like what it is, a cheap copy of film not film.

I forget who said it, but limitation creates art. The example is tell a screenwriter to write a screenplay and nothing more. What will they write? Who knows. They don't know either. Tell a screenwriter that the setting is Vermont in winter, the script has to be something appropriate for Natalie Portman and it's a horror movie, well now the writer has something to work with.

ive edited 16mm film on a flatbed with sync sound on Mag tape. It sucks. But you do get a digital transfer so that is not an issue. The point is when you can only do three takes because you will run out of film, and the director, actors, crew all know that it's different than shooting video and you can do 10 takes no big deal. You get a different movie because of the constraints. Not necessarily better but definitely different.
kodak is pitching this camera to film schools and I think it's a great idea for film students to at least try shooting film knowing you can't do endless takes.

Restrict recording time - have the students use cameras that can only use a locked, 256MB SD card as handed out/returned to the teacher?

You say the Super-8 look can't be reproduced with digital, surely it can get close enough as the content is the most important issue. But why would they want that, it's a horrible look and format.

 

[Barry_Green]

You get a different movie because of the constraints. Not necessarily better but definitely different.

Exactly.

Would Henry David Thoreau have written "Walden" if he had access to Microsoft Word? Doubtful; that's the kind of work that requires pen and paper. It takes so much longer to write, that you have so much more time to think about what you're going to write, and the process of erasing is so burdensome that you really think about what you're going to write before you write it down. Not so with the word processor, where you are more likely to "spray and pray".

have the students use cameras that can only use a locked, 256MB SD card as handed out/returned to the teacher

Barring anything else, yes that would make for an excellent exercise. Still, there's something organic about working with a tangible medium rather than an electronic representation of a medium. I am not telling people that they have to abandon their beloved digital imaging and go strictly to film. But I am saying that the world would be worse off if this alternative imagemaking medium were to disappear. We're better off with the option available.

But why would they want that, it's a horrible look and format.

Why would someone want to read "Twilight"? It's a horrible book in a horrible genre, right? Yet tens of millions loved it. Just because *you* think Super8 is a "horrible look", does not mean that everyone else thinks that, nor should they be forced to agree. Super 8 is its own thing, always has been, and some of us find it quite appealing in its own way.

 

[GHKAM]

Exactly.

Would Henry David Thoreau have written "Walden" if he had access to Microsoft Word? Doubtful; that's the kind of work that requires pen and paper. It takes so much longer to write, that you have so much more time to think about what you're going to write, and the process of erasing is so burdensome that you really think about what you're going to write before you write it down. Not so with the word processor, where you are more likely to "spray and pray".


Barring anything else, yes that would make for an excellent exercise. Still, there's something organic about working with a tangible medium rather than an electronic representation of a medium. I am not telling people that they have to abandon their beloved digital imaging and go strictly to film. But I am saying that the world would be worse off if this alternative imagemaking medium were to disappear. We're better off with the option available.


Why would someone want to read "Twilight"? It's a horrible book in a horrible genre, right? Yet tens of millions loved it. Just because *you* think Super8 is a "horrible look", does not mean that everyone else thinks that, nor should they be forced to agree. Super 8 is its own thing, always has been, and some of us find it quite appealing in its own way.

If the primary purpose of a Super-8 camera is strictly for schools, like a film school, to be used as an exercise and they have the budget for these cameras/processing (that could otherwise be used for good, digital gear.)..I guess why not.

Putting that aside...

If the actual ability of the camera and the image it produces, is judged solely on its own merit - I say it's comparatively worse than modern digital, both in function and quality.

If you search for "Super 8" samples on the internet, it's always in the description + title that the footage was "shot on a Super 8 camera". If the look supposedly has value, then why the need to constantly announce it?

If, for example, one were to shoot a music video and not mention at all that it was shot on Super 8 - do viewers (especially non-video people who can't recognize the characteristics of Super-8) sit there and wonder why it looks so inferior to everything else?

I propose that part of the process of using Super-8 (now) entails the announcement to others that it was shot in this format. This allows their mind to shift into acceptance and view it through a novel/nostalgic eye.

This happens in other ways...it's common on YouTube to have videos such as "9-year-old kid plays the drums" in the title. This context allows the viewer to accept any shortcomings in the actual drumming. If only the audio was played, without showing any video or context, then suddenly the drumming is mediocre.

So, as with Super 8 footage, it can't have any comparitive value on its own without the novel context.

 

[roxics]

Tell a screenwriter that the setting is Vermont in winter, the script has to be something appropriate for Natalie Portman and it's a horror movie, well now the writer has something to work with.

Natalie Portman is a journalist for a women's rights publication who travels to Vermont to investigate and report on a religious cult whose headmaster keeps a harem of young women. She leaves Chicago convinced of the outcome of her story, but quickly finds herself pulled in by the warm embrace of the group and grows increasely more obsessed with the headmaster. Jealous of the other women, she begins killing them off one by one in what appear to be a series of horrific accidents.

 

[Barry_Green]

If the actual ability of the camera and the image it produces, is judged solely on its own merit - I say it's comparatively worse than modern digital, both in function and quality.

Nobody would disagree. Video has long surpassed Super 8's imaging capability in regards to functionality, clarity, etc.

If you search for "Super 8" samples on the internet, it's always in the description + title that the footage was "shot on a Super 8 camera". If the look supposedly has value, then why the need to constantly announce it?

Because sometimes people are searching for that specifically? Because it is a very specialized, niche product, and someone may want to see what choosing this alternative format would do for them? Who really knows; you'd have to ask the people doing the announcing why they felt it necessary (or beneficial). I would think it reasonable to say that the sheer uniqueness of the format would be a reason to want to put that in the description.

If, for example, one were to shoot a music video and not mention at all that it was shot on Super 8 - do viewers (especially non-video people who can't recognize the characteristics of Super-8) sit there and wonder why it looks so inferior to everything else?

If your only frame of reference is that "different" must inherently mean "inferior", then maybe your statement has merit. But if you allow that "different" can sometimes mean "different" for its own sake and purpose, then -- seriously, what's the problem with people having more than one brush in their palette?

I mean, a photograph from a modern digital SLR delivers vastly more accuracy and detail than an oil painting ever could. So do people look at the Mona Lisa and wonder why it looks so inferior to everything they've ever shot on their DSLR?

I propose that part of the process of using Super-8 (now) entails the announcement to others that it was shot in this format. This allows their mind to shift into acceptance and view it through a novel/nostalgic eye.

This happens in other ways...it's common on YouTube to have videos such as "9-year-old kid plays the drums" in the title. This context allows the viewer to accept any shortcomings in the actual drumming. If only the audio was played, without showing any video or context, then suddenly the drumming is mediocre.

So, as with Super 8 footage, it can't have any comparitive value on its own without the novel context.

And I would propose that, frankly, you see things very differently from how I do, and I would argue that you're seeing them quite differently from how most (if not all fans) of Super 8 view them. I long ago quit caring about how many pixels an image can resolve, and am now far more interested in what the images SAY, rather than what they technically claim to be capable of. Super 8 is a different medium. I could argue that if we were to compare film to video in terms of painting, then "video" represents photography, whereas film represents painting. And within painting, you can have watercolors, or oils, etc. So maybe regular film represents watercolors, and Super 8 represents oil (or whatever). It's different. Some people love impressionist paintings, some can't stand them. There's no question that an impressionist painting holds less detail and is an inferior imagemaking/detail capturing media than a realistic painting like the Mona Lisa. Should we be required to put labels on all impressionist paintings to warn people that it's meant to be impressionist, so they can lower their expectations?

Simply put: it's a different flavor. Either you like it or you don't. Some people crave the impressionist style, some hate it. Some think that it's more appropriate for certain types of work than it is for others. With Super 8, you either like it or you don't, it's either appropriate for a certain project or it isn't. That's really all there is to it, isn't it?

 

[roxics]

This happens in other ways...it's common on YouTube to have videos such as "9-year-old kid plays the drums" in the title. This context allows the viewer to accept any shortcomings in the actual drumming.

Really wish I could get away with this context with everything I do.

"Keep in mind he's only 37, isn't it incredible?!"

 

[Guest]

Really wish I could get away with this context with everything I do.

"Keep in mind he's only 37, isn't it incredible?!"

Haha! Love this.

 

[Jim Ritscher]

Natalie Portman is a journalist for a women's rights publication who travels to Vermont to investigate and report on a religious cult whose headmaster keeps a harem of young women. She leaves Chicago convinced of the outcome of her story, but quickly finds herself pulled in by the warm embrace of the group and grows increasely more obsessed with the headmaster. Jealous of the other women, she begins killing them off one by one in what appear to be a series of horrific accidents.

Not bad.

 

[Camera Expert]

I meant good compared to what we're used to seeing from Super 8.

Anyway, that footage was shot with "Kodak Vision 3 50D" during the day. I believe it came out in 2013 for Super 8. Other clips that you see online that looks better than usual might have been shot with that film as well. If people want worse quality to look more like traditional Super 8, theirs other film stock to choose from.

It would have been good if it had a 30 frames per second option.

 

[dustwaterwindfire]

all of the same debates over and over. Super 8 coming back is an amazing thing. Filming with film is magic and I for one am so happy it may have a second life. 16mm would be better but that could be later. Film looks different not better, in a sea of digital cams this is pretty exciting.

 

[stoneinapond]

Video is boring to me because it all looks like "video", as in soap opera or TV newscasts.

That's because you're watching the wrong thing. Not all non-film products need be, nor do they, look like that.

 

[john deaver]

i for one love shooting super 8, i take a camera and a few rolls of film with my dslr when i travel and a break it out any time i have the opportunity and the light is good.

i would love to see Kodak have a win here, and you never know, if there is a market maybe we will see a new 16mm camera. motor driven Bolex? that would be awesome.