http://htl.li/WGesm
I like it, but film is too expensive. If it wasn't so expensive, I would ask @DeusQain if he could shoot at least on video on film. It doesn't have to be colour, I just want to see it once. I don't suppose Kodak would give free film to popular youtubers for marketing. lol
Ha....ha......ha.
Yeah no.
I loved my Dad's Super 8. Too bad he wouldn't let me put film in it. We would pretend to make movies. I remember setting up the screen and projector so we could watch black & white silent Looney Tunes. Until I burned a hole through the screen with his sun gun. This was before video tape. Yeah... I'm that old.
I get it but will young "film makers" carrying video cameras on their phones get it?
"I can't be that out of touch? No! It's the children who are wrong" - Seymour Skinnner
2 Likes
Why not? I think it is great to have something like Super8 back to life.
I for my part also really like records. You know the black disks spinning at 33rpm, don´t you?
It's such a neat concept, but I think it's the wrong product to bring this back to the mainstream. The camera is set to cost around $600-$700. In addition, it lacks any of the features for it to be used on professional productions (I work in cinema.)
And the film, while it includes processing, still costs around $25 per minute of footage. That's nuts. You can buy Super 8 film right now for $35 a cartridge, but it doesn't include processing. I'm just not sure who the market is for.
That being said, I'd love to shoot with it, if only to give it a go. Super 8 can look fantastic if handled well.
1 Like
It is not meant for professional but for enthusiasts and collectors making use of what they own. To be fair, $700 isn´t that much compared to better models from the past.
I just don't think it'll sell well. There's no doubt that retro / analog is popular now. But this is so much more involved than buying a Crosley from Urban Outfitters and slapping some records on it. I just don't know if the mass market is patient enough to shoot film in motion.
It won't get use in a professional side, so there's that market gone. It's too big, expensive, and involved to get the casual market I think. So who's left? You can still get a Canon 1014 for about a $1k, which is a way higher quality camera it seems. I don't hate it, I just think the features and price point are going to severely limit how well it performs in the market.
I think what makes this cmaera more up-to-date is that you can see what you film because it`s a digital-analog hybrid. I heard soem experts estiamte that the film will cost about 50$ for colour and 75$ for B&W for 15 minutes at 24-25 fps. And I think that is just way overpriced. You get a high quality digital version of your film, but to me it still seems like something you would use for a film project at University. (if the Uni provides the camera)
I really can not see anyone really using this camera. Maybe super rich hipsters.....
I shoot 35mm film and those costs are.....not really affordable, but acceptable to soemone who really wants to do it. (5$ per roll of 36 exposures + chemicals which last a really long time. + destilled water....a lot of it)
But if I went to my local photo studio and have them send the film in for development it would cost an extra 5$ per roll....
I think that unless you develop film (even super8) yourself it is not really worth it....having a digital version is nice, but you should be able to do that with a projector and something that reads the output or whatever.
Maybe we will see a revival of film in cinema use. I am driving 2 hours to see the new Tarantino movie in 70 mm in february. I think that film makers will have to do soemthing to keep cinema attractive. Most people are just going to wait until a movie is on netflix. And being able to see a movie with extra footage and how it is really meant to look only in the cinema may be a deciding facotr in the future. For me it is today.
1 Like
To be honest, the cinema is obsolete. Now there are some narratives that really only work in a cinema, but that's fourth wall braking stuff like when Buggs Bunny says "Is there a doctor in the house?" and in a croweded cinema, chances are, there would be a doctor or at least one guy roleplaying and saying "I'm a doctor!".
I think Tarantino is just cognitively bias against digital. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI Digital is fine, but it doesn't play nice with film if you shoot it at 60fps or 30fps and print it to 24fps film and if you want the best of both worlds, you'll need a camera can shot raw 8k at 480fps with a global shutter at the same dynamic range or better that film has at 24fps and use software to put motion blur back in to the 60fps, 30fps and 24fps masters.
The only thing I don't like about digital is DRM and lossy compression and even digital cinemas project a sequence of jpeg2000 images and I wish I could buy a movie on a Superman Crystal that has FLAC Audio and a sequence of FLIF images
Hipsters.
But quality is such a niche market. Mist people simply consume shitty quality media and dont even know or care. Even the backgrounda my mom puts in her tablet are so pixelated, you can barely make out what it is....she does not care.
That maybe so, but we're not the average consumers and Video Card Companies and Monitor Companies are still in business.
but they also make products for average users. And are expanding into other markets. (nvidia shield and such)
it`s definitley nice that kodak tries to stay relevant. They should probably make a throw-away like camera that posts straight to instagram. With exclusive filters, that are just available in the city where the camera is bought or whatever. and an included selfie-stick.
I think selfie-sticks should be armed with explosives and randomly shoot at the people using them....would be a nice sight.
I'm not sure about the cost of black and white film, but color film will work out to roughly $25 per minute.
Ok super 8 is a shitty medium
Records actually sound good , yea they are old and all but they still have the quality to back it up.
Super 8 is just a dead standard that at it's best doesn't look as a good as a cheap digital camera or even better , a camera that uses film larger than 8mm.
Records are shitty because there's a low dynamic range. if there was a sudden spike latter in the recording, it would destroy the record before it would be pressed for mass production.
Super-8 is equivalent 1080p as far as resolution and they have a hell of a lot more image data than MP4 because it's not compressed and it has a global shutter.
I'm saying records sound fine in terms of listening to a song being played on them. If you were listening to an lp and then a cd it would be hard to tell which is which , unless you didn't dust off the record.
Super 8 doesn't look good. It looks like super 8. and I'm sorry but 1080 for 600-700$ isn't cheap , the film costs money too.
If kodak made a 35mm camera , that would be a whole new ball game.
Oh, yeah, I know what you mean. 8mm doesn't have a big enough surface to reduce the noise. 16mm is a lot better and there's a lot more techniques in pre-production and post-production to make it look better because there's more image data to work with and even without trying to make it as god as possible, 16mm has that nostalgic look to it.