FINALLY - Kodak Super 8 camera!

[Joerg Polzfusz]

8 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

The most "professional " projects shot on s8 are usually nothing more than some young hipster musician who wants to shoot on s8... but those projects aren't money makers. It's more of a bragging rights for the artist hey we shot it on film lol.

One of those „hipsters projects“:

https://www.pro8mm.com/blogs/blog/winning-time-the-rise-of-the-lakers-dynasty-now-on-hbo-max?_kx=
 

https://www.pro8mm.com/blogs/blog/everyone-is-talking-about-the-cool-factor-of-the-winning-time-season-2-cinematography

[Giray Izcan]

But those types of shows they don't shoot on Super 8 they have some frames or scenes or sequences that were shot on Super 8 for some sort of a retro effect as a cutaway. The original RoboCop has some video shot footage as well that played in the movie on the TV screen. It's almost like saying RoboCop was shot on beta SP

Edited November 22, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Joerg Polzfusz]

BTW: The Nizo Professional sold for something between 1,100 and 1,200 USD in 1975. According to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com that would be something between 6,290 and 6,862 USD in today’s prices…

[Joerg Polzfusz]

5 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

But those types of shows they don't shoot on Super 8 they have some frames or scenes or sequences that were shot on Super 8 for some sort of a retro effect

Yes, they didn’t shoot the whole season on S8. But (Quote from the first link): „The project used approximately 1,200  50 foot rolls of Super 8 film; 50 Hours of Super 8 filmmaking!“

According to the second link, they have even been shooting anamorphic S8 in the third season .

 

[Giray Izcan]

50 hours of Super 8 out of how many hours were shot for that project on all formats? I'm just saying it's still for those few sequences as cutaway and stuff. Most other stuff that I see on Kodak's Publications whether on Instagram or anywhere else anything Super 8 looks horrible shot, exposure is all over the place the camera is so shaky to a point of you can't even tell what is going on in front of the camera those are the projects that I normally see. This is one exception out of however many other projects that shoot on Super 8.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

I wish the best of luck whoever is actually trying to make a living with their Super 8 cameras. The market is simply not there.

[David Sekanina]

14 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

I wish the best of luck whoever is actually trying to make a living with their Super 8 cameras. The market is simply not there.

I wonder how many owners of the latest +6000$ DSLR are actually making a living off of it. Maybe half of a percent? (My estimate might be skewed, as I live in Switzerland, and I see every tourist/dad/soccer mom with the latest and greatest DSLR) I'm glad they released the camera. If one percent of their pre-orders convert to actual sales, that's a few hundred cameras. They won't make back the R&D cost, but they show a commitment to the Super8 format, which is wonderful.

Edited November 23, 2023 by David Sekanina

[Jon O'Brien]

16 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You can't even see the display outside in the sun. You can't tell if it's in focus. I guess you could add a high NIT external display? But now you've got a camera bigger than a Red Komodo. What's the point? I to this day, have no idea how anyone shoots outside in the sun with a monitor, even on digital cameras. I sure as heck can't. 

I'm completely with you on this, Tyler. Thank you for clearly articulating a point that continually surprises me when I regularly see videography 'experts' on You Tube showing themselves shooting footage outside in daylight with no viewfinder and just a monitor screen. I don't get it. Is this maybe some sort of 'hipster' fashion or something? Is it all in the 'look' and the 'image' of the young pro DP at work or something, looking super cool with all the fashionable gear?

How are you supposed to focus, and even get a proper sense of what you're shooting, not to mention the exposure, by looking at a monitor screen out in daylight? I can't do it. I need a viewfinder. Especially in Australia with our bright sunlight.

It's a great looking new Super 8 camera and all the best to Kodak, I wish them success with it. Hopefully I might get to use one some day. I will have to use some kind of shade for the monitor screen outdoors though.

I do agree with Giray about Super 8 optical viewfinders. Many I find to be pretty poor to try and focus with. The best I've seen is the Beaulieu 4008 with its ground glass screen that can be retracted, and the next runners up I've used, not as good but tolerable are the Canon 1014XL-S and Canon 814 Autozoom. The Beaulieu is the best by a mile. Your mileage may vary of course.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

46 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

It's a great looking new Super 8 camera and all the best to Kodak, I wish them success with it ... I will have to use some kind of shade for the monitor screen outdoors though

Or use a Zacuto EVF, if that's possible, as Giray said.

[Aapo Lettinen]

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

surprises me when I regularly see videography 'experts' on You Tube showing themselves shooting footage outside in daylight with no viewfinder and just a monitor screen. I don't get it. Is this maybe some sort of 'hipster' fashion or something? Is it all in the 'look' and the 'image' of the young pro DP at work or something, looking super cool with all the fashionable gear?

How are you supposed to focus, and even get a proper sense of what you're shooting, not to mention the exposure, by looking at a monitor screen out in daylight? I can't do it. I need a viewfinder. Especially in Australia with our bright sunlight.

it is not necessary for cool gadgets to really work for actual real life shooting situations. They tend to be more of "collector items" and maybe used for one or two "test projects" before abandoned on the top shelf to collect dust. In best possible scenario they would see some semi-regular hobby use or even be used to shoot one flashback scene for a "real movie".

but, well, yes. They don't really need to be super well working or extremely durable because typical users don't really use them that much anyway. So plastic and awkward would be totally fine ? . People mostly buy them because they look cool and the idea is nice and the features look killer on paper. After playing with it for couple of weeks they put it down and after a moment they forget why they wanted it in the first place and then it just collects dust for two years after being found again, played with for couple of days and put on the shelf again.

It is fully possible and I truly hope so that there is some "real users" who would actually use this camera for serious filming. but they are rare and I think about 98% of the buyers are just like what I described, the ones who want to own cool stuff but may not have much use for it after all ?

[Giray Izcan]

7 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

I wonder how many owners of the latest +6000$ DSLR are actually making a living off of it. Maybe half of a percent? (My estimate might be skewed, as I live in Switzerland, and I see every tourist/dad/soccer mom with the latest and greatest DSLR) I'm glad they released the camera. If one percent of their pre-orders convert to actual sales, that's a few hundred cameras. They won't make back the R&D cost, but they show a commitment to the Super8 format, which is wonderful.

I'm not saying it is not wonderful. If I could justify spending 6k on a format that is very specific in look that can't be used on most paid projects, I would buy one. For 6k, you could get an NPR or an ACL with crystal sync motor and 400ft magazines. BTW, with those 6 thousand dollar top of the line dslrs, you could shoot professional grade stills and possibly get work as a photographer if that's your interest, that you don't have to pay 100 dollars per 2.5 minutes of run time. Unfortunately,  you won't get hired with those 16mm cameras as much as you wouldn't with a s8 camera. Still, 16mm vs s8 is night and day in terms quality. Like I mentioned before,  I haven't seen anything cinematic shot with s8 on the internet for example. Everything I saw was barely watchable but still praised as gorgeous including that atrocious music video from 2020 shot on s8, I can't remember the artist's name lol. The money you spend on s8 is not cute to just shoot random stuff with half the footage out of focus.. I am still trying to see one example where s8 looks cinematic and nicely lit. I am planning on shooting a small test short with my ol' Minolta xl84 to see this format and the vibe it gives under narrative context as I actually love the format. 

[David Sekanina]

I understand your point Giray. I just tried to point out, that not everyone who will buy this camera, will necessarily think about the return of investment. Kite surfing or paragliding are more expensive hobbies than shooting film.

I always loved the look of Madonna's music video JML:

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by David Sekanina

[Giray Izcan]

David, thank you. Yea, that does look good. As for my test, I wrote a small horror/Thriller story for this test instead of shooting random scenery. I am planning on shooting it on 7213 and rate it 100 with film print lut in post in mind in terms of contrast ratios etc. As for lighting, it will be tungsten fresnels and kino.  I am trying to rig some sort of a camera in the viewfinder with clamps or something to have a video feedback so I can get some tracking shots on a Dana dolly and some other types of shots including odd angles. I shoot at 2.8 which is 2 stops closed down on this camera so I look forward to it. The foal of this test is to see how this format feels in a narrative context and how it looks under low key lighting.

[Jon O'Brien]

5 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

I understand your point Giray. I just tried to point out, that not everyone who will buy this camera, will necessarily think about the return of investment. Kite surfing or paragliding are more expensive hobbies than shooting film.

That's very true. A lot of people whinge about the cost of shooting film but it's not impossibly expensive. If you want something enough you will find a way to do it.

I think Karim is right. This new camera could really oil the wheels of interest out there, in a whole new generation of filmmakers. It will cause a stir, one way or the other. It will generate new interest and new creativity. Well done Kodak!

[Tyler Purcell]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:48 AM, David Sekanina said:

I always loved the look of Madonna's music video JML:

Accept, this isn't what Super 8 looks like for 99.5% of people. Most super 8 looks like complete junk. All of my recent super 8 stuff runs through Phoenix before even being edited. I run the raw files through because they're useless without it. A lot of times I have to wet gate FRESH FILM FROM THE LAB because it's so damn dirty, it's unusable in my opinion. I've tried many labs, same results. It's just the way the format is. 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 11/23/2023 at 6:38 AM, Jon O'Brien said:

Or use a Zacuto EVF, if that's possible, as Giray said.
 

Sure, but now the damn thing is bigger than an Alexa Mini! What's the point? 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Sure, but now the damn thing is bigger than an Alexa Mini! What's the point? 

True. But an Alexa Mini is also larger than your smartphone. So what is the point of using an Alexa? Or to reformulate my question: What’s the point of your point? Is the size of the camera (including accessories) more important than the resulting images?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

On 11/21/2023 at 11:41 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Biggest issue is the SD video tap with low-brightness display. It looks the same as the prototype in that regard.

In the beginning (2016/2017), Kodak listed a 3.5" display as viewfinder. Then, their website suddenly stated (and still states) that it’s a 4" display. So they have changed something since the very first prototypes.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

On 11/21/2023 at 11:51 PM, Giray Izcan said:

I'm sure you would need a hoodman for the lcd while using it outdoors. 

Not sure whether you would really need a hoodman. I’m using my smartphone like everyone else outside without any problems or need for something like in the attached image. Same applies to the video cameras I owned and own, the digital still cameras, … . The only situation  where I’m actually switching from the large display to the tiny EVF on my Lumix „TZ something“ is in summer at the beach. 

[Scott Bullock]

On 11/23/2023 at 1:01 PM, Giray Izcan said:

As for my test, I wrote a small horror/Thriller story for this test instead of shooting random scenery. I am planning on shooting it on 7213 and rate it 100 with film print lut in post in mind in terms of contrast ratios etc. As for lighting, it will be tungsten fresnels and kino.  I am trying to rig some sort of a camera in the viewfinder with clamps or something to have a video feedback so I can get some tracking shots on a Dana dolly and some other types of shots including odd angles. I shoot at 2.8 which is 2 stops closed down on this camera so I look forward to it. The foal of this test is to see how this format feels in a narrative context and how it looks under low key lighting.

Would definitely be interested in seeing those results, if you plan to share them somewhere. I genuinely hope you find them to be promising. 

Regarding Kodak's camera, I am hoping it has some kind of success, if only to possibly spark interest from other manufacturers. The mind wonders what might happen if a company like Canon, Sony, or Nikon, or even BMD decided to follow suit and build a camera of their own, possibly at a much more affordable price with better features and optics.

Of the many things that have been said about the price on this camera, the one thing that strikes me as truly odd, is that, at that price point, I don't think it'd be my first choice as a Super 8 camera even though it's brand new. If there was real money (meaning, shoot as much as you need to) for a project and a good portion of it was going to be shot on Super 8 film as stylistic choice, I'd reach out to someone like Born Andersson and buy a freshly serviced Beaulieu 6/7008 Pro; or, at that price, two Beaulieu 6/7008 Pros and possibly a 4008 ZM2 as an additional backup. Sure, you wouldn't be getting those nice, modern digital features, but I'd gladly trade a swivel monitor for 70-80fps, a variable and mirrored shutter, vastly superior lenses, etc.

I own several Super 8 cameras and still enjoy shooting them on a regular basis, and I'd be all-in on this camera if it were sub $1.5K or thereabouts. But at that price, I can't even give it a moment's consideration. But, I do hope they sell, if only to attract other camera companies.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

7 hours ago, Scott Bullock said:

vastly superior lenses

The new Kodak camera is C-Mount like the Beaulieus. So you can easily upgrade to a better lens or use the lenses from your Beaulieu on your Kodak (that is if the lenses don’t have the non-standard Beaulieu-extensions for powering the zoom-motor and/or for communicating with the auto-iris).

[Giray Izcan]

Does anyone know what the shutter angle for this camera is? I hope it's standard 180 as opposed to other angles that are common with Super 8 cameras.

[Scott Bullock]

10 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

The new Kodak camera is C-Mount like the Beaulieus. So you can easily upgrade to a better lens or use the lenses from your Beaulieu on your Kodak (that is if the lenses don’t have the non-standard Beaulieu-extensions for powering the zoom-motor and/or for communicating with the auto-iris).

Yeah, that's definitely an option, but if you don't have those lenses, they'll have to be added to the total cost. You can find Angenieux 1.4/6-90 or Schneider 1.8/6-66 and 1.4/6-70 lenses in the $600 - $1,000 range, which is a pretty significant increase in price. Then, they'll have to be collimated for the camera. This stuff adds up. 

I just feel that, at that price, a good lens should be included. That Ricoh 6mm they put on there can probably be had for $100 or so.

[Tyler Purcell]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:24 PM, Joerg Polzfusz said:

True. But an Alexa Mini is also larger than your smartphone. So what is the point of using an Alexa? Or to reformulate my question: What’s the point of your point? Is the size of the camera (including accessories) more important than the resulting images?

You're saying the resulting images of the Super 8 camera is a "good" thing? The ONLY point of super 8's existence is small, light cameras that are very portable. Once you take those aspects away, there is no point. So if that's the case, might as well shoot with an Alexa mini and simply make it look like super 8 later. At least you'll have a good working image. 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You're saying the resulting images of the Super 8 camera is a "good" thing? The ONLY point of super 8's existence is small, light cameras that are very portable. Once you take those aspects away, there is no point. So if that's the case, might as well shoot with an Alexa mini and simply make it look like super 8 later. At least you'll have a good working image. 

? Rotfl! So you would use a camera that produces nothing but rubbish only because it’s small and light?! ? Very professional! ? When you think that Super8 automatically results in bad images, then why are you participating in this thread at all? ?