FINALLY - Kodak Super 8 camera!

[Tyler Purcell]

21 hours ago, Kevin Roy said:

Not impossible if you have one of diese.

I had one, they don't work at all. Total scam product. Everyone who has bought one, has the same problems I do. They simply jam constantly because the modern film stocks don't have the same lubrication as the older film stocks. So sure, 40 years ago they worked fine, but not anymore. I could care less about what the format "was", the only thing that matters is what the format is today. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

10 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

2mm taller and 10mm wider is quite of a difference. Imagine the bump in quality from going n16 to s16 where it is not nowhere this much of a difference in size, it's a big difference. You photograph a lot larger and sharper images and then crop into that to get 16x9 in comparison to s16.

If shooting 16:9 or wider formats, the difference between N16 and S16 areas is about 3X so it is a huge difference. If shooting 4:3 there is no difference at all.

Target aspect ratio matters quite much and needs to be known before making any comparisons.

Btw it is pretty common to shoot tv series nowadays in 2:1 and recently worked on a show which was 2.1:1 ratio. No everyone shoot standard ratios and film formats are not directly comparable by assuming all users would use the same aspect ratio for everything. For example people may want to shoot 4:3 for storytelling benefits and would thus never need S16 cameras for anything and would additionally save lots of money on the camera body.

Academy and S35 is less of a difference and mainly about lens coverage and angle of view issue rather than any real quality difference. A 20 or 30 percent difference in area does not even show on screen...

[Giray Izcan]

I was assuming the end product would be 16x9 or 1.85.

[Tyler Purcell]

17 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

2mm taller and 10mm wider is quite of a difference. Imagine the bump in quality from going n16 to s16 where it is not nowhere this much of a difference in size, it's a big difference. You photograph a lot larger and sharper images and then crop into that to get 16x9 in comparison to s16.

Guarantee you, with 1.5x anamorphic lenses on Super 16, you'd never notice the difference between 50D S16 2.40:1 and 250D S35 2 perf. Once you matte down the image to 2.40:1 on a TV or your computer screen, nobody is gonna care. It's just aesthetics at that point. With 3 perf or 4 perf S35mm, at least you've got a HUGE negative to work with. I guess that's my point. 

I'll see if I can do this test at some point in the near future. Reason we haven't is because our scanner(s) can't do 2 perf. I know, it's annoying. So I'd have to ship it out to Nicky and have her do the scan, which takes time and costs money. But yea, next time I get a Penelope in for service, I'll run a test. 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Kevin Roy said:

But thank god Kodak did something because lest we forget, film has a real likely chance of going away for good, permanently. Case in point, god I loved shooting that Agfa 400XT. Gone. And mmmm, that creamy Fuji 400T Eterna....it was so good. Too bad those companies abandoned film in an instant. And it's not like Kodak is exactly and economically thriving company these days. It's amazing that this even got done. 6-7 years in the making now?

Well, the studios have exclusivity contracts with Kodak. So they literally were not allowed to shoot any other film. That's why Fuji stopped manufacturing. They weren't getting the 2 million feet of color negative jobs. Can you imagine if Kodak had competition? It would be another planet today, but alas those days are gone. 

Kodak will make another mistake shortly, you wait and see. They're raising prices on still film 10 - 20% for 2024. We know they're also going up on motion picture next year. How many more price hikes will it take before people just stop shooting. Once the youth have no interest because they can't afford it, then it's over. It'll turn into a fad art thing and something only top professionals have access to. Kodak will price all of us out of the market. This $5400 dollar Super 8 camera is very much evidence of that. You can buy 10 4008 Beaulieu's for that kind of money AND have a few of them re-built. You'd have enough cameras to last you for the rest of your life in parts alone. The concept of a $5400 Super 8 camera that does nothing special, is an outrage and proves how far away Kodak is from reality. 

Will they sell some? Sure! It's the new fangled box that all the rich kids will want to look cool. Even though none of those people have ever bothered shooting with a real super 8 camera before. Kinda like the CyberTruck release. They'll just buy to say they have one and throw it on a shelf. Bet ya all the big YouTubers have one on their background sets to show they're "filmmakers" lol ?

[Giray Izcan]

32 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Guarantee you, with 1.5x anamorphic lenses on Super 16, you'd never notice the difference between 50D S16 2.40:1 and 250D S35 2 perf. Once you matte down the image to 2.40:1 on a TV or your computer screen, nobody is gonna care. It's just aesthetics at that point. With 3 perf or 4 perf S35mm, at least you've got a HUGE negative to work with. I guess that's my point. 

I'll see if I can do this test at some point in the near future. Reason we haven't is because our scanner(s) can't do 2 perf. I know, it's annoying. So I'd have to ship it out to Nicky and have her do the scan, which takes time and costs money. But yea, next time I get a Penelope in for service, I'll run a test. 

You are comparing 50d on one format with 1.5x anamorphic and 250d on the other... let's shoot the '13 and '19 stock under same lighting and lenses and see which format will be noticeably sharper and finer grained... I love s16 but I definitely believe 2 perf is much sharper than s16 in any crop... 

[Aapo Lettinen]

Yes it is kind of like the 16mm camera madness where people want someone to spend 100k or 200k of their own money to design a completely new camera body "to save the format" when even the existing cameras don't see enough use and people don't want to spend like 800 to update their camera to be usable, instead want someone to make a cool new camera "to make them shoot again" and then no one purchases nothing in the end ?

It is kind of like the joke of the man in a pub talking all day every day how he would write so many good books but don't have a typewriter so can't and nothing to do then other than drinking. Finally the bar owner and other regulars could not stand it anymore and bought the man that darn typewriter, the best they could find. The man was devastated, his whole world was shattered. And still did not write any books ever?

[Giray Izcan]

I remember reading an article on Argo on American Cinematographer a while back and remember reading they chose 2 perf over s16 because s16 did not yield satisfactory resolution for their needs.

[Tyler Purcell]

23 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

You are comparing 50d on one format with 1.5x anamorphic and 250d on the other... let's shoot the '13 and '19 stock under same lighting and lenses and see which format will be noticeably sharper and finer grained... I love s16 but I definitely believe 2 perf is much sharper than s16 in any crop... 

Sure, but that wasn't my point. You "CAN" make S16 look fine. It's just, many filmmakers choose to under light, so they're forced to shoot with higher ISO stocks, which lowers the crispness. 

Also, you can easily get 2.5k out of 50D. How much hight resolution are you getting out of 2 perf? Maybe 1k more? So you're still well below 4k height wise with 50D. Then you're saying that 500T is sharper, which of course it is, but now you're BARELY 2k. 

So shoot S16 50D or 200T pulled a stop and you're golden on S16 to retain just north of 2k. 

With 2 perf, there is NO WAY you're getting a 4k out of 500T, impossible. 

How much sharpness do you need?  Throw this up on your 4k TV and tell me this is not sharp enough. 
 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

24 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

Yes it is kind of like the 16mm camera madness where people want someone to spend 100k or 200k of their own money to design a completely new camera body "to save the format" when even the existing cameras don't see enough use and people don't want to spend like 800 to update their camera to be usable, instead want someone to make a cool new camera "to make them shoot again" and then no one purchases nothing in the end ?

Bingo. 

I mean how many people have you seen on the Facebook groups showing off cabinets full of beautiful Super 8 and 16mm bodies they have zero intent on ever using. One guy has every single Super 8 and 16mm camera made from the very beginning of the format through the 416. He just puts them in cabinets and looks at them. I'd beg to say more than 50% of the cameras out there are museum pieces, never to be used. Another 20-30% of the cameras out there are sitting in cases never to be used. There is only a TEENY, TINY, ITTY, BITTY, NEARLY INSIGNIFICANT amount of Super 8 and 16mm cameras actually being used. I'd say it's probably close to 3 - 5% of the total amount of Super 8 and 16mm cameras made. 

Now, a new camera would be great for the pro's, but would it change anything? I doubt it. 

For sure wouldn't effect the lower end market one bit. 

[Kevin Roy]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well, the studios have exclusivity contracts with Kodak. So they literally were not allowed to shoot any other film. That's why Fuji stopped manufacturing. They weren't getting the 2 million feet of color negative jobs. Can you imagine if Kodak had competition? It would be another planet today, but alas those days are gone...

I don't think competition necessarily would have kept prices down significantly. The decline in the use of film for all productions was worldwide + the studios, since the 70's and 80's when video was starting to emerge as more affordable and accessible. And that registered on the bottomline for Fuji and Agfa hardest. It's been a long long road in this transition, and since then film prices have constantly increased. My recollection is after silver spiked in 1980, Kodak never lowered prices! It's easy in hindsight to point to mistakes made by Kodak, not only in the film arena, but digital. Kodak could have owned digital imaging, so to speak.

I think at the price point of $5500, considering that Kodak is a company that can support a new product with added features, and bring it to the market, not to mention the its brand, it's worth it. I think there are strong arguments for someone spending money on a new product, especially for filmmakers just getting into it, as opposed to getting into refurbished vintage equipment (not that that's bad), and trusting there will be support. If I were a young filmmaker (or school or company) in that position, I'd lean towards Kodak.  

Will the market be what it was? No. But I'll be an advocate to support sustaining what's left for as long as possible. It already is an art thing, and for high level professionals, though I don't see film as ephemeral or a fad even now. It's still here, and it's being invested in. At NAB last year there were at least four companies with new or improved motion picture film scanners. To me and my process, it wasn't the film or processing that was limiting, it was scanning to digital which was in short supply and expensive. And I think that we see that filmmakers of every variety will pay for it because it balances out. In other words, I pay more for film and processing, but way less for scanning now. And I get deals on stock, just like those who buy in bulk.

I don't think it is for rich kids or people who want to look cool, primarily. I think it's for artists, filmmakers, film schools, rental houses and people who are serious about the process and adding something new to the palette of options they can choose from or provide, to distinguish their work. And if that is one's MO, they'll figure out a way to afford it whether it's through bathroom processing, shooting short ends, renting a camera, whatever it takes. And I hope Kodak sees that, not just the bottom line. So far, it seems like they do. Compared to making a film on film in the 90's (or prior), compared to now....it's way easier now for a wider group of filmmakers, despite the inflation of the cost of the raw materials. And I think that's a variable to consider in how film can sustain and a clue into what Kodak knows about the market.        

[Jon O'Brien]

I think the new Kodak Super 8 camera will sell enough for it to be a success. Get off Kodak's back those people saying negative things. It's okay if you don't like Super 8 but accept that a lot of people know it's characteristics and love it. Many will love the new camera and it matters not one bit if they are hobbyists or pros or anything in between.

Speaking of 2-perf, it would look fantastic cropped to 2.1:1 or 2.20:1 for a feature movie. Just enough grain on the big screen to see it's film/give it slight bit of texture and grit. That etched look, sharp as a tack. A la Once Upon a Time in the West. From what I've seen on the big screen 3-perf has a slightly more pristine look closer to digital in appearance. But that's perfect for some things. There doesn't need to be a 'war' between the 3-perf and the 2-perf. That's just silly.

[Robin Phillips]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Sure, but that wasn't my point. You "CAN" make S16 look fine. It's just, many filmmakers choose to under light, so they're forced to shoot with higher ISO stocks, which lowers the crispness. 

Also, you can easily get 2.5k out of 50D. How much hight resolution are you getting out of 2 perf? Maybe 1k more? So you're still well below 4k height wise with 50D. Then you're saying that 500T is sharper, which of course it is, but now you're BARELY 2k. 

 

Also, and I realize this is sacrilege to some, but we live in a world where we have the tools to sharpen up and grain reduce S16mm and still have a very pleasing image. So if your goal is you want the look of film without digital emulation, and you cant shoot 35 and dont want to do a shoot digital + laserback and re-scan, you can take super 16 really freaking far. The post sup in me would still recommend shooting 35 for vfx shots if possible, but the reality is we've been able to do vfx on s16 for a long time just fine at this point. 

Also Tyler if you do a run of blurays of this train doc I'll definitely buy a copy. looks fantastic. 

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Kevin Roy said:

I don't think competition necessarily would have kept prices down significantly. The decline in the use of film for all productions was worldwide + the studios, since the 70's and 80's when video was starting to emerge as more affordable and accessible.

Na, none of what happened in the 70's and 80's has anything to do with the end of film, zero percent. 

What killed film was the following (not in any particular order) 
1) SAG/AFTRA merger 
2) Deluxe/Technicolor signing a agreement to stop manufacturing prints globally. 
3) Digital cinema projectors being "good enough". 
4) Labor unions allowing for the end of projectionists. 
5) Kodak filing bankruptcy. 
6) Fuji ending production of camera negative. 
7) A push by filmmakers to "try the new digital technology'" so they don't fall behind in skill set. 
8 Theaters being forced to upgrade, without having any input on the situation. 

Remember, camera film is a VERY SMALL business compared to print film. 

One 35mm film print is roughly 5000 - 7000ft. 
There would be upwards of 4000 prints made for each movie. 
That's 28 million feet of film PER MOVIE! 
There was what, 100+ movies released a year? 

The print business "was" the business. Camera negative WAS probably 5-10% of Kodak's business. 
When that went away,, that was the end of film as we knew it. 
The whole thing was a mafia hit job on Kodak. I still believe to this day, it was purposeful thanks to their anti-competitive business practices. 

3 hours ago, Kevin Roy said:

I don't think it is for rich kids or people who want to look cool, primarily. I think it's for artists, filmmakers, film schools, rental houses and people who are serious about the process and adding something new to the palette of options they can choose from or provide, to distinguish their work.

Yes, today. But not when the prices go up 40% over the next few years. 

Believe it or not, but Kodak's prices have only doubled in the last 20 years. That's actually not bad considering 20 years ago you could get a good working car for $2k and today, it's more like $7k. 

3 hours ago, Kevin Roy said:

And if that is one's MO, they'll figure out a way to afford it whether it's through bathroom processing, shooting short ends, renting a camera, whatever it takes. And I hope Kodak sees that, not just the bottom line. So far, it seems like they do. Compared to making a film on film in the 90's (or prior), compared to now....it's way easier now for a wider group of filmmakers, despite the inflation of the cost of the raw materials. And I think that's a variable to consider in how film can sustain and a clue into what Kodak knows about the market.        

Eh, I mean you're talking stills people. One sheet of film off the coating machine is good enough for an entire year of still film. They can make enough still film to last the stills guys for a decade in probably a week. They would not be in business at all if still film was the only thing around. Nobody serious is processing motion picture film in their bathroom. Also, Kodak would not be in business either, with those onesie, twosie guys, who shoot 200ft of 16mm a year. That is not a sustainable business model, neither are short ends or for that matter, renting film cameras when parts are nearly impossible to get for every camera. Give it 10 years, when all the damaged camera parts have been gobbled up, who is going to keep the cameras running? The cost to manufacture new parts will put all those consumers on the curb. The only people who will be capable of affording it are people shooting 100 million dollar blockbusters and having the guys at Panavision make them a new camera. :cough: Nolan :cough:. 

That's what people don't get. This whole road we're on today, this is it man. We are at the end of the road. The recession that's pending and increased pricing on film, chemicals (lab prices), will prevent the mid-low people, from shooting motion picture film. That's just fact, it's happening right now, I see it every day when I'm quoting for jobs and people won't go for it anymore. Last year? No problem. Recessions = no extra frill money. People will use plugins to create the film look, there are some great new AI driven ones that are very good. So with that said, there will be a flood of cameras hitting the market in 2024/2025 as people get out of their packages to pay bills and with limited people having the cash to purchase them, the prices will fall through the floor. This is already happening. There is a beautiful 416 for sale that hasn't sold for $60k. Two years ago, they were $100k. So the prices are already tanking and rental houses are already dumping cameras, they're always the first to do so. With the slow down in the industry it's inevitable. 

Kodak is 5 years too late to the market with this Super 8 camera and $4k over budget. $1499 and they would have sold thousands internationally,, but at this price, with everything happening in the world today, I just don't see it. Film will stick around, but not because you and I shoot, but because Nolan does. Because the studios still do YCM separations. Because prints are still being made for special one off experiences... again, studio guys. I bet Nolan alone made Kodak's year in 2023. It sure made FotoKem's year. I hate to disappoint you, but no... we aren't even a blip to kodak. Maybe the mid-low business is 1% of their over-all sales? This year I shot close to 20,000ft of 16mm and dang, maybe 40 Super 8 cartridges and a dozen 35mm still rolls? That's peanuts man, not even worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

Also Tyler if you do a run of blurays of this train doc I'll definitely buy a copy. looks fantastic. 

Thanks, yea the finished feature we plan on making, which will be a 3 year adventure, will be on BluRay.

We actually just scored the biggest deal we've had thus far in the train scene, so we're super stoked for next year. May actually travel to the east coast next summer to start shooting the bigger project. Time to re-build my camera and lenses again! hahah ?

[Scott Bullock]

Tons of great info in these discussions. I really enjoy reading everyone's input, fwiw.

At the end of the day, my position on the Kodak camera remains essentially the same: I hope Kodak sells every single camera and is incentivized to do more. I guess we'll see.

I thought for sure I'd fall squarely into their target market but somehow I don't. If I'm going to devote $5,500 to the Super 8 format, I'd still buy a freshly serviced Beaulieu or Leicina and spend the other $4,500+ on film, processing, and scanning. I can wrap my head around an institution like a school wanting a new camera rather than a used one, but the Kodak camera is sorely lacking in features when compared to either of the cameras mentioned above (just basic stuff too, like frame rates, a viewfinder, a zoom lens, etc.) and its warranty isn't all that robust. 100,000 frames? That's what, less than 30 rolls of film? It just seems strange to be on the outside looking in when it should be a guy like me that they wanted to target - a middle-aged professional with some disposable income and a (some would say irrational) love for narrow gauge formats that I still shoot regularly.

Que sera sera. 

[Uli Meyer]

9 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

 

How much sharpness do you need?

Love your footage Tyler, I've been watching all your films, they look terrific. But I do disagree with the S16 vs 2perf argument. I shoot both S16 and 2perf and 2perf gives you a much denser and crisper image. I haven't output any 2perf in 16:9 but when you grade your film in a window of the same height, there is a noticeable difference between 2perf and S16. The below was shot on 250D and 50D.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

22 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I haven't output any 2perf in 16:9 but when you grade your film in a window of the same height, there is a noticeable difference between 2perf and S16. The below was shot on 250D and 50D.

I think a lot of that is down to the camera and lenses. No way are any of the cameras I'm using in any way shape or form capable of delivering an image AS SHARP as an Arri 35mm camera. Arri's aperture plates touch the emulsion side of the film, so they can achieve perfect flange distance and optimal sharpness. Alas, Aaton's were never designed to do that. But ya don't get hairs in the gate either. We recently scanned a film shot with Arri Ultra Primes with a 416 and it blew my doors off. We both stared at the monitor wondering what the F they shot it with and when we found out, I was like... ahhhh yea of course. 50D, stopped down to F11 in the desert with Ultra Primes and a 416, with a 4k scan? I mean it doesn't get much sharper honestly. I think with an Arri scanner,  it would have been glass. 

Where I agree, the footage you demo is night and day sharper than anything I've got to show, I also think there is much more to it. This is why I'm gonna have to do a test to lay this issue to rest. I'm gonna go to one of the rental houses and do a little test. Sadly I can't use Aaton gear due to this gate/flange issue they have, I wanna use fully calibrated ARRI cameras and of course, a better scanner. 

What scanner is your material scanned on? Looks like a Arri Scan XT? 

[Uli Meyer]

54 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What scanner is your material scanned on? Looks like a Arri Scan XT? 

It was scanned at Dgitall Orchard on Scannity at 5k, neg developed by Kodak London.

The camera it was shot on is an Arriflex 2C converted to 2perf by Daniil Nevsky. I used one single lens, a Zeiss Standard Prime 24mm, between f4 and f8, depending on the weather which was mostly pretty awful.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Uli Meyer

[Tyler Purcell]

23 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

It was scanned at Dgitall Orchard on Scannity at 5k, neg developed by Kodak London.

Isn't the scanity 4k? They have a new one that just came out this year that does 8k. 

That scan is pretty serious tho, I do a lot of 4k scanity work and it doesn't look THAT good.

Interesting, digital orchard must have the new machine. 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

Anybody received their Kodak S8 cam by now?

[Giray Izcan]

They are supposed to ship them in the first quarter of 2024 if I am not mistaken.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Several websites claim that the first units were to be shipped on December 4th, e.g.:

https://euro.eseuro.com/technology/1565315.html

 

https://btw.media/kodaks-super-8-film-camera-will-be-available-in-december/

 

 

[Fabian Schreyer]

On 12/19/2023 at 7:53 AM, Joerg Polzfusz said:

Anybody received their Kodak S8 cam by now?

Did anyone here actually order one?

[Robin Phillips]

i just got an invite to order one, but its through B&H. are they managing the sales or did I get an extremely targeted svam email?