Registration of Kodak‘s current S8 camera

Joerg Polzfusz · September 14

Hi!

When taking a look at the steadiness of this clip, then Kodak’s S8 cam is on par with recently serviced Canons/Nizos/Beaulieus/…:

But when taking a look at petapixel‘s videos, then the registration is simply horrible:

So what‘s the truth? Is Kodak’s camera worse than any 50 years old camera? Or did petapixel forget to increase the steadiness in post? Or did they used the perforation holes instead of the frame separator as a reference point? Or did they use some cheap Chinese telecine device (Wolverine/Kodak/…)?

You‘ll also notice that all three videos have a problem with dust/dirt - in brand new cameras?! Where does this come from? Is this a design flaw of the camera? Or did they forget to clean the camera when switching cartridges?

Tyler Purcell · September 15

Super 8 cameras use the same registration system across the board. They put a slight squeeze on the film laterally in the gate, which helps hold it from shifting. So the camera should look like any other camera registration wise.

I have gotten some hands on time with the new camera and was very unimpressed, it really is a toy. The lack of viewfinder, makes it impossible to use in broad daylight. When stopped down, the 480p video tap, is worse than any other video system I've ever seen, especially when running. The designers, didn't even bother putting in a flicker free video system, so it has a rolling shutter effect, which makes it even worse. Plus, the camera is heavy and large, it's the largest super 8 camera I've ever seen, 2x lager than the biggest Elmo I have and 1/3rd larger than the biggest Beaulieu I have. It's also horribly loud, complete total joke loud. Like, what were they even thinking. A quiet motor would have been much better, so you aren't getting audio. The meter is also trash, it's slow to recover from changes and is very indecisive. It will suddenly jump around. Forget about finding focus too, you can forget focus even exists.

The only real "good" thing is the cool integrated battery system and the menu system which can store the cartridges used feet for a proper countdown system, which is something only a hand full of people would even use. Hopefully people are going out and can at bare minimal finish one cartridge at a time.

I have not shot with the new Super 8 camera yet, I'm waiting to get the demo model from Kodak until we've moved. But seeing as the stock lens is total shit, I highly doubt it will even graze the 6008 Beaulieu I have.

The other thing is that Super 8 pricing is going up. Labs just started charging more for processing. Thus, the cost of the format just ticked up a notch and so today, it's even less worthwhile working with. I only have my super 8 cameras for posterity and the occasional home movie shooting. I use them to capture real life moments, where I need a smaller camera. Otherwise, I'll just shoot 16 because it's actually price per finished minute, pretty damn close to the same cost as super 8. The problem is getting a good 16mm camera can be challenging.

So in the end, Super 8 exists because Kodak makes a killing from the format. Remember, super 8 cartridge film length is half of 16mm. So 100ft daylight spool of 16mm, which is $64 bux, cut that in half to get 50ft and you get $32 dollars right? But super 8 is HALF the width too! So you're actually dividing that in half once more. So super 8 should actually cost $16 bux + the cartridge cost. So let's say $25 bux. But it's actually $39 dollars per cartridge in the US. So Kodak is making a KILLING on the format, it's actually the most expensive per foot film format if you actually cut it down to the width of the film. Where they're of course, not selling as much feet, they still make more profit. Imagine if Super 8 cartridges were priced at $25 bux? I'd probably shoot more! lol

Simon Wyss · September 15

The Single-8 cartridge is standardised. Nobody needs to feel ashamed to manufacture it or use it. The Kodakers still stick to the unfortunate coax cartridge from the sixties.

Five and a half thousand dollars for a C-mount camera without a finder that lets you focus accurately is just bold. For that money a second-hand 35-mm. camera can be found, a wonderful tripod with a fluid head, couple lenses, and more, a complete outfit for CINEMA. Who cares for a plastic handle that can be screwed to a camera’s roof?

I note a screaming discrepancy between crystal controlled frame rates and insecure image steadiness. The Eastman-Kodak Company once had participated in the 8-S cartrigde project that led to Single-8. Agfa, too. Jürgen Lossau described the history since 1959 in more depth.

Of course are the gates of these Supa-8 cameras dirty, that’s an essential ingredient of the look.