Guest santo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 So, finally Single 8 is being phased out by Fuji. In the end, Kodak continues on, the choice for filmmakers, the supporter of filmmakers, the champion of filmmakers. I've always laughed pretty hard at the nonsense on filmshooting/conspiracytheory/slotcars.com with regard to the whining and bitching by about a dozen or two morons who constantly try to point to Fuji as some kind of "great savior" of small format, and Kodak has "forgotten" about them. Now the inevitable has happened. Will they suddenly turn 180 and begin living in reality and accept that Kodak is the only film manufacturing company who ever gave a damn about small format as a media and, though they lost their way for awhile, are now the small format's biggest friend these past 3 or so years? No, I doubt it. Those morons over there won't get it. They'll still blather on endlessly about Fuji this and Fuji that and how great they think Velvia 50 is in super 8, even though it too has been discontinued and looks no better than the Kodak 64t I've seen properly shot, developed, and transfered (three key points) -- except the 64t actually has realistic looking colours and can be used inside, unlike the NOW DISCONTINUED Velvia 50. Welcome to reality. http://fujifilm.jp/information/20060425/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Halloran Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Blah, blah, blah, blah More ethnocentric racist swill from the fake filmmaker. Welcome to reality, indeed. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 This must come as crushing news to you. My condolences. BTW, Kodak offers 5 professional motion picture film stocks in Super 8. Fuji never made the jump to promoting small gauge as a professional film origination medium by introducing negative stocks, nor black and white. Only home movie grade 25d and 200t reversals. I actually love Fuji's still stocks and use them all the time in my Olympus OM2n and my old beat-up Pentax K1000. Credit where credit is due and a balanced, logical and realistic perspective, with an emphasis on facts -- the key to life and film shooting success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.Oliver Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Kodak offer 5 professional films!! Amazing that 3 of the so called pro films will fade quicker than the amateur stock they replaced, and in the case of the reversal stock you get double the grain. Why is 64t regarded as a pro stock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8 Booster Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 yep, the poorest formats allways wins in the end, the vhs, pcs - the list is really endless. time to turn fuji 16 next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Kodak offer 5 professional films!! Amazing that 3 of the so called pro films will fade quicker than the amateur stock they replaced, and in the case of the reversal stock you get double the grain. Why is 64t regarded as a pro stock? The two black and white films will last longer than Kodacrap40 if you're looking for archival quality. No question or conjecture about it. A 100 years? More? The two negatives are, well, negatives. The same professional negatives used to make the 30 million dollar films at your local theatre. Sure they'll fade at some point I suppose. But provided they're stored properly (obviously they are never projected), they should be good for your remaining lifespan. As for 64t, well... http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professio...9.22.5.30&lc=en I can't tell you how long 64 will last. Likely as long as your remaining lifespan if stored properly. What are you putting on your films that you hope will last the ages, anyways? And if it is so important, why aren't you shooting on black and white or, if you insist on colour, at least making professional digital transfers at at least the uncompressed 10 bit level which can be exactly cloned every 5 or 15 years or whatever without any quality loss just to make sure? HD is going to be with us likely for the next 100 years or more. So is SD quite likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 yep, the poorest formats allways wins in the end, the vhs, pcs - the list is really endless. Not really. I remember my parents had a Beta player. Don't remember any big difference over VHS back then. I suppose technically there was, but I don't remember anything. Likely those who were adults back then, didn't notice any big dif either. Plus VHS evolved over the years to be better than regular Beta was. PC's are now better than Macs. Yes, the list is endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Thinking about this, it is really all about evolution. Those who don't evolve, die. That's the way of the world and the marketplace. Fuji Single 8 never evolved. Kodak Super 8 has evolved and come of age. The latest, most advanced professional negative stocks, revised and modernized black and white reversals, and a snazzy e-6 reversal colour stock -- and relocating the whole operation not only in their professional motion picture division, but they're moving production back to the US with new equipment to ensure excellence. Absolutely astounding and worthy of a standing ovation. Dropping Kodakcrap40 was shedding old skin in the evolution to function viably in the modern world. Meanwhile, Fuji just continued to offer the same old home movie quality reversal stocks without lifting a finger to modernize their format. They just let it die. It is a striking contrast in philosophy towards the 8mm format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morris milne Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Those who don't evolve, die. That's the way of the world and the marketplace. Welcome back governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canney Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 1. Mac>PC 2. I have never really cared for fuji film in any format. Its just pretty bad when compared to kodak. But the only reason I like kodakchrome 40 is because I could by a cartridge for $12 and get it processed for $5. I have yet to get back some 64T but hope that it better like kodak says. But yeah Kodak actually puts money and time into making and developing their film stocks. They have released a bunch of new films for S8 over the past couple years and actually care. Plus they have a greater range in types of film and exposures for motion picture. 3. Why is the link to a japaness web site? Could you give me one for english? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8 Booster Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 not the kodak film material - its ok - but the kodapak cartridge no pp vs fuji cart and an in cam pp but possbly also superior fuji perfing for super 8mm format film. as of yet is seems, like only fuji was capable of perfing 0.10mm thick polyester base film to perfection. and for us proj buffs; fuji strill add a sounstrack/stripe on the film whilde processing. shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted April 27, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2006 as of yet is seems, like only fuji was capable of perfing 0.10mm thick polyester base film to perfection. shoot Kodak perforates billions of feet of polyester film annually, including Super-8 print film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8 Booster Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 i know, its just that the 8mm (super) perfs are very small and precission is critical and we all know that agfa didnt make it with polyester in the past while fuji did so the question is if kodak is as good as fuji in this context. it may well be but it seems to be a challenge. other than that the new kodapak carts (64T) seems to have obtained much better - to me acceptable image stability off shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted April 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2006 i know, its just that the 8mm (super) perfs are very small and precission is critical and we all know that agfa didnt make it with polyester in the past while fuji did so the question is if kodak is as good as fuji in this context. it may well be but it seems to be a challenge. other than that the new kodapak carts (64T) seems to have obtained much better - to me acceptable image stability off shelf. When it comes to slitting and perforating, Kodak's specifications are much tighter than the tolerances allowed by the SMPTE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted April 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2006 i know, its just that the 8mm (super) perfs are very small and precission is critical and we all know that agfa didnt make it with polyester in the past while fuji did so the question is if kodak is as good as fuji in this context. it may well be but it seems to be a challenge. other than that the new kodapak carts (64T) seems to have obtained much better - to me acceptable image stability off shelf. Nobody should comment on super-8 image stability unless their own 25 year old super-8 camera has had it's film spindle advance clutch adjusted to spec, camera motor properly cleaned and lubricated and proper voltage/current checked from the power supply to all motor parts. As long as the super-8 community advocates the imbecilic attitude that one cannot spend more money to repair or service a super-8 camera then the cost of the super-8 camera off of eBay the area of discussion in regards to stable Super-8 images will be rife with unsubstantiated opinion mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8 Booster Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 well, alex, looking at perfs through a microscope is a good validator as well as professional researsh from authorities around. i can also asure you that even a professionally serviced cam may not really hold the spec seeing the awesome complexity of cams like canons 814/1014 xlss and the huge amount of tools and reference clearance measuring tools/jigs and spacers required to measure spec tolerances an where do you get new spares to bring it back on spec these days? you dont just make those parts in your toolshed. mr pytlak, no reason to doubt your statement and i am glad to know that kodak specs are better than standard smpte, but would be interesting if you can conform that it is a bigger challenge to perf a 0.10mm polyester base vs arox 0.150 mm acetate base as the polyester still is still much stronger. ref agfa problems of the past. shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted April 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2006 As I said, Kodak perforates over 10 BILLION linear feet of polyester (ESTAR) base film annually. Kodak has been making film on polyester base for almost 50 years. So we've learned how to do it well. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canney Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I think super 8 has pretty good stability. I've done DV prints out to super 8 and the frame rate and picture speed stays the same at 24fps as it does on the computer. Like the guy said before Nobody should comment on super-8 image stability unless their own 25 year old super-8 camera has had it's film spindle advance clutch adjusted to spec, camera motor properly cleaned and lubricated and proper voltage/current checked from the power supply to all motor parts. As long as the super-8 community advocates the imbecilic attitude that one cannot spend more money to repair or service a super-8 camera then the cost of the super-8 camera off of eBay the area of discussion in regards to stable Super-8 images will be rife with unsubstantiated opinion mongering. A lot of the cameras are old, heavily used and haven't been serviced in a long time. So they might be a little shaky performance wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LVD Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Can you have your super 8 camera serviced at any respectable camera repair shop, or would you have to find someone who specifically works on movie cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 A lot of the cameras are old, heavily used and haven't been serviced in a long time. So they might be a little shaky performance wise. It's a miracle that many of them still run like tanks. I hear the life expectancy for expensive 3 chip cameras is about 5 years, before the CCD's and mico electronics start going sour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Perkins Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 It's a miracle that many of them still run like tanks. I hear the life expectancy for expensive 3 chip cameras is about 5 years, before the CCD's and mico electronics start going sour. Yes I have a 3ccd Canon - less than five years old with a dead pixel in the centre of the screen - it'll cost more to repair than it's worth..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted April 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2006 There are not that many places that do Super-8 repairs unfortunately. Someone buys a Super-8 camera for 20 bucks on Ebay and then they think it's ludicrous to spend 100 dollars to get it working right. What they fail to consider is that Super-8 camera could have cost anywhere from $199.00 to $799.00 when it was new 25 years ago and that once they start running film through the camera defective footage can easily cost over a hundred dollars. Spectra Film & Video is offering to sell cameras that they have at least looked at beforehand. There are specialists doing repairs, but as far as I know there is no comprehensive list, although I think OnSuper-8.org might have a list??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan coombs Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Yes I have a 3ccd Canon - less than five years old with a dead pixel in the centre of the screen - it'll cost more to repair than it's worth..... I don't have this problem (yet) with my Canon but everyone I know with a 5-10 year old 3CCD camera says their camera is on the way out. Plus the fact that people buying digital cameras believe their shooting is then free, when really if the camera is only being used 2 times a year for film projects there is a significant depreciation is resale value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted April 30, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2006 i know, its just that the 8mm (super) perfs are very small and precission is critical and we all know that agfa didnt make it with polyester in the past while fuji did so the question is if kodak is as good as fuji in this context. it may well be but it seems to be a challenge. other than that the new kodapak carts (64T) seems to have obtained much better - to me acceptable image stability off shelf. I don't think Kodak could have used polyester film in their kodak super-8 cartridges even if they wanted to. Polyester film just does not rip so it would have been just a matter of time before a very infrequent cartridge jam could result in the claw being damaged since the polyester film won't give at all. As for the single 8 cartridge design in which one can rewind the entire film to the beginning if one desired to, some clam that it is an excellent design and one that won't damage the polyester film if there is a jam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 (edited) Those who don't evolve, die yea that's what angry people like to say tell that to the bacteria and fish... life can stagnate and still survive for billions of years, I doubt humans will survive for a fraction of that time with all their fascinating evolution and progress Edited May 1, 2006 by Filip Plesha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now