Jump to content

New Super 8 film camera!


Moises Perez

Recommended Posts

In the end, you would have a roughly 50% cheaper production cost when it comes to film, processing, and post production... but 3 times less resolution compared to S16.

 

The native resolution of Super16, to that of Super8, is more like 2 times.

 

But in terms of digital intermediates, where there is an opportunity to digitally process the film signal, it is not that difficult to improve the native definition of the Super 8 signal by a factor of two. This is due to the fact that one is dealing with a motion picture signal rather than a still image. In a typical motion picture signal there is a high correlation between the image in one frame and the image in adjacent frames. Indeed it is precisely this correlation that makes moving picture compression possible. But the grain - which acts as a limit to the definition of the signal in one frame, is completely uncorrelated with the grain in another frame.

 

This separation of signal and grain (or noise) allows the signal to be enhanced without enhancing the noise. Indeed, the noise drops because it is statistically self cancelling. As the noise drops the resolution increases (because it is the noise which limits the resolution).

 

In other words you can improve the Super8 signal to that of the un-improved Super16. Of course you could do the same for 16mm. And 35mm. But it doesn't happen because 16mm and 35mm are considered (for the time being) adequate without such.

 

But Super 8 isn't. And so it's the perfect medium in which to experiment with this sort of thing. Once you can get Super 8 up to an "adequate" definition then it is no longer a factor in whether to use it or not.

 

Getting Super8 up to the definition of native 35mm is a lot harder but not entirely out of the question. However the lens starts to act as more pesuasive limit and is a lot harder to compensate.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems top me that the technical issues underlying the manufacture of a new camera are not the problem. I have no doubt at all that a new camera is technically feasible, one that meets all the points which those who have contributed to this discussion have identified.

 

The problem is the market for such a camera!

 

The public out there simply do not appreciate that "film cameras" are still around. Recently, I was on holiday and I was taking a city tour as a means of identifying interesting points at which to film later. I had my Super8 camera with me and couldn't resist taking some film during one stops. A lady sitting in the seat behind mine said to her husband "Do people still do that with those old things?

 

That, I think, indicates that in the mind of the public, amateur filming is something from the past, and the reason for that is that those who market video have done a first class job in marketing. They have managed to get the public to spend very considerable sums of money to buy systems such as VHS, 8mm and Hi8, which, on reflection, were quite poor, and as each new system was brought out, throw away what they had and buy the latest gizmo. And they are still successful at that and are making a fortune out of it. Marketing has been reinforced by the clever move of abandoning responsibility after a few years to ensure that parts are available to repair defective cameras.

 

The film camera industry, on the other hand, just simply laid down and died. Nobody fought back arguing that early video, especially, was technically very poor, and as completely new systems were marketed as though they were incremental steps of improvement, nobody attacked arguing they were nothing but admissions of utter failure in qualative terms and were expensive too. And still it goes on. Every so called radical improvement involves new expensive equipment and cannot be "bolted on" to what people already have.

 

We as enthusiastic users of film are most convinced that film has at least some advantages over video/digital, to be fair some more than others, but we are seen as the eccentrics. There is no industry behind us to advocate what it is we believe in; there is no manufacturer who can be persuaded to invest in new equipment. We are mostly living on cameras no longer required by others.

 

Fortunately, we have benefitted from improvement. I am convinced that filmstocks today are better than those we have lost in the past. Yes, there are individual stocks about which we can have a debate, but in general filmstocks today yield a quality of image which has never been better. For that, we should be grateful.

 

What we really do need to achieve, however, is a convincing campaign which persuades the public that film is still here and is better than video/digital imaging, and persuades industry that there is a market out there for new film cameras.

 

Now, how do we get on with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has mentioned that Ikonoscop had a DS8 prototype in mind based on their S16 model a few years ago, but it nevder got off the ground. They were looking for a few dozen people to commit to a $5000 price tag, but didn't get the response they needed for it to get real.

 

If you are all so serious about new S8, surely Ikoonoscop can still make these cameras, maybe for $6K or 7K now with the exchange rates.

 

Quit using up bandwidth here, and driving up the signal to noise ratio of useful posts on this site, and go DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Shell out your 6 grand and prove to us that you aren't full of __it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest a new user name for K Borowski: The Loader Formerly Known As Karl. Or maybe you can change your name to the shutter symbol.... :lol:

 

:-p

 

When I first read this, I thought you were saying my film loading days were over! I dropped the first name so people can't internet stalk me from Facebook, but I am still Karl to everyone here :D

 

And what do you mean by shutter symbol? I don't see it in the emoticons. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself am a experienced hobbiest and artist in S8 and reg 16mm, self financed works. If I had wealthy funds available, i'd probably buy myself an A-minima, and still shoot S8 for what it is now-

Obviously our fiery friend Karl was unable to get past the first line of Anthony's post before his jump-to-conclusion-and-flame approach to social networking kicked in. I can't see anything about Anthony's post that warants Karl's attack in any way.

 

Anthony finances his own work. He ** finances ** his own work. But that's not enough for Karl. According to Karl Anthony should do more.

 

Why doesn't Karl put his own money where his mouth is? Oh that's right. Karl doesn't pay to do anything in the film indsutry. He gets paid. And he wants everyone to know he does. As often as he can.

 

What a wanker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously our fiery friend Karl was unable to get past the first line of Anthony's post before his jump-to-conclusion-and-flame approach to social networking kicked in. I can't see anything about Anthony's post that warants Karl's attack in any way.

 

Anthony finances his own work. He ** finances ** his own work. But that's not enough for Karl. According to Karl Anthony should do more.

 

Why doesn't Karl put his own money where his mouth is? Oh that's right. Karl doesn't pay to do anything in the film indsutry. He gets paid. And he wants everyone to know he does. As often as he can.

 

What a wanker.

 

Now who is being a troll?

 

 

My changing my display name has nothing to do with this thread. Maybe, though, I didn't want to be mistaken by anyone else on here with a common first name. I find it interesting that you've suddenly switched to "Karl," now that I no longer list it. The reason that Michael calls me "Karl," is that he knows me over several years of interacting on here. You, however, do not. I don't recall seeing a single post before this thread. Did you get suspended from Filmshooting?

Edited by K Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you get suspended from Filmshooting?

 

Carl Looper has not been suspended from Filmshooting. He's an active contributor and gets along quite nicely, unlike someone else who has now abbreviated their (similar) first name out of some apparent realization he has not exactly been making friends around here.

 

I wonder if Karl has found out how to note shutter angle yet? He'll need to know that IF he ever surpasses loader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright, let me add all that I can think of.

one:interchangeable backs like the ELMO C300 has. super 8? use one back. 100 foot double 8 daylight spools? use another back. going digital for a project? use the digital back.

a zoom lens like the canon 1014 has, powered zoom, as well as fps control and shutter control.

a good lightmeter that won't over or underexpose, maybe solar cell based, removing the need for a battery for that.

a remote run switch

slow motion of around 64 fps

fader/dissolve controls

built-in rechargeable battery, with a charging plug on the camera. also have it so the camera can be powered via the plug from mains power, saving the battery for when mains power is not available

ability to sync sound-maybe even have a cheaper tape-based recorder designed to work with it

viewfinder connection to camera can be replaced from an elbow to a tee, allowing a video tap to be connected as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK heres a question. what would people really truely honestly pay for a new super8 camera if it had the following capabilities.

 

10-200fps

4 crystal speeds

pin registered movement

c mount

reflex viewingvariable shutter

800 EURO if it is DS only.

1000 EURO if could use s8 cart too.

1500EURO if it comes with a digital back.

if the price higher than listed above, I will go for Canon 5D MarkII

Edited by ZHAOYANG CHANG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

800 EURO if it is DS only.

1000 EURO if could use s8 cart too.

1500EURO if it comes with a digital back.

if the price higher than listed above, I will go for Canon 5D MarkII

 

Digital back? Why would you ruin anything capable of running film by placing a digital sensor anywhere near it? Kinda like saying, "yeah, I'd date Kiera Knightly, but only if she wore an old-school diving suit and put a bag over her head."

 

Super 8 > HD Video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

certainly not a digital back, why? But an internal video tap, that would be nice. Didn't Aaton have a design for a pro super 8mm camera, drifting about??

 

Sorry if this has been talked about before. if a philanthropist much like what Jim Jannard did with Red, were to do the same for a pro minded super 8 or even single 8(cause it is more stable), we would buy them. I know it is a snow ball's chance of ever happening. we would all buy one though, admit it. who wouldn't? Keep it under 3k, 5k for a tricked out model. They would sell. Even crazier would be a 7mm anamorphic prime, both 2x and 1.3x, just like the hawks. Have them cover micro four thirds image, so you could sell a million of them. make them c mount. Just like the hawks, they will be great with a digital camera, but they are made for film. 7mm 2x would be the end all be all for a full frame super 8 with no mods. 1.3x for all the max 8 cameras. If you were only going to make one lens.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK heres a question. what would people really truely honestly pay for a new super8 camera if it had the following capabilities.

 

10-200fps

4 crystal speeds

pin registered movement

c mount

reflex viewingvariable shutter

 

This sort of engineering simply isn't affordable unless you could sell thousands of units. That's my opinion. I think there is a tendency to want to compare prices with currently available digital consumer products, however the potential market for the latter is in the tens of millions of units (bear in mind that each new digital product that comes out isn't coming out in a vacuum as a new super 8 camera would be but rather builds on the engineering, designs, r&d and parts from perevious models.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an interview with schmalfilm magazine (German issue of former small format mag), one of the owners of Ikonoskop said that they would be able to design a Double Super 8 version of the A-Cam SP-16. So there is a possibility to get a new camera - it's just a matter of money :). We asked the owners of Ikonoskop to give us an idea of the price for this little gem... I will come back to tell you when I know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent experience I have encountered, and I've ecountered it before... is that when it comes to DIY film making, pretty much everyone out there will use HD digital because the results are too good, it's easy, and it's cheap. I was recently asked to join a camera shoot on a live concert in HD. I wasn't really interested in going out to shoot digital, so I offered to shoot some B&W S8 film that I can transfer myself. I told them it would cost about $20 per 2.5 min roll, and that maybe 2 rolls would add a bit of flavor to the shoot. Well the price tag of less than $50 was still a shock and they declined. Basically, anytime there is any cost above borrowing an HD camera, there is no room for film in the DIY market. These days you need to be a passionate hobbiest, or a convincing pro in order to get something like S8 into the mix.

 

What I would rather see instead of a new camera is some kind of home film scanner that can capture HD rez of Neg or reversal at any frame rate. Basically something like a 35mm still scanner for 8 &16mm MP wouldn't be too hard to make, and would take a big hassle and steep cost out of DIY and indi film making. I think that is essential when competing with plug and play super clean prosumer HD. Kodak argues that they wan't too keep the post houses in business, but they need to worry about keeping themselves in business. They also want to be a digital company, so they can at least accomidate their small guage film with a digital device that makes it easy to work with. People can always go to a post house for a high end scan and colorist work... but for the DIY and indi market, just a solid hassle free home capture and a good NLE would be more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with Anthony Schilling. Some sort of small budget scanner would be great to keep the format alive. even the "cheap" available scanners are in the price range of small businesses, that can make money from it, first paying off the money spend for the scanner and then profit.

 

Also i agree with many posts in this topic. A great addition would be a new toy like camera, lomo approach, a new camera (maybe a copy of nizo )that can be sold to a midrange consumer and a pro model as described for the pros and hardcores.

 

ok i want it all. i confess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...