Why Does Kodak Hate super8?

[Alessandro Machi]

As I'm budgeting a TV show I even considered the idea of using Ekta 100D, if I could get good processing incl. pushes, have a good turnaround time with the telecine incl. layback to PAL and get reliable cameras for a 2 camera show I would consider it seriously over the DVX. The 2:30 running time per cart is pretty damn limiting though, staggering the loads might be a possibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The E-6 process would definitely be a same day service.

 

Super-8 cameras are cheap (a Super-8 camera is probably cheaper than a 16mm 400 feet mag) that one could use tandem cameras, as one camera is finishing another camera takes it places.

 

Use two tandems of two cameras per tandem. Alternate the tandems as needed.

 

 

Here is a suggestion then John:  Help us achieve the best possible picture on Kodachrome s-8 film. We need a Kodak created US based facillity for processing.  Or 2 week max turn around at the Switzerland lab with you folks telling us publically loud and clear that it Switzerland IS now processing again and how to access them as apposed to Dwyanes.  There seems to be a need for the 100D being manufactured by Kodak. Sounds good.  What about this digital processing you spoke about last year where s-8 could look like 16mm and 35mm could look like 65mm.  What's going on there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Two weeks is far too long, 24 hours max, same day preference.

 

I believe people would be curious to just try out Quiet Super-8 cameras in a studio with pre-lit Interiors where there is plenty of light.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Use two tandems of two cameras per tandem.  Rotate them in and out as needed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's known as staggering. You start A camera and then B camera starts a bit later. Not optimal because the camera operator is destracted during the stagger. I was intending to shoot a two camera show. But I'd use more expensive cameras obviously, not the Instamatic variety.

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

DVD was to be the final output, a theatrical release was never really thought about. anyway an optical blowup is rather passe, do a 2k scan edit in final cut and laser print to the release format would most likley be the modern workflow.

 

 

 

That's known as staggering. You start A camera and then B camera starts a bit later. Not optimal because the camera operator is destracted during the stagger. I was intending to shoot a two camera show. But I'd use more expensive cameras obviously, not the Instamatic variety.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

a beaulieu sd8/60 200' magazine gives 11 minute shots, the supermag400 gives 22 minute capabilites.

andec sells fuji 200' daylight reels for about $100 and pro8mm is suposed to sell 400' reels for $400. i don't know about pro8mm, when i contacted them via e-mail i was told that all they sold were the 50' carts.

[Robert Hughes]

Hold on a minute. You say you can't afford a 16mm camera rental but your budget can carry a 2k scan and laser print? Better go review the actual costs - and if a vendor will give you such a deal, let us know where we can do the same.

Edited March 28, 2005 by Robert Hughes

[GeorgeSelinsky]

do a 2k scan edit in final cut and laser print

 

You mean a digital intermediate (laser recorder, not "laser print"). Just so you know, it's cheaper to originate on and contact print to 35mm film than to do a digital intermediate, regardless what format you're using for capture.

 

a beaulieu sd8/60 200' magazine gives 11 minute shots,

 

They don't offer film in those mags anymore, and probably won't again.

the supermag400 gives 22 minute capabilites.

 

I heard they dropped that project.

 

- G.

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

you guys totally misunderstood my post. the final output was going to be DVD. i was commenting on the gentleman who was saying that optical blowup of 8mm to 35mm was expensive. i realize that, my point was we were only going to dvd. If, BIG IF, we would ever get picked up by a distributer for theatrical release then the modern work flow would probably consist of ... i thought i had made that pretty clear. our budget probably would have allowed us to get a workprnter transfer or maybe a transfer by flyingspot in seattle.

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

They don't offer film in those mags anymore, and probably won't again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

andec does. fuji stocks. http://www.andecfilm.de/html/start_english.htm

 

I heard they dropped that project.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you heard wrong Supermag400.com

 

its going strong, also the reels for the sd8/60 fits in the supermag.

[Leon Rodriguez]

I've never had any trouble getting support from Kodak for my super-8 needs. Maybe it was just a perception. Originating on super 8 and transfering to a higher resolution digital intermediate is a terriffic look. I find it especially useful when shooting a composite that uses a smaller percentage of the frame. Like filling a window. As stocks get better and better every film format obviously shares the benefit. Stick to your guns about what you want to shoot regardless of other's opinions.

[Matt Serrins]

I agree with Leon. It's too bad Kodak discouraged you from shooting film, but at the same time, why not shoot a scene from your feature in both super 8 and 24p and see which one you like better. DPs do this all the time to make stock choices and figure out post production routes, and it wouldn't take that many carts to get an accurate comparison. Working in a tinkerers' format like super 8 means that sometimes you have to go against 'better' judgment and see for yourself what actually works for your project (though I understand that there are pretty big hurtles to shooting a super 8 feature vs 24p).

 

And in terms of Kodak hating super 8, I think that's not really the case. While at times in the past they've responded with neglect, Kodak recently has come out with more stocks that push the potential of super 8. There's too much fixation on kodachrome. While I like the look, what's the problem with kodachrome processing? It's not very likely for things to be fast, cheap, and high quality, and it seems that kodachrome has the latter two. Also, kodachrome isn't very well suited for telecine, which makes it not well suited to HD/2k finish for shorts and or features. Not to completely absolve kodak, but they do operate in a marketplace and can't be all things to all people (which makes it all the more frustrating that a boutique, niche company like Pro8mm isn't better at filling in the gaps). Kodachrome satisfies my need to shoot film cheaply, and if I'm shooting something for someone else or for a festival submission, I go neg. For me, the biggest problem with super 8 is the lack of v2100t and the cost of telecine. It's too bad they don't have something neg as a loss leader, but maybe that's what kodachrome is for.

Edited March 28, 2005 by MStone

[Robert Hughes]

Of course you can shoot Super 8 and transfer to video. People are doing just that successfully, and so can you. But you are using a definition of "feature production" much differently than the people at Kodak are. They are used to dealing with movie pros with commercial budgets, using the procedures and equipment appropriate for that scale of production; your project is a different beast altogether. You can blame Kodak for failing to recognize your personal definition of "feature", but it won't make much difference to the rest of the world.

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

at the start of that production i was a little niave, i do know now that i should have shot some tests to see for myself what super8 could and couldn't have offered. from this point on i will do just that.

[Alessandro Machi]

Also, kodachrome isn't very well suited for telecine, which makes it not well suited to HD/2k finish for shorts and or features.

 

I have a Kodachrome film that was transferred to mini-dv video and completely refutes that notion.

[Matt Serrins]

I have a Kodachrome film that was transferred to mini-dv video and completely refutes that notion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see the clip. I wasn't trying to make an absolute statement, but from what I've seen and heard, the high contrast ratios in reversal make it harder to transfer, as video does not deal well with highlights and tends to miss detail in the shadows and blow out itself. To my knowledge, it's not that kodachrome cannot look good in telecine, but rather that it presents problems, whereas neg's lower contrast and shadow detail make it easier to manipulate and bring out subtle aspects in the edit suite. I'm sure both can look good telecined, but I thought it was pretty commonly accepted that neg telecines better than reversal.

[Alessandro Machi]

Your view is the commonly held view.

 

I think it took a huge effort by film and video transfers to get where they are.

 

I'm in LA and I'll gladly show the clip to those who want to see it.

[Anthony Schilling]

I had a 2K telecine of some 16mm K-40 a few months back. I sat with the colorist, he was able to some cool unique looks with its colors and aesthetics however, there was still loss of lattatude. I projected it after the transfer and got a first hand comparison.

[Marty Hamrick]

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see the clip.  I wasn't trying to make an absolute statement, but from what I've seen and heard, the high contrast ratios in reversal make it harder to transfer, as video does not deal well with highlights and tends to miss detail in the shadows and blow out itself.  To my knowledge, it's not that kodachrome cannot look good in telecine, but rather that it presents problems, whereas neg's lower contrast and shadow detail make it easier to manipulate and bring out subtle aspects in the edit suite.  I'm sure both can look good telecined, but I thought it was pretty commonly accepted that neg telecines better than reversal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problems with Kodachrome in the telecine are very similar to that of trying to make a print from a Kodachrome original.Detail in shadows,contrast,oversaturated and bleeding colors,etc. can all be controlled if you know that going in.You can keep your lighting and contrast ratio down,add a little more fill light in places and keep the highlights down.When I shot a couple of super 8 TV commercials as well as an industrial that was for super 8 cart projection (this was back in the early 80's).The commercials went straight to tape(The place I used at the time was called Windsor Total Video,don't remember what they used but this was before there were s-8 neg stocks and Rank transfers for s-8)and contact s-8 to s-8 prints were struck from the Kodachrome original.At that time,Kodachrome was the only recommended choice for s-8 to print or telecine as any Ektachrome,including ECO 7252,which at that time existed in double super 8 as well 16mm,was considered too grainy.

I was perfectly happy with the results of the Kodachrome for what the projects ended up on.The TV screen and the small screen of a Technicolor cart projector.I feel pretty certain after that experience that super 8 would work well for a feature as long as you were going straight to video.After seeing it printed one generation away and projected on a pretty big screen before we carted it,I don't think it's suitable for theatrical presentation unless the look was for a certain effect.

[Alessandro Machi]

After seeing it (Kodachrome 40) printed one generation away and projected on a pretty big screen before we carted it,I don't think it's suitable for theatrical presentation unless the look was for a certain effect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure.

 

However if you do go directly to tape and don't make the super-8 copy thereby minimizing the contrast issues then the project COULD be projected if a digital intermediate is made and then go back to film or stay on digital.

 

Bump up opticals can reduce contrast build-up as well.

[Guest Ian Marks]

Back in 1992 there was a direct to video feature shot on Super-8 called "Kung Fu Rascals" and parts of it looked really good. I remember that there were some great scenes involving forced perspective - a great in-camera special effect which cost the filmmakers zip. Anyway, it proved to me that a S8 feature was at least a viable idea. With today's negative stocks and improved telecine, it seems even more so (as long as you're going straight to video), although I don't think there's as much of a financial incentive to shoot 8 over 16 nowadays.

Edited March 29, 2005 by Ian Marks

[Matt Pacini]

I have Kung Fu Rascals!

Actually, I got that tape in 1992, and that's what got me started with Super 8.

Terrible film, but some of it does look pretty good for Super 8.

 

Anyway, for Kodachrome to look good in telecine (and it can) it needs to be lit just perfectly for that stock, meaning pretty low contrast lighting.

I try to shoot in the shade and eliminate any bright highlights if possible when shooting K-40, which is hard to do here in California!

I should move to England, eh?

Anyway, I only wish Kodak would release some ISO50 speed neg stock, then I would probably switch from Kodachrome, but I just can't handle the grain of the other stocks in Super 8 (and I will not use Pro8mm for any reason).

 

Matt Pacini

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Anyway, I only wish Kodak would release some ISO50 speed neg stock, then I would probably switch from Kodachrome, but I just can't handle the grain of the other stocks in Super 8 (and I will not use Pro8mm for any reason).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I also think that 7245 would have been a good offer in Super 8, for some reason the 200 asa and 500 asa stocks are offered but NOT the slower stocks. I'm actually interested in a low con E-6 process, so maybe the Ekta 100D if introduced can be optionally processed with low con so it will transfer/scan/print better. Maybe that way we can have more offerings of Ektachrome throughout the speed range, and consumers can choose - process to projection gamma or lower gamma? I think it would benefit all Super 8 users.

 

I also think that 16mm users might decide to try using this process to go directly from a 16mm low con reversal to interneg (as with the old ECO stock) for blowup to 35mm. I know that digital intermediate is supposed to be the new "correct" way of doing things but it's still going to be a long time before you can get away with a quality DI blowup for a price competitive to the optical method.

 

- G.

Edited March 30, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Guest Ian Marks]

I found a copy of Kung Fu Rascals and it's in the mail on its way to me right now. It will be interesting to see if it looks as good to me today as I remember. Anyway, I think getting even a goofy film like this in the can and into release is an accomplishment - and I thought the "Neo Titan" giant was very cool, and the pig-man makeup.

 

I would have thought Kodak would have released an ASA 100 negative stock before 500 - a demonstrable improvement in film speed without as big a grain hit.

[Dan Salzmann]

Agreed. Why not '45 in super8?

I also want to add that colorists I've worked with LOVED working with Kodachrome. They see so little of it I guess.

For me super8 is the hardest format to shoot. There is very little latitude and it being so small, any error in the chain is really flagrant. Too much DOF so constant ND's.

Really wish there was more professional opportunities for it.

[Anthony Schilling]

ASA 100 negative stock before 500 - a demonstrable improvement in film speed without as big a grain hit.

 

I think more people need to see just how amazing a 500 speed film looks in Super 8. not that the 100T wouldn't look great, and should come out in S-8 (I think it is coming) but the 500T is in my opinion, the biggest advance in film lately based on the excellent images that can be optained with compact gear and existing light. An E-6 film is more to satisfy people who project.. and yes there are more people projecting S-8 than transferring it.

[Matt Pacini]

"...

For me super8 is the hardest format to shoot. There is very little latitude and it being so small, any error in the chain is really flagrant. .."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's one reason I always suggest newbies start shooting Super 8.

You learn really quickly how important exposure is, and that feeling of invincibility from all the excitement goes right out the window when you get your first footage back!

Makes ya humble!

 

Matt Pacini

[GeorgeSelinsky]

You learn really quickly how important exposure is, and that feeling of invincibility from all the excitement goes right out the window when you get your first footage back!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, and then you pass that phase and move up to 35mm, when you learn what focus is all about :lol:

 

- G.