Love at First Sight

[Carl Looper]

The first time I looked through an SR3 viewfinder I fell in love. Even more so on a 435. Nothing like a pro optical viewfinder.

 

Yes, the more I think about it the more a pro optical viewfinder does play an important role. If nothing else it provides a way of maintaining energy about the process. A way of maintaining faith in the image above and beyond the technical aspects. A way of staying "focused" on the task, by which I mean in terms of one's commitment to a shot (rather than whether the lens is set correctly).

 

A kind of magical thing. A kind of invaluable reward that nobody else ever gets.

 

C

Edited January 23, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, viewfinders are so important and it's a real shame so many great cameras don't come with them. It's been a problem in the digital world for quite sometime, the DSLR's (in movie mode) being the most prominent.

 

Even if the operator looks straight down like a rolleiflex with a small cup for their eye, it's a whole heck of a lot better then a standard definition video camera as your only viewing source. I'd have a slider switch that moves the video camera into place and blocks the optical viewfinder so you don't need a beam splitter. A simple three pin key assembly would keep the digital camera centered so it never falls out of alignment. This way the camera body doesn't change and if customers want a real viewfinder system, it can be screwed into the fitting on the top of the body and customers can be charged extra for it. At least have the option you know?

[Carl Looper]

Early cameras got by without an optical viewfinder. The camera person just pointed the camera at a scene and wound the handle. Next would come a parallex viewfinder which provided some measure of what the frame might be. One accommodated, in one's imagination and sense of space, what the view would be on film given the offset viewfinder. There would be little knobs to adjust the viewfinder for the angle over distance. The way in which these would be used speaks of a simpler age in which a good guess was all that was required. The photographic image was in no need of any pedantic framing. But the desire to satisfy the pedant would lead to the development of inline viewfinders - to satisfy the desire to determine more precisely the compositional aspects of a shot. For there was an understanding that the relationship between things in a scene and the frame can have particularly stunning effects - a particular tension, that could be explored further. There becomes, if you like, a greater focus on the graphic side of the photo-graphic.

 

But one can also work against these effects. To recover something of the way in which the pioneers worked, in which one developed and used a sense of space to judge where a camera should be, what it should be doing and where it should be pointing. A case of "intelligent design" rather than "trial and error" in how the camera is to be used. Because although the universe uses the latter to reach where we are today, that took millions of years, and our deadlines are typically a lot shorter.

 

C

[Tyler Purcell]

That's really not a good argument for NOT having a viewfinder! LOL :)

[Carl Looper]

That's really not a good argument for NOT having a viewfinder! LOL :)

 

Yep. But I enjoyed writing it :)

 

However it is an argument, that in the absence of a viewfinder (or absence of a good viewfinder), you can still make an excellent work. The pioneers did, and learning how they did so ain't necessarily a bad thing.

 

C

Edited January 24, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, but the pioneers generally used wider angle lenses to capture broad action and close-up's were generally still-life. Today being able to get accurate framing is so important due to our faster lenses and longer focal lengths, creating shallower depth of field. We've evolved substantially from the days of rangefinder shooting in cinema. In that sense, wider angle lenses, maybe slower as well so depth of field isn't a problem, then things like critical focus and through-lens composition aren't so important. However, if you want shallow depth of field (which is a very cinematic look) then you've gotta have the right tools for the job, which includes a decent viewfinder system.

 

I spent a considerable amount of time in the composition phase of shooting, trying to come up with a way to generate more shallow depth of field.

[Chris Burke]

Super 8 optical prism viewfinders were mostly crap anyway. The image is so tiny and dim that you can barely check focus even with a split prism. I'm not sure it's such a big loss.

I couldn't agree more. I think the choice to have a flip out LCD monitor is very important and tied into the success of this camera. It has to be very easy to use. There were many times when I would have loved to stick a super 8 camera high up in a corner of a room, but couldn't do so because I couldn't get my head behind the camera.. This feature makes it just as easy to use as any digital handheld, in terms of framing.

[Tom Chabbat]

The camera person just pointed the camera at a scene and wound the handle.

 

 

That's quite a romantic view of how things worked but simply not true ! We have to remember that in 35mm there's not a lot of depth of field, so there was from the beginning ways to achieve precise framing and focusing. How did they achieved this ? Simply by looking through the film gate, with film itself used as a ground glass. That's how framing and more importantly focusing was achieved in early camera. If you read french, there's the original manual of the Cinématographe Lumière online, see page 14 how it was focused.

[Carl Looper]

 

 

That's quite a romantic view of how things worked but simply not true ! We have to remember that in 35mm there's not a lot of depth of field, so there was from the beginning ways to achieve precise framing and focusing. How did they achieved this ? Simply by looking through the film gate, with film itself used as a ground glass. That's how framing and more importantly focusing was achieved in early camera. If you read french, there's the original manual of the Cinématographe Lumière online, see page 14 how it was focused.

 

Thanks Tom - that's great information. I was being, of course, somewhat flexible with the details, for the sake of brevity. Pedants were, of course, there from the beginning. Film itself would not exist if it were not for such attention to detail. And good on them I say. Having worked out focus in the way described they'd have then marked up the lens/rack with distance markings to make focus a little easier to obtain the next time around. What other reason would distance markings on a lens provide if one were always using the gate and film as a screen for focus? And then would be added a parallex framing device to likewise make framing easier (or faster) the next time around. Ease of use (or time critical use) features would evolve in this way.

 

C

Edited January 25, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Rafael Rivera]

Tom, thanks for sharing the Lumière manual. Impressive the level of sophistication from the very beginning and the depth of knowledge.

[Will Montgomery]

I don't think any of us are looking at this Kodak camera as they answer to all our Super 8 camera prayers...Max 8 and audio is nice but I have a Pentax TV 6mm lens that seems to be similar to what they're selling with the camera and while it's wide and convenient since everything past 1.5 feet is "in focus", the first thing I will do is put on my 4008 Angie lens on that puppy. Focusing will be tricky though.

 

It's the processing and transfer announcements that I find most interesting. I just don't believe the economics will work for them but I hope it does! Would like to see it offered in 16mm as well!

[Anthony Schilling]

It's the processing and transfer announcements that I find most interesting. I just don't believe the economics will work for them but I hope it does! Would like to see it offered in 16mm as well!

I think the $50-$75 per roll with services I've been hearing will put a lot of people off. Kodak was selling K40 with processing for $13.50 per roll until 04. Film and processing needs to be priced at around $30 per roll. Currently it's about $26 for 1 cart from Kodak and $17 to process at the lab= $43 per roll. They need to beat that.

[Moises Perez]

I think the $50-$75 per roll with services I've been hearing will put a lot of people off. Kodak was selling K40 with processing for $13.50 per roll until 04. Film and processing needs to be priced at around $30 per roll. Currently it's about $26 for 1 cart from Kodak and $17 to process at the lab= $43 per roll. They need to beat that.

 

I'll second you on this Anthony. I think we all need to contact Kodak and let them know what is what we think about current prices.

 

MOY

[Will Montgomery]

 

I think we all need to contact Kodak and let them know what is what we think about current prices.

Nothing wrong with letting them know what we want, but it will be completely an economic decision. They know they have to keep the costs down to sell more, but they might not be able to.

 

If they are making money this year with motion picture film sales (which is what I heard) then they've probably got the price right for now. Which means they won't be bringing Super 8 film prices down very much and I doubt they can just eat processing and transfer costs so there we are. I would suspect it will be slightly less than Pro8mm's package but I'd be amazed if it was $50 per reel all in. More like $75 or $80 I bet.

[Anthony Schilling]

It might be hard for them to cut prices on film because of silver prices. But I think processing and transfer services are areas where they can invest their own resources at operation costs. After all, the purpose of investing in Super 8 now is to invest in the future of 35mm/65mm. If the craft of shooting film gets lost at the film school level now, there goes the future of 35mm. I think it's a smart idea that will actually work. Once you shoot an organized project on film, it's hard to go back.

 

The idea behind the K40 prepaid mailers was a "promotional" type deal for film schools. $13.50 for 1 roll with shipping and processing. But at that same time all the other S8 stocks required an independent lab and cost about $24 for film and processing. That was up until about 12 years ago.

[Will Montgomery]

The idea behind the K40 prepaid mailers was a "promotional" type deal for film schools. $13.50 for 1 roll with shipping and processing. But at that same time all the other S8 stocks required an independent lab and cost about $24 for film and processing. That was up until about 12 years ago.

So if that math still holds up and it would cost around $80 at Pro8mm for one cartridge, processing and transfer, then if they can do it for $40 everyone should be happy. I would be completely fine with that and hope they do the same for 16mm!

[Matt Stevens]

If they do it for $40 they lose money on every roll. Kodak needs to stay in business. Not go out of business. let's be reasonable here.

[Carl Looper]

I'm sure that Kodak's Super8 initiative is not one that will wipe them out of business as a consequence of having priced the stock too low.

 

And a good reason to price it low is to increase the market size, but of course not so low that the expected increase in market size, multiplied by a lower unit price for stock, turns out less than a smaller market size multiplied by a higher unit price for stock.

 

C

[Anthony Schilling]

If they do it for $40 they lose money on every roll. Kodak needs to stay in business. Not go out of business. let's be reasonable here

I buy my stock direct from Kodak (filled my freezer when it was $18.00 a cart) but at the current prices... $26.00 for 1 cart plus $17 for processing comes out to $43 per roll without any promotion or package. The package deals at labs are marked up pretty steep above Kodak prices, so I wouldn't use that as a gauge. I think they could easily do a stock and processing package for $30-$35 and still make money. If they were processing Kodachrome for less than $3 per roll 12 years ago, they could process ECN2 Super 8 for $5-$10 per roll today. After all they're using their own chemistry and equipment, which is how they must have kept the price of K40 processing so cheap.

[Will Montgomery]

If they do it for $40 they lose money on every roll. Kodak needs to stay in business. Not go out of business. let's be reasonable here.

We don't actually know the economics these days for them, but I'm betting on $75 per roll all in with a razor thin margin.

[Matt Stevens]

We don't actually know the economics these days for them, but I'm betting on $75 per roll all in with a razor thin margin.

Agreed. talking about pricing below that level is just ludicrous wishful thinking on another planet.