Jump to content

Logmar.dk is now accepting preorders for their new precision Super 8 camera called Gentoo GS8


Nicholas Kovats
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

There are jealous individuals in this thread who lie and amplify their self-worth with the recurrent theme "If I only I had been consulted first." Perpetual and delusional hubris is toxic and does not build community.

The brave few who may inspire others to innovate, design and produce subsequent film cameras and associated accessories. It takes guts and perseverance not whining. 

I'll preface my response to this nonsense by stating the obvious; Passion, guts and perseverance do not pay the bills, people who buy your products do. What Tommy and co are doing, is lifting a mountain that simply can't be lifted. I love their spirit, I love the concepts and ideas, but if the mountain can't be lifted, what's the point? 

The problem is, you're coming from a consumer perspective. You may think film is only some artisan community, if it were, we would not have it. Consumers don't have much of an impact on this market. The only true impact that keeps film alive are people shooting commercially, using commercial equipment. Kodak and all the labs would be long gone if it weren't for bigger productions. 

As a side note, I was at Fotokem at close to 11pm last night dropping film off for overnight processing and there were two other clients ahead of me, dropping off dailies, both had probably 70 rolls of 400ft 35mm combined. There was another guy who came in after me with two milk crates full of 16mm film to process. This is at 11pm, long after the workers went home, they have a night drop off. Still, do you really think film would even exist without those guys? 

Unlike you, I'm pragmatic. As a business person, I first look for the market of whatever product I'm attempting to make. If there is a market, then you build a business plan to attack that market. You don't do it as a side hustle. You don't do it as a science project for fun. You do it because it's what you do, because you know you'll be successful. Innovation only works if you can be profitable, so you can stay in business and make more product. You can't sell something that has little to no market, that won't keep you in business. You can't sell 4 of something either. You must sell quantity to be successful and last long term. What good is a product if the company who made it, goes out of business and offers no support? 

So let's look at the Super 8 market. I work in Hollywood, which in of itself is a strange place but does set precedent in a lot of ways. People here would seemingly rather shoot with their antique Beaulieu 4008 than a new Super 8 camera of any kind. They like the feeling of the trigger, the "super 8 feeling" of the camera when it's up against your eye and it delivers great images. The Logmar Chatham has been around for a while now, why does nobody use it? I've only seen "test" footage shot with one (that looks amazing of course). I have friends who've had the Kodak Super 8 prototypes and they really never shoot with them, preferring their Beaulieu's due to the horrible display. So if that's the case, where is the market? What's the business plan for a $5k super 8 camera when there are literally 1000's of 4008's out there and a complete support system both state side and in Europe?

So how do you make a successful "ALL NEW" camera? Yea don't. Period. 

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand, why people in this thread and in dozens of other conversations I've had before, simply can not get it through their heads. 

Why do people use Alexa's over Red's? 
Why do people use Arricam LT's over Moviecam's SL/Compact II? 
Why do people use 416's over XTR Prod's?
Why do people use 435's over Arri III's
Why do people use HD tap's vs NTSC taps? 

The only way to be successful, is to make a commercially viable product. The only way to make a commercially viable product, is to throw a lot of money at it (millions) OR, remake a product that's already been successful since nobody cares about patents for antique technology. You wanna start from scratch, ya better get in line with all the other cameras that failed and camera companies that went out of business WAY before film died. If they couldn't survive at a time where film cameras were king, how can any new company who makes cameras as a hobby, be successful? 

3 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

The endgame is to encourage and invest in the development of new analog film cameras. 

To what end? So hobbyists can gloat about blowing $5k on something nobody else has? Honestly, they're all going to sit on shelves anyway. The only cameras that matter are the ones currently on shoots. Keeping those working, building accessories for them, supporting what exists, is the market. So far we've seen several people step up to the plate and build these accessories because there is a demand. If there was a demand for cameras, someone would have already invested and we would not be using 416's and Arricam's anymore. 

Again, passion, guts and perseverance do not pay the bills, people who buy your products do. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

The issue with real film based gear nowadays is pretty much just that... You can collect enough resources to actually manufacture the final products but the design work and rd has to be always done for free. 

Which essentially makes the companies kind of charity operations instead of "real businesses". They just want to help the community the best they can but it makes it really hard if even the materials and outsourced assembling cannot be reliably compensated for.

I think the customer base fails to see the situation and thus makes it pretty impossible to launch anything new for film originating workflows even when there is lots of empty talk that something "would sell a fortune if it just were available"

That's definitely the hurdle companies like Logmar are facing. It's similar to how difficult it is to get any sort of film stock production off the ground (without it just secretly being Kodak stock).

But design work and R&D is basically always, in industries that aren't heavily subsidized, "done for free." That's the upfront investment of starting a business. Of course, though, I'm sure it's near impossible to find any investors to help out during that process for a start-up film gear company. Based on Logmar's wording, it does seem like R&D, at least for the Gentoo, was paid out of pocket.

Though there are some examples of similar companies that somehow sustained themselves past that first wave of production. There's a digital rangefinder called the Pixii that came out a few years ago. Basically an M-mount camera, an alternative to a Leica for barely any less money and way worse picture quality. As soon as I heard about them, I thought they were completely doomed, but I guess that first production run was successful, and now they've come out with a version two that is supposedly of much higher quality. I think the key for them was making some choice decisions on what influential people to send pre-release units out to. I was seeing it all over Instagram. It's obviously a different target demo than Logmar (wealthy enthusiast versus pro), but I still think there are some lessons to be learned there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Again, passion, guts and perseverance do not pay the bills, people who buy your products do. 

Yes it does not encourage designing anything new if even the r&d cannot be paid for and it is very uncertain if you can sell even a single product if you make it available. Well, probably selling one unit is not that much of an issue but selling two or more may be outright impossible even if the product is very good and pretty affordable.

One business model could be, though, to sell 3D printed prototype mockups instead of the real cameras. That can be made for cheap and it is marginally possible to collect enough resources from selling mockups to make the real product sometime later!

I think Logmar should try that approach. Print some hundreds of cool loking mockups, paint them to look really neat and sell them for reasonable price to collectors! Then if you get enough money out of it you may be able to make some dozens of pieces of the real product 🙂

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raymond Zrike said:

To be blunt, the statement they posted reads like the sort of thing a group of engineers without much business savvy would put out -- and I say that out of love because half of my friends are engineers. "Two weeks after launching the camera we had fifty-one people providing their details and requesting sales contracts, so we were confident that Gentoo was a homerun but eventually out of those fifty-one people only twelve converted into actual sales" -- they were relying on a 100% success rate of converting customers' expressions of interest (requesting sales contracts) into actual sales. Instead, they needed more like 500 people to message them (which would be possible through better communication online) in order to lock down the required 50 sales.

Hi Raymond,
We are a team of engineers making the Gentoo cameras for passion not profit so thats the reason why the business savvy doesn't appear in this case and you need to understand where we are coming from in order to understand why we cancelled the Gentoo so quickly.

When we launched our first camera (Chatham) we had hundreds of people coming forward praising it and "beating around the bushes" for two the years where we could have sold them (as we were actively making them) but eventually we sold less than fifty despite having had great marketing exposure in various magazines and the first camera generated a substantial monetary loss for us as we had envisioned selling a minimum of one hundred cameras where the first fifty would only pay the non-recurring-engineering costs so as you can imagine selling less than fifty meant loosing a lot of money.

We made the Gentoo camera because we wanted to see the market gain a Super8 camera that could be used for rental houses and professional productions and although our first camera didn't sell fifty units we felt rather confident that we could sell close to the same amount again as this time around the camera was tailored more specifically towards that market segment and there had been a lot of marketing around Super8 done by Kodak already and this time around we were better positioned to manufacture the cameras at a substantially lower cost base due to heavy investments we had made over several years in platform thinking meaning that we could quickly design the Gentoo and bring it to market.

Our pedicament was that our minimum ordering quantity to hit that price point was fifty sets and we have non-recurring engineering costs up front (i.e. mould and tooling costs etc.) hence we needed to secure the sales and ask for deposits before we could even start the actual manufacturing process which in itself would take more than six months.

And since we had the fifty people requesting contracts which we needed straight from the beginning - without any proper marketing - we started serving them contracts and accepting deposits obviously expecting that the majority of those people would not ask for a contract if they didn't plan on fulfilling it (we are not talking about someone merely stating on Facebook that they want to buy but rather people writing their contact details to us, filling out an order sheet and asking for a purchase contract in return) it became apparent immediately thereafter that we were not going to hit anywhere near the fifty units nor even half the units and as such we knew instantly that it was impossible to start the manufacturing process and in turn we had to cancel the program.

The alternative would have been sitting on peoples deposit for weeks if not months before enough had potentially come forward after which we could start the six to eight months manufacturing process but we did not consider that a viable etihcal option.

There's also the balance of when should you start accepting orders and committing to timelines versus the amount of people coming forward and the longer you wait theres obviously also the chance that they get "cold feet" or their focus changes away from 8mm onto something else.

We were not concerned about selling more cameras than the fifty as once the manufacturing process is rolling we could "easily" make a hundred more but if we didn't meet the minimum ordering quantities in the first place the process wouldn't even get off the ground so thats why we decided to start accepting orders as enough people had said they wanted to buy.

Should or Could we have done it differently? Absolutely!, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't see how we could have known that 3/4 wouldn't sign up after initially coming forward.

Yours truly
Tommy @ Logmar

Edited by Tommy Lau Madsen
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So how do you make a successful "ALL NEW" camera? Yea don't.

Are the later Arri/Aaton cameras infinitely serviceable? I'm honestly asking; I've never personally owned either, so I'm not familiar with their serviceability. Of course they're highly serviceable, but let's pretend people keep shooting film until the sun explodes. Will 416s that currently exist in 2022 be able to be repaired indefinitely? If so, then yeah I agree, there's not really any space in the market for a new competitor unless they can somehow come in at a lower price point and somehow stick around for servicing the cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Well, it does seem to be profitable enough to make new film camera designs. Someone is doing it.

Bro, Tommy and co make cameras for fun on the side. Bravo for dedication, but there is no profit. They're doing it because they enjoy engineering things. 

4 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Sometimes Tyler you come across as someone who in effect is saying: "Give up now, all who strive. The game is lost"

I think Tommy and co are great, I really like their innovation. However, as I said in my statement above, they won't be workable in Hollywood. People are resistant to change and Logmar isn't a full-time camera shop. If they were, maybe in a decade they'd have the capital and know how, to produce what the industry NEEDS. By then, film will probably be either gone or too expensive for any mortal to shoot. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

I think Logmar should try that approach. Print some hundreds of cool loking mockups, paint them to look really neat and sell them for reasonable price to collectors! Then if you get enough money out of it you may be able to make some dozens of pieces of the real product 🙂

It's not a bad idea. 

Also, Logmar could make accessories for other cameras that exist already and be very profitable since they're clearly very skilled and capable of building 3D printed and metal parts. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tommy Lau Madsen said:

Should or Could we have done it differently? Absolutely!, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't see how we could have known that 3/4 wouldn't sign up after initially coming forward.

That's overall some solid reasoning. Thanks for the response. Although I do think there was a lot of free marketing you left on the table, it's obviously almost impossible to accurately gauge interest levels of potential customers. Especially in this economy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Are the later Arri/Aaton cameras infinitely serviceable? I'm honestly asking; I've never personally owned either, so I'm not familiar with their serviceability. Of course they're highly serviceable, but let's pretend people keep shooting film until the sun explodes. Will 416s that currently exist in 2022 be able to be repaired indefinitely? If so, then yeah I agree, there's not really any space in the market for a new competitor unless they can somehow come in at a lower price point and somehow stick around for servicing the cameras.

Every camera has it's pros and con's. 

The Arri 2C and Arri III are pretty much indestructible. Plus there are 1000's of examples. 

For sync sound, later generation Moviecam's are incredible when it comes to reliability. The electronics are basic as well. 

For 16mm, I think the Aaton's outside of the electronics are pretty reliable. If someone built new electronics, they'd last another 20 years easily before we'd need new pulldown's and possibly optics as some of the optical pieces are having issues. 

The SR3 is also very good, excellent movement, trickier to service then the Aaton's, but super well made. 

The 435's and Arricam's/Moviecam SLMKII's, I'd stay away from long-term. Great cameras, but all-electronic and lots of little bits that can fail. I'd also stay away from BL's due to that stupid ladder belt, which is a pain because you need to replace it every 20 years and someday, it's just going to be impossible to find even aftermarket. But that's an easy thing to have made. 

So in the end, I think outside of electronics, the current cameras on the market will last a long time. 20+ years easily, depending on wear of course. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
22 minutes ago, Tommy Lau Madsen said:

Should or Could we have done it differently? Absolutely!, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't see how we could have known that 3/4 wouldn't sign up after initially coming forward.

It's not easy... I'm sorry it became a mess. I wish you could try re-launching it. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Logmar could make accessories for other cameras that exist already and be very profitable since they're clearly very skilled and capable of building 3D printed and metal parts. 

Definitely think there is demand for parts. I've seen so many people ask if anyone could covert their SR/SR2 to super-16, and it's basically impossible these days. Video taps can always be better too.

I know Logmar doesn't really work with glass, but I think there's also a bunch of demand for some film-specific lens alterations. I would give $8k right now to convert a super-35 lens to super-16 with the speed boosted (a la the Cooke 20-60mm T3.1 turning into the 10-30mm T1.6). Speed boost from full frame to super-35 would be insane too (especially with the Alexa 35 coming out). But maybe that exact application is too niche. And I'm sure there's a reason Optex and Century went out of business.

Edited by Raymond Zrike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 minutes ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Definitely think there is demand for parts. I've seen so many people ask if anyone could covert their SR/SR2 to super-16, and it's basically impossible these days. Video taps can always be better too.

If 100 people wanted PL mounts and convert their cameras to S16, there would be NO problems. They'd hire a machine shop, build the parts that are need to be swapped out and it would be easy. The problem is, they get 2 people a year and it's just not worth doing it. So the price is crazy high and people back away. 

Again, what needs to happen is support of current cameras. Imagine if companies like Logmar built PL mounts for Aaton and Arri SR cameras. They'd sell 100's of them because there is a pretty decent demand. That's what we collectively need to be working on in my opinion. If I had the capital and the time, it's absolutely what I'd be doing. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The problem is, they get 2 people a year and it's just not worth doing it. So the price is crazy high and people back away. 

 

5 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

They'd sell 100's of them because there is a pretty decent demand.

Which one is it?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just now, Uli Meyer said:

Which one is it?

Ha, sorry. 

So there is a demand for S16 conversions. They just don't do them because they have to charge a lot of money, so customers walk away. They wind up only doing 2 a year for people who can pay the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Up until recently the man who developed S16 conversions of the SR and SR 2 cameras when he was at Arri charged less than 2000 Euro for the work. He is retired now and a little reclusive. 
There are so many people keen to get their hands on a Super 16 camera, I suspect a newly engineered one could be a success, as long as it is affordable and not just for rental houses. 

Edited by Uli Meyer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should everything have to be commercially motivated, I know we are all trained to think practically and to stay within norms and conventions,  but passion is what we all need.

I know there are a lot of people wanting to get a small Super 16 camera. Perhaps a small simple Super 16 camera that is affordable is needed. Many want to get a Bolex, but most of them aren't Super 16 and they are expensive, so  many end up with the K3 and whilst a few love them most just get disappointed with them and walk away from film.

Pav

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

If someone built new electronics, they'd last another 20 years easily before we'd need new pulldown's and possibly optics as some of the optical pieces are having issues.  

So in the end, I think outside of electronics, the current cameras on the market will last a long time. 20+ years easily, depending on wear of course.

making new electronics for a camera is not an issue at all....  IF the research and development of those new electronics is paid for up front to cover the costs.

The issue here is that there is no dozens or hundreds of cameras to repair at the same time just waiting for the update to come out and thus the first customer(s) would need to pay for the whole r&d and testing of the new replacement electronics which makes the product pretty expensive for the first customers and leads them back down from the project making it impossible to develop the replacement electronics in the first place.

That is an issue for sure. You don't have enough backers so you don't have any choice but to raise the price to cover the costs which repels the rest of the potential customers and the couple of real customers too who would have actually paid something for the product. And that makes the product "impossible" to make because you can't get any money from anywhere to make it happen.

Another thing is that one must be able to repair the mechanics of the camera at the same time when installing the new electronics. That does not sound much but it is actually a HUGE issue with cameras which have built in electronic boards requiring disassembling the whole camera to get the old boards out and new boards in. This limits the electronics update installation to only the service shops which provide mechanical service for the same camera models and that is very very difficult to arrange. It is easy to arrange EITHER a mechanical CLA for the camera body OR the electronics update for it but NOT both at the same time. Ordering the from two different places makes it too expensive and difficult to arrange which again repels potential customers.

 

Securing RELIABLE financial backing for a film camera accessory project is much more difficult than actually making the product. This is what ruins the perfectly good ideas and innovations the end users ask for.   I for example have a huge box full of circuit boards I have designed and assembled for dozens of different film camera projects but because of the lack of financial backing I had to adandon them. It makes me sad to look at that box, maybe should take it to the garage or basement and try to forget that it exists 😞  For example I just had to delay the CP16R crystal sync update for a year because running out of money and it is uncertain if it ever gets finished even when I already have the circuit boards ready and most of the other stuff too. I love designing stuff but getting money back from it to cover even the basic material costs is devastatingly difficult and easily ends up having even the almost finished projects to be cancelled due to running out of budget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Nicholas!

Bravo! Welcome to the tiny club of souls who've had the nerve or common sense to call this vacuous nonsense out. 

Gregg 

Gregg,

Great to see a fellow kindred spirit. You are the well spoken and respected veteran in this niche area of deflating analog camera hubris and delusional false statements.

And a big thank you to Heikki Repo and you for both of your detailed attention and contributions towards the invaluable Eclair ACL camera threads. 

NK

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

That's great in concept, but all the best designs in the world mean nothing if they don't have a proper business plan that'll allow them to actually build the thing. I want these cameras to exist in the real world, not just vaporware, and so some constructive criticism is warranted when it doesn't happen. This camera was not marketed at all. I google "gentoo super 8" and Logmar's website comes up first, then this exact thread, and then Google gets confused and gives up. I am very confused why there was any expectation at all of there being fifty sales when seemingly no effort was put into letting people know the camera existed. As I said previously, their other cameras got coverage from a number of publications while there was nothing for this super-8 camera. A Kickstarter, a presence on the various Facebook groups, a post on Reddit, a cheap pretty short shot with their previous super-8 camera posted to YouTube... just some ideas off the top of my head. Would have easily met fifty real purchasers.

To be blunt, the statement they posted reads like the sort of thing a group of engineers without much business savvy would put out -- and I say that out of love because half of my friends are engineers. "Two weeks after launching the camera we had fifty-one people providing their details and requesting sales contracts, so we were confident that Gentoo was a homerun but eventually out of those fifty-one people only twelve converted into actual sales" -- they were relying on a 100% success rate of converting customers' expressions of interest (requesting sales contracts) into actual sales. Instead, they needed more like 500 people to message them (which would be possible through better communication online) in order to lock down the required 50 sales.

Again, I want new film cameras to exist! And for that exact reason, I think it's wise not to mince words. Make the super-16 camera, but tell everybody about it while you're doing it. You can't leave consumers in the dark and expect them to show up when you need them.

And please correct me if I'm wrong on anything. 

Hi Raymond,

To be clear. My quoted statement was not targeting your postings. It was and is a generalist statement ultimately designated for an infamous but nameless negative "contributor". Tit for tat is wasteful energy. I am attempting to elevate the level of respectful discourse absent falsehoods. 

I welcome your constructive criticisms and for the most part agree with your engineering perspective. I too work with many. Marketing is not their forte. However, the engineering passion represented by the Logmar projects requires our support regardless of the difficult births. I invested in the original Logmar S8 Chatham for that reason. 

I would be very interested in Christopher Nolan's cinematographer's detailed perspective and utilization of Logmar's 25lb 65mm film camera in the field. 

NK

 

Edited by Nicholas Kovats
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

Securing RELIABLE financial backing for a film camera accessory project is much more difficult than actually making the product. This is what ruins the perfectly good ideas and innovations the end users ask for.

Bingo, exactly. It's all doable... "if" there were enough people who wanted it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, Pavan Deep said:

Why should everything have to be commercially motivated, I know we are all trained to think practically and to stay within norms and conventions,  but passion is what we all need.

As I said above, passion doesn't pay the bills. It doesn't magically make a successful company. Demand is the most critical aspect. No demand; no way to be successful. You need to be successful because you need the money to provide support. You need to make spare parts for the future. You need a full-time technician to service cameras because there will be a lot of cameras needing serviced when you make bigger cameras. You can't just make a batch of one-off special cameras and say "sorry" when someone needs a pulldown claw replaced or maybe housing from dropping. This is why you must always treat everything with the attitude of it being a commercially viable entity. 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

 It was and is a generalist statement ultimately designated for an infamous but nameless negative "contributor".

Being pragmatic is far better than delusional. 

4 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

I am attempting to elevate the level of respectful discourse absent falsehoods. 

I have personally cleared the air with Lasse on information that was given to me improperly. We have discussed a few ideas on what needs to be done and he's already playing with some of those ideas, which his great. Tommy and co are very clever engineers and good people that mean well. None of my statements are against their well being, I applaud what they're doing. However, I want to make them a successful company, not just churn out product on passion, but actually make a lot of good, sellable product. So my comments may sound harsh, but they NEED to be. That's how you get shit done. Someone has to stand up and direct, not just sit on the sidelines and say "wow that's cool" every time someone releases something that WILL NOT SELL. I hope in the coming months, we'll see the direction shift a bit and by end of year, a prototype that falls in line with what needs to be done. 

We need a product to believe in and Tommy is finally understanding this. 

4 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

I would be very interested in Christopher Nolan's cinematographer's detailed perspective and utilization of Logmar's 25lb 65mm film camera in the field. 

From my understanding, there wasn't much utilization. They used Tenet as an R&D test bed and only were able to get one good roll of film shot. It allowed Lasse and the team to understand what Hoyte needed in a camera. This way, they could fine tune the camera to the needs of future filmmakers. I will ask Lasse what's up, I need to send him an e-mail anyway. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

There are so many people keen to get their hands on a Super 16 camera, I suspect a newly engineered one could be a success, as long as it is affordable and not just for rental houses. 

As you well know, that's a giant ask for anyone at this point. Any real S16 camera with 400ft loads, that's competitive feature wise to be sellable, will be grossly expensive and yes, be for rental houses only. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me of that very tiny 16mm camera that used to be advertised in American Cinematographer back when.

I  believe it had a crystal motor and used a 50 foot spool. I think it was called the EMP or IMP, and was marketed as a crash cam, if I remember the ads correctly. It was for a 10mm lens and a wire frame viewfinder, I think, and about half the size of the Ikonoscope, again IIRC.

I'll look through back issues of AC over the next day and post a photo, unless someone can beat me to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...