Scott Bullock

Tons of great info in these discussions. I really enjoy reading everyone's input, fwiw. At the end of the day, my position on the Kodak camera remains essentially the same: I hope Kodak sells every single camera and is incentivized to do more. I guess we'll see. I thought for sure I'd fall squarely into their target market but somehow I don't. If I'm going to devote $5,500 to the Super 8 format, I'd still buy a freshly serviced Beaulieu or Leicina and spend the other $4,500+ on film, processing, and scanning. I can wrap my head around an institution like a school wanting a new camera rather than a used one, but the Kodak camera is sorely lacking in features when compared to either of the cameras mentioned above (just basic stuff too, like frame rates, a viewfinder, a zoom lens, etc.) and its warranty isn't all that robust. 100,000 frames? That's what, less than 30 rolls of film? It just seems strange to be on the outside looking in when it should be a guy like me that they wanted to target - a middle-aged professional with some disposable income and a (some would say irrational) love for narrow gauge formats that I still shoot regularly. Que sera sera.

Excellent points, especially about the 2-perf equipment availability, which is why I was thinking of cost analysis strictly in terms of stock/processing/scanning. The equipment is one of the mitigating factors that is so often overlooked when the type of discussions I alluded come up. The other things that are overlooked are maintenance of the equipment (up to and including replacement if necessary) and the number of people that are often needed in order to properly use the equipment. It's much easier to be a one-man band with a Bolex H16 than with an Arri BL4, and there are strata of complexities between the two and beyond, of course. So when someone says - as has been done here and elsewhere - If you're gonna spend the money on Super 8, you may as well spend a little more and shoot 16mm, it's really only true if looking at it strictly in terms of stock/processing/scanning. Rarely is this statement made while considering all the additional costs that go along with making the jump to 16mm. That is, unless you can fulfill your 16mm needs shooting with a Bolex or a Krasnogorsk, because the next step above that is a bit of a doozy, and the step above that often means you're renting and not buying. That's all I was really getting at with my original post: Things can look very enticing when only looking at certain elements (film/processing/scanning), but when viewed as a whole, things start to add up very, very quickly. For the record, I wasn't saying that Jon is under some misapprehension about the costs involved with shooting 2-perf 35mm. I genuinely agree with him that shooting that format would be wonderful. Some of my favorite Italian horror films were shot using that format, and I even had an opportunity to tinker with a 2-perf Kinor some years back. Oh, I don't agree that 8mm is a no-margin-for-error format unless you're talking about shooting with reversal stocks. Shooting on negative has broadened those margins considerably, IMO.

Just as there are people who say that if you're going to pay the money to shoot Super 8, you may as well spend a little extra and shoot S16, there are those that say if you're going to pay for S16, you may as well pay a little extra and shoot 2-perf 35mm. I've never done a cost analysis in term of stock/processing/transfer, but my guess is there is some truth to that.

See, that Super 8 looks great, @Tyler Purcell!! Just kidding, man. Those are some great looking shots. You used Optar Illuminas wide open? If so, that really is impressive. What focal lengths do you have? I own a 9.5mm but I've never shot with it wide open that I can recall.

Makes sense. I'm just saying, beware the perils of that shutter angle. I've seen many instances where otherwise beautifully lit and composed shots were compromised because of that 1/39 shutter speed. And those cameras were really designed for 18fps, so we're looking at less than a 30th of a second. For me, anything slower than 1/45 starts getting tricky. It's just something to be mindful of, especially if you're perceiving a softness in your images.

You're shooting your short with the Minolta XL84, right? That's got a nice lens on it. One of the things I *don't* like about XL cameras, however, are their slow shutters. I think that camera has a 220 degree shutter, which equates to 1/39 at 24fps. That's slow, and there may be a perceivable loss in sharpness due to the shutter and not the lens. Some of the reasons that my Beaulieu 6008 S has shot to the top of my list of most-used cameras are: Its low-light shutter is 144 degrees, which is 1/60 of a second at 24fps. This greatly reduces softness and blur due to camera movement. It uses a mirrored shutter, so all of the light stays directed toward the film plane, rather than being split to aid a viewfinder. This latter point means that I can use an incident meter without having to compensate for light loss to the viewfinder. Its film transport system is very stable. Not quartz crystal stable (that could be found on the PRO models, however) but very stable when compared to many, many other cameras. Only the Leicina Special rivals its stability, IMO. The 6008 S will read film stocks up to ISO 400. Finally, it comes with interchangeable lenses that can be used as truly manual lens, aperture ring and all. And these lenses are very, very nice. Anyway, those were some of the considerations that I took to heart when seeking a great Super 8 camera. The ergonomics took some getting used to, but I actually have adjusted to it really well. All these cameras have their idiosyncrasies I suppose. I've also started using some Single 8 cameras in the last several months for many of the same reasons outlined above.

Oh I got ya. Sounds like a worthy endeavor. You're right about the grain in 500T. That stock is hit and miss for me, even on S16 as you said. When scenes are predominantly dark or have a lot of deep shadows, the grain does become distracting. But in scenes where a lot of light is being bounced around, like "street" cinematography (so to speak), I've seen some good stuff. 200T is definitely the way to go for a short narrative of the type you described, IMO. Controlled lighting, etc. Yeah, that's the stock to use.

Because it's more about aesthetics than you think. In another of your posts, you wrote: "Filmmakers give two shits about aesthetics, it's all about the image..." I know cinematographers and filmmakers that'll never shoot on film again - any film. And I know filmmakers that will ONLY shoot on film. And I know filmmakers that base their format choice on the subject matter. And then I know filmmakers that don't give a damn what it's shot on and *only* care about story. These are the types that often shoot on whatever is available to them, perhaps because of budgetary reasons or whatever. The point is filmmakers make decision based on aesthetics all of the time. I almost started to list examples but really don't see the need, it's THAT common.

That's a nice setup. I had an NPR converted to S16 by George at Optical Electro House before he retired. It had an AZ Spectrum video tap also. I ended up selling it and bought an ACL II. Kinda wish I still had it as it was a trouble-free camera the entire time I owned it. In reading your other posts, I hope you're not setting yourself up for disappointment with your Super 8 short, but if you are expecting Super 8 to give the same or comparable results to your NPR, I fear you're heading down that road. I'm with you on the price of the Kodak camera though. I've tried to find a way to justify that price because I really enjoy Super 8 a lot. Like, a lot a lot. However, I just can't do it. I agree that that sort of money would be much better spent on a rig like you've described or, if one wanted to really pursue Super 8, then to buy a high end, freshly serviced camera and spend the rest on film, processing and transfer. But then, it seems anyone who can afford this camera may not be concerned about film costs.

So, you're saying that Super 8 looks objectively "bad" because it doesn't look like 16mm and 35mm? I don't think anyone disagrees, so that seems like a weird standard to hold S8 to when it was never designed to supplant either of those formats, as I'm sure you know. I don't disagree with all of the inherent limitations of the Super 8 format you mentioned in your response. These are well known and factors that must be considered when deciding whether to use the format or not. However, if one works within those limitations and doesn't expect to achieve the same results that can be derived using larger gauges, Super 8 can still render fantastic results. I truly appreciate your input and am not all attempting to be snide, but you can't buy a Camaro and then complain that it's not a Corvette. All that will do is lead to disappointment. It's better to accept the Camaro for what it is and move on. Or, just buy the Corvette.

hat objective criteria you used to draw that I'm curious what objective criteria you used to draw that conclusion.

Yeah, that's definitely an option, but if you don't have those lenses, they'll have to be added to the total cost. You can find Angenieux 1.4/6-90 or Schneider 1.8/6-66 and 1.4/6-70 lenses in the $600 - $1,000 range, which is a pretty significant increase in price. Then, they'll have to be collimated for the camera. This stuff adds up. I just feel that, at that price, a good lens should be included. That Ricoh 6mm they put on there can probably be had for $100 or so.

Would definitely be interested in seeing those results, if you plan to share them somewhere. I genuinely hope you find them to be promising. Regarding Kodak's camera, I am hoping it has some kind of success, if only to possibly spark interest from other manufacturers. The mind wonders what might happen if a company like Canon, Sony, or Nikon, or even BMD decided to follow suit and build a camera of their own, possibly at a much more affordable price with better features and optics. Of the many things that have been said about the price on this camera, the one thing that strikes me as truly odd, is that, at that price point, I don't think it'd be my first choice as a Super 8 camera even though it's brand new. If there was real money (meaning, shoot as much as you need to) for a project and a good portion of it was going to be shot on Super 8 film as stylistic choice, I'd reach out to someone like Born Andersson and buy a freshly serviced Beaulieu 6/7008 Pro; or, at that price, two Beaulieu 6/7008 Pros and possibly a 4008 ZM2 as an additional backup. Sure, you wouldn't be getting those nice, modern digital features, but I'd gladly trade a swivel monitor for 70-80fps, a variable and mirrored shutter, vastly superior lenses, etc. I own several Super 8 cameras and still enjoy shooting them on a regular basis, and I'd be all-in on this camera if it were sub $1.5K or thereabouts. But at that price, I can't even give it a moment's consideration. But, I do hope they sell, if only to attract other camera companies.

Thank you Ignacio; this is excellent! Who is doing repairs on the ZC1000 these days? My frame counter stopped working on me last weekend. ?

This is my experience with the ACL also. I recall Bernie O'Doherty telling me about this when he converted an ACL for me many, many years ago. The shutter angle on the camera had to be modified to 144 degrees from its factory 175 degrees in order to cover the entire S16 frame when closed.