Michael Lehnert

Indeed, E-100 is a tricky stock, especially for beginners setting out on, say, Super 8, not accustomed to manual exposure practices and easily discouraged by non-immediately-gratifying results returning from the lab :) . Kodak Alaris is actually stating in their press release that they are to "…reformulate…" the Ektachrome 100 stock they want to launch. I am unclear if this is more a marketing reference than an chemical-engineering term at this stage. It will be interesting to see if the E-100 stock will indeed be the old 5285 / 7285, or a new type with greater latitude.

Apart from Super 8 and KB 135, it will be interesting to see if Kodak Alaris sees a business case for 16mm as well, single or double perf.

Rejoice, the S8 world is saved! :D The return for KB 135 in 36x is also good news.

Join that party here B)

Not wanting to interrupt the meandering FUD-style "trolling" of Tyler ;) , but here's something I stumbled upon while travelling over the holiday period; something that will cement his views that the "Kodak Neomatic Model 2016 2017" will be Kodak's and cine-film-in-general's DOOOOM!™" This is an advertorial column I found in the current issue of "Abenteuer und Reisen 12/2016", a German-speaking glossy travel magazine distributed across Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Think "Condé Nast Travel" or "Wanderlust" for the English-language equivalent. It basically iterates what I have been posting earlier in this thread regarding what I think (and so far have had confirmed) the ecosystem around the new Kodak Super 9 camera will be like: <translation> Magic! Film. Good news for nostalgics: Kodak breathes new life into Super 8. Or rather endues the "magic of the analog" with digital comfort: so, one shoots with camera and film, and mails in the negative. Kodak develops and digitizes the strip and puts the scans into the cloud. Download. Done. Price for the camera: prospectively from 400 Euros up. kodak.com <translation ends> So far: no reversal film stock, no projectionist phantasies of print films, no complexity beyond simple cloud-based post-dev file management. And yes, the camera is still on track for release at a price point of US$420+. The now leathered pistol handgrip looks quite functionally arranged with the overhead handgrip. I think the white/black base model I saw in the customer clinics will still be supplemented with a higher-priced yellow/black model; maybe shipped with a different lens? With Kodak now moving publicising about the new camera away or beyond the core target group subscribed to news through the Kodak Collection™ and The Super 8 Collective™ newsletters, I would suggest they are still quite buoyant about its wider appeal and prospects. "Abenteuer und Reisen" is certainly not a "Berlin-type" freemaker/hipster or tech-focused or education-focused magazine, but rather staid and "safely adventurous". You would find recommendations for gear from mid-range "Canonikon" to Leica X or T cameras in there. To stumble over the Kodak Super 8 camera in it rather surprised me... a lot. There are of course those here that think that any manager is an incompetent moron in a suit out to destroy or hinder the creative outbursts of freelancing cinematographers around the world, and advertising in such a journal is yet another crystal-clear indication that Kodak will get this all horribly wrong and bring down the format and EVERYTHING ELSE™. But as usual, the reality beyond the computer screen is quite different. 2017 will be an interesting milestone year for Super 8. :wub: I look forward to shooting with this camera, as much as I am excited shooting on "respectable formats" - to quote Tyler - with, say, an Arriflex 35BL-2, Bolex 16 Pro or Aaton Xterà.

You raised the off-topic yourself, Tyler, as usual :D .

I really can't fathom how grown-up men become whinging snowflakes triggered into having a childish passive-aggressive meltdown simply because they are being confronted by characters in a Star Wars movie that are not looking like all male Caucasians. How did they ever compute the Cantina scene back in '77 with all that diversity on show ;) ? Seriously though: to purposefully search for 'SJW'-type stereotyping in Rogue One's cast and screenplay from the vantage point of the OT and PT and their nowadays grotesque stereotyping throughout, is either shallow politicising or outright artistic inaptitude. It may be fashionable right now and for a few more years to be sexist and xenophobic in public again, but the future will not be kind to those opinions. Trust me, I am German, been there, done that, redux efforts not recommended. Can't cope with women getting a gig over you? Need to source a "Korean-American" to add some credibility to sock-puppeting your political views? Think that a movie where the baddies are lookalike Nazis should't be politicised to push a "feminazi diversity agenda"? Hate if a fictional team from billions of star systems and planets from all over a fictional galaxy isn't homogenously WASP-enough looking, because such default would be like soo more believable? Grow some balls and man up. Or watch 'Queen of Outer Space'; in an "ironic way", of course.

Life is better without self-imposed ennui.

Came here solely for Tyler's Regular Rabid Rant™, and was not disappointed. Luckily it wasn't shot on Super 8, Tyler would have had a meltdown. This is the first Star Wars movie outside the Original Trilogy that in my environs gets nearly universal praise from both OT greybeards, OT and PT fans, PT haters, and younglings for whom Episode VII was their first exposure to this IP in cinema. To call a sub-TFA box office performance of RO a "flop" or "told you so, female leads and shoe-horned diversity sucks" is akin to having either moronic standards or a totally warped view of the world in the 21st century. Given the forking Disney and the old Lucasfilm guard did with this film, trying out a distinct cinematic aesthetic for the separate anthology movies as opposed to the established episodic movies, I think the differences are pretty stark yet purposefully executed. I think this dichotomy is important, and works better than I thought. I think for a PG-13 movie, this is pretty violent, and anything but a "Disney-type family friendly action movie" Tyler is on about. For Star Wars standards, this is pretty gruesome. Think of all the mutilated LEGO mini figures and Hasbro toys, Tyler – have some heart ^_^ ! I really fail to see how this is watered down "family-friendly" stuff. What do you want? "Gore Wars"? As for Disney executives being scared: POkay I'll bait. Please explain that they were scared of? I was under the impression the C-suite was concerned that the movie would be too depressing and violent, and lightened it up with the re-shoots. But this clearly has not happened as far as hard core Star Wars fans I talked to were concerned back then. In fact those who wanted "war" were not disappointed, and those fearsome of Disneyfication are now relieved and enthusiastic about the IP's multi-layered future. I actually look forward to seeing the movie when back in London at the turn of the years in top projection quality, to competently comment on Fraser's work, technique and technology. For now, I only supported my local Shire's badly-equipped cinema, and concentrated more on the story and plentiful easter eggs for Star Wars regulars than the cinematic and cinematographic aspects. /-M

That is great to know, thank you Bjorn! I only knew from attached 1979 snipped cut out from an Objektiv magazine that there was a Schneider Iscorama-Cinegon 1:1,8 / 10mm with one Beaulieu Reglomatic servo tube available for the Beaulieu 5008 S. Cool that it was also continued with LCU for 6/7/9008-series.

Ritter Film + Videotechnik in the form of being Beaulieu's German general distributor and "keeping it all alive" after Beaulieu itself went bust, well, THAT company and its technicians are no longer in business for over a decade. Wittner took over the stock and parts and Beaulieu representation, but not the former caliber of repair and maintenance services offered. I understand, though, that Ritter has been re-established, and they do offer some repair services. I am unclear if whoever is their tech guy now would take on such a project. After all, the mod I am talking about was done in the 1980s. Having been a long-term customer with the original Ritter company, I must admit I didn't regret too much when they went bust and stuff moved to Wittner. I have done all my Beaulieu business with Björn Andersson from the 2000s on, so I really can't comment on this reborn Ritter company. But check them out, and feel free to post here about how things progress. This is a really interesting topic and potential project.

Apart from the Beaulieu 6-70mm and Angénieux 15x6mm, plus the few prototype Schneider 30x6mm that escaped into the wild, and the rightly-forgotten entry-level Beaulieu-Zoom Macro 1:1,4 / 6,9-55mm, I don't know any other lens with either LCU or LCU II. Neither the Schneider or the Leitz Cinegon 1:1,8 / 10mm came with any servo units. Are you talking about the Schneider 1:1,4 / 16mm Cinegon? I am curious.

Given the rarity of the Schneider Beaulieu-Variogon 1:1,8 / 6-180mm, you could well consider altering the flange tube to a C-Mount screw-wind threaded cylinder. It is technically possible, but you will loose the LensControlUnit due to the resulting protrusion of the case at the rear. That's a problem not existing with the Beaulieu Reglomatic or Leitz Leicinamatic on C-Mount. (see attached pictures 1 and 2) I had a former film club colleague from Germany who had his Schneider 30x6mm modified for ornithological documentary filmmaking. That's the only use case I can see where such monster zoom with inherent resolving power degradation makes sense, despite Schott Optics best effort to provide selected glass for the prototypes. He had it also retrofitted with the Beaulieu Reglomatic from his Angénieux 13x6mm, and adjusted to connect to the electrical contacts on his Beaulieu 4008 ZM II. In hindsight, some Ritter customers had more money than sense, but ballsy devotion to their gear ;) . Today, one could argue that the resale value of such a mod, should you go forward with it, would be increased significantly. However, it's really up to the budget and nerves you have, and to find an optical engineer who would do that kind of work. Please bear in mind what I said about the Angénieux 15x6mm, with its weight and chunkiness not fit for the C-Mount, though. From the few times I handled one, I recall the Schneider 30x6mm to be even more chunky, and very heavy. The C-Mount in pre-6/7/9008-series Beaulieu models is simply not ankered solidly enough into the body to support such a weight. This goes well into Normal / Super 16 lens territory already, and a totally different class of required mounts. (see attached picture 1) I guess the simplest way forward would be to bite the bullet and buy a Beaulieu 6/7/9008 Pro model, ideally with fitted ground glass and secondary trigger control (as I presume you would be shooting mostly from tripods with a support system).

No, there has not been an official adapter from Beaulieu breech-lock mount to screw-in C-Mount. I am unaware of an unofficial third party adapter so far, but would be happy to be proven wrong. For any of the two Schneider Beaulieu-Optivaron 1:1,4 / 6-70mm or Angénieux 1:1,4 / 6-90mm lenses this concerns – either with Beaulieu LensControlUnit or Beaulieu LensControlUnit II – you would have to physically alter the mounting on the lens. This may prove to be too expensive to be worthwhile. After all, the Schneider Beaulieu-Optivaron 1:1,4 / 6-70mm was also available with regular C-Mount coming with the Beaulieu Reglomatic tubes common on the 2/4008 and 5008-series. If you want to use that lens specifically, this variant would be your alternative package to buy. The Angénieux 1:1,4 / 6-90mm is simply too front-heavy for the few screw-in turns of the C-Mount to hold it without added support systems. To mount those, you need the tripod support wedge accessory due to the non-horizontal base plate of the 6/7/9008-bodies, adding even more weight and unwieldiness to the camera. If you absolutely need that kind of focal range in a vario lens, try scouting for the Angénieux f/1,2 | T/1,4-2,1 / 6-80mm (C-Mount), which has superior resolution and build quality.

Tyler, I am sorry you can only read ciny.com at 1am in the morning. I am very sorry, English is only my fourth language, and I suck at it, especially while traveling and being under time pressure for other stuff. My language skills deteriorate under such circumstance. Your efforts are all the more appreciated. I can follow the rationale for your perspective on Super 8, on Kodak, and its supposed market influence. These views are not new to me, but I simply haven't heard them put forward on this forum so sternly since, well, 2006/7 and the great Santo debates. However, the world of image acquisition, post chains, user demographics, and Kodak's power post-chapter 11, has changed enormously since then. Santo was right in the end, his critics were wrong. You say you want Kodak to have retained K-40 and its one-stop-solution model, which was as closed-door as possible compared to other lab-based analog post chains for 8, 16 and 35. Yet you also criticize Kodak's supposedly new "closed-door", "less expensive", "higher quality" "model" that could be introduced alongside with its new Super 8 camera. Apart from the intrinsic contradiction of your arguments, I fail to see why an in-house, less expensive, higher quality alternative by Kodak would be worth critizising, economically or artistically, unless you wish to see the death of the S8 format. And that wouldn't help cine-film either. Actually, I can't get my head around how you can say "higher quality for less cost" is bad, unless that specific product would kinda destroy the planet in the wake of itself from some weird side effect. Or unless it threatens your personal business and income? Well, I personally doubt the "Kodak Neomatic 2017" will be a Blofeldian tool of anthropogenic destruction. And I don't think it will put you out of business. I also doubt Kodak has the intention of monopolizing Super 8 post shooting, given that its processing/scanning is likely done with Andec in "cool" Berlin, and other partner(s) in the US and other geographies. Giving additional confidence to the format with a new camera, plus sharing revenue with lab partners seems like a win-win for all industry players involved. Kodak post-chapter 11 has no financial prowress to open a brand-new purpose-built lab of its own. It's reliant on working with lab partners around the world. And they won't be pushed over by the "Yellow Giant", simply because capitalistically, Kodak is now a "Yellow Minion". And given that even ARRI closed its venerable lab and Andec took it over, I think I can rest my case for market forces and current powers to influence. Likewise, if ARRI, Aaton, and smaller boutique camera manufacturers like Ikonoskop exited the 16mm camera market (and 35 too), I think your idea that au lieu of a new Super 8 camera, Kodak should have built a new 16mm camera says more about your sole focus on 16 than you applying your solid understanding of engineering (which you have) to realistically assess the absurd costs and barriers to built an all-new 16mm camera competitive with the deliverables of a Xterà, 416 etc. And given that you can buy a new Krasnogorsk for cheap as chips, as you say yourself, why would Kodak want to enter such a competitive market? It couldn't compete downwards on price, nor compete upwards on quality. For S8, the market is actually more virginal, as there's nothing there other than 40-years-old S8 cameras, which – unless you invest in a "top-of-the-market" CLA'd production camera – are more often than not unrepairably broken when bought "fifth-hand" off eBay. As we know first hand here from newbie posters, it's THIS frustrating first experience of S8 rather than "oh, that's über-grainy as poop and has no aesthetic purpose whatsoevaah, I better choose 16mm, shoot 35mm or go back to my 5D Mark x" that kills interest in the format. And Kodak is addressing this problem head-on with a camera package that under-25s will intuitively understand and operate with success. To keep the format going, unlike for 16 and 35 and its comparatively healthy camera and maintenance market, a new S8 camera is a meaningful act of support. To finance the Logmar group to built this camera makes also sense: it's not that Kodak has an in-house R&D division with platoons of white-coated Eastmanian boffins pondering about the next big thing. This isn't some General Motors corporate fantasy world of the 1950s anymore in which today's R&D can occur. But then again, you know this from your own experience in research and development, despite your retirement from it a few years ago. I am sad that new film stocks and focused marketing for cine-film can't get you excited anymore. No one cares about brick-and-mortar retail anymore. Retail camera stores? Again, do you still live in 1995? I would want to travel back in time to the 1990s, too, as 2016 sucks. But seriously now: a coop with Impossible to show off S8 is probably all that is in the cards, and why would that be bad? Look at Leica: their Leica Sofort is jumping on the instant photo revival bandwagon. It's not that we have now film stock of the quality Polaroid or Fujifilm once offered. But the medium as supported by Impossible keeps the various formats alive. And the new aesthetic distinction it offers that in its uniqueness cannot be fully replicated using digital methods, has earned it a considerable following among young people of all walks of life. If I talk to under-25s, they find Impossible film stock more exciting to use than megapixel-war digicams! Will it last in the long-term? Gee… nothing is forever (except Star Wars) but those analog formats already exist way beyond their last reasonable lifeline, and are still commercially viable at niche scales. That's pretty "holy grail" as far as business is concerned. LPs now outperform CDs in sales. It's a weird world. Go figure :) . This is mutually contradictory. I think you can see this yourself. Keeping 7268 alive was not an option at all. And yet, despite the much-lamented death of it, Super 8 saw higher adoption rates since its removal from Kodak's Consumer division and alignment with its Professional Motion Imaging division following the death of 7268, as the late John Pytlak said in this very forum here. What I think Kodak intends to do is indeed replicate the Kodachrome model, but instead of getting a reversal reel for projection back, you shoot on 7203 (which works with all S8 camera EI pin systems, a major overall engineering aspect!) and get a scanned 1080p or 2k digital file back in the cloud (plus your neg). Welcome to 2017 industry standards, not 1967 Neiman Marcus nostalgia. And that is just what Kodak wants to offer. You can still buy film stocks directly from labs, use their packages, get positive prints, or scans with colorist time booked in, and blow it up to 70mm if your heart desires. The potentially new Kodak one-stop solution does not disable or prevent the other existing ones. It's a different market segment Kodak wants to serve, one where I see new users having a higher chance of having a positive and effortless first exposure to Super 8. I see the logic to it, you don't. C'est la vie! To conclude: You still consider S8 merely in outdated aspects of performance (measured by you in resolution comparison to 16/35/65) and cost. No one I know shoots S8 because it's cheaper than 16. Only mathematically challenged people would choose S8 over 16 or 35, because shooting S8 is in a trivially-lower cost range. People choose S8 for aesthetic reasons, now more than ever. I find material aesthetics not playing any role at all in your assessments of cine-film formats totally weird. You are an educator and professional DoP, after all! What's going on?! What I learned from people like David Mullen ASC here when I joined this forum a decade ago, is that aesthetics is the prevailing line of thought in cinematography, not some technical camera aspect, data sheet set, or feature list. I think your presumption that Kodak's investment into this S8 project puts at peril the entire holding company, as well as all the other cine-film formats, is not only at odds with your earlier comments on sales figures. I also think that this shows a lack of understanding about Kodak's current corporate holding form, its capitalization, its ways and means, and the way management goes about product development today. I am sorry, but this is the equivalent of armchair management by people "longing for the ways it used to be", which we can unfortunately also now see in debates about politics, like "why can't we just get a better deal with China or Brussels. We just say we are not happy and they will fall over", leaving tsunamis of socio-economic system complexities unconsidered. Kodak isn't betting its future on a Super 8 camera, I can assure you that! In fact, the delays to it had me concerned about the launch happening at all. Kodak will rather pull the plug than support a bottomless R&D pit. But it seems insiders say the project is still all on track. And THAT was supposed to be the topic of this thread, by the way :) I am pretty certain should this S8 camera make it to market despite the challenges its development obviously seems to face right now, it won't kill off Kodak, or Andec, or 35mm; just as Kodak dropping this project now won't magically resuscitate Super 16, a format that on my side of the Atlantic is as dead as a parrot – "deader" than Super 8 has ever been. And with that reply, I will have to leave this conversation with you. I have spent in total 2.5 hours of my lifetime talking to you in this thread, and I think your position won't change a bit as a result of it. I am sorry for the hardship deciphering my ramblings has caused you. If I am incomprehensive to you, then that's all the more reason for me to stay solely on-topic in this thread, and not invest time in off-topic chatter. I admin this sub-forum, so I should probably stick to Tim's guidelines more than anyone else. I also fear your off-topic post getting two down votes even before I was notified by mail of its existence says a lot. Thank you for your time, Tyler, though. It's genuinely appreciated and I wish you well.

:huh: - I am not sure what your argument is in this post or what you are arguing for, or in fact, about at all. You clearly haven't read my post in full, or comprehended it, or really only read the lines you are quoting from. So I conclude this now because you are three steps away from descending into incoherent ranting, and I respect you too much to want you see do that for no reasons worth it. This forum has been more nuanced about Super 8 as a distinct format already a decade ago, so please necrophile a thread from that era if you need to ventilate. Your argument goes totally beside the point I made. - thank you for killing theoretical mathematics and quantum physics – life in your world of education would still be based in caves due to the lack of greater fools. - rant about film schools teaching cinematography better than non-film schools… ehm, yeah, that's obvious. No one at an arts university is teaching pointless theory-less experimentation, though. Don't be disrespectful to pedagogy and didactics in other educational fields far away from film schools you apparently have not been professionally exposed to. Re-read my post to understand how Super 8 is an option for people to do some extra-curricular activities to understand aesthetics of media production to laterally support their core education (which will make them more money than unionized DoPs make, I discovered to my shock) - I am sorry you seem to think my post was an underhand threat to the raison d'être of film schools. It wasn't by parsecs! You totally missed the point. Also: don't waste our time because you bias your reading due to the threat film schools experience today, to some part because graduates don't make real money once they leave. And I say this as someone who is an autodidact on 8/16/35, privately owning professional gear mostly inaccessible to film school students this side of the Atlantic, and doing this without intend to make money because I am, by definition, an cinephile amateur :lol: . Ehm, not the example I used with ARRI, but you are trying to make the point, I presume, that… well, I am not sure what your point is. Super 8 as a reversal-based medium was "in its precursor essence" a video cassette tape system… press button stupid. It was designed to work as a consumer model. Now, you can work with Super 8 in identical workflows as you would for Super 16 or Super 35, with lab techs taking you serious. You can also go for a one-light scan, and do coloration and post effects at home on Mac or Wintel at costs so low George Lucas could have only dreamt of when his SGI server farm rendered his 1 minute of Star Wars for 12 hours over night. You have far more options for cine-film at low costs than ever before. The point Kodak is attempting to make with that camera is not about that at all. As I wrote. Please re-read my post. You mean to say that with the hypothetical Super 8 package we speculate Kodak will launch, Kodak intends to offer to potential interessees in Super 8 the option of not going through a self-curated film stock/dev/trans/proc/post chain that is now the default way for shooting S8 negative anyway, but instead, as I said, potentially offer a one-stop solution to new customer groups who are interested in S8 but don't want to delve so deeply into the matter for their first foray into it. I think more choice is good in a market, and if people engage with S8 through one-stop fixed-price packages they are familiar with from other media they work with, to discover Super 8, and then maybe move into more professionally nuanced post chains using that format to keep it alive, well, I think that's a good thing, too. It's not that Kodak is shutting down all S8 labs, monopolizes sales (given it holds a patented monopoly on the format), and kills today's entire S8 ecosystem over night. Geee… what's your gripe, Tyler? I already said the entire consumer/professional binary dichotomy no longer works for the generation this potential Kodak S8 system is geared towards. I made the points, you decided not to engage with them. I leave it with you as I don't care to convince you at all cost. 2016 has showcased this is often pointless. Will it drive up sales? After intro for sure. Long-term? Who knows. We discussed the death of S8 so often, it's like "Apple is doomed" memes in the ICT sector. It lasts as long as it's viable and of interest for a manufacturer, which may be Kodak or the patent holder after Rochester is truly dead. Remember all those "Yellow Giant" haters in "Smallformat" magazine who were cheering for Fuji and its unwavering eternal support for Single 8, that far superior format only for those distinct aesthetes really interested in the best possible narrow gauge medium of the world… yeah… how did this end for the Lossau editorialists?! I don't think you can logically make an argument wherein a brand-new Super 8 camera will result in the death of a format currently suffering from new adopters being faced with ill-maintained often-broken un-repairable consumer cameras half a century old who won't be willing – after that experience – to shell out hundreds of dollars for a freshly CLA'd Super 8 production camera to experience the format's full potential. Also: the plural of your anecdotes is not data. Again, I am unclear what your argument is all about… will it be subpar only over the long term. But not in the short term? Will it be superpar in the short term? And in comparison to what? We have a fully professional post-chain available in locations around the planet for S8 already. A simpler less-barriered customer-facing option is what Kodak wants to pursue in addition to that, to attract new people to the format. Do I think that's ballsy? Yes. Was it unexpected from Kodak to me? Absolutely! Will it work out for Kodak? I think it's 50:50 in my book! Is it better than not doing anything and simply let the format wither away. Absofreckinglutely! As far as 16mm being superior format to S8… ehmm… thanks for stating the blatantly obvious. "35mm is a far superior format to 16"… yeah… for me, it's also cheaper if I choose suppliers wisely, than 16, so I shoot a lot on 35 now over 16, but I still shoot 16 and 8, too. I mean… a professional DoP chooses the format based on the aesthetic s/he wants for the film. Formats have aesthetic values inherent to them, and image acquisition form factors is also matter. Otherwise, everyone would just shoot 65mm. What does that have to do with Kodak's new Super 8 camera? Please tell me, because I haven't a clue! Your business or teaching will not be threatened by this Kodak camera, given that no one rents your S8 gear anyway. So you have no personal or industry stake to motivate all this upset posting. If you want to relive the image resolution warfare from the early days of digital transfers of cine-film, go to page 198 of the Super 8 forum here and relive the glory or arguments long made and today utterly pointless. ;) Again, what's the point you are making here in respect to a new S8 camera? It's not that Kodak says: "Here's Super 8, a brand new format that will replace all cine-film formats that have come before. It'll even have an Alexa for breakfast". This is so common-sense, it's like saying "washing your hands keeps bacteria at bay". Given that Kodak will likely partner with established labs in the US and EU (probably Andec after they took over ARRI's lab), the only thing the purely hypothetical one-stop solution Kodak may offer on the back of launching a new Super 8 camera is to channel even more customers hitherto avoiding the format because of the built-in resistance they (!) perceive (not you or I, we are not the core demo they may target) to established industry firms. Kodak is not going to build a new Lausanne-style processing lab for sure. Okay… stupid Kodak, how can they not see that, too!? They should just buy Krasnogorsk, drain that novelty swamp of a half-a-century-old tiny-hands novelty format, and finally again do something REAL, a bigly change to make REAL FILM GREAT AGAIN. Tyler, are you okay? Aahh, now you are telling…. :rolleyes: – that was like soooo not subliminally obvious through your posts in this thread... :lol: Okay, you don't like S8. Fair enough. Who cares? What does your personal preference have to do with the new Kodak Super 8 camera, its tech, potential ecosystem, and launch timeline we are discussing here? I don't like Lamborghinis. I don't go to a Lamborghini forum to post that I think the Lamborghini Veneno looks like the automotive manifest of a venereal disease, that the 400 GT Monza is the last real Lambo, and that for the price of a Veneno, I can buy a F-150, an M2 and an Octavia Estate to get some real work done that gets me real money after having passed real driving school, when the point of the Veneno is to be an investment vehicle to be driven into a sealed storage garage, or on tracks by Gulf twens – – – which brings us back to your socio-economic comment about the new Kodak camera getting mostly interest at Cinegear from "rich guys looking for a new toy" - I've heard a lot over the years, but never that that's an ethical problem or doom-speller for a film format to be respected or a new camera to be launched. After all, after Cannibal Holocaust, Deep Throat and Baise moi, how could Munich, Grenoble and Gottschalk have gone ahead with their Aaton 35-II, Arriflex 416 and Millennium, really :blink: :wacko: . #sarcasm

Fred, thank you for posting this, and welcome to Cinematography.com. It's always great to get another Bolex 16 Pro owner in. I mean… that's like finding another unicorn in the wild ;) , so rare are cameras, owners and operators nowadays. Yes, weight, especially with the control unit around your shoulder is a challenge. Good breakfast definitely required. I have never heard before that there was a Barney available for the camera! Did it cover the entire camera or just the magazine? White must look pretty awesome on it, Panavision 16-like. /-Michael

If Kodak would indeed see the business case nowadays to develop a completely new base layer for an - in consequence - totally new generation of film stock away from the rather formidable Vision technology - and attempt to make this commercially viable by rolling it out for all its formats – bear in mind 72xx for S8 is identical to larger cine-film formats for a reason – the sheer cost of R&D would consequentially still make cost per meter on S8 so prohibitively high it would kill the format to prospective film shooters. I already doubt we will see a Vision4 generation with altered rem-jet backing, let alone something totally new. As regards manufacturing cost: those would not get lower as reflected in Kodak's P&L bottom line, which is what matters for the company to function longer than one business year only. People would simply buy less cartridges to cover the presumed total minutes of footage you base your hypothesis on. That would push economies of scale down and thus costs up. If you think people will shoot meters more because it's cheaper, well, that's not how feature productions work, and doesn't even hold true for Direct Cinema style docs where long-footage mags and long reels really matter (see Aaton's 16mm 800ft mag or the Aaton 35's ingenious mag to max out on space-per-film volume). I know that some people unfamiliar with cine-film find it difficult to comprehend that 2.5 minutes in a huge cheap-looking plastic box can cost so much to get a coarse-looking 1080p or 2k digital file from it. But then they fail to evaluate the format on aesthetic reasons. And that is really the only reason nowadays to shoot Super 8. The case for conviction rests on aesthetics, not money or footage length. If they fail to get that, despite plenty of cinematographic role models in the industry today being huge flag bearers for cine-film (even though Rogue One is shoot with Pana 70s on Alexa, despite JJ), then I think cine-film simply isn't for them. Simon's idea of Kodak "flooding the market" with lots of ultra-specific confections of film stock at 1980s purchasing power prices just to cover the individual use case of an animations amateur shooting with one of the dozen Arriflex DS-8, developing in Lausanne and printing at home, well, it's wonderfully (and delusionally) romantic as is the idea of K-40 making a comeback for the new Kodak camera. That ship sailed two decades ago, and I am astonished people are still romanticizing about this. 7203 is so superior to 7268 in Super 8 productions, it's not even funny, even if you're after "the Kodachrome look" which also BTW relates to the historic eras and colour palette in the real world, not just the stock. And as someone who shot a lot of polyester Single 8 2.5 minute cartridges (yepp, same run time) and cantankerous Ektasound 200 feeters, I don't miss that butthurting stuff a second. :)

Simon, it's really hard to discern whether this is sarcasm, or you genuinely mean all this 100%. Doug, are you a material scientist or photochemical engineer? And are you regularly shooting single takes without cuts longer than 2.5 minutes? That would be the only use case in which your point would be a valid criticism; unless your real critique here is about cost per meter, and in the real world, that wouldn't be altered with more footage on thinner bases in Kodapak or Ektasound Coaxial Instamatic-Cartridges. I am genuinely curious.

I don't equate the education sector with Californian/NYC-style film schools or colleges out to teach professional filmmaking. I can see why you argue from that perspective as a DoP and a teacher in one of such schools, but from my angle at Europe's biggest arts university, Super 8 cameras are deployed not to teach professional filmmaking, but to allow students experimentation with material aesthetics, for example as part of creating fine art; or as part of media communication courses; or as an alternative medium for portfolio creation or collateral efforts on fashion design projects. I can assure you that cadrage through an optical mirrored viewfinder isn't even an aspect of the creative act there - the flip-out view screen will suffice, as will the camera's video assist output. The "Kodak Neomatic Model 2017" package as I have encountered it in customer clinics with Kodak allows exactly the device accessibility and feature discoverability that this age group is used to from operating analog/digital video gear available on the market for two decades now. If students truly want to comprehend the opto-mechanical interplay in cinematography, I give them a Beaulieu 4008 ZM II with Schneider 11x6, which is the most didactic S8 package I know in that respect. They learn more about the laws of optics and mechanics from exploring the function of the exposure index dial and variable shutter lever, seeing how the DoF in the visuals, f-stops on the lens, and pointer needle in the viewfinder alter, than through hours of reading physics theory (which is not to say the latter doesn't matter). So this has nothing to do with learning professional filmmaking, where I would otherwise absolutely agree with you. Alas, this side of the Atlantic, 16/35 is rarely an option in film schools, and those students really interested in the formats buy those cameras privately for themselves. After all, the costs have never been so low as today to get a 35 BL and shoot 35, or an Aaton and shoot S16. As you can read above, I agree with you, from the "video-centric" facilitation the camera body offers, to CES for launch, to the aesthetic distinction it provides. But note that I differentiate between occasional Youtubers, for which this will not be an interesting product at all, and professional Youtubers who, though part of today's gig economy of "projects" without rigid structures and conventional company commitments, run what would qualify by older standards as pretty well-invested production firms (or collectives). They will deploy S8 as part of a or their channel, or a visual signature look, in a consistent manner, either for themselves or for their "clients". In light of this, I think labels such as "consumer-level", "prosumer-level", "industry-level" don't apply anymore in this field, for this is what happens at the conclusion of the "democratization" of filmmaking through trivial-barrier access to the means of production, one of the key effects from digitalisation. But the realization of this change might be a generational thing. As what for some are still "consumers", it is those who produce more material, have higher returns, and greater overall output than many people once confidently labelled "industry"! These labels have simply broken down in their usefulness to designate people and their work. Even the parallel labels of "amateur" (who makes without aim to earn) and "professional" (who makes to earn) are becoming increasingly less applicable in today's and likely future economic conditions – in filmmaking more than in other industry sectors. I have not heard Kodak speak of this Neomatic as a "consumer product" or a "pro-level" product, or targeting "amateurs" or "professionals", or any of that stuff. More on this below. For now, I say that to think in these SONY/Matsushita market segmentation terms from 1995 is unhelpful to to make sense and understand people, products and markets; let alone create them. One-Price-Packages are also not "a consumer thing" per se. I got these with ARRI in Munich shooting 35. You see, the biggest threshold for people to adopt S8 today is to piece together the entire acquisition/post chain, using multiple suppliers often across the globe, dealing with risks and overheads, cost that in to have a viable project in the first place, and having the time to do all the research to locate reliable suppliers in the first place. The demographic I am describing does not engage with products with that kind of inherent resistance, or built-in protracted learning curve. For you or me having grown up with cine-film, phoning up suppliers, comparing lab costs through printed price lists, driving hundreds of kilometers with film cans, and ordering film cement by postcards, this may all be difficult to understand, but S8 is now simply unsellable at scale if you don't offer the cartridge from one POS, then return it with freepost and get back a dev'd negative (which may actually well become optional) and a 1080p or 2k scan which is solely downloadable and shareable from the cloud. I frankly don't even think there will be much provision for supplying/including/shipping HDD/SSD drives with the reel's content from some partnered lab, given the complex logistics and security/interface challenges – it's simply too convoluted and unwieldy to do this. A 2.5 minute-long reel at 2k is entirely feasible to manage online. This is quite a change in your argumentation, but I am happy to follow you down that path… Now, your point may well be the case, but those would then be neither "consumers" nor "professionals", but industrial design collectors. That demographic exists for everything nowadays. To produce just for them is not something Kodak does right now. It wouldn't make any sense, frankly. And I doubt the "Neomatic" will become "an instant classic", because the industrial design is anything but inspired, and product appearance less substantial than "vintage" Super 8 production cameras. People have and will put a Nizo by Dieter Rams, or pre-6/7/9008-series Beaulieus by Marcel B on their shelves next to a Leica IIIf. But you are unlikely to find a utilitarian Canon 8/1014XL-S created by committee there. As far as "rich guys wanting toys" are concerned… again, I am unsure how this relates to your prior points about "consumers", film schools, Youtube etc. Also, people putting things on shelves normally don't make feature films with that same gear. To shoot a feature film is pretty hard and considerable work, and most clichés of "rich guys" I meet here in London don't have the attention span or stamina to go through with something like that beyond the initial idea of "would be cool to do do it". And then, with a feature production done with this camera, we could already talk about being in serious "professional" territory, anyway. ;) People like Gunter Sachs, who were 1960s playboys but were also making award-winning documentary films and supporting professional if not cutting-edge camera developments such as the Bolex 16 Pro (which by-the-way incorporated many Super 8 inspired functions into the professional Normal 16 form factor) have always been a rare exception among "rich guys". It could well be that the Kamp kids and Erika Burda would pick Super 8 as image acquisition format for their holiday movie projects, but then again, probably not. B) In this respect of choice, as regards doing it "because it's retro or something"… well, that has been the mantra for S8 usage since the late 1990s. Just ask Filmfreund Jürgen Lossau. It kept S8 going after it was displaced by S-Video in its original market. Please don't forget, though, that far more important was in fact the drive to take S8 serious as a cinematographic non-nostalgic format with a proper hi-def digital post chain – something that was pioneered in this very forum in 2007 by Santo, against great resistance from K-40 lovers. Check out my forum admin pinned post for references. Agreed. To pick up the base case and business rationale I touched on earlier here, as far as I know, Kodak is producing this camera to provide the overall market for the format with a functioning Super 8 camera, beyond the risks of buying ill-maintained second hand cameras which's crappy output tarnishes the medium's aesthetic, reputation, and potential. The absence of reliably functioning gear is the biggest thread to the format since the battle for commercial viability through sales numbers, which had been the threat to the format throughout the 1990s and 2000s. So, the new camera functions as a pre-requisite vehicle to allow Kodak to sell Super 8 film in a vertically integrated way, providing film stock, development, scan, and distribution in a one-stop/one-price solution. This is what Kodak itself has always been about, after all, not just for S8. This may look like going back to 1960s "consumer" models, but as I have argued, these labels no longer work for the people producing material on media at different scales and reaches nowadays. EDIT: extensive typos as I was originally writing this post during pre-boarding -_-

This camera will be for the professional and educational market who have no longer time and budget for insecurities and risks associated with maintaining second-hand production cameras made 50 years ago. This will not be a camera, either in features or in price, for the occasional video shooter or Youtuber moving away from DSLRs, videocams or phone cams, with no understanding of "how to tape video on film". People who will actually buy this camera will know the costs, and won't have time or mindshare for pitchforking Kodak on Facebook about "3 minutes of video" for the cost of a Franklin or 15 Churchills. The production chain Kodak will propose with this camera and bundled film/dev/digi packages will be analog image acquisition and a full digital post. Anything else does not make any commercial sense. I think the rumours of new reversal films and projectors are fanciful nonsense emerging from an ill-advised and maybe not even intentional "super-secrecy" around this camera. Not even during the hysteria after he death of K-25 and K-40 did people go as silly with nostalgia as now. Get a grip everyone. B) What's next in the rumor mill? Kodak launching a new wet splicer, resurrecting Hammann, launching a new S8-Moviola? :rolleyes:

Real professionals shoot at 18 fps ;)

Well put, and in your 1000th post here as well :) .

:D , yes, indeed!

Thanks Heikki! Yes, I've seen this rumour and the contributions of Anthony Schilling and Will Montgomery. My point person here in the UK told me of R&D delays, but nothing about a push forward of the release window. I am not sure about the frame stability issue. The surmised problem with frame stability is one primarily related to the design of the Kodak Instamatic cartridge itself. Film gate and claw movement engineering have been able to reduce frame instability pretty well in, say, Super 8 production cameras. Those cameras were costly in consequence, but it has been resolved 40-50 years ago already. And industry and academic institutional purchasers (which will have to be the bulk buyers to make this a viable product, as "filmshooting amateurs" longing for the Kodachrome era are simply no longer a demographic that matters commercially) will choose Super 8 aesthetically because of frame instability, not despite it. It's part of the format's associative distinction and what attracts people who grew up with digital formats and who are discovering analog formats as something "novel". If the frame instability is so bad, though, that it's just visually catastrophic, then that would indicate a more serious construction and design issue with the entire camera. The investment to fix that could push the entire project into economic unviability. Prospective buyers I spoke to expect this to retail at US$ 500 to actually make a purchase. That would be extremely cheap for a brand new opto-mechanical fine-engineered instrument like a Super 8 camera. I think the sweetspot for institutional buyers stops at US$ 1500 to US$ 2000. Will anyone buy it if it has to retail at US$ 3500 to make a ROI? After all, that would be today's price for a 1980s Nizo professional camera, adjusted for purchasing power and inflation changes. I remain optimistic about the "Kodak Neomatic Model 2016 2017", but Kodak now using the mailing list data collected specifically for the Kodak Collection™ and The Super 8 Collective™ to promote the so-so Kodak Ektra smartphone, a licensed product by manufacturer-for-hire Bullitt that simply fails to convince at that price tag, is not really encouraging.