Christian Schonberger

Just my 2C: I am not addressing anyone in particular! Well I do care what my camera looks like. I am a musician and I care about what my keyboard looks like, because it inspires me if it looks the way I like - and a lot of my colleagues are with me. There's a reason software emulations have a certain look and design as their user interface. It's inspiring if well done. Any guitarist (for example) cares a LOT about how their guitar looks. Not for the audience, but for themselves. I love stuff that looks sturdy and cinematic in one way or another (for me). Heck I even like that light chemical scent of unexposed film stock. It's all part of the experience. I admire young folks who shoot short films on a DSLR camera, mainly built for stills photography (basically still looking exactly like the classic Nikon F4). But the inspiration of actually working with a beauties like the classic 1960s Arriflex or Mitchell models is out of the equation. I am NOT getting nostalgia mixed up with what inspires me. I'll gladly accept an Arriflex SR3 or 416 - or an Aaton A Minima. :-D I do care how a camera looks. For myself because I'd like a camera that is both good and looks great for me. It has to scream: "film, movies!" (for me that is). I don't care what others think about my camera. Just my humble 2C and my opinion. Christian P.S. just found this footage on Vimeo. Wow!!!!!!!! That's (so the uploader claims) an Eclair NPR ("Woodstock" 1970 - anyone?) expertly converted to Super 16. I'd buy that in a split second (if I could). Check the image quality (that's what I'm talking about!):

Thanks again for the information. That is fantastic news! Even if the movie was originally filmed in digital (or heavily tweaked and with lots of CGI, which I am not against - only if it looks bad or overdone) the prints are still in good old 70mm 5 perf vertical. I remember seeing the exact same print (I remember where the scratches were - some vertically running others clearly rubs on the emulsion side - green an yellow = magenta is the top layer, yellow the bottom one, very likely from bad loops) twice during the '70s: Kubrick's "2001" (so we are talking early '70s print stock or earlier!). It was simply breathtaking - and all those slow, lingering shots make much more sense - you can look around and discover details and textures everywhere! I also saw quite a few blow up prints, including "Aliens" (re-run early '90s) which was rather grainy (originally filmed on spherical 35mm as you all know - and Cameron complains about the grainy 35mm film stock available at the time on the DVD director's comment track) but still great and certainly better than any 35mm print from that time. I remember seeing one freeze frame (for fade and titles, near the end - obviously good, clean optical printer work) and the 35mm film grain stopped, remained rock steady and no secondary grain swarming around it. That's how much resolution the 70mm print had! Yep: if the intermediate has enough resolution: 5 perf vertical 70mm is absolutely stunning: it is beyond pin sharp, transparent, yet has that film look (it is not eye piercing but silky without being soft or grainy, gorgeous and invites you to look at it instead of "hitting you in the face"). That is brilliant news: 70mm means lots of film stock being sold (and made) for just one print. Now clean and grease those machines and fire up those xenon lamps! Unfortunately all traditional movie houses here in Lisbon, Portugal that had 70mm projectors installed, are long since closed (multiplexes took over for good somewhere in the late '90s). Will look out for the right movie to watch in the near future on this great format and get my plane ticket :-) Christian

Yep. Makes sense. Never tried it, but perhaps the GK-Film pressure plate helps stabilize the film inside the cartridge. Problem: if Kodak sells it or even talks about it, it will cause confusion - besides it being admitting that the Kodak cartridge is a flawed design (and always was) and the source of a lot of troubles with Super 8mm. Single 8 and Double Super 8mm - all perform(ed) much better. I watched a Super 8mm film (black and white) at a Super 8mm film festival back in 1981. It looked fantastic, rock steady and sharp - I had to turn around and verify that it was indeed the Bauer T 610 Super 8mm projector the light beam was coming from. I asked the filmmaker after the festival: it was done in double Super 8mm (Canon). The result on screen was very close to 16mm. Huge difference! Christian

Thanks for the information (re: Logmar rollers). Yes: I knew that Logmar production stopped because of lack of interest. This might change in the near future. I hope for the best (Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge though relying on friction alone and with plastic pressure plates from inside the cartridge - you won't get a steady picture and focus AND aiming just at people who don't care is not the greatest idea in my book). The design of the non-functional Kodak Super8/Max8 prototype is (IMHO) really too much" "70s future retro combined with Lego blocks). It looks disposable. The Logmar looks exactly like what it is: a fine, precision handcrafted, precious camera. The new design doesn't provide the buyer with any sense of class or feel of "cinema". It looks cheap, feather light and disposable. I miss the feel of "heft" and "value" here. I think (not defending anyone who can defend themselves!!!!): "bloke in a garage" was purely referring to the exterior design. Anyway, these are just my personal opinions, I don't belong to any kind of "group" neither "digital or analog film", "Super8 or 16mm". I just try to apply common sense, my humble knowledge and try to achieve the best possible within my taste and budget. 1) I am all for Super 8mm - I just go for Super 16mm because it is a larger format and I happen to like it a lot. 2) I really want Kodak to make it and help make film once again the gold standard for the movies and for the finest an image can look. 3) I simply don't like the design of the new Kodak camera. It's an ugly shiny plastic brick with a tiny lens and it has a toy look and feel to it. It looks cheap and doesn't fit anywhere (it doesn't look modern, it doesn't look like a film camera and it doesn't look vintage). You won't get the old film buffs and you won't get a new target market - not for USD 1000,00 or more plus film and turnaround in bits of 2 1/2 minutes in a quality that simply doesn't cut it (please let's be honest here - I'm NOT an elitist, this is a matter of being dead honest, otherwise the Logmar system with pressure plate and pin registration wouldn't even exist - it exists because there IS a problem with the Kodak Super 8 cartridge: a huge problem to be addressed in any new Super 8mm camera!). Not every potential buyer goes for nostalgic retro - you will lose a ton of customers if you only have one choice: accept blindly how the footage turned out without any true control nor immediate feedback. Not in 2016. Someone really got it wrong. Look at, say the classic Beaulieu 4008. That looks like pure precision vintage class, because it is! That kind of design, even simplified, would be the way to go! And again: Kodak: do something about that old cartridge - don't blow this gig, please!!!! Christian That's MY opinion.

Yep, I know about the exact aspect ratio of Standard Super 8mm and Max8 (originally: Super-Duper-8). Obviously, when referring to vertical headroom I was talking about Max 8 and its practical uses: 16:9 (1.78:1) HDTV/BluRay etc. or 1.85:1 American non anamorphic cinema widescreen. I am not a fan of open perf scans or any scan that isn't cropped to100% sharp edges compatible with existing standards (1.33:1 and Academy 1.37:1 included - both can and should be seen in the "pillar box" style aspect ratio on widescreen HDTV and BluRay), because without sharp edged crops it looks unfinished and "archival material" or "test footage" - because it is (that is the way I see it - other opinions highly respected). I see no point in using 1.58:1 (the full Max 8 frame) unless cropped to 16:9 - the format it is intended for and Phil Vigeant (whom I greatly admire) makes that 100% clear in his Pro8mm video (I hope it's O.K. to post a hot link to a YouTube video here): I read an article about the Logmar (I really don't recall where). There it states exactly that it turned out in some cases that the Logmar only preforms 100% well at 24 fps and that there are issues with the rollers that hold in the Kodak cartgridge pressure plate to get out the loop into the precision camera mechanics (which I find a genius idea BTW!). I also read in several articles that the Logmar was a limited run and that the project has been stopped for good: no further development. Of course without such a new, innovative construction going through extensive field tests (long term reliability etc). I considered it basically "beta testing". The word "prototype" meant: "Not 100% thoroughly field tested and re-tweaked for a final, reliable version as the inventors had in mind". That is not to take away from that great camera as it is right now! I really love everything about it: it resolves all issues I ever had with Super 8 (I used this format in its standard framing from 1975 through 1981 extensively - starting with a Agfa Movexoom and stepping up until a Beaulieu 6008 S with the Schneider zoom lens recording sound with the camera (which was excellent at the time). The remaining issues (I personally have) can all be brought down to the lack of "real estate". We both are 100% on the exact same page. I am just not into film 100% professionally but I came "that" close - and never lost my passion (I got in back again a few years ago after thinking there would be no more hope). Here is the (now famous) Logmar footage which blew me away. (not cropped and the film gate is rather dirty - but it shows that this is a whole new ball game (even with the fine grain Kodak Vision 3 50D - which never looked that great on Super 8mm): Best regards - and congratulations on your Logmar: I know this camera is a rare precision tool, bringing Super 8mm to a whole new level. Christian

Yep, thought so right from the start. An entire "forest" of red flags popped up. I guess fresh Wittner with just the right color grading, to make it pop a little more, can look great (seen some very nice footage) and still silky and "film-like". Much better and consistent than picking up overly expensive (seen one closed 100 ft box single perf from 2009 (no exp. date though) with three sharp photos for much more than that! - about USD 150+! - this morning) and unpredictable expired Ektachrome 100D (E-6) from various "sellers". Can get W.C. 200D from Wittner Germany diectly, no customs, in a matter of days. Just a little worried about the estar base. Let's see.... Thanks for the input, Christian

Typing error correction: the aspect ratio of Panavision type anamorphic widescreen (and equivalent with spherical lens processes such as Techniscope and Super 35mm as the camera film stock) is of course 2,35:1. C.

Everything is fine :-) We are talking about the same thing. Just wanted to clear it up to avoid misunderstandings: I always kep an open mind. Well with Max8mm you have, as everyone knows, vertical headroom, so a lot of the jitter can be stabilized by dedicated software (Pro8mm does that already with great results). I wish the Logmar project would have been further developed. To my knowledge it stopped and is still basically a prototype, not fully matured. The results I have seen (at least with Kodak Vision 3 50D and open frame scan - no final cropping) look exellent and more than perfect for the film enthusiast who can't afford 16mm film stock (I basically can't myself at the moment, that's why I do lots of research and advance in baby steps). Good point regarding the Panaflex anamorphic lenses. Some movies definitely have too shallow a depth of field, focus issues and lens aberrations (or artifacts) which still add to the charm and feel are much more obvious now (after many years of non anamorphic Super 35mm being used for 1,235:1 widescreen like, say "Se7en" or "Titanic") than they were back in the day. I remember films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977 - a paradise for film camera buffs BTW!!!!), "Alien" (1979), "Die Hard" (1988) and many in between using the 2x anamorphic 35mm process. All the best, Christian

Sounding great! My idea of a "reverse scanner" never was literally "printing" anything on film. It was always using a photochemical process and something like a continuous printer (since the continuous contact printers - with perf pitch compensation and all - seem to be gone) actually exposing light onto continuously running 35mm film. Much the same as continuous 16mm to Super 8mm optical printers employed for very high quality Super 8mm full length features (by companies such as Derann in the UK, which still exist) since aspect ratio of the 16mm master print negs and one perf per frame are identical to both formats. 35mm to (standard 1:1,37 or projector 1:1,34)16mm had to be step printed to produce either interpositives or print negs - because of modern widescreen (1,166:1 = European and 1,185:1 = American). But of course I'm preaching to the choir - you all know that better than I do (really!). Thanks again. Christian

Well I know we are getting off topic, but I like the conversation a lot. Thanks for all the great information. Now this might be against "house rules" so please if it does: it is 100% unintended and I highly appreciate bringing it to my attention as opposed to receiving warning points :-) I came across this offer on Ebay, but I can't see any images. I contacted the seller and received a reply, but it seemed rather evasive, just referring to the photos I am unable to see. I do NOT wish to discredit the valuable reputation of anyone. I simply see a lot of red flags. Not sure if it's on daylight spools, not sure if it's single perf. Exp date? Seller's history. My purpose posting this here is not only for myself. It is also for fellow film enthusiasts who might have come across the same Ebay item for sale. Here is the offer (the sought after Kodak Ektachrome 100D in 16mm): http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-100D-Ektachrome-100ft-16mm-Rolls-/191808982653?hash=item2ca8b4ce7d:g:SFYAAOSwqYBWncbb If anyone wishes to contact me directly for an honest opinion (to avoid putting anyone's reputation into question - in public): c_schonberger@yahoo.com Thanks a lot, Christian

Thanks for the input. Yep, I knew I was onto something. Thanks again, Christian

Thanks again for the great insight! Last movie I watched on a 35mm print was (oh the irony!) "Super 8" back in summer 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany, where I grew up. It was one last farewell to the projectionist as I turned back and watched through the window (as usual) to see someone carefully threading film into a machine (only possible in small and medium sized movie theaters of course). Did they really physically destroy all those continuous contact printers to strike the release prints? Darn! History repeating itself! They did the same with vinyl records in the late 1980s to push the audio CD (looong obsolete - vinyl is not and slowly coming back - in fact I am in a band project and we plan to release our album on vinyl only - who makes money with CD's? No one. It's all online - we put the album on all platforms we can think of. So at least people can listen to it for free without breaking the law!). The CD (especially in jazz and pop music) was "pimped" (please allow me to use that word - just making a point) in two ways: 1) re-heated, thin, wobbly contaminated vinyl (dust, air trapped, trace amounts of paper labels etc). and stamps which were long worn out beyond the recommended number of copies. Making it all too easy for the digital pushers to point out the supposed bad quality. A win-win situation for the record companies at the time. 2) The CD was sold upon facts that have been long since proven to be 100% false and misleading (I refer to articles in top notch music sound engineering mags such as "EQ"). Compatability problems (many CD's won't play on certain players), no RAM buffer, very sensitive to scratches and damage in certain places (won't play) - and most of all: the resolution (44.1 Khz, 16 bit - the "pixels" of sound, a standard established as early as 1978!) is simply too low (not even talking about early CD players that simply dropped data through a micro chip deciding which is the least sigificant bit and another one deciding which is the most significant (LSB and MSB micro chips - get the idea?) or just had 15 bit converters - no one talked about that at the time!) - that's why pop music sounds so crunchy and over compressed these days: imitating analog and trying to squeeze-in as much information as possible. Mp3 (the "Jpeg" of sound) is even worse..... At least a lot of old vinyl record cutting machines have been rescued from warehouses and are being rebuilt with the latest technology by the old master craftsmen and by young apprentices. Vinyl is also the most durable (when not played) storage format - much more so than digital data and analog tape, the latter will eventually de-magnetize and fall apart. As we speak all existing vinyl pressing companies (that I know of) are unable to cope with demand and still waiting for the market to stabilize before they further expand. Fingers crossed! Back to film: Hopefully someone will come up with the idea of building some kind of "reverse scanner" so no print neg is needed to strike 35mm prints. Perhaps like camera units from the old days of optical step printing (as used also for rendering of first generation CGI). Get your sweet 35mm Fries Mitchell cameras, Mr. Nolan!!!! That would be good for a limited number of prints. For higher number some sort of continuous high speed printing must be used. Sure some sort of "reverse scanner" would be the solution to ensure speed and no print negs being needed. Just me thinking aloud (not claiming to be an expert!!!).... Tons of research and studying throughout all my life - but not a full "hands on" expert by a long shot. Music and sound in general is my gig! Yes: I am of the exact same opinion: cinema as a whole is dying (like music as a whole, for many of the exact same reasons). We are also kind of cornered regarding the choice of film stock. Kodak's reversal stocks are gone, Fuji: gone. Well, let's see how it goes. Christian

That is great news! Well the lower costs (Super 16mm camera(s) and gear - either purchase or rental) and availability - don't apply here in Europe as much as they do in the US. BUT it's over there where everything starts. I firmly believe that Nolan will do something like this (35mm prints only) - since the time is just right, after Tarantino he is (to my knowledge) the next director to exclusively use film (mostly Panavision and IMAX with a natural look - Batman trilogy, Inception... - as far as I know) and after Tarantino paving the way for a whole new generation, it is very likely. Next to follow (hopefully) please: Martin Scorsese :-) P.S. The very best theatrical screening of a 35mm print I ever watched was "Master and Commander", back in 2003 in "The Grove", L.A. I was blown away by the image and sound quality. Here in Europe at the time many film projectors simply weren't bright enough (probably to save money) and often had poor lenses (distracting chromatic aberration on the sides and corners) and even unattended projections drifting out of focus (I remember a few (!) times running out of a multiplex screening complaining - politely - to an employee - it took them forever to follow me, look at the screen and finally admit that this was in fact completely out of focus - while I had to explain: "Are you aware that as we speak I don't see the movie I paid for?" - The answer was a fake polite: "You may go back, I will send someone" (who came and re-focused after I had lost about 15 minutes or more). I didn't demand my money back because it would have probably taken hours to find the manager. I wasn't angry about the underpaid guy I was talking to - nor the manager who only makes money from the popcorn and soda drinks and cuts corners everywhere. I was furious at a well attended screening, completely out of focus - without anyone complaining but me: I had nothing to lose, I didn't watch the movie anyway, just a blur (audience members probably were too lazy to do something about it). Welcome to Europe! :-/ Thanks for the insight, That's really great news - now (film companies!!!): let's make sure some of the old, skilled projectionists teach the young folks how these machines work and how the prints must be treated! At least in countries where people actually care. Christian

Great!!! Love the cast of "The Hateful Eight" and I'm a huge Tarantino fan. Kurt Russell in an ensemble cast, Ennio Morricone, exciting "one of us is not what they seem to be"-story, etc. ...... yep, more than just a huge nod to Carpenter's "The Thing" - a classic! Tarantino really knows what he is doing. He doesn't play it safe. He delivers. Need to catch this on BluRay as soon as it comes out. It's already out of my local multiplexes. "Carol" is now everywhere here. Fine with me: shows that Super 16mm still (and with the new Kodak Vision 3 film stocks and latest scanning technology - more than ever) is a very serious camera format for the big screen. Christian

Mark, Thanks a lot for the links! Barcelona still is quite far away from me and would be very expensive (I would need to book a hotel for the night etc). In Germany it was one of those rare screenings in the original language. So there's hope it will be the same in Spain (even though the main language in Barcelona is Catalan, not Castilian(=Spanish) - you know that of course). But I'm afraid I can't make it. Anyway: good to hear (which I was unable to clearly get out of any article) these are true 1:1.25x anamorphic 70mm prints with the correct lenses supplied and in the original language (subtitles probably not even printed-in because of logistics). Great to know those old 70mm projectors are being fired up again all over the globe! Love Tarantino's "take no prisoners" - "I make it happen: big time!" approach. He does make it all happen: Morricone and true Ultra Panavision camera 65. Way to go! Thanks anyway, Christian

O.K. thanks for the information. Link doesn't work :-( Yep, the screening I heard of in Germany was also at an "art house" where a 70mm projector still exists from back in the day. Good to know the prints come with the anamorphic lens (in the age of the digital intermediate, it wouldn't be hard to make an "unsqueezed", or Panavision 35mm type (needs 2x lens) print. After all most screenings are digital. Thanks again for the details and information. Christian

Just to get this 100% clear: I'm not a purist or elitist or a snob. Not at all. I just do what every single serious film enthusiast (including Super 8mm) does: trying to get the best out of an existing format and minimizing undesired artifacts. Super 8mm vertical jitter is unpredictable because of the Cartridge design. Many people do something about it (or at least try). These are not purists or elitists, but hands-on people who actually do something about issues. Vinyl collectors don't collect vinyl because of the crackles and pops or surface noise. They collect it because it's vinyl, because of the equipment, the look and feel - and the unique silky sound - and most collectors prefer high quality editions in mint condition. As soon as anything "retro" comes into the equation, it will be a passing trend, because eventually people will get tired of it. I like some light image floating and grain on certain older movies but frankly: the vertical jitter and focus pumping on a lot of Super 8mm scans (or projection) simply are too much and distracting. Super 8mm enthusiasts wouldn't talk about it and do something about it all the time if they loved it. Christian

Great! But I somehow doubt that the few 70mm projections of "Hateful 8" here in Europe (heard about one in Karlsruhe, Germany - it simply said: "on 70mm film") are made with the complete Ultra Panavision 70 format. The article (thanks for the link BTW!) clearly states "nationwide" (US-wide). Perhaps some of these machines went overseas at the same time. Cinemas tend to not bother the audience with full tech detail in their posters and pamphlets/programmes and existing theater screens are only so wide (all mechanics nowadays are usually meant for 1:1.66, 1:1.85 and 2.35:1 ratio max) so even with the 1.25x anamorphic lenses there are only two choices: don't crop and you will get a thin stripe within the 35mm CinemaScope/Panavision dimensions, or crop the sides to fit into the image height. I read about the problem in an article (because all local cinemas nearby where I live just show this movie in digital - not interested). Well if some of these machines actually were shipped to overseas (together with maintenance guys and specialized projectionists etc. - just imagine the cost and logistics involved either sending over an American team or assembling a local team!) and installed: awesome! I never read or heard about any of this outside the US. It's already great seeing this effort being made on such a grand scale anyway. I might be wrong about the above. I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it. Thanks again, Christian

Well we do agree 100% about the story of Super 8 (it seems to have been at about the exact same time everywhere in the world). As early as 1979 I heard about the idea to convert cinemas from film to video projection. Which finally came true around 2011 (the last year film prints were delivered to Europe from the major studios, and "digital" was the magic word. Now 70mm film prints are shown of the new Tarantrino film - in selected theaters which still have a 70mm film projector (it remains to be seen if these copies are correctly letterboxed or cropped - I don't see those rare anamorphic lenses with the 1,25x factor being distributed and the image size to be fitted for the existing screen) and the young folks run to see them and put it on social media because they loved it. That's a good sign. I think there are two interpretations of "blokes in their garage" (both metaphors): 1) people who just hastily slap together a concept and present it to the company - have the nerds figure out to make that stuff really work. 2) the old school clockwork precision craftsmen working with all kinds of machinery, magnifying optics and power tools, electronics - old and new. The guys who fully rebuilt, say, just about any 16mm Camera to a modernized crystal sync precision Super 16mm camera. Those are the Hasselblad and Logmar guys. These should have designed the Kodak camera. I heard the Logmar has some trouble at speeds other than 24 fts. Well the footage I've seen is the very best I have ever seen from the Super 8mm format. The idea taking it out of the cartridge through a 16mm-style sprocket drum and guide rollers into a precision film gate/pressure plate with pin registration is fantastic!. That solves about 60% of my issues with Super 8mm. The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: it's very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images). Just my 2C Christian

Great! In my natice Germany Super 8mm really was dead by 1982 (and I still was very active filming in 1981 but it all died almost instantly and video was heavily forced into the market to replace fim, still with external VHS recorders and no editing facilities for some time to come) and even 16mm was being phased out in many a tv station at an accelerating pace because portable video cameras and the 3/4 in video cassette (U-Matic) format changed everything (the last 16mm productions were in the early 90s: mostly documetaries and crime dramas, now with way better telecine transfer and video editing). It was very hard to track down any Kodachrome 40 (even though I knew it was still available somewhere). I had the Beaulieu 6008S and it was really impossible where I lived to get the 200 ft sound cartridge, which I really loved, or even any cartridge. I moved to Portugal in 1985 and there it was impossible to get anything resembling film at the time. It had to be ordered from other countries (no EU back then) and sent back - each time through customs (I was there at a specialized office) never knowing if someone opens your processed reels to see if the content breaks any law - or stealing it, saying it was lost. No internet still to track down nearby film clubs which I heard existed and had it all figured out - but were unable to find. Depends a lot on where you are located. I remember being in a shopping mall in Johannesburg, South Africa, during a band tour, in 1990. I spotted a shop with a lot of vintage film cameras in pristine conditions (Double standard 8mm, Super 8mm and 16mm from around the world, lots of lenses, metal and leather cases - at incredibly low prices). Our guide (a security guy) told us: you can't get anything like this through customs, trust me: you will lose it. Don't purchase anything! Crazy where some stuff you never thought even existed pops up.... Nowadays in the EU it's all pretty much open and custom/taxes free within member countries since long ago. Yep: seen some young film groups actually using film (for the reasons you mentioned). Spotted these on YT, and in all cases they also use video (meaning they are not blindly defending one over the other - but rather knowing the pros and cons and appreciating the results of film when budgets allow). These are usually film students though - but I'm happy whenever I see young college-age people re-discovering film and using cameras like a converted Arriflex (SR2), often accompanied by a pro from back in the day - eager to learn from him/her everything. Seen two examples of young film groups already - here in Europe - doing just that. Let's see if Kodak makes it. The names of well known film directors still using film and defending it - appearing in the ad campaign is a very good idea to connect this new camera to cinema. Bringing some references into it. Christian

Well I look forward too. I wish Kodak all the success. People who love and know film will benefit from it. My reasoning is: what is the mindset of the actual target market? People younger than, say age 50+, don't remember Super 8mm anymore. Died a sudden death around 1881. I was there and read the last articles of monthly publications dedicated to narrow gauge film which all suddenly disappeared after an attempt to include video (even by re-naming the publications, adding "+video") failed. I hope history doesn't repeat itself here in a similar way.... Sure, Super 8mm never really died, but the remaining market consisted of a few selected and informed people. If anything, Kodak's camera will be cool retro - compatible with today's tastes. That's why the camera design (the earlier one with rounded top and bottom even more so) looks incredibly like what "futuristic" was back in the 1970s. It looks like a mix of an old closed circuit video surveillance camera and Lego - let's be honest: the design is not exactly awesome. We know that the video signal coming from the camera is just a reference signal. I have seen all video footage and material I can find online. I hear all the time "This camera does NOT record video also, the output is NOT for video... etc." I am sure, Kodak has to struggle with this problem, because this camera doesn't look even remotely like a film camera of any kind. I'm sure younger folks will get confused by this concept and if the video signal is of poor quality (which it obviously will be) it will make matters worse - in an age when even inexpensive cell phones deliver an acceptable video signal. That's the problem: presenting Super 8mm to a new market, which only knows video. People who really want to buy a Super 8mm camera very likely already checked the internet and know the existing options, pros and cons. It needs to be (re-) introduced to a completely new market to be successful. Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge (GK-film pressure plate?). I bite my nails even thinking about a 20 year old looking for the first time at the scanned footage - full of vertical jitter and focus pumping (applying digital image stabilization - since you have vertical headroom with Max8 - might help just a little bit but it's basically just damage control). I hope this will not be just an expensive hardware/video(=scanned film) version of instagram filters.... Let's wait and see. Christian

Well, I'm following Kodak's Max8 camera project for some time now. Seems Kodak hasn't figured it all out yet, including market research and deals with different labs/scanning facilities. I just know that I'll stay clear of Super 8mm/Max8. Even the best footage with the best scans (Logmar, K. Vision 3 50D) I ever watched is not quite there. Any scanned 16mm camera footage which is acceptable starts immediately to "breathe" (the image isn't heavily compromised by film grain and the many distracting artifacts that come with Super 8mm and that cartridge) and the best 16mm footage I watched looks crystal clear yet silky. Anyway: Kodak,as far as I've seen, insists that this camera does not record video, yet is has an LCD view finder. I think it is in Kodak's very best interest to make sure that this camera won't deliver any usable video signal - otherwise people might just try out Super 8mm and after a few tries (probably unsatisfied with the results or the workflow with no immediate feedback) just use it as a video camera - and Kodak ends up with customers that won't buy any film stock/turnaround. I'll keep an eye just to see what happens. Christian

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind (including the short ends, which I already thought about). Christian

Yep: many things have changed dramatically over the years. I guess no one would have complained if that poetry reading would have been recorded with an array of digital video cameras - including a huge hi tech crane arm swinging over the audience. It's impressive and silent. I'm sure many people don't even know anymore what "film" really is. I myself never had any doubt about it. I remember when a lot of tv shows here in Europe mixed video with film footage. Even with the less than awesome looking VNF 16mm stock with visible splices: I always was relieved when I saw that film look, sometimes with a purr from an Arriflex ST (not to mention tv shows which could afford 35mm). It's not "nostalgia", it's what I truly like. Always did. First time I saw video artifacts in an A-list movie in certain shots sometime in the '90s, I thought: "O.K. That's it: I'm done with being an all-out movie buff". My reason told me otherwise, but the movies (and using film) are not about being reasonable. On one hand I'm glad that recent technology allows many a great pop/rock band to have a lot of entire concerts captured in HD and with some awesome tracking shots. But when I see that rare 35mm pop/rock band live concert footage from back in the day - it just draws me in and is endlessly re-watchable. Sure: wouldn't be possible with an "all film" technology (I have worn out five film projectors in my life - four Standard/Super 8mm, stepping up until the Bauer T 600 with anamorphic 2x lens in front of an Isco zoom lens (which was way sharper and brighter than the Schneider that came with the machine) - and one 16mm (B&H TQ1), which I even "McGyvered" back to life once including replacing reed contacts, replacing the poor quality prime with a nice zoom lens and tapping randomly into the amp circuit board to get a good-ish audio signal from optical sound prints for external amplification - until one day the belts all went bad). I don't blame people for not knowing, or being able to tell, the difference. Not back in the day when it was very obvious - and not now. Anyway: great to know that many people think like me - and are not too dead serious about it. Christian

:-D