Kevin Roy

I don't think competition necessarily would have kept prices down significantly. The decline in the use of film for all productions was worldwide + the studios, since the 70's and 80's when video was starting to emerge as more affordable and accessible. And that registered on the bottomline for Fuji and Agfa hardest. It's been a long long road in this transition, and since then film prices have constantly increased. My recollection is after silver spiked in 1980, Kodak never lowered prices! It's easy in hindsight to point to mistakes made by Kodak, not only in the film arena, but digital. Kodak could have owned digital imaging, so to speak. I think at the price point of $5500, considering that Kodak is a company that can support a new product with added features, and bring it to the market, not to mention the its brand, it's worth it. I think there are strong arguments for someone spending money on a new product, especially for filmmakers just getting into it, as opposed to getting into refurbished vintage equipment (not that that's bad), and trusting there will be support. If I were a young filmmaker (or school or company) in that position, I'd lean towards Kodak. Will the market be what it was? No. But I'll be an advocate to support sustaining what's left for as long as possible. It already is an art thing, and for high level professionals, though I don't see film as ephemeral or a fad even now. It's still here, and it's being invested in. At NAB last year there were at least four companies with new or improved motion picture film scanners. To me and my process, it wasn't the film or processing that was limiting, it was scanning to digital which was in short supply and expensive. And I think that we see that filmmakers of every variety will pay for it because it balances out. In other words, I pay more for film and processing, but way less for scanning now. And I get deals on stock, just like those who buy in bulk. I don't think it is for rich kids or people who want to look cool, primarily. I think it's for artists, filmmakers, film schools, rental houses and people who are serious about the process and adding something new to the palette of options they can choose from or provide, to distinguish their work. And if that is one's MO, they'll figure out a way to afford it whether it's through bathroom processing, shooting short ends, renting a camera, whatever it takes. And I hope Kodak sees that, not just the bottom line. So far, it seems like they do. Compared to making a film on film in the 90's (or prior), compared to now....it's way easier now for a wider group of filmmakers, despite the inflation of the cost of the raw materials. And I think that's a variable to consider in how film can sustain and a clue into what Kodak knows about the market.

Everyone points to the nuanced flaws of this camera relative to the years and years of experience we have working professionally with highly advanced/technical systems. The flaws of Super 8 are well known and obvious measured against the technologies that we've worked with. Kodak should've done this and should've done that. All the points are great, don't get me wrong. But thank god Kodak did something because lest we forget, film has a real likely chance of going away for good, permanently. Case in point, god I loved shooting that Agfa 400XT. Gone. And mmmm, that creamy Fuji 400T Eterna....it was so good. Too bad those companies abandoned film in an instant. And it's not like Kodak is exactly and economically thriving company these days. It's amazing that this even got done. 6-7 years in the making now? Anyway, also, good on all those "hipsters" who think it's cool. Hopefully they'll start shooting more 16 and 35mm some day as their careers advance, so that I can keep my Arri rolling too, or not have to resort to processing 16mm in my bathroom in a garbage can. Maybe one of 'em will buy my camera someday for a good price when I can't lift it anymore. And in my opinion $5500 is not that much cash for a rental house, a film school, or a kid who is willing and capable of slapping down that kind of cash for the latest DSLR BS package with a floaty gimbal thing....which truly will be obsolete in a couple years. I mean, anyone ever try finding storage media for a Red One or getting any support? Good luck. But I digress. The Logmar camera...I want to get my hands on one of those as well. Good for them too. I hope it becomes more widely available.

Not impossible if you have one of diese. ?

I've shot some beautiful Super 8 and I think it has some really special qualities. So glad Kodak has made this important investment for artists and students of the medium who really want to explore the process of working with film. In the hands of the right filmmakers, I think we can expect to see some really interesting and inspiring work that will further propel new interest in film. From my conversations with a few folks close to its development, there's definitely a few niche areas they are/were focusing on. Kudos to Kodak and all those talented and dedicated people for doing their very best to bring us this incredible camera. I'm looking forward to unboxing one and testing it out, asap.

Sorry I don't have any footage posted. Keep in mind that the 11-20 is meant for S35, which equates to about 22-40 on a S16 camera. There's no exposure change that is discernible through the range of the zoom. It's a consistent 2.9. It's a well built modern lens and it feels solid. When I bought my camera, I abandoned looking for older Zoom lenses like the Canon's. I shot so much with that older glass I couldn't bear to bring myself to go back to that look which seems largely a result of the older coatings. And I couldn't afford the latest greatest zooms. I'd be interested to hear other testimonials on the Tokinas for s16. So far I'm the only one, I think, doing it.

It's a rabbit hole. I chose perhaps a rather unconventional approach to lenses for my SR3 which you might want to consider. On a bit of a budget, I chose a Tokina 11-20 and a 50-135, then picked up an Optar 8mm for wide angle stuff. I'd prefer a 9.5 or 12mm though, but the 8mm has a look that I like. There's still a gap in focal length but for what I do, it works. The Tokinas seem to me, less "vintagey" looking which I like. Plus if I need to cover S35 on the latest digital cine cameras, I can. Just a thought.

Before I remove this plate off the video assist (image linked below) to repurpose it to mount a second battery to power some accessories, is the piece something I can obtain? Seems like it should be a standardized piece of hardware. I just don't know what to search on to find it. Thank you. I imagine this mount has been used to attach other accessories, like a french flag, so it seems like there might be availability. Thanks again.

Thanks for the feedback. It seems most Portabrace bags that I can find are a little too small I think. I actually have one that I use. If it was a little bigger it would be perfect. I did find this: https://www.caseclub.com/product/case-club-cc2914153isk-case/ It has the dimensions that I think would work but soft but sturdy like a Portabrace would be better. Probably searching for a ghost but any other ideas are welcome.

For an SR3 I have a hard shell shipping case however I'm looking for other options. Does anyone have any recommendations for a soft yet sturdy case/bag that I can sling over my shoulder to tote around an SR3 w/ a zoom, 2 mags, a couple of batteries, charger + a few accessories? The camera would pretty much live in the case when I'm on the road shooting, so it does need to afford some protection as well. Any good options? Thank for the insight.

Flange depth is pretty easy to measure but I'm not sure what's required to make the adjustment on the Canon. Some sort of shimming I imagine. You'll see there is an issue if the image does not stay in focus when you zoom. The other issue is that the witness mark on the lens may not match the actual measured distance to the point you are trying to focus. A focus puller will prefer pinpoint accuracy so they know the distance marked on the lens exactly matches their tape measurement, especially in low light situations working wide open.

Ah yes, so it is. I thought this link was informative. https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/06/11/tokina-cine-11-20mm-t2-9-review/ I use mine to shoot Super 16, and have never had issue with the sharpness. When I was looking to purchase, I opted for the Tokina given its shorter focal length. I also have the 50-135. It would be nice if the Tokinas were a stop faster though, like the Sigma. I'm shooting film though. With digital, perhaps its less of an issue. As the review article points out, I do agree that the 300° focus rotation on the Tokina can be a bit of a challenge.

I don't think that the Tokinas are rehoused at least that has never been my impression when working with them. I can report that I'm extremely pleased with my Tokina 11-20 2.9 and it has all the features and build quality I would expect from a moderately priced cinema lens.

Thanks everyone for the info. I'm probably unnecessarily fixating on the update though it would be nice improvement to have it seems. My camera came to me with a new (or refurbished?) gate anyway, though apparently "aftermarket," which is what I was told. And I don't think I'm shooting enough for wear to be a real concern. And I'm considering just finding an Advanced body as suggested, just to satisfy my craving and perhaps mitigate any obsession that the internet has a special way of amplifying. ? All insight appreciated.

Yes, it's the whole gate that would need to be swapped. One must exist somewhere, some place. That would be a nice upgrade I think. If anyone has a lead, I'd be happy to follow up on it. Camera being parted out somewhere, maybe? Thanks all.

Does anyone know if film guides on the SR3 are upgradable to the SR3 Advanced guides with sapphire rollers? Are they even available, perhaps aftermarket?