Should Kodak Invest in Low Cost Super-16 Camera Production?

[Patrick Cooper]

"This can be good choose of cheap Super 16 camera ?"

 

Sounds ideal to me!

[Alessandro Machi]

Guys, he's coming from his heart, but I do feel that he's going off into left field. If Kodak were to do such a project with 16mm, yes they should be laughed at. Now, I do see potential for a Super8 camera, heck even a Super8 disposable camera for learning with. Modify the premise behind those one-time-use cameras, and you have something you can learn with. Just need a low-cost S8 scanner.

 

I'm not agreeing that Kodak should be laughed at. Should the guy who started shooting wedding videos on film be laughed at as well? Sure Kodak should probably partner up, I'm just not sure who would actually want to partner up with Kodak to make new Super-16 cameras.

 

There is a free wheeling spirit to digital cinematography that Super-8 cameras come closest to emulating in the film world (but without sound recording capability). If you ever can pick up a Eumig 881 PMA, you'll go "wow". It's possible to never even figure out all the combinations that the camera offers. If that level of "freedom" existed on a Super-16 camera, it would generate a new young wave of interest.

 

The Kinor and the Eclair sound interesting, but in the realm of single frame, time-lapse and time-exposure work they would fall flat. The idea behind a new Super 16mm camera would be that it could meet the demand of "normal" film crew style of filming, but then also be capable of in-camera effects for those shoots where one just wants to experiment and isn't even going to crew up. My avatar logo was all done in camera on location.

[Olex Kalynychenko]

The Kinor and the Eclair sound interesting, but in the realm of single frame, time-lapse and time-exposure work they would fall flat. The idea behind a new Super 16mm camera would be that it could meet the demand of "normal" film crew style of filming, but then also be capable of in-camera effects for those shoots where one just wants to experiment and isn't even going to crew up. My avatar logo was all done in camera on location.

 

Why you think, what Kinor-16 can would fall flat in the realm of single frame, time lapse mode ?

Kinor-16 have mechanism with one transport and one registration pin and can stoped frame on fixed position.

If you ready to order of single frame and time lapse motor for kinor-16 , i can go to finish of my project with stepper motor and microprocessor control.

And , I think, the Kinor-16 with time lapse module will have high quality footages.

 

From other side, you can to order of Kinor-16 with " standard" motor and with crystal sync speed control with speed synthesizer. This is synthesizer can set minimum speed from 5 fps with step of 0.1, 0.01, 0.002 fps.

Ths is not full time lapse motor, but, can be use too.

[Walter Graff]

So the question now becomes, why doesn't Kodak pick up the new motion picture film camera torch and design a low cost Super-16mm camera?

 

Because that is not their business. This post seems to make the assumption that making motion picture film is Kodak's main business. It is not. They're healthcare division is bigger than their motion picture division. Yes, Kodak does healthcare. Actually for some time they have been committed to digital acquisition in the consumer world. Kodak is one of the largest manufactures of digital imagers. In the motion picture world, Kodak is selling more 16mm today than they did five years ago. Film is not going anywhere but it is actually only a small part of Kodak's overall business. I don't believe adapting a film camera will do anything beneficial. We already have a number of companies that specialize in such products and Kodak would gain nothing in such an endeavor. Yes more and more students are using video for acquisition but the motion picture industry was always small and while it seems everyone is a filmmaker these days the number of real filmmakers remains relatively constant so getting film cameras in the influx of wannabe filmmakers will not hedge the tide toward making film.

 

 

"There isn't one video format ever invented that I can think of that didn't involve a tape manufacturer also making a video camera to support the tape format."

 

For 15 years Ikegami made the industry standard in broadcast cameras and was the leader in sales yet never made one part of the recording device. Sony made it for them.

[Clive Tobin]

...I'm not sure if the Telecine systems would allow for this, but if it does you can save money by filming at only 20 frames / second. This will make a Reel last 25% longer.

20 FPS film will transfer to NTSC video with a simple 3 pulldown, equivalent to using a 3 blade shutter. And a low budget operation can transfer to PAL with a 2-1/2 blade or 5 blade shutter. We could set up our TVT Tobin Video Transfer telecine machines for this if anybody wanted it.

[Jim Feldspar]

"I'd still like to see some of the aggressive options that were put on some of the higher end Super-8 cameras in Super-16 camera, such as multiple filming speeds, single frame, time-exposure, time-lapse."

 

A Bolex H16 has all of those features! Time lapse of course is all manual but there's nothing to stop you from purchasing an interval timer. When I first started doing time lapse in super 8 with my Canon 1014E, I had to expose single frames manually while looking at a stop watch for reference. It took me a few months to get hold of an accessory interval timer.

 

 

Yeah, but what about those Bolex lenses? I used a Bolex for some shots to intercut

with footage from a 16BL with an Angeneiux 12-120 and yeah they were both 16mm

but they didn't match real well and maybe they're not intended to but it made me

disinterested in Bolexes.

[Patrick Cooper]

"Yeah, but what about those Bolex lenses?"

 

Out of curiosity, what lenses were you using on the Bolex? Ive seen some very nice, sharp footage exposed with a Switar macro lens. While Ive heard that Angeneiux lenses, while being good, are not great. Then again, I admit that when viewing docos and tv specials, Ive never known which footage was exposed with Angeneiux lenses so I can't make a proper judgement of this company's lenses.

[Will Montgomery]

As Walter points out more students will be going into digital "film" making and we will probably see a slow decline in traditional film usage.

 

However, another interesting trend is the explosion of consumers editing their miniDV footage on their computer and some considering film for that use. I know about 4 or 5 people that went out and bought Super 8 cameras then some bought 16mm after editing miniDV for a while. One person told me after transfering their parent's Super 8 footage from childhood it made them yearn for that look which led them back to film.

 

As more people get into video editing, even at the most basic level, a small percentage (very small) might consider film again. I think a few strategic ads by Kodak in consider video magazines could propel this. But as has been discussed already, Kodak doesn't want to be seen as pushing yesterday's technology.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Average people are buying Digital Picture Cameras because they erroneously believe Digital is better than Film. If they were to become aware of Film's virtues, they would go back to using Film.

 

On one hand "average people" tend to think any thing digital is better, better does not refer to picture quality.

It refers to convenience. Such as instant pictures, passing the camera around so everyone can look at the picture just taken. Not having to pay for processing and prints. Being able to email pictures, better yet sending pictures over a cell phone.

If "average people" believe picture quality is more important than being able to carry a "camera" in one's pocket and send pictures out over the ether, would cell phone cameras be so popular?

When "average people" use film any more it's usually a dispossible camera.

& it isn't/wasn't unusual to let a partially exposed roll of film in the camera for a year.

 

Since you refer to "average people" you consider yourself something of an elitist, which most people on this forum probably do.

There's a concept known as 'good enough'. & our levels are set higher than that of "average people".

Picture quality is beyond their 'good enough' point compared to the convenience.

[Terry Mester]

On one hand "average people" tend to think any thing digital is better, better does not refer to picture quality. It refers to convenience. Such as instant pictures, passing the camera around so everyone can look at the picture just taken. Not having to pay for processing and prints. Being able to email pictures, better yet sending pictures over a cell phone. If "average people" believe picture quality is more important than being able to carry a "camera" in one's pocket and send pictures out over the ether, would cell phone cameras be so popular? When "average people" use film any more it's usually a dispossible camera. & it isn't/wasn't unusual to let a partially exposed roll of film in the camera for a year.

When I talk about people using Digital Cameras "instead of Film", I'm certainly not

talking about the trivial and unimportant pictures people take with a Cell Phone Camera. I'm only talking about important pictures of family and friends. As you correctly note, people now take all kinds of pictures with a Digital Camera that they never took with Film Cameras. Film however doesn't only provide "quality" -- it also provides long-term retrieval. I've been taking pictures for 29 years, and I can easily make new pictures from my Negatives. Beyond 10 to 15 years, good luck to anyone trying to retrieve a Digital Picture! Those "Disposable" Cameras come with tiny plastic Lenses, and cannot provide a high quality picture like a regular Film Camera. If you would like to know more about Film vs Digital Photography, you can find an Article on this on the Website linked below in my Signature.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Terry Mester

[Walter Graff]

I guess it doesn't help your idea that Kodak today said that it might even sell it's film unit to help get it out of the red.

 

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/28z4tj

[Nathan Milford]

I guess it doesn't help your idea that Kodak today said that it might even sell it's film unit to help get it out of the red.

http://tinyurl.com/28z4tj

I don't suppose that Kodak would sell it's 'professional' and motion picture imaging divisions. They'd hold onto to their prestige markets even if they ran at a bit of a loss. I do, however imagine Kodak might sell it's consumer film line and cut production and development in the prestige lines.

[Charles MacDonald]

I don't suppose that Kodak would sell it's 'professional' and motion picture imaging divisions. They'd hold onto to their prestige markets even if they ran at a bit of a loss. I do, however imagine Kodak might sell it's consumer film line and cut production and development in the prestige lines.

Tricky balancing act that... Rember they have already shut down the coating lanes in the UK, Australia and Toronto. John P mentioned that they were pulling Super 8 back to rochester, which probaly means that the French divison is also cutting back.

If they were to sell the conventional film business as a complete unit, they might not have the facilities to Make ANY film. They could of course arrange to have it made on a private label basis by the firm that would buy the actuall coating line. (they could of course sell the busness, but keep making the Bulk rolls thenselves, with the buyer doing the conversion from master rolls, then they could keep the MP production going.

 

I have not heard anything about how much production has or is going to move to china. Their plat in China is suposed to be capable of better product than rochester just because all the equipment is fairly new.

 

I guess that the X-ray business that Mr. Schwartz bought gets its film from colorado?

[Terry Mester]

Reading this depressing Business Story only further confirms how incompetent Antonio Perez is at heading Kodak. He wants to sell off Kodak's lucrative Healthcare Unit for the same amount of money it makes in annual revenues: $2.55 Billion. Perez must be crazy. A business should be sold for about 4 times its annual revenues. I know of the businessman who runs Canada's Onex Corporation, and if he wants to buy this Healthcare Unit, then it must be a very good business since he would never buy a business failure. The fact that Perez would even muse about selling Kodak's Film division only confirms his unfitness to head that Company. I hope the Kodak shareholders revolt, and dump Perez before he destroys it.

[Alessandro Machi]

"I'd still like to see some of the aggressive options that were put on some of the higher end Super-8 cameras in Super-16 camera, such as multiple filming speeds, single frame, time-exposure, time-lapse."

 

A Bolex H16 has all of those features! Time lapse of course is all manual but there's nothing to stop you from purchasing an interval timer. When I first started doing time lapse in super 8 with my Canon 1014E, I had to expose single frames manually while looking at a stop watch for reference. It took me a few months to get hold of an accessory interval timer.

 

Does it have an orientable viewfinder?

[Alessandro Machi]

For 15 years Ikegami made the industry standard in broadcast cameras and was the leader in sales yet never made one part of the recording device. Sony made it for them.

 

That's an example, but... Ikegami was king before dockables existed. Once dockables came into the picture, Ikegami's prominence lessened. Hitachi managed to stay in the game as well on some level but the prominence of both lessened once dockables came into the equation AND neither makes tape.

[Alessandro Machi]

The whole premise is basically flawed because Alessandro seems to think that a modern Arri 416 (crytsal sync, mirror shutter, quiet, 400' mags, etc.) basically can actually be made on the cheap and given away -- and that Kodak can make an Arri 416 in the first place without spending years building up a movie camera division or outright buying a movie camera company.

 

Alessandro is not willing to accept older 16mm cameras and he's not willing to accept a stripped down modern camera like an Ikonoskop A-cam -- no... he wants Kodak to somehow give away state-of-the-art $30,000-50,000 movie cameras, or miraculously make them for a couple of thousand a piece.

 

Since when have professional-grade, expensive-to-make, precision machines been made and then given away by a company that doesn't even specialize in such technology?

 

It would make more sense for Kodak to give away what they DO make in the first place, film!

 

This proposal is up there with the one about getting studios to shoot more features and TV shows on 16mm Kodachrome in terms of impracticality.

 

You can't get away from the fact that high-quality movie cameras with professional features are expensive to make. As someone else said, Aaton strains to sell the A-Minima at its price point.

 

I'm not sure why we are all even still arguing over this premise, it's not even in the realm of possibility. If I proposed it to a Kodak executive, I'd get laughed at. "OK, sir, here's the plan to sell more 16mm film... you somehow create a new movie camera division... make a modern Arri-equivalent professional Super-16 movie camera... listening?... and then you give it away! Then all those people with your free movie cameras will spend money that they now magically have to buy more film! What do you mean that's ridiculous? Why are you walking away from me..."

 

I don't feel this is accurate of my position. I'm open to new information. I've primarily pointed out that companies that originally partnered with Kodak kind of stopped short at some point and actually invested in competing formats. This has happened both in film still photography and motion picture photography.

 

Whether it was a "prudent" position for those companies "survival" or not, it was film profits that enabled the new digital techologies to gather steam for companies that had grown with film. How Kodak can propel new camera construction is open to discussion. Why not take bids and see who out there is hungry enough to pass the torch for newer, hipper, more versatile Super-16mm cameras? Apparently some designs already exist, unfortunately, I think they may have snubbed existing Super-8 camera capabilites, which are far more plentiful compared to Super-16mm and 35mm.

 

The key is to EXAMINE the Super-8 cameras and figure out how many of the capabiliites certain Super-8 cameras have and see if they can be added to a Super-16mm camera. Modular side panel designs could really open the film field up to a whole new student population. While it's true it can be expensive shooting on film for the independent filmmaker, shooting at lower filming speeds, plus single frame, plus time-exposure, can open up new opportunities for newbies to get experience while creating short film clips that might be stock footage worthy.

 

If modular designs were incorporated into a new Super-16 camera, one module could offer a plethora of filming speed options, another module could be for crystal sync and slow motion. Simply swap out the module and the camera instantly becomes a second camera. Offer a sound on camera option. A small digital card ecording device that can both be later be sunk up with the film footage, plus the ability to grab some wild sounds as well. That would be huge.

 

The very technology that might one day eliminate film is the same technology that can make a new camera with more capabilites than ever before and at a lower cost.

[K Borowski]

I don't feel this is accurate of my position. I'm open to new information. I've primarily pointed out that companies that originally partnered with Kodak kind of stopped short at some point and actually invested in competing formats. This has happened both in film still photography and motion picture photography.

 

Whether it was a "prudent" position for those companies "survival" or not, it was film profits that enabled the new digital techologies to gather steam for companies that had grown with film. How Kodak can propel new camera construction is open to discussion. Why not take bids and see who out there is hungry enough to pass the torch for newer, hipper, more versatile Super-16mm cameras? Apparently some designs already exist, unfortunately, I think they may have snubbed existing Super-8 camera capabilites, which are far more plentiful compared to Super-16mm and 35mm.

 

The key is to EXAMINE the Super-8 cameras and figure out how many of the capabiliites certain Super-8 cameras have and see if they can be added to a Super-16mm camera. Modular side panel designs could really open the film field up to a whole new student population. While it's true it can be expensive shooting on film for the independent filmmaker, shooting at lower filming speeds, plus single frame, plus time-exposure, can open up new opportunities for newbies to get experience while creating short film clips that might be stock footage worthy.

 

If modular designs were incorporated into a new Super-16 camera, one module could offer a plethora of filming speed options, another module could be for crystal sync and slow motion. Simply swap out the module and the camera instantly becomes a second camera. Offer a sound on camera option. A small digital card ecording device that can both be later be sunk up with the film footage, plus the ability to grab some wild sounds as well. That would be huge.

 

The very technology that might one day eliminate film is the same technology that can make a new camera with more capabilites than ever before and at a lower cost.

 

It's a good thing you aren't running Kodak. Are there ever any sensible things hidden in your verbosity?

 

Film is EXPENSIVE. It always will be. Kodak can only keep it's prices so low to make money, and the price of silver, and petrochemicals (what film base is made from) is at an all time high. You can get a 16mm camera for under 100 dollars a synch sound 16mm (Auricon) for under $400, and a synchable S-16 camera with variable frame rate for under ~$1000. Compared to still films, Kodak offers filmmakers a huge break in the price per foot of rawstock, as do labs in their prices per foot processed. It's nearly double in both sectors in the still photography world for what is essentially the same film technology and amount of silver and base material, and you don't even have the options of short-end/recan or student processing discounts available to you as a still photographer. Why does it need to get any cheaper than that?! Kodak doesn't have the right to dictate prices of cameras, design cameras, dictate prices of telecines or design them. It's a FREE WORLD market everywhere except China, Vietnam, and North Korea, not a communistindustry run by the Eastman Kodak company.

[Sam Wells]

. It's a FREE WORLD market everywhere except China, Vietnam,

 

The world's fastest growing economies.

 

Chances are you used a Chinese product in reading this post & if you're a coffee drinker it's not that unlikely you drank Vietnamese coffee today.

 

I think Allesandro should persuade China Lucky to make this Super 16 camera....

 

-Sam Wells

[Alessandro Machi]

It's a good thing you aren't running Kodak. Are there ever any sensible things hidden in your verbosity?

 

Idiot.

 

Kodak doesn't have the right to dictate prices of cameras, design cameras, dictate prices of telecines or design them. It's a FREE WORLD market everywhere except China, Vietnam, and North Korea, not a communist industry run by the Eastman Kodak company.

 

Idiotic.

[Charles MacDonald]

Idiot.

Idiotic.

one thing that is nice about this forum is that their are a lot of very smart folks who love to spend (valuable) time discussing the magic behind the movies.

 

I have been amazed that this thread has gone on so long, it has run in circles a bit, the main points made are that their are some very capable used 16mm (and super8) cameras available for a song compaired to the cost of making them. Movie film is quite a bit cheaper than still film, it would be nice if the ARRI 416 came in a box of corn flakes - but it never will. And yes, if you want to make some product that is labour intensive, like complecated machinery, you often can do better in the so called "developing ecconomies" which these days is probaly china and india..

 

Kodak is such a large presence in the Motion Picture realm, that many of us have opinions and try and second guess tham. They have not been in the business of making Movie cameras for a very long time. They have also conentrated when they do make cameras on the high end consumer rather then the profesional, even when they used ot make plate cameras, their pro gear was sold under other names, and while a few products were aimed at pros over the years, "retina" Cine Kodak special etc. they always have conentrated their effforts on the middle range.

 

Those that like the magic of the movies should be gratefull that Kodak and Fuji have chosen to use movies as an place to showcase their technology, as the competition has made the products SO much better than they were a few years ago.

 

Anyway , I think that none of the replys to the inintail thread shows any lack of intelegence, and to say that it does may mean a lack of understandig of the dynamics of the group. :blink:

[K Borowski]

one thing that is nice about this forum is that their are a lot of very smart folks who love to spend (valuable) time discussing the magic behind the movies.

 

I'm flattered if you're grouping me into this group. I might now a lot about the technical aspects of filmmaking, and a lot of tidbits about film emulsion that will be worthless by the end of the decade, but when it comes to actually doing it, I'm as big of a damned fool as so many other student filmmakers. I can talk 'til I'm blue in the face about the pristine qualities of shooting film and be just a huge hypocrite (almost but not quite as hypocritical as assuming I could run Kodak) without a completed feature under my belt. It's intersting though that the poster isn't calling David Mullen and idiot or idiotic. So maybe that will serve as further impetus for me to make that first feature ;)

 

I have been amazed that this thread has gone on so long, it has run in circles a bit, the main points made are that their are some very capable used 16mm (and super8) cameras available for a song compaired to the cost of making them. Movie film is quite a bit cheaper than still film, it would be nice if the ARRI 416 came in a box of corn flakes - but it never will. And yes, if you want to make some product that is labour intensive, like complecated machinery, you often can do better in the so called "developing ecconomies" which these days is probaly china and india..

 

I think this is a smart, caring community, and as we all know sometimes people (or communities) are too smart for their own good. When someone is arguing just to trump themselves up, and six pages of intelligent attempts to dissuade their puerile viewpoints does nothing to change their viewpoints, those six pages worth of comments represent little more than a great deal of wasted effort (and, as you aptly point out time; God knows I am on this thing far far far to often, to the point that it is a detriment to me actually getting out there and learning filmmaking by doing). This thread, and its wasted effort are at least offset in my mind by deriving small satisfaction that the arguments presented here will, hopefully, dissuade others from adopting similar foolish stances in future threads here, but that is probably a mental illusion. I'm sure there are others that are as arrogant and intractable that have been waiting for the right moment to launch another silly speculative post about how they have the key to solve all of Kodak's problems if Kodak would only listen. I wish I had that sort of delusional naivete sometimes, because I'd probably sleep better at night if I didn't worry about the future of my chosen profession (and the impact that a world without Kodak would have on my aspirations) :(

 

(This is a very wordy way of saying that threads with a lot of bullshit occasionally are presented well enough to fool industry professionals and knowledgeable industry experts into actually taking the time to address them, as this one is. Another way of saying this is: this thread was finely spun flamebait.)

 

Anyway , I think that none of the replys to the inintail thread shows any lack of intelegence, and to say that it does may mean a lack of understandig of the dynamics of the group. :blink:

 

I appreciate again, your grouping me in with far more knowledgeable and experienced posters here. With the exception of the silly remark that China and Vietnam are successful lately (and by what means? adopting Americanized business models, embracing western culture, allowing foreign investment?) without looking at all of the failures: Russia, all of E. Europe, N. Korea, soon Cuba, ithere are a lot of deeply-thought out retort's to the poster's initial objecctions about Kodak, which he then attacks instead of acknowledging or counteraddressing.

 

One final point: The original poster knows that our replies to his initial quesiton have been truthful, and correct in pointing out the flaws in his thinking. This is the SECOND of his posts that uses a silly bullshit argument disguised under a lot of silly reasoning and verbosity. Anyone remember how ironic it was that the poster disagreed with an industry professional currently working on a TV series, when the said industry professional argued that Super 8 would be pointless in a TV production? What happened to the boy that cried wolf a third time? Let's let further non-rational remarks by this poster go unanswered.

 

(The only reason I'm pondering this stupidity, or even answering this thread, is that I am marooned in the middle of the night in an empty college computer lab because I couldn't find anyone to jump-start my car; maybe this final over-analysis will prevent further overanalysis of threads like this that shouldn't get a first response.)

Edited February 3, 2007 by Karl Borowski

[Sam Wells]

I appreciate again, your grouping me in with far more knowledgeable and experienced posters here. With the exception of the silly remark that China and Vietnam are successful lately (and by what means? adopting Americanized business models, embracing western culture, allowing foreign investment?)

 

Yes to a real extent, and not silly at all: welcome to globalization. (The "western culture" aspect is a tricky one).

 

Would you be shocked if in ten years Kodak film was a Chinese made product ? I'm not sure it will happen but it wouldn't shock me either.

 

-Sam Wells

[Walter Graff]

"That's an example, but... Ikegami was king before dockables existed. Once dockables came into the picture, Ikegami's prominence lessened."

 

Actually it is a perfect example. On the easy coast those that owned 79E all switched to Ikegami docables. In the early ninties teh HLV-55 and then V-59 outspold Sony two to one. BUT... when it came time to move into the next tape format- Digibeta, Sony who made the decks for Ikegmai realized that simply pulling the plug on selling them decks would effectively take them out of the race, so they did. Ikegami has not made a docakable since other than the edit cam which is 15 years ahead of the currecnt tapeless cmaeras but not a big seller.

[Matthew Buick]

It's a good thing you aren't running Kodak. Are there ever any sensible things hidden in your verbosity?

 

Idiot.

 

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! :lol:

Edited February 3, 2007 by Matthew Buick