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

[Nate Downes]

What I feel Kodak should do is maximize their patent benefit. They are best served by people a) buy kodak digital cameras B) buy digital camera using kodak components c) buy film cameras or d) make new image-related products that they manufacture

 

Kodak is working hard on #1 and #2. #3 is a bit harder, but could be done if Kodak were to step up to the plate as a manufacturing partner for the other companies that have been forced to close down their own film camera manufacturing due to their prior partners having shut down their plants. Nikon has taken a lot of heat due to that shutdown, and if Kodak stepped up producing Nikons film camera lineup for them, they'd gain a revenue stream. d is the best route for growth. I sell cameras for a living, and I get no less than 4 requests per week for a low-cost (sub-$100) film/slide scanner, and 1 a week for a low-cost movie film scanner. Kodak manufactures all of the components for this. Hell, imagine if Kodak took their old Carousel slide projector, and replaced the optics with a digital scanning mechanism. Congrats, they'd suddenly be relevent, *AND* supporting their old *and* new products simultaneously. Imagine if this scanner could hook into an easyshare printer, and use the kodak easyshare software directly! Just imagine...

[Charles MacDonald]

Would you be shocked if in ten years Kodak film was a Chinese made product ? I'm not sure it will happen

I have gotten some "grey market" Kodak - made in China Still film... I am not sure if they coat it their or jeust convert it from master rolls.. see http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/fortune2005/ft050517p38n.pdf

[Terry Mester]

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.

Hi Karl, I haven't seen the Thread you're referring to, and so I can't comment on its arguments. I believe the show "Everybody Loves Raymond" was shot on Super8, and many TV commercials are also shot on Super8. There would be two distinct advantages to shooting an Analogue TV programme on Super8 instead of on Video: "long term retrieval" and "colour quality". Those of us old enough to remember the Eight Track & Beta Tape formats -- now in the dustbin of history -- know how quickly electronic media become obsolete. An optical record on Film will always be retrievable. However, Super8 is too small for HDTV which would need Super16.

(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;

Woe dude. According to the Post you were writing it at 2:46AM on a FRIDAY Night. That's pretty hard up to be in a College Computer Lab at Friday Midnight. ;) I'm surprised you didn't trip the burglar Alarm. If your Car Battery is going dead because of the Alternator drawing current when the Engine is off, you can delay fixing it by just disconnecting one of the Battery Terminals every time you shut off the Engine. A shorted Diode in the Alternator will cause it to constantly use current. If this is the problem, you're betteroff waiting for warmer weather to fix it. :)

[Guest Ian Marks]

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.

 

Vietnamese coffee? Really?

[Clive Tobin]

I have gotten some "grey market" Kodak - made in China Still film... I am not sure if they coat it their or jeust convert it from master rolls.. ...

I remember reading, I think in a Kodak publication, that Kodak has installed the "world's most advanced emulsion coating equipment" in China. Besides, China is an awful long way to send huge master rolls from the USA for slitting and perforating etc. Perhaps they have now stopped doing this in Mexico?

[Terry Mester]

Alessandro, I've just looked at Aaton's Xtera and A-Minima Super16 Cameras. They're sleek and small. What don't you like about them?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Phil,

 

Tell that to David Samuelson. He shot newsreel with a 35mm Mitchell BNC on his own.

 

Stephen

 

Er, you mean an NC. I think it would take Lou Farigno to be a one man crew with a BNC, the damn thing weighs 120 lbs minus support!

 

I've shot a lot of one man crew 35mm with an Arri IIc, with and without support. It's totally doeable.

 

- G.

[marc barbé]

Several years ago, I think it was the late 90's, Panavision began taking their film profits and investing in video lens technologies. Panavision was hedging their bet for the future, lol, even though they were using their film profits to do it. Panavision's decision to invest in video lens technolgies was a huge dagger in film camera production. Knowing that Panavision was basically going to ride out Film with existing inventory, Arriflex could also relax and not aggressively move forward with lower cost Super-16mm cameras. Even so Arriflex did make the Minima, but it still costs around 20 grand (if I'm not mistaken) and uses special wind film..etc...

 

Plus, why should either Panavision or Arriflex kill themselves making a low cost Super-16 camera? A low cost Super-16 camera primarily benefits......Kodak. It probably doesn't make good business sense for either Arriflex or Panavision to make a lower cost Super-16mm camera, but it would be in Kodak's best interest if such a camera were made.

 

In recent years some technologies have flourished by dumping the actual product on the market for free, knowing that the use of the consumeables associated with product would more than offset the cost of the product being dumped onto the market. Example, Epson inkjet printers, capable of printing onto DVD's & Photo paper, sold for under a $100 dollars yet inside the Epson box was $80 dollars worth of inks AND a $15 dollar DVD tray. Epson was basically giving the printer away for FREE! The reason Espon could do that was because each printer could create ink purchases of a few hundred dollars every year, plus several THOUSAND dollars of inkjet printable DVD's and photo paper!

 

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? Perhaps they could even do a special, buy 50,000 dollars worth of film, get a FREE Super-16mm camera!

 

For a rather small investment of less than 10 million dollars (that is a guess on my part), Kodak could reinvigorate the motion picture film market among younger filmmakers. If you were a film student or indie filmmaker and you wanted to make a low budget feature film, and you could budget between $100,000 to $500,000 for your project, wouldn't you salivate at the thought that with a $50,000 dollar purchase of film you could get a free Super-16mm camera!

 

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.

 

Somewhere out there are film cameras that have probably pulled 10 million dollars worth of film. Would Kodak flinch if someone said to them, make a Super-16 camera for 5 to 10 grand, and it will pull a million dollars worth of film in it's first 5-10 years, deal, or no deal?

 

Would Kodak really say no to that?

 

Part of what is leaving film behind is not that it is film, but that there are no new low cost cameras to ever talk about. What a company like panavision failed to do, Kodak could do, and probably for less than 10 million dollars. So the question becomes, if a ten million dollar investment could result in a billion dollars of additional film sales, would that be worth it to Kodak?

 

 

Hi,

Kodak's achievement in film throughout the 2Oth century is amazing; Kodak has openly given that up. Given up Kodachrome, given up most everything before Vision2, which is a beautifully well balanced boring soft scanner-oriented material. This is where we are at. But we can't blame Kodak for movie cameras, they haven't really tried anything beyond Instamatics in the past fifty years. Fuji's new stock is beautiful in the 25O's and 500's. Hopefully, there will be some 16mm film available in the next fifteen years.

As for Kodak, they are interested only in achieving their conversion to HD, wich we all know is ,at this point, "even better than film".

Marc.

Marc.

[Alessandro Machi]

"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 dockable since other than the edit cam which is 15 years ahead of the currecnt tapeless cameras but not a big seller.

 

 

I agree that Ikegami was the standard for a long time, but their first low cost dockables had obscenely bad video gain settings. I don't think they ever really recovered from that. For some reason, it seemed like the camera manufacturers that also made tape were the most aggressive when it came to camera innovations and video deck innovations as well. JVC, Panasonic and Sony all were innovating video decks and dockable cameras throughout the 90's, and they also were selling tape.

 

If anything, Kodak is becoming the Ikegami of this century. They make a great product but they don't do the other half of the equation, just like Ikegami didn't.

[Alessandro Machi]

One final point: The original poster knows that our replies to his initial question....

 

Yes, the "our" word, gives me the creeps when blowhards start using that word to imply they are part of a tribunal when that tribe would probably offer them up as a sacrifice if they ever tried to join without being asked first by the tribe.

 

(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.)

 

Refer to my previous response to you a few posts back.

 

 

I remember reading, I think in a Kodak publication, that Kodak has installed the "world's most advanced emulsion coating equipment" in China. Besides, China is an awful long way to send huge master rolls from the USA for slitting and perforating etc. Perhaps they have now stopped doing this in Mexico?

 

I recall about a year or more ago that Juergen of Small Format Magazine was admonished for making this claim. So is it true, or not?

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro, I've just looked at Aaton's Xtera and A-Minima Super16 Cameras. They're sleek and small. What don't you like about them?

 

This topic is about encouraging Kodak to somehow get involved in the creation of a whole new class of lower cost Super-16 cameras. Additionally, after the topic got going, it dawned on me that what has always bugged me about 16mm is how the cameras really don't come close to offering the amount of filming options found on Super-8 cameras.

 

One Super-8 camera can offer single frame, time-lapse, and time-exposure functions, while at the same time offering a wide variety of filming speeds between 1 FPS all the way to 45 FPS. The amount of creativity that can be generated from Super-8 cameras, if they could be applied to Super-16 cameras, would actually give filmmakers an amazing amount of tools to do their own personal projects while shooting a minimal amount of film in between times when they weren't being hired to do paying gigs.

 

The secret to success for film into the future is to provide film cameras in high resolution formats that allow the filmmaker to create product without shooting a ton of film. Than those types of projects can lead to paying gigs in which the amount of film being shot becomes less of an obstacle in terms of price, the two principles work off of each other nicely.

 

Some of the best films I have ever made in Super-8 were the ones that were not shot in real time, but in time-lapse, time-exposure, and single frame modes. If one wants to call that gimmicky, that would be questionable, because it is the ability to edit down to the frame, and ultra manipulate a project, that is making digital video popular whether or not the resolution is adequate, Film is being left behind because there are very few realistic options for shooting a minimal amount of film for maximum affect, thereby making it unaffordable to the younger crowd.

[Francis Kuhn]

The secret to success for film into the future is to provide film cameras in high resolution formats that allow the filmmaker to create product without shooting a ton of film.

 

Hi Alessandro,

 

Isn't this the whole reason you say Kodak should be motivated to produce a new S16 camera in the first place--to sell more film?

 

BTW I think Aaton's A-Minima is the camera you describe. Maybe you could ask them why it wasn't possible to produce one for less than $15K retail. I suspect it's because it simply wasn't possible to build it for less.

 

-Fran

 

Addendum: I should also point out that Kodak, by virtue of manufacturing the A-Minima's special daylight spools, was instrumental in the camera's development.

[Charles MacDonald]

I recall about a year or more ago that Juergen of Small Format Magazine was admonished for making this claim. So is it true, or not?

I found the package for that roll of Kodak Gold 100 Still film. It actually says .. "made in USA by Eastman Kodak Company Finished by Kodak (china) company Limited Huzhong road Xiamen China." the bar code is 7 891776 500435 and the CAT is 650 0433. the expiry was 08/2001 and the emulsion was 0629 C202B -It is completly in english, and mentions that they are a sponsor of the Sydney 2000 Games so I would guess that it was intended for the Australian market. ???

[Alessandro Machi]

Hi Alessandro,

 

Isn't this the whole reason you say Kodak should be motivated to produce a new S16 camera in the first place--to sell more film?

 

I pointed out that "in between" the gigs that pay, a filmmaker could use their Super-16 camera to do their own projects. As has been correctly pointed out by others, shooting personal projects on 16mm may be too expensive even if one already owns a camera. The solution is to provide the younger filmmaker a way to economize on film for the "in between" projects. I kind of explained this in my previous post.

 

I've actually shot 1-1 ratio, lol, actually it was .90 to 1 when I did the Alphabet Song in Super-8. I spent fifty hours shooting over 10 nights, all on one cartridge of Super-8 film. "He's My Friend" the film being shown at the Rutgers film festival next weekend, also had a relatively small shooting ratio because it was primarily stop-motion.

 

BTW I think Aaton's A-Minima is the camera you describe. Maybe you could ask them why it wasn't possible to produce one for less than $15K retail. I suspect it's because it simply wasn't possible to build it for less.

 

-Fran

 

Addendum: I should also point out that Kodak, by virtue of manufacturing the A-Minima's special daylight spools, was instrumental in the camera's development.

 

 

Is that film always in stock with Kodak, or does the filmmaker have to keep a cache of film available at all times for shoots that come up in a hurry? Does that camera do time-exposure and single frame and time-lapse without additonal add on motors?

[Dan Goulder]

Is that film always in stock with Kodak, or does the filmmaker have to keep a cache of film available at all times for shoots that come up in a hurry? Does that camera do time-exposure and single frame and time-lapse without additonal add on motors?

Perhaps you should ditch your endless parade of excuses, and instead take your own words to heart...

You can come up with reasons all day long why anything won't work. It's just as easy to come up with reasons why it would work.

[K Borowski]

You really are a muckraker Alex. Can you dig up anymore scum that we've written in the past and put it out of context to report against our present arguments? If I were you I'd start by looking up all of our other posts everywhere else on this forum, hell maybe even expand into other forums. Hire private investigators to find out what we tell our buddies at the bar to see if we really mean what we're saying here or if we have secret opinions that are favorable to yours, or just stop beating this dead horse of a thread; Kodak's CEO doesn't want their film division anyway anymore, and we're lucky he hasn't had his way and sold that division off too :blink: Let me define "our" in the current context as everyone in the thread who has raised objections to your speculation, which is about 90% of the posters on this thread.

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem is that Allessandro wants a professional Super-16 camera like the Aaton XTR-Prod, which sells new for $50,000 (body only), or an Arri-SR3 or 416 -- a modern sync-sound Super-16 camera with all the bells and whistles, not a stripped-down camera like the Ikonoskop A-Cam... to be made and sold for under $10,000.

 

While I'm not saying that it's completely out of the realm of possibility, as one of my old UCLA professors used to tell me, it's important to recognize the difference between the possible and the probable.

 

Movie cameras are pieces of precision machining and hand-assembled and the production costs cannot come radically down unless the volume goes radically up, as was possible in the days of the consumer movie cameras made for Super-8 and 16mm. Since those days are over, you're probably never going to see cheap but professional "full of features" Super-16 camera gear being made and sold.

 

You might see HD cameras, though, that are made for the "prosumer" market with an increasing number of features and improved quality. Just as you're seeing digital still cameras come up in quality and down in price.

[Stephen Williams]

Er, you mean an NC. I think it would take Lou Farigno to be a one man crew with a BNC, the damn thing weighs 120 lbs minus support!

 

I've shot a lot of one man crew 35mm with an Arri IIc, with and without support. It's totally doeable.

 

- G.

 

Hi,

 

Yes an NC!

 

I have shot many times with a Fries Mitchell on my own, sold it yesterday for more than I paid in $ terms 5 years ago so I can't complain.

 

Stephen

[Alessandro Machi]

Perhaps you should ditch your endless parade of excuses, and instead take your own words to heart...

 

Are you filtering my responses as if I am on the defensive? Quite wacky no? Do you think Kodak can accurately always keep stock on a much less used film format? The odds are that if Kodak ever were to run short of a stock, it would be a minima stock versus any other 35mm or 16mm stock, it's just simple math.

 

Additionally, are you so unknowing as to not know what time-exposure, time-lapse, and single frame time-exposure functions are about? Please, just don't even look at this topic if you are going to flame in such an uneducated manner about simple camera functions that are found on $350 super-8 cameras but not on $15,000 Super-16 cameras.

 

The problem is that Allessandro wants a professional Super-16 camera like the Aaton XTR-Prod, which sells new for $50,000 (body only), or an Arri-SR3 or 416 -- a modern sync-sound Super-16 camera with all the bells and whistles, not a stripped-down camera like the Ikonoskop A-Cam... to be made and sold for under $10,000.

 

While I'm not saying that it's completely out of the realm of possibility, as one of my old UCLA professors used to tell me, it's important to recognize the difference between the possible and the probable.

 

Movie cameras are pieces of precision machining and hand-assembled and the production costs cannot come radically down unless the volume goes radically up, as was possible in the days of the consumer movie cameras made for Super-8 and 16mm. Since those days are over, you're probably never going to see cheap but professional "full of features" Super-16 camera gear being made and sold.

 

You might see HD cameras, though, that are made for the "prosumer" market with an increasing number of features and improved quality. Just as you're seeing digital still cameras come up in quality and down in price.

 

 

If I can't have it all, can I at least have MORE than what currently exists? Modular design could enable an internal motor to do BOTH 24 frames per second AND time-exposure, time-lapse and single frame functions, and should help keep the cost down as well. Just swap out a side panel module and the camera has several single frame modes available, including time-lapse and time-exposure, put back the original side panel module and the camera offers multiple filming speeds from 2 frames per second to 45 frames per second. If Crystal sync is possible, than I have a camera that does a ton more than what is out there, yet the costs may be kept in check because it is a modular design.

 

The computer age has advanced certain basic design concepts that would allow for more flexibility in the area of camera filming speeds, from 1 frame exposed for a minute, all the way up to 45 frames a second. LOL, it's been done in the Super-8 family as far back as the late 70's, perhaps even earlier than that if one counts the bauer royal series, thirty years later and the above STILL does not exist in ONE 16mm camera.

 

That is not an intelligent way for the film world to proceed at this point in time.

 

You really are a muckraker Alex.

 

Start showing examples if you plan on flame baiting with each post you make. You would do this thread a big favor if you'd stop your incessant accusations and slander that you include in each and every post you make. If you can't refrain from responding in such an idiotic manner time after time it can't ever go back to being the intelligent discussion it was before you started ripping with everyone of your responses. Matthew has surpassed your ability to engage in an intelligent discussion and he's 8 years younger than you.

[Dan Goulder]

Quite wacky no?

That would describe your obsession with this fantasy camera.

[Alessandro Machi]

That would describe your obsession with this fantasy camera.

 

Yes, a fantasy camera that already exists in super-8, has existed in super-8 for over 30 years, and when new sold for $ 364.00, that's the non-modular version.

 

The modular version was made around 27 years ago.

 

But now, 30 years later, that same type of camera, if made in Super-16mm, could only be made for what, 30, 40, 50 grand and it would be completely impossible to make them for less?

[David Mullen ASC]

But now, 30 years later, that same type of camera, if made in Super-16mm, could only be made for what, 30, 40, 50 grand and it would be completely impossible to make them for less?

 

Completely impossible, no, but highly improbable.

 

Super-8 was a consumer product; Super-16 never was and never will be -- it's always been a professional format. It's that simple. Production levels, per unit costs, etc. are different for consumer equipment than professional equipment. You're basically asking for a professional camera to be made and sold as a consumer camera, without the consumer sale volume to make it profitable to do so.

[Alessandro Machi]

Completely impossible, no, but highly improbable.

 

Super-8 was a consumer product; Super-16 never was and never will be -- it's always been a professional format. It's that simple. Production levels, per unit costs, etc. are different for consumer equipment than professional equipment. You're basically asking for a professional camera to be made and sold as a consumer camera, without the consumer sale volume to make it profitable to do so.

 

What do you think the threshold point would be to drive the price down? Would a thousand cameras do it, or do you think it would need to be several thousand cameras?

[Charles MacDonald]

What do you think the threshold point would be to drive the price down? Would a thousand cameras do it, or do you think it would need to be several thousand cameras?

More than the total expected world market <_<

 

Check out how many Home movie cameras are on e-bay. Almost every home had one in the 1950's My parents had two and probaly only shot 5 rolls of film between the both of them. In the 1970's I sold Movie cameras, (mostly Sankyo Super 8) and we would sell one a week, in a department store.

 

Contrast that with the pro cameras, where a total production run of a 15000 is considered an overwhelming sucess. Now factor in that TV staion no longer shoot News on Film, (market of maybe 5 cameras for every one of 1000 TV stations - not only is that market gone, but the cameras that were there are now being sold to independent filmmakers), Much documentary production now done on Video., and a high expense to use film that means that most non-independant productions perfer to rent TESTED Cameras.

 

The rental houses are NOT looking for bargin, Consumer oriented cameras, they want the clasic "Built like Brick" units that will not have downtime. THey would not want a slicked up striped down - built to lowest cost using leghtest materials unit.

 

Have a look at a Bell and Howell Filmo, (pro unit) vs a Bell&Howell 240. (consumer unit) to see the difference in weight, size and overall constuction. The consumer unit actually has a slightly longer run time on the spring motor, has much better apperence, and several fetures that would make ot more convient for a consumer user (example the footage counter does not have to be manualy set) BUT the 240 probaly would not stand up to a month in a battlefield. Probaly would not even last 6 months in the trunk of a TV news car.

[Alessandro Machi]

More than the total expected world market <_<

 

Check out how many Home movie cameras are on e-bay. Almost every home had one in the 1950's My parents had two and probaly only shot 5 rolls of film between the both of them. In the 1970's I sold Movie cameras, (mostly Sankyo Super 8) and we would sell one a week, in a department store.

 

Contrast that with the pro cameras, where a total production run of a 15000 is considered an overwhelming sucess. Now factor in that TV staion no longer shoot News on Film, (market of maybe 5 cameras for every one of 1000 TV stations - not only is that market gone, but the cameras that were there are now being sold to independent filmmakers), Much documentary production now done on Video., and a high expense to use film that means that most non-independant productions perfer to rent TESTED Cameras.

 

The rental houses are NOT looking for bargin, Consumer oriented cameras, they want the clasic "Built like Brick" units that will not have downtime. THey would not want a slicked up striped down - built to lowest cost using leghtest materials unit.

 

Have a look at a Bell and Howell Filmo, (pro unit) vs a Bell&Howell 240. (consumer unit) to see the difference in weight, size and overall constuction. The consumer unit actually has a slightly longer run time on the spring motor, has much better apperence, and several fetures that would make ot more convient for a consumer user (example the footage counter does not have to be manualy set) BUT the 240 probaly would not stand up to a month in a battlefield. Probaly would not even last 6 months in the trunk of a TV news car.

 

Just how many Canon 814XLS and 1014XLS do you think were made? At some point, one can simply multiply the total number of cameras made by the sale price to get an idea of the scope of the sale. I don't know what Canon's numbers were, but probably 10,000 cameras a year would be a safe guess, no? I think they originally sold for around $600-$900.

 

So if one made a thousand Super-16 cameras and sold them for 15 grand each, they would gross more than on the Canons, while making 10 times fewer cameras. There seems to be a downplaying of the benefits of modern computer assistance in the manufacturering of cameras that I don't think is accurate. Yes, some parts have to be made "exact" via the human touch, but if getting the part closer to that spec via robotics is possible, then the overall manufacturing costs will be significantly less.

 

Anyways, until some of you have actually seem how limitless certain super-8 cameras are, you will not see the significance of what Super-16 camera could mean to the younger filmmaker.