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

[Brad Grimmett]

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.

You ask a question, then when you don't get the answer you want you act like you know it all. Are you the only person on this WHOLE forum who knows how "limitless" and great super-8 cameras are? I don't think so. Open your eyes to the real world. If a camera with the features you've mentioned was in demand by more than a few people, someone would be making it. It's basic supply and demand. If there was a great demand, someone would supply it. Rental houses aren't going to buy a camera like that because they already have plenty of cameras with the features that people need and want, and what "younger filmmaker" has $15,000 (your price recommendation) to blow on a camera to learn on? It just doesn't make sense. You should actually READ the responses that have been written to you instead of ignoring them and then writing more about why you're right. This is your MO in all of your posts. I don't understand why you enjoy beating a dead horse so much....

I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I think it's the truth, and I don't think I'm alone in these feelings.

[Charles MacDonald]

I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I think it's the truth, and I don't think I'm alone in these feelings.

I have to agree with Brad on this. Yes their were some very nice high end Super 8 Cameras made beween 1964 and say 1980. Some of them were probaly even made for the prestige of the manufacturer. (A high end unit that lost money but helped sell lower end machines because of the prestige of the make)

 

There are a couple of Super 16mm Cameras around that are intended to be low price, they DO use the latest in automation, modern materials (which do allow parts to be molded instead of being milled on machine tools. ) You don't think they have enough features. There are full fetured cameras arround, but they are priced for folks who make their money using them. (and are generaly rented by filmakers as required)

 

The market for even a $1000.00 16mm camera is probaly in the thousands rather then the millions. :huh:

 

It is too bad, I would love to be able to spring for a more versitile camera than my (non-super16) Filmo, which is not going to happen unless I go back to buying Lottery tickets. :rolleyes: and win! :D

 

I think we have come full circle in this thread (again) :wacko:

[Terry Mester]

"Single Frame, Time-Lapse, and Time-Exposure" are definitely important functions for a Super16 Camera, and if these features are to be included on an inexpensive Camera (like the Aaton A-Minima), then they will need to be manually operated -- not computer operated. It is very, very expensive to design and manufacture Computer Micro Chip circuitry, and electronic components are a major part of the high cost of Professional Movie Cameras. As David Mullen pointed out, Professional products are not mass produced like Consumer products, and it is therefore necessary for there to be a very high profit margin on Professional products. The profits on Arriflex and Aaton Cameras are probably between 100% and 300%. They have no choice but to charge such high sums if they're to maintain a profitable company, and have money for R&D. It probably wouldn't cost a great deal to manually add these features to the A-Minima, but to add them electronically would require designing a brand new Computer for the Camera which would require big bucks. Personally I detest any computerized components on a Film Camera unless there is 'manual over-ride'. Computer components fail very easily -- heat, cold and humidity are not good for Micro Chips, and if there's no manual override the Camera becomes a piece of junk. Unfortunately, modern computerized Cameras will not be working in 20 years -- thus denying amateurs access to low-cost used Cameras.

[Alessandro Machi]

You ask a question, then when you don't get the answer you want you act like you know it all. Are you the only person on this WHOLE forum who knows how "limitless" and great super-8 cameras are? I don't think so. Open your eyes to the real world. If a camera with the features you've mentioned was in demand by more than a few people, someone would be making it. It's basic supply and demand. If there was a great demand, someone would supply it. Rental houses aren't going to buy a camera like that because they already have plenty of cameras with the features that people need and want, and what "younger filmmaker" has $15,000 (your price recommendation) to blow on a camera to learn on? It just doesn't make sense. You should actually READ the responses that have been written to you instead of ignoring them and then writing more about why you're right. This is your MO in all of your posts. I don't understand why you enjoy beating a dead horse so much....

I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I think it's the truth, and I don't think I'm alone in these feelings.

 

I don't take your type of comments as being harsh, if that's the best you are capable of, so be it.

 

I'll also assume you've clicked on my super-8 photo link and you know exactly how I made the alphabet shots, completely done in camera. If you don't, then why ridicule the knowledge that I've gathered in Super-8 that you may not possess in the larger formats? Is it that if you don't know about it, it must not exist?

 

There are certain personality types that don't like to evolve a discussion. If you look back at the last few posts just before yours, Brad, I was trying to evolve the discussion into straight numbers, trying to see what the cost threshold and amount of cameras would be needed. It's kind of questionable on your part to try to quash the gathering of information, yet that is the position you have taken.

 

I have 15 years worth of editing experience. Rather than appreciate that I can cross correlate the camera world with the editing world and specifically identify what would spur Super-16 onto into the next decade, you would rather attempt to riducule the messenger.

 

The two or three who have picked on me personally ignored the dozens of supporting points that I made early on, and you have no credibility in my book because of that. It's the easiest game in the world to play, just call someone a name or a label, and ignore their points, it's pretty pathetic. On the other hand, I paid attention to the points thats were made in opposition, and in numerous post I actually addressed them, unlike the ultra idiotic and flaming posts made from one particular 23 year old going on 7.

 

So how did I create the Alphabet shots? Or would it only be significant if it was on 16mm? If you don't want to guess Brad, then at least be man enough to acknowlege that just because you don't know how to do a shot, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

 

If you did know how I did the shot, do you also think it would be completely pointless to be able to do a shot like that on a low cost Super-16mm camera?

 

 

I have to agree with Brad on this. Yes their were some very nice high end Super 8 Cameras made beween 1964 and say 1980. Some of them were probaly even made for the prestige of the manufacturer. (A high end unit that lost money but helped sell lower end machines because of the prestige of the make)

 

There are a couple of Super 16mm Cameras around that are intended to be low price, they DO use the latest in automation, modern materials (which do allow parts to be molded instead of being milled on machine tools. ) You don't think they have enough features. There are full fetured cameras arround, but they are priced for folks who make their money using them. (and are generaly rented by filmakers as required)

 

The market for even a $1000.00 16mm camera is probaly in the thousands rather then the millions. :huh:

 

It is too bad, I would love to be able to spring for a more versitile camera than my (non-super16) Filmo, which is not going to happen unless I go back to buying Lottery tickets. :rolleyes: and win! :D

 

I think we have come full circle in this thread (again) :wacko:

 

I disagree. The discussion had been completed, all that was left was to get feedback about price points and amount of cameras, and I was looking for opinons on those two points, but somehow that gets contaminated into something else.

[Luke Prendergast]

Don't remember where I heard it, and I could be wrong, but the total number of cameras Arri has manufactured in the SR series is only a few thousand. SRs are going for as little as ~$4kUSD; a clear indication of market demand for cheap, but not too cheap, 16mm cameras. Professional productions rent, low budget uses K3s and Bolexes. This middle ground is populated only by those passing through on the way up, or back down.

[Stephen Williams]

Don't remember where I heard it, and I could be wrong, but the total number of cameras Arri has manufactured in the SR series is only a few thousand. SRs are going for as little as ~$4kUSD; a clear indication of market demand for cheap, but not too cheap, 16mm cameras. Professional productions rent, low budget uses K3s and Bolexes. This middle ground is populated only by those passing through on the way up, or back down.

 

Hi Luke,

 

Joe Dunton mentioned 3000, 5 years ago when he was developing an HD magazine.

 

Stephen

[Alessandro Machi]

Don't remember where I heard it, and I could be wrong, but the total number of cameras Arri has manufactured in the SR series is only a few thousand. SRs are going for as little as ~$4kUSD; a clear indication of market demand for cheap, but not too cheap, 16mm cameras. Professional productions rent, low budget uses K3s and Bolexes. This middle ground is populated only by those passing through on the way up, or back down.

 

If the Arri you mention does single frame, time-exposure, and time-lapse, then I would agree there is no need for new cameras if these used Arri's are selling for 4 grand on eBay.

[Stephen Williams]

"Single Frame, Time-Lapse, and Time-Exposure" are definitely important functions for a Super16 Camera, and if these features are to be included on an inexpensive Camera (like the Aaton A-Minima),

 

The profits on Arriflex and Aaton Cameras are probably between 100% and 300%. They have no choice but to charge such high sums if they're to maintain a profitable company, and have money for R&D. .

 

Hi,

 

You can't do single frame on an AMinima or any PL mounted camera without a capping shutter.

 

I don't think Arri or Aaton are companies making a huge profit. I am informed that Arri has had money from the German government in order to survive.

 

Stephen

[Matthew Buick]

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.

 

What camera would that be then?

 

I personally think too many of the next generation filmakers are hooked on hooking their camcorders up to a PC to draw in lightsabres and lasers for any sort of film format to be at all viable.

 

It's people like myself who will carry on filmaking, and I don't know anyone else who shoots film at all, though a couple wish they could.

[David Mullen ASC]

I have shot thirty features in the past 15 years and have yet to need a camera that could do time-lapse or single-frame animation. It's not a "must-have" feature for the majority of filmmakers. It makes more sense as an add-on piece of equipment. If it there was a big demand for such a feature, it would be on all movie cameras made.

[Stephen Williams]

It's people like myself who will carry on filmaking, and I don't know anyone else who shoots film at all

 

Hi Matthew,

 

That's really very funny, probably wasn't intended to be but it is!

 

Stephen

[Brad Grimmett]

I don't take your type of comments as being harsh, if that's the best you are capable of, so be it.

 

Gosh, right off the bat you've started to attempt to insult me. I made no personal attack towards you and I don't appreciate you doing it to me.

 

I'll also assume you've clicked on my super-8 photo link and you know exactly how I made the alphabet shots, completely done in camera. If you don't, then why ridicule the knowledge that I've gathered in Super-8 that you may not possess in the larger formats? Is it that if you don't know about it, it must not exist?

 

You assume wrong. I didn't click on any link that you posted, and it's completely impertinent to the discussion at hand.

Ridicule? What are you talking about? Whatever it is has nothing to do with my post. I was clearly making the point that the camera that you propose isn't needed in the professional world and can't be supported in the amateur world. What does this have to do with "alphabet shots"?

 

There are certain personality types that don't like to evolve a discussion. If you look back at the last few posts just before yours, Brad, I was trying to evolve the discussion into straight numbers, trying to see what the cost threshold and amount of cameras would be needed. It's kind of questionable on your part to try to quash the gathering of information, yet that is the position you have taken.

 

I'm well aware of what the previous posts say. The point I was making is that there is no threshold for the camera you propose. Where in the world do you get the idea that I was trying to "quash the gathering of information"?

 

I have 15 years worth of editing experience. Rather than appreciate that I can cross correlate the camera world with the editing world and specifically identify what would spur Super-16 onto into the next decade, you would rather attempt to riducule the messenger.

 

Huh? What does you editing experience have to do with anything I was talking about? And how did I "riducule" you? You're really coming out of left field now.

 

The two or three who have picked on me personally ignored the dozens of supporting points that I made early on, and you have no credibility in my book because of that. It's the easiest game in the world to play, just call someone a name or a label, and ignore their points, it's pretty pathetic. On the other hand, I paid attention to the points thats were made in opposition, and in numerous post I actually addressed them, unlike the ultra idiotic and flaming posts made from one particular 23 year old going on 7.

 

First of all, I never picked on you personally. I simply replied to your post. Second, who are you to call me pathetic? You complain that I've "called you a name or label" (which I very obviously didn't), and then you finish the sentence by calling me pathetic and then call someone else ultra idiotic. Really, what the heck is your problem?

I don't want or need credibility with you. Why'd you think I'd care is a mystery.

 

So how did I create the Alphabet shots? Or would it only be significant if it was on 16mm? If you don't want to guess Brad, then at least be man enough to acknowlege that just because you don't know how to do a shot, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

 

I couldn't care less how you did a certain shot because it's completely unrelated to what I was talking about. And why are you assuming that I don't know how to do something when it has nothing to do with anything I was talking about? I'm sitting here wondering what the heck you're talking about, and for the life of me I can't figure it out.

 

If you did know how I did the shot, do you also think it would be completely pointless to be able to do a shot like that on a low cost Super-16mm camera?

I disagree. The discussion had been completed, all that was left was to get feedback about price points and amount of cameras, and I was looking for opinons on those two points, but somehow that gets contaminated into something else.

 

The discussion was completed when people told you that the camera you propose would most likely never be made for the reason's they cited. The fact that you were trying to get "price points" for said camera makes it vividly clear that you couldn't care less what other people have written. If you'd actually read the posts related to those facts you wouldn't be bothering with price points because you'd realize that it's an exercise in futility. But since you don't care what anyone has to say you continue on the discussion as if everyone agrees with you. It's very strange.

 

I have to say that these rambling non-sensical posts that you make are quite silly and pointless. You're so defensive, but most of the time I can't figure out what you're so defensive about. You're rambling on about alphabet shots when the discussion is about the need for a new 16mm camera. And then you're making personal attacks left and right while complaining that the same thing has happened to you. I just don't get it. All of this is such a waste of space on this forum and a waste of time, and I wish you'd chill out. I think I've been quite reasonable, as have others, but you're determined to prove that you're right.... but about what I have no idea.

You can respond to this post if you'd like, but I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the insults and name calling out of it.

[Alessandro Machi]

 

Brad, you are not 23 years old, so the word pathetic was not directed towards you in any way shape or form.

 

However, what you have apparently done was side with a flamer who has almost ruined what was a nice topic. The flamer flamed in three responses in a row, said many outrageous things and rather than just staying on the topic like everyone else had, personally attacked me.

 

If you think your prior response towards me (not the one above, the one before that) wasn't unnecessarily insulting towards me, I would disagree, it stated very little about what the original topic was about and instead focused on attacking me, and sided with the flamer.

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

I have a link in my signature that shows still frames of time-exposure work that I have done in the past.

Before a couple of you attempt to nullify the "art" of single frame style of film work, at least look at some of my samples. To say that does not relate to the topic is not really correct, that just tells me you only skimmed this topic.

 

It would be nice if Super-16 offered time-lapse modes at an affordable price. The reason I brought up my editing experiences is that I pay extra close attention to how current media is basically overedited for maxium impact/ ratings survival in todays world. Along with the "over editing for ratings survival syndrome" the industry is in, there is also a severe amount of video frame manipulation.

 

Being able to shoot more than at real time speeds on film allows a younger filmmaker more opportunity to deliver what a client requires in this current day and age. On the digital side, this is a moot point because tape is cheaper than film, if you need a time-lapse shot, just set up the camera, let it roll for 1/2 hour or an hour uninterrupted, then speed it up later. This realtime sped up in post shot is used in practically every reality tv show and is not a realistic option in film, but time-lapse and time-exposure is. The TV producer of a show probably farms out some of their timel-lapse shots since they wouldn't want their top D.P. sitting around a camera for an hour just so the shot can be speeded up later.

 

CSI promo commercials are currently using time-exposure elements, Letterman promos have used them in the past. They're used all the time and are relevant to this topic. Constraining a young filmmaker to only shoot film in real time forces them to shoot with bigger crews all the time, which is not realistic when one is starting out.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I attended a varicam sales demo a couple of years ago and one of the issues they spent time on was that the varicam could do time-lapse. If it is such an irrelevant aspect of film production, why use it to try and sell a $75,000 dollar camera?

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not a stretch to say that time-lapse photography makes up a small portion of overall film production. When it is needed, there are after-market devices that allow people to convert certain cameras over to time-lapse, an approach that has generally served most of the industry well. So there is not a burning need for all professional cameras to include a time-lapse option, and I doubt that the majority of Varicam users regularly employ this feature. Time-lapse is below the need for multiple frame rates in terms of necessity, unless part of your business is shooting time-lapse material.

 

I'm not even sure why I am bothering to make such an obvious point though!

 

In terms of why it was a selling point to the Varicam, it's probably because of the lack of common intervelometers for HD cameras that can be used for typical film cameras. But for a Super-16 camera where such devices are readily available, there is less need for it to be a basic feature. If it were, it would be part of any Panaflex or Arricam being used for film production. But again, I'm stating the obvious.

 

The fact that you see time-lapse in promo spots and whatnot surely is evidence that people are not finding the lack of a time-lapse feature in most modern sync-sound movie cameras to be an insurmountable problem. The few people who do time-lapse work for a living have methods of adapting their film cameras to shoot it. Even my camera assistant has an intervelometer for his Arri-2C.

 

It's ridiculous to make a time-lapse feature the make-or-break point for considering a movie camera as being fully-featured for the majority of production work.

[K Borowski]

I'm not 23 yrs. old either so IDK who you are referring to. I love how people use age as a determining factor when judging someone's credibility though. Good thing you never worked for Steven Spielburg; "What's that KID doing directing this film?" A 40-y.o. as sho le is just as bad as a 15 y.o. as shol e, except the 15 y.o. often has an excuse because he hasn't been beaten up enough to learn good sense. I'm glad my clientele look at my work rather than at my age also when I am hired to do paid work. I'm not going to stoop to your level and bother to cite sources because the BS you continuously post as "incredible ideas" is just a pile of garbage. This is an internet thread, not a friggin' termpaper. At least the things I say are founded in reality though, rather than in the fantasy world you seem intent upon inhabiting. You have no idea how to run a business. If you tried to run Kodak, you'd bankrupt it! Every factoid I've fed this thread is factual though, as is almost every single other post made in response to your initial incredulous claim. Why do people continously post intelligent rebuttals to someone who has already made up his mind? Alex, you need a religion. You'd be perfect material for the Church of Scientology. I don't think this thread deserves any more intelligent responses when the original material posted isn't intelligent itself. I think I'm going to start posting my own fantastic ideas for how Kodak should run its business, or why Super 8 should be used for every televisoin show, especially those broadcast in HD!

Edited February 12, 2007 by Karl Borowski

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm not even sure why I am bothering to make such an obvious point though!

I was thinking the exact same thing when I made my previous posts. Apparently, "obvious" isn't enough for Alessandro. I guess the REAL excercise in futility is people trying to make valid, factual, and well thought out points to someone who doesn't care about facts or validity.

[Matthew Buick]

Hi Matthew,

 

That's really very funny, probably wasn't intended to be but it is!

 

Stephen

 

Oh, beautiful. <_<

[K Borowski]

. . . or a frivolous lawsuit lawyer, he'd make a great one of those. Wait, how could he convince a jury, well a lawyer for people that are obviously guilty then!

 

This thread is "*totally* tripped-out freakin' stream-of consciousness" now. Can anyone retitle this "The Bullshit Thread"? We can post all of our non-sensical posts here. Or "Inebriateds Only" thread, or "Why Kodak Should Perforate, Develop (R&D), Develop, Print, and 2K Telecine Our 16mm Thread". Or "Alex for CEO of Kodak Campaign Thread". Hey, I was joking about all but that last one. I'm going to own Eastman Kodak company stock for next year's stockholder meeting Alex, and let me tell you, my man, I am going to make it happen!. . . .

[Matthew Buick]

. . . or a frivolous lawsuit lawyer, he'd make a great one of those. Wait, how could he convince a jury, well a lawyer for people that are obviously guilty then!

 

This thread is "*totally* tripped-out freakin' stream-of consciousness" now. Can anyone retitle this "The Bullshit Thread"? We can post all of our non-sensical posts here. Or "Inebriateds Only" thread, or "Why Kodak Should Perforate, Develop (R&D), Develop, Print, and 2K Telecine Our 16mm Thread". Or "Alex for CEO of Kodak Campaign Thread". Hey, I was joking about all but that last one. I'm going to own Eastman Kodak company stock for next year's stockholder meeting Alex, and let me tell you, my man, I am going to make it happen!. . . .

 

Wow, you sound most ''tripped out''.

 

As for your rather weak remark, I have no interest in becoming a barrister. And I hate the way you and other rather ignorant people stereotype me, you don't know me, or my situation in life, I'm not judging anyone's character based upon a few posts on a cynical online forum, so why judge me?

 

As for Karl Borowski, I reckon that (if he's drunk or stoned or whatever) he should go and sober up, and come back to us when back on planet earth.

[Charles MacDonald]

I think the problem is that none of us really belive that their is one be all and end all camera. Either in Motion picture work, or in still Photography. My Ricoh Kr-5 is a workhorse, but when I needed extreme closeups for a talk I am going to do, I got out my Pentax belows and stuck it on my old Spotmatic 500.

 

David probaly wants a Rock solid camera with few things to go wrong with a super good lens. The only special feature he wants are those he can really use as any extra is something that could misbehave just as the Big exposion goes off and destroys the vehicles.

 

Someone doing animation one frame at a time really could care less if the Camera they rae using is great at Sound Sync. The swedish lads that make the sholder mount plastic Super 16 unit dont see themselves compeeting with panavison.

 

If you are in the nice position of getting your income from making movies, you will probaly wnat to know how to use a BUNCH of different cameras.

 

If you are trying to make money from making a camera you probaly want to select a niche and do that extermly well.

 

Film students may dream of having a "swiss army Knife" camera, perferably very cheep to buy, but the pros whould rather pick the tool from a palete of options and the non-pros have to use the tools we can get our hands on as well as we can.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm afraid some people get too obsessed over picking the "right" camera, mainly because (of course) it is usually a big investment for them. But at some point, you pick the best camera you can afford for the most common type of shooting you will be doing and work around the rest -- in other words, you get practical about it. It's not the camera ultimately that is going to make or break your career -- it's your talent with it.

 

I've found that if you shoot a small-budget project well-enough, no one is going to notice the lack of Steadicam shots or crane shots or slow-motion shots, etc. It's all about directing the eye to look at your positives and not notice your deficiencies. Sometimes trying to do every camera trick that a big-budget movie does only serves to remind people of your budgetary limitations.

 

Truth is that if Super-16 is absolutely unaffordable, then shoot Regular 16mm and try and make up for the slightly smaller negative with the standard cinematography tricks (sharper lenses, higher-contrast lighting, slower stocks, well-exposed negative, etc.) You aren't screwed over just because you can't shoot with the wider negative; you just have to work a little harder.

 

Again, to get back to the original thread... it's not the lack of Super-16 cameras that is limiting the sales of 16mm stock -- it's the cost of stock, processing, and telecine. Someone could hand someone a free Arri-416 tomorrow but that doesn't necessarily mean they can afford to shoot a lot of footage with it.

[Alessandro Machi]

The last two posts, one by Charles, SB one by David make a lot of good points.

 

 

Here is a quote from Olex that I think sums up my point....

 

.........But, today, we have many modern electronics components and microprocessor, thats' why, we can render of all function of original electronics at modern components with more high volume of reliability and additional functional features. And we can replace of many components by one microprocessor.....

 

.....The special version of electronics can have possibility to programming of change of speed or programming of acceleration and deceleration of camera similar of speed control of Arri studio camera

 

You can choose to use of original electronics or upgrade of electronics on modern version with microprocessor control.

 

I think it would be possible to make a Super-8 type camera in Super-16. I've had my Super-8 films picked over larger format films and digital video in past festival competitions specifically because I could create imagery on a frame by frame basis. If I could have replicated what I had done in Super-8 in Super-16, I think the films would have had even more visual impact and I could have afforded to make them because they were of the frame by frame variety.

 

Besides shooting film specifically with a cast and crew in mind, filmmaking is also about being creative with or without people in the shot. Right now I don't see a type of camera in Super-16 that does what several cameras in Super-8 already do, (especially without having to add external motor drives or batteries) and I believe based on what Olex has stated that it would be possible to make a really fun Super-16 camera for entry level and creative students of film.

[Guest Kathleen Lawler]

Just chucking my 5c worth into this discussion....

 

I'm a film student. I'm a super8 fanatic, and love film. But for my (limited) $, I'm going to rent a Regular 16mm camera to shoot my first film on. If I had the money for Super 16, there are plenty of cheapish second hand cameras already out there. Telecine and developing are very expensive, but for the look of film, I think it's worth it.

 

However, fewer people my age and younger agree. Almost all the independent, and student films in Adelaide are now being shot on the Sony Z1 HDV cameras. My film school has a couple of these, but no 16mm cameras. They allow instant viewing, no telecine or developing costs, and many people think the images look great.

 

Also, in my school, most students don't even have a spare $1000 to shoot film on.

 

I don't think a new Super 16mm camera would reverse the drift to video at all. Students are poor, film is expensive, video is getting better, and much cheaper. It's an economic decision. That's all there is to it.

[Alessandro Machi]

.....I don't think a new Super 16mm camera would reverse the drift to video at all. Students are poor, film is expensive, video is getting better, and much cheaper. It's an economic decision. That's all there is to it.

 

 

As long as shooting 16mm and 35mm is associated with requiring a cast and crew of dozens of people, that cost combined with the cost of the film and developing could realistically scare off the young filmmaker. But if I wanted to learn the visual artistry of film and didn't need a cast or crew for my production, I still couldn't realistically do it with virtually any 16mm or 35mm camera ever made. I took a film art class when I went to college and most of the productions resulted in the film students really creating fascinating imagery without much of a crew or actors. At the end of the day, the edited super-8 images when combined with the proper soundtrack created the magic.

 

Until a Super-16mm camera is actually made that can do what some heavily option laden super-8 cameras can do, it's impossible to accurately say that today's young students wouldn't be interested in those types of super-16 cameras, because they presently don't exist. If a Super-16 camera did exist that emulated what some of the advanced Super-8 cameras can already do one might see is a switch among super-8 filmmakers who have learned to shoot crazy and arty images on Super-8 by themselves, (with no crew), because they may be the most adept at getting a ton of selleable stock footage images from each and every film load, thereby making the cost of film and processing merely an investment that makes back it's money several times over.

[David Mullen ASC]

Super-8 cameras were originally made for a mass consumer market that doesn't exist for Super-16 and never will, therefore a modern, cheap, high-quality, but heavily-laden with features, Super-16 camera will never be made because that's not how the professional cine camera market works. So what's the point of even arguing "but if such a camera existed, then..." when such a camera won't ever exist? Can't we at least try to discuss things in the realm of the possible?

 

Besides, it's not the lack of low-usage features like time-lapse that keeps film students from shooting in Super-16 -- it's the cost of stock, processing, and telecine to video, and possibly, a blow-up to 35mm. And none of that has anything to do with having a camera with a built-in time-lapse function, or the cost of the cameras, or anything. Having a camera with a lot of cool features doesn't suddenly make you wealthy enough to afford stock, processing, telecine, etc.

 

And how many people here other than Richard make a lot of money shooting stock footage? Saying that students should somehow magically find the money to shoot Super-16 because then they can sell what they shoot for stock footage -- what sort of plan is that??? It's not realistic.

 

I understand why you and Terry Mester keep coming up with these wild ideas to bring people back to shooting film, but can't these proposals be based a little more on the reality of the marketplace?