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

[Alessandro Machi]

Super-8 cameras were originally made for a mass consumer market that doesn't exist for Super-16 and never will, therefore a modern, cheap, high-quality, but heavily-laden with features, Super-16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.

 

It sounds elitist (and I don't consider you in that regards at all) to say that the features found in Super-8 cameras aren't necessary in 16mm or 35mm. Time-lapse, single frame, time-exposure and undercranking immediately expand filmmaking creativity and film artistry while simultaneously reducing filmmaking expenses.

 

If someone asked me to shoot a super low budget music video in Super-16mm, I would only consider it if I had a camera that functioned the way a super-8 camera functions. I'm the guy that made one cartridge of Super-8 film last over a 10 night period of time and 50 hours of shooting, then won a couple of film festival awards for that film. I even got a check for 200 bucks from one film festival that basically catered to 16mm, 35mm and computer animation entries. The Alphabet Song beat out some larger format productions and much much larger casts and crews and I think that qualifies me for having a valid opinion in the arena of low budget filmmaking in general. I feel pretty confident that if I had access to a Super-16 camera years ago that offered similar features to my super-8 cameras, I could have been selling stock footage all of these years and probably making a living at it.

 

The notion that "in 16mm and 35mm we do things the adult way and not the super-8 way" just reinforces a way of thinking that I don't think is necessary in this instance. I'd be curious to know if Mr. Boddington only does real time stock footage shots or if he also does the time-lapse, time-exposure variety as well, since I have read some of his posts in which he has stated he makes a comfortable living from his stock footage collection.

[David Mullen ASC]

If someone asked me to shoot a super low budget music video in Super-16mm, I would only consider it if I had a camera that functioned the way a super-8 camera functions.

 

Then why are more music videos, not to mention features, TV shows, and commercials, shot in Super-16 and 35mm with cameras that don't have those very functions that you feel are so indispensible? Could it possibly be because not every filmmaker uses those techniques as much as you like to use them?

 

What if the band told you that they didn't want any single-frame or time-lapse shots in their music video? Would you still refuse to shoot it in Super-16?

 

I'm not trying to be elitist, I'm just trying to get you to admit or realize that single-frame animation and time-lapse are not standard, commonplace filmmaking techniques used by the average filmmaker, but are special techniques. Sure, they are very artistic devices and you can do some great work with them, but they will never be part of the meat & potatoes of common film production, especially sync-sound work (obviously) but even for MOS work. High-end commercials can afford all the tools in existence, but the majority still don't use much time-lapse and single-frame animation. So to say that such low-usage devices are actually must-have camera functions doesn't jibe with the reality of the needs for most filmmakers. If they were "must-have" functions then they'd be part of every high-end movie camera built.

[Alessandro Machi]

David, for every legitimate but low budget music video project there are another ten music videos being made on the barest of budgets. Music video budgets so bare that I would guess 5 will be attempted on DV, two on consumer HD, one on Super-8, and one on 16mm, and one from archival home video shot by family and friends at previous venues.

 

If I were to try and convince one of these super low budget music video projects to have me shoot their project on film, I'd gladly do Super-16 versus Super-8 if I could control the amount of footage I would be shooting. I'd do lower frame rate shots and then transfer those shots at the same FPS, a very effective, and accepted way of shooting music video sequences. (this can negate some, but not all of the film and processing savings because the telecine time does go up)

 

I'd try and grab beautiful single frame moments that could be used as part of a still shot sequence. I would avoid doing repetitive master shot after master shot. I would try and make 20 or 30 mintues of film footage feel like it was 60 minutes of footage. To do that I would have to have a camera that doesn't dictate to me that I can only shoot in real time.

[Guest Kathleen Lawler]

Alessandro:

 

Have you considered buying a Bolex (Rex 4 or 5), and getting it converted to Super 16? Those beautiful little cameras come with so many features, it's unbelievable.

 

Also, there's a company which makes intervalometers for the Bolex, so they can do accurate timelapse, and single frame exposures, much like an electric Super 8 camera. Check out this link

 

Intervalometer for Bolex

 

You'd find it much cheaper than $15,000 to get a great Super 16 setup.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most Super-16 cameras allow slower-than-24fps rates, just not single-frame and time-lapse. There are many cameras that would allow you to shoot at 6 fps, for example.

 

But I don't really get the notion that a common solution for low-budget people shooting in Super-16 will be to shoot at very low frame rates to save money on stock; that's a very unique look and therefore has limited applications in filmmaking. The majority of film shot is at normal speed for normal motion and to be able to shoot dialogue. But like I said, most cameras allow undercranking.

[Max Jacoby]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

[Terry Mester]

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?

Woe man! My idea to simplify the 'Film' process of creating Mattes is not predicated upon keeping people using Film! I'm interested in highest quality cinematography. If the Film Matting process can be simplified, why on Earth would you be opposed to that!? The colour separation process of creating Mattes is pretty damned complicated, and I don't blame film editors one bit for preferring to use the easier Digital Process. One thing I know for certain is that Digital Pixels are 'square', 'linear' and 'larger' than Light Rays, and therefore no Digital Process should be better than a properly designed Optical Process. If the Digital Process proves to be better, then there's something wrong with the Optical Process. As I noted in my other Thread, the 'prism' Optical Printer is not adequate for compositing colour Film. It was developed in the early 1930s for B&W Film, and is fine for B&W. However, you need contact copying for colour. The contact copying process can also be improved, and I will be contacting a film lab to test my separate idea on that. Please don't misconstrue my efforts to improve cinematography as being blindly devoted to Film. I am only blindly devoted to the highest of quality! The process of duplicating film can and should be improved. As the moderator of a cinematography website, why would you consider this to be "wild" or contrary to "the reality of the marketplace"?

[Walter Graff]

A few years ago I made the following statement on the CML to see what the response would be "Film is Dead, I'm convinced that HD is the route to go". It didn't cause much of a stir. Why? Because most of the people on the CML shot film. Today a whole new low end to middle market has emerged. It's prosumer HD, treated as pro. And with it come a lot of folks who own these cameras who see noting but HD on their sets at home and with all the folks they talk to on semi pro boards. A board like cinematogrpahy.com to me is composed of a fair share of film pros, and now it seems lots of this new generation video-shooting 'film' person. The sad part is that many of these people have no film experience. As a result they are missing out on a good part of what filmmaking is. Luckily the better schools still offer film as a film course. What I'm saying is that this argument is between too many different people who work in too many different areas of making film and video to find a common thread.

 

I know I shoot a fair amount of 16mm. I wouldn't want to teach filmmaking to anyone on anything but film. It's simply a better process to teach. I heard recently that Kodak sells more 16mm now than they ever did. I know a lot of others shoot a lot of film too. And often hear of projects that were doen on HD moving ot 16mm. Sad that the newer generation will think that the faux look of video is the same thing as film, just 'easier'. But you can't tell someone what Africa is about unless they've been there, so just show them a picture of it and tell them it doesn't do it justice. They'll be able to tell folks they saw Africa, but they never really did. An only those that have been there know that all too well, but just can't explain it to those that have not.

[Francis Kuhn]

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. . .

 

Hello Alessandro,

 

This debate is all very interesting, but you seem to be avoiding the obvious: Couldn't you simply contact Aaton or Arriflex (or even Kodak, as you originally proposed) and get their point of view? If you're really serious about this then wouldn't it make sense to simply ask the companies involved in camera manufacture?

 

Let everyone know what they have to say. I'd certainly be interested. Who knows, maybe you could sell the story to one of the small-format magazines and make a few bucks in the process.

 

Thanks,

 

Fran

[Nathan Milford]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

 

I cringed when I saw that this thread had been resurrected.

[Tim Carroll]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

 

Beat that dead horse, beat that dead horse, beat that dead horse . . .

 

Come on folks, the "premise of this thread" has been "ridiculous" since page 1. And Alessandro, all I can do is repeat what my daddy used to tell me when I was a little kid and would go on and on about something that really made no sense, "You're just talking to hear yourself talk."

 

Let it die people . . .

 

-Tim

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro:

 

Have you considered buying a Bolex (Rex 4 or 5), and getting it converted to Super 16? Those beautiful little cameras come with so many features, it's unbelievable.

 

Also, there's a company which makes intervalometers for the Bolex, so they can do accurate timelapse, and single frame exposures, much like an electric Super 8 camera. Check out this link

 

Intervalometer for Bolex

 

You'd find it much cheaper than $15,000 to get a great Super 16 setup.

 

 

I'm leaning towards trying to get a Canon Scoopic modified to do time-exposure. I also have a feeler out on a 35mm mitchell modification. I did some time-lapse with a bolex once. It was a while ago but I seem to recall that particular set-up could only go down to one second exposures. The Bolex did a nice job but I felt a bit constrained by having one second exposures as a maximum. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

 

Ideally, the camera should also be easy to use and the mitchell may not be. I think there has been a lot of great info on this topic and the few who want to smear it with hostile and negative comments, have at it. You are destroyers not creators and it's destroyers like you that cause others to lurk and never bother registering or posting.