New Super 8 film camera!

[Moises Perez]

Hello everyone,

 

How many of you would like to have a brand new Super 8 film camera?

 

I am researching film professionals, amateurs, and enthusiasts to find out how many of you would like to invest in a new camera. Cine Gear Expo LA 2010is around the corner and I would like to talk to camera-makers about this project.

 

My idea is to make a proposal for a professional Super 8 film camera and see if there is a camera-maker company that would be interested in the project.

 

I want to talk to Arri, Aaton, and/or any other company at the trade show and ask them whether something like this would be possible. Cine Gear Expo LA 2010 will happen from June 3 to June 6 at the Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. At this point I would like to be able to tell them how many of you are interested in purchasing the camera.

 

Please post your feedback, adding more camera features as you wish. I am sure there will be a lot of technical challenges, but I think it can be done.

 

 

I need two things from you please:

 

1. Who is interested?

2. How much are you willing to pay for a camera like this?

 

Sincerely,

 

moy

 

 

[Chris Burke]

I am. I have always dreamt that if I won the lottery I would fund the R&D for such a project. I have heard rumors but nothing all that substantial, that Aaton were in some sort of preliminary phase of planning a pro Super 8 camera. My suggestion is that they are part of the way there with their A-minima. A modification upon that design might make for an easier and quicker prototype stage. Pretty much what you were stating. I'd buy one. If you could or someone else build something with the Aaton quality and all the specs you mentioned and kept it under 10k. Or perhaps a mod to existing A-minimas, that might be the ticket. Either way, rock on!! I am 1000 percent behind you.

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

PL mount wouldn't really be wise in my opinion. The current lenses that are available in PL mount are no where near wide enough for super8 purposes. It would be wiser to either go with the B12 1/3" bayonet mount that is available on cameras like the JVC HD100-HM700, Panasonic HPX300 and Sony Z7. This is a solid mount, it has lenses that are quite wide already on the market and with simple and strong adapters can be mated with B4, and therefore Digiprimes and a myriad of other professional lenses, or PL.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Trevor Swaim

[Nicholas Rapak]

I would like to see an option for DS8, as I like to film with longer reels.

[Chris Burke]

I would like to see an option for DS8, as I like to film with longer reels.

 

 

two hundred feet isn't enough?

[Stephen Floyd]

I'm confised. I thought the point of people using 8mm was so they could end up with the low-resolution, dated feel it provides. Besides, making a camera capable of longer reels and higher resolution would not be helpful without a company that can produce longer reels and higher quality film. Film like that would probably cost as much as 16mm, so there would be no point in making a whole new 8mm camera.

 

The limits of this medium have been pushed about as far as they can go.

[Patrick Couprie]

Hello everyone,

 

How many of you would like to have a brand new Super 8 film camera?

 

I am researching film professionals, amateurs, and enthusiasts to find out how many of you would like to invest in a new camera. Cine Gear Expo LA 2010is around the corner and I would like to talk to camera-makers about this project.

 

My idea is to make a proposal for a professional Super 8 film camera and see if there is a camera-maker company that would be interested in the project.

 

I want to talk to Arri, Aaton, and/or any other company at the trade show and ask them whether something like this would be possible. Cine Gear Expo LA 2010 will happen from June 3 to June 6 at the Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. At this point I would like to be able to tell them how many of you are interested in purchasing the camera.

 

Please post your feedback, adding more camera features as you wish. I am sure there will be a lot of technical challenges, but I think it can be done.

 

 

I need two things from you please:

 

1. Who is interested?

2. How much are you willing to pay for a camera like this?

 

Sincerely,

 

moy

 

 

[Andries Molenaar]

Would be interesting to see if there is enough response. These manufacturers likely need runs of several 100pcs.

Don't forget commitment from people over the Internet is only 1/100 of value compared to people with whom you shake real hands.

 

Working from reels is likely best but in USA limits your options of material severily. Better partner up with Wittner but these are already heavily into refurbished pro8 things. Never understood that. Reputationwise it is a total mismatch.

 

Real Super-8 of course comes in S-8 cartridges :) Better adopt an inside filmhandling scheme like in de Mekel super-8 camera. That should make for jitter and breathing free images. But is still S8 then, rhetorically.

 

If you want a reliable machine you could use a S-8 like focallength on a 16mm camera, Frame it as S8 and in teleciné just capture the intended frame. Not my idea, read it in someone else's recommendation. You could run quite some length of film before you equal the costs of a special new camera. And for that one you would still have to purchase film :)

[Fred Neilsen]

I think Ikonoskop where planning on making a S8 camera but I'm not sure if they followed through.

 

http://www.retrothing.com/movie_cameras/page/3/

[K Borowski]

I'm sorry, but this will not fly, unless you are prepared to pay more for one of these cameras than the price of a new car.

 

 

There just isn't enough demand to make them in bulk, economically.

 

 

 

Even 16mm cameras are starting to get axed. 35mm models probably won't be available new for much longer either.

 

Hate to be a buzz-kill, but I have to tell it like it is. The film market is a continually-shrinking one.

[David Desio]

I was excited all they way down until Karl's post...man that guy's a bigger buzzkill than Buzz Killington. I say let us dream.

Edited May 13, 2010 by David Desio

[Paul Korver]

Hate to be a buzz-kill, but I have to tell it like it is. The film market is a continually-shrinking one.

 

Karl - I have a website for you... www.reduser.net. Oh... and look... there's even an HD Video forum on this Cinematography.com. Maybe go there and champion the brave new world of 8-bit 4:1:0 DSLR mastering rather than coming on a film forum and discouraging innovation in film. You are right to say that film is shrinking but that doesn't mean that there aren't passionate filmmakers out there that are fighting for it (and passionate post houses that continue to innovate to support it).

 

Moises... You rock. I'd love to see this camera developed. I'd love to transfer the footage from it to 2K on our Spirit.

 

Viva Celluloid! Viva Moises!

 

-Paul

[Kent Kumpula]

There is absolutely no market to make a new camera super8 camera "with HD quality". What are the reasons to shoot with 8mm film, instead of 16mm film? Anyone?

[Nicholas Rapak]

two hundred feet isn't enough?

 

200 feet is fine, but until someone decides to re-introduce 200' Super 8 cartridges, DS8 is pretty much the only option that we have. I mean, there are 8mm wide bulk rolls from Wittner, but I feel that jitter and stability will be a bigger problem with narrower film.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

Oh my God. Arri (or any other manufacturer) might manufacture a cam like this when they sell 500+ pieces for a price that is way above 5000 US dollars. Would you pay that much money to finally end up with an image that pretty much compares with DV in frame size and resolution (except maybe color space)? Also it has to be a DS-8 to make sense especially when you want it to be widescreen and there isn't even negative stock available in DS-8, only the pro8mm cardridges and if ever a camera like this is manufactured it hopefully does not use cartridges.

 

Sorry, i am a bit on Karl's side here. I was hoping for a 16mm Techniscope camera for years but it never came. Neither will a true widescreen Super 8 "HD" sadly ever hit the market in 2015.

[Kent Kumpula]

What are the reasons to shoot with 8mm film, instead of 16mm film?

 

OK, I will answer my own question. Lets see if anyone disagrees with the following:

 

There are two main reasons why anyone is shooting with super8 instead of 16mm, and those are...

1- It will cost less. The cameras are practically free and stock and telecine are a bit cheaper too.

2- To achieve the look of "old footage". To get a bit dirty/grainy and perhaps faded old footage, with tweaked colors to "look like old film".

 

 

A new camera would cost so much money it would be no cheaper than 16mm. That is if the manufacturer doesen´t want to loose tons of money. Good luck on finding someone who wants to loose money on designing a new super8 camera.

 

A new camera tweaked "for HD quality" still means a bit more grain than 16mm. With the addition of less image stability and more sensitivity to dust (dust particles look larger on 8mm film because you are looking at a smaller film area). If you want top-of-the-line quality, and you are prepared to pay thousands of dollars for a new camera... there is no reason to stick with 8mm film anymore. Go for 16mm.

 

8mm film is for lowbudget/nobudget productions that want to shoot on film.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Kent Kumpula

[Stephen Floyd]

OK, I will answer my own question. Lets see if anyone disagrees with the following:

 

There are two main reasons why anyone is shooting with super8 instead of 16mm, and those are...

1- It will cost less. The cameras are practically free and stock and telecine are a bit cheaper too.

2- To achieve the look of "old footage". To get a bit dirty/grainy and perhaps faded old footage, with tweaked colors to "look like old film".

 

 

A new camera would cost so much money it would be no cheaper than 16mm. That is if the manufacturer doesen´t want to loose tons of money. Good luck on finding someone who wants to loose money on designing a new super8 camera.

 

A new camera tweaked "for HD quality" still means a bit more grain than 16mm. With the addition of less image stability and more sensitivity to dust (dust particles look larger on 8mm film because you are looking at a smaller film area). If you want top-of-the-line quality, and you are prepared to pay thousands of dollars for a new camera... there is no reason to stick with 8mm film anymore. Go for 16mm.

 

8mm film is for lowbudget/nobudget productions that want to shoot on film.

 

Sounds like you got it. If any innovations need to be made, it should be in the 16mm market. People are already willing to invest a lot of money into 16mm productions (at least more than Super8) and they have been able to come out with some amazingly high-resolution 16mm stock.

[Robert Costello]

The only way new super8 will work is like this:

 

camera=$50

projector=$50

cartridge=$5

processing=$5

transfer to dvd=$8

 

Design it, Have it built in China, sell it along with a processing service..

and you can get it all at urban outfitters/online/the struggling camera store in the mall or

some other pseudo trendy place ...

 

and when reintroduced to it, people will shoot with it for novely and fun, the same

way they use lomo and other plastic cameras..poloroids, etc..

 

One of the main reason that film is dying off is that for the amateur/semi-professional

the cost is almost way too much...and the steps needed are too crazy/back alley/dealing with snobs..

 

I think if people really want film to be something that people are willing to use

the overall cost and procedure needs to be looked at totally different ...

maybe a no brainer machine that develops and transfers the cartridge to a dvd..

A new projector that works.

the camera itself is not a very complicated machine...my favorite super 8 camera I have,

the brand on it says "K-Mart"..

 

You dont think people want to play with super8? or make a movie of their baby or cat or walk

around a party with a super 8 camera?? I dunno.. you see it in all sorts of silly commercials marketing

to the 'hip' person..why is that??

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone really wants to shoot good quality super 8 I can imagine that they

would rent a really good/well maintained expensive camera for that purpose..

 

or maybe modifying an existing camera...a much better opportunity lies in a camera

for everyday use and fun.

[Richard Tuohy]

I am afraid I agree with the nay-sayers too.

It would make no sense to build a camear with such a small market when there are such cameras already in 16mm and 35mm. The difference in cost in using a camera such as this and shooting on super 8 compared to using 16 or 35 is really just the difference in stock cost, with processing and transfer costing about the same in all formats. I honestly feel that this proposal radically misses what point there is in shooting super 8.

 

I'd really like to see a new super 8 camera. I feel that the difficulty of finding working super 8 cameras is the biggest threat to the continuation of the gauge. But to have an effect on the survival of the format it would need to be a camera that can be priced so that it sells in a meaningful quantity. My customres need new cameras and I loose customers becaue they try and fail to find working cameras and it all gets to be too much of a hassel to shoot super 8.

 

Keeping the price of the camera down is the imperative in my opinion. When the super 8 camera was state of the art, then it was possible for huge factories and corporate/industrial might to produce feature laden cameras to a price - just as it is now with digital cameras. But the world turns and even re-producing one of the late model cameras with all its design and r & d aspects taken care of would be way too expensive to sell.

 

Yes, we need a new camera. A camera that had a chance to succeed and help save the format from camera-less oblivion, however, would need to be as stripped as possible. Here are my thoughts on that:

 

Sell it without a lens -

just a lens mount. Use C or Cs mount so that cheap lenses made in bulk for the security industry can fit.

 

No automatic light meter -

even though this is HIGHLY desirable for super 8 - indeed it is part of the essence of the 'why shoot super 8' answer. Drop auto because it requires either a fixed lens with tiny fly-weight leaves acting as the 'iris' (which is the classic super 8 approach) or motors coupling to the iris of a detachable lens which would require a dedicated lens system.

 

Matching needle exposure system

quick to use and easier to manufacture than automatic exposure

 

Manual asa setting control -

drop the whole notch reading complication.

 

One motor speed -

by far the majority of requirements are for normal shooting and extra speeds means extra expense and less viability of the project.

 

Easily adjustable torque motor for cartridge core rotation.

 

Could also drop reflex viewfinder and go with some kind of paralax finder.

 

aa bateries for power.

 

big transport indicator somewhere.

 

rudimentary footage counter.

 

plastic box

 

Forget about low noise operation, forget about crystal speeds, forget about ground glass, forget about single frame, forget about anything other than the cartridge system, forget about frame counters, forget about sexy design (square box would do) ... just so long as the bloody thing works and is affordable.

 

This camera would save the gauge from camera-death death.

 

rt

[Moises Perez]

Hi,

I’ve been reading your responses and I’m very glad with your comments, I thank you all. You all have valid reasons to comment your concerns. I do believe that this is just a dream and it could never take off. However, I think there are many good reasons why we keep using super 8 film, everyone has his own. I’ve been using this format for a long time, and I’ve tried a lot of different cameras. I own a few from different brands. Although I have my favorite models, most of the time I wish there was a better one on the market. I’ve been shooting a lot with my trusty canon 1014E, but still I wish I had a professional option. Here is a picture of one of my cameras and please keep posting your comments. I need to know whether there is a market for it.

Thanks,

moy

 

[Chris Millar]

Moises,

 

Please explain:

 

'yes, size does matter'

 

you mean to say smaller is better (super8) or bigger is better ('HD', widened gates and all that) ?

 

'HD' ???

 

PL mount ???

 

Why not shoot 16mm and centre crop if you want your camera to look all pro with cables and video taps poking out of it and what not - or just get any super8 you can find off eBay...

 

[Moises Perez]

Hello,

I think you are getting away from the subject. All I'm asking is whether anybody is interested in a new camera. I don’t mean the Super 8 film gauge is better than 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm. All of these film formats are special and they should be used according to your needs. For instance, I don’t think one can replace a bigger film format for a smaller one and hope to get the quality of the superior film format. In my opinion, one of the most important reasons one uses Super 8 film is because we like its unique look. What I’m looking for when I shoot Super 8 is its special characteristics. I love the grain and its organic look. It is just different. When I’m looking for other kind of quality, I use a different format, such as Super 16mm. or 35mm. If I don’t want to see any grain at all, then I use the best in the digital technology. I think, as cinematographers, we must know what we want and choose our tools accordingly. I don’t like to emulate any film format if I have the chance to use it to begin with. Here is a picture I got from one of my Super 8mm projects, it looks grainy but I love it.

 

[K Borowski]

Karl - I have a website for you... www.reduser.net. Oh... and look... there's even an HD Video forum on this Cinematography.com. Maybe go there and champion the brave new world of 8-bit 4:1:0 DSLR mastering rather than coming on a film forum and discouraging innovation in film. You are right to say that film is shrinking but that doesn't mean that there aren't passionate filmmakers out there that are fighting for it (and passionate post houses that continue to innovate to support it).

 

 

OK, UMM, did you read in my profile what I do for a living? You are barking up the WRONG tree, buddy.

 

 

 

Mental masturbation should be a one person activity, just like the other kind. This is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN because no one that shoots S8 wants to back up what they say on the 'net with money on the table.

 

Do you think I enjoy stating the obvious to you? No, I don't. It's nice fantasizing about this stuff. But hey, this is 2010, and if you want a shot to shoot film, you need to do it now, with what's available, using a workflow that is still supported. You can't bring back the past, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of feet of film you expose.

 

If you can't deal with that, Paul, I suggest you deal with it in your own way, not by turning hostile towards me. I am trying to help put all of you here on a path that is productive and fruitful. I'm not pointing these things out because I enjoy tearing people down and destroying their dreams.

 

 

I am blunt, and I am a realist, though. Both of these qualities are needed to get movies out of your head and finished onto print stock. Oh, and you need lots of money too. If you don't have these three qualities, it is fine to be a S8 enthusiast, but don't litter about your fantasies to influence impressionable young minds.

 

Some people are trying to work here.

[K Borowski]

All of this stuff on here about how S8 processing is so much cheaper than 16mm or 35mm is nonsense.

 

Here's why:

 

Labs need to pay their rent or their property taxes every month.

 

Labs need to pay their full-time staff every month.

 

Labs need to keep their processing machine chemistry in control every month.

 

 

It's almost the same amount of work for 16mm that it is for 35mm. The amount of chemistry used is less than half as much, but the amount of oxidation is still comparable because you are heating the chemistry up, running through it and getting oxygen in it.

 

S8 the amount of labor to load it is actually MORE than 16mm

 

 

 

The only way that a lab could do 8mm at 1/4 the cost of 35mm is if they got FOUR TIMES as much S8 as they did 35mm. Otherwise the prices are going to be practically the same. This isn't a "rip-off," it is some people having to get PAID because they WORK in this field, they don't fantasize in it.

 

The only form of "8mm" that a lab actually could give shooters a break on is DS8 or DR8, because the physical handling is the same as with 16mm. But again, if everyone dropped 16mm and went to 8mm and volumes dropped, labs would have to raise prices, or go out of business.

 

 

This is simple economics. Why every customer out there these days wants "something for nothing" or a "special deal" is beyond me. Why do you think Kodak doesn't release 5201 in S8? Because they need to sell a certain volume of film to make it at a low price. They would have to sell 4x as much 8mm as 16mm, or 16x as much 8mm as 35mm. That is just never going to happen.

 

So it makes perfect sense why Kodak tries so hard to give people breaks on 35mm, but not so much on 16mm and not really at all on S8. They have to PAY THEIR RENT, PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND KEEP THEIR COATING LINES AS NEAR TO 100% EFFICIENCY AS POSSIBLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS. Dreams do not keep Kodak in business, dollar signs and billions of feet of film sales do.

[Paul Korver]

If you can't deal with that, Paul, I suggest you deal with it in your own way, not by turning hostile towards me. I am trying to help put all of you here on a path that is productive and fruitful. I'm not pointing these things out because I enjoy tearing people down and destroying their dreams.

 

Hey Karl,

My message was meant to stick up for the spirit of what Moises was trying to do and not meant to come accross as "hostile" towards you. But speaking of hostile your posts do seem unnecessarily grumpy you and use a lot of CAPS when you write. It came accross to me as a bit heavy-handed towards Moises admitedly lofty proposition.

 

I love film and have been both productive and fruitful with it. I touch celluloid everyday either by shooting it on the production side or scanning it on the post side. I love innovation and think it's important to support both the little guy and the big guy. Today is a perfect example. I'm going to work the first half of the morning modifying our Spirit gate to be able to transfer Ultra 16mm (an admittedly cottage format that we poineered the post workflow for on our URSA diamond). Then in the afternoon I'm putting together a bid for a 35mm 3-perf 2K DI for a Paramount feature from dailies through film-out.

 

 

I am blunt, and I am a realist, though. Both of these qualities are needed to get movies out of your head and finished onto print stock. Oh, and you need lots of money too. If you don't have these three qualities, it is fine to be a S8 enthusiast, but don't litter about your fantasies to influence impressionable young minds.

 

I don't think you need to be blunt or jaded to get films made or make a living in film. Savvy optimism works well too.

 

Mental masturbation should be a one person activity, just like the other kind. This is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN because no one that shoots S8 wants to back up what they say on the 'net with money on the table.

 

While many super 8mm shooters don't have a ton of money... Some do and they really care about quality and are willing to pay for it. That and my passion the format caused me to invested in a Super 8mm gate for our Spirit at the price of a well equiped european sports car (money I made shooting Super 8mm film btw). We have many Super 8mm clients that are spending 5-figures per year transferring their Super 8mm film with Cinelicious.

 

 

Some people are trying to work here.

 

You are right Karl... I gotta get back to it.