New Super 8 film camera!

[Edward Koehler]

There's a reassuring recent example with Polaroid which may provide some insight.

 

As some of you may know, Polaroid ceased the manufacture of film in 2007. All of their film production equipment was set to be demolished when an individual approached Polaroid and offered to purchase their factory in Enshende, Netherlands which was equipped to produce Polaroid integral materials. The aim was to continue the manufacture of Polaroid-esque instant film, despite the discontinuation by Polaroid. The endeavor came to be called 'The Impossible Project'. One of the partners in The Impossible Project is also behind the LOMO brand of 'toy' cameras (for lack of a better term).

 

As I understand it, The Impossible Project purchased the factory and the equipment, but that purchase did not include either the patents, licensing or the technical knowledge to reproduce the Polaroid instant film materials. Furthermore, many of the suppliers of components for the film materials had ceased operation as well... So The Impossible Project had to RE-INVENT instant film from the ground up. It was truly appearing impossible, and many doubted they would ever be able to pull it off.

 

The Impossible Project first set about selling the last stocks of Polaroid cameras and instant film. They did this on their website, PolaPremium.com, as well as in shops like Urban Outfitters. Meanwhile, they spread the word that The Impossible Project was re-inventing instant film and would be releasing a new instant integral film product in February of 2009. There was much anticipation and when February arrived, the film was not yet ready for release and the press announcement was delayed until the following month.

 

In March, The Impossible Project released their first flush of instant film called 'SilverShade'. From what I've read, it was very low contrast B&W stock which had to be developed in darkness and within a rather narrow temperature range. So, it was not an ideal replacement for the Polaroid integral stock. Many users knocked it because of the 'tempermentality' of the stock and the high prices, but it was a start... others remained very positive, anticipating better products to come.

 

Since SilverShade, The Impossible Project has developed and released other stocks. Still not ideal replacements for the Polaroid stocks, but old Polaroid users are purchasing it and there is a dedicated user base. The Impossible Project continues to research and develop new stocks and you can look them up at www.The-Impossible-Project.com They've even hired some of the old tech guys behind the Polaroid stocks.

 

So, it's not impossible to manufacture a new Super 8 camera. I think such an endeavor would be less impossible than re-inventing instant film. For me, I agree with Martin's point above. There is such a resource of quality used cameras out there, that I would prefer to purchase another Beaulieu and have it serviced rather than to splash out on a new Super 8 camera. And, typically, Super 8 users tend to be rather budget-minded and may not have the thousands of dollars to spend on a new camera when there are working machines available for a couple hundred dollars.

 

However, I do think that a new camera of good quality and design could create a surge of interest among new users, and provide the format with the shot in the arm needed to secure it from discontinuation.

 

Another tangential example is with micro 4/3 cameras... there has been an increase in demand for legacy c-mount lenses as m4/3 users have been adapting these small, wide and fast c-mount lenses onto their m4/3 mounts. As a result, Konica is now developing a digital camera with c-mount to be released in 2011 and with it we may also see new c-mount lenses.

[Edward Koehler]

Sorry... KENKO, not Konica.

 

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19892

[K Borowski]

This is a fascinating topic and one that has cropped up in the Super 8 film arena many times in recent years. Realistically, the probabililty is slim, but not impossible. The last "new" Super 8mm camera was the BEAULIEU 9008 and was selling in the price range of $7,900 USA depending on how outfitted and where you ordered it from. This was several years ago. So the price range suggested is understandable, although from the lowcost attraction of the gauge, high to many users. While determining what features it should have, IF a major manufacturer were to get into the game, it might be best to feature an interchangeable mount to allow a variety of lenses to be used, whether it be C-mount, PL, etc. That should be very doable. Of course, the camera design suggested is fully blown professional and there would have to be sufficient filmstock support, to support it.

 

Hey Martin! I thought you didn't like internet fora. . . Good to see you on here :-)

 

 

Anyway, when was it that this camera was retailing for $7,900? If that's 1983 dollars, it's many times more now. At the very least, that's over $8,000 today. I don't see a low-end S8 camera coming on the market; you're right, it's already saturated there with many many models going back three decades.

 

I just don't see what good this would do at all. 16- and 35mm cameras are winding down production. Why would a company that is still getting reliable buyers of these cameras, but pulling out of the market, going to pump money into S8 production, which is very very niche.

 

 

I've heard rumors from reliable sources in rental houses that the only reason they're coming out with new 35mm cameras is that the manufacturers are making them 2-perf. compatible; then they plan on pulling the plug. . .

 

I don't see what the point would be of bringing out a camera with new features when modifications of existing cameras can be had far more cheaply.

 

 

And getting Kodak to come out with 200-foot DS8 film? IMPOSSIBLE They are losing 16- and 35mm and going from 4 perf. to 3- and 2- perf. film production. They have NO incentive to support a format that shoots 4x as long on the same piece of film.

 

Sure telecine houses are interested in supporting the format: Both stashes of old movies and new experimental/home footage is still out there, untransferred. They couldn't care less what the frame size is, as it's all transferred by the K, by the hour. This is honestly the only area I see S8 technology improving.

 

Even film stock, is going to start to suffer as Kodak pulls the plug on more and more lines. What are we down to now, 3 stocks?

 

 

 

 

Someone mentioned on here the "IMPOSSIBLE PROJECT" and how one of the owners of LOMO is involved. That is news to me but it makes sense. There work is mostly hype and very little solid achievement. They couldn't even retain the offerings of Polaroid? I think that is a huge mistake.

 

They also had a whole batch of their Polaroid-knock-offs fade prematurely just months from development. I've been on their site. They even try to see their defective coatings on there!

 

 

Meanwhile, Fuji continues to silently offer products identical to their Polaroid equivalents that are devoid of any of these problems or defects. Maybe they should put more money into hype and less into solid good work, because it seems like the salesman with the biggest line of bull always makes the most money. This is probably why "Pro 8mm" continues to be in business, while guys like John Schwind who singlehandedly supply the world with DS8 and DR8 film are virtually unknown and probably don't even eek out minimum wage after all their work is done.

[K Borowski]

http://www.the-impossible-project.com/ourfilm/

 

They offer 2 speeds of B&W instant film (3 if you count different sizes) and one in color that you have to *cover with your hand* as it emerges to keep it from self-fogging. They only offer it for amateur model cameras without adjustable F/stop or shutter speed.

 

Can you imagine someone doing test shots trying to use these materials without repeatable results? The sample color photo they have looks bad, and it's their sample. I understand they cost double what Polaroid did at only 8 sheets per pack (instead of 10). I could only imagine these materials being useful for emulsion transfers and other abstract art techniques.

 

Meanwhile: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/professional_photography/film/index.html#fujifilm-instant-films Plus a full range of Instax cameras. Guess what commercial, medical, and law-enforcement who are still using instant film are probably going to use, if they didn't go digital in 2008?

 

 

 

As for a Super 8 camera project, the frames posted with the crop lines clearly have scratching that would make a 1.78:1 extraction impossible anyway, not to mention their being taken from a film discontinued in 2005. And what, if any, progress has been made since this thread was started 6 mos. ago?

[Edward Koehler]

Karl... Fuji Instax film is in no way 'identical' to Polaroid instant film. Instax cannot be used in any legacy Polaroid camera, not even with modification, because Instax is exposed through the back of the instant print, whereas Polaroid is exposed through the front of the print.

 

I understand your criticisms of The Impossible Project's stocks, and I agree. But regardless of how we feel about the Lomo toy cameras and the limitations of these initial stocks, you must admit this is a huge accomplishment and T.I.P (The Impossible Project) is continuing to develop other, more stable stocks. There's better stocks to come, and they're now working on a camera similar to the Polaroid SX-70. I welcome any involvement they might have with Super 8.

 

Their work reviving film for the legacy Polaroid cameras has motivated 'Polaroid' (aka Summit Global Group) to remanufacture new versions of classic Polaroid instant film cameras (such as the PIC-1000 http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/01/07/next-gen-polaroid-film-camera-spotted/) which will use T.I.P stock (some of it re-branded as Polaroid), and another Polaroid branded camera, the Polaroid 300 (which is actually a licensed, re-branded Fuji mini 7 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-300-Instant-Camera-Black/dp/B003B2ITI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287309708&sr=8-1) which uses Polaroid-branded Fuji Instax film.

 

My point is that the work on the part of T.I.P has created new interest in instant film, even on the part of Polaroid who had abandoned their own product line, and more importantly, a very dedicated user base. A new super 8 camera, of adequate design and with a well publicized product roll-out, could generate similar interest among new users and stock manufacturers. This would be good for the format.

 

Personally, if I had designs for a new super 8 camera I'd endeavor to meet with the folks at T.I.P. and/or LOMO. They have manufacturing in place and may have entertained the S8 notion already. I don't necessarily feel confident about the quality of an S8 camera manufactured by T.I.P, but I do welcome the attention such a release would bring to S8.

[Michael Lehnert]

Just to clarify a few things regarding The Impossible Project.

 

It is news to me that LOMO is in any way associated with "the boys from Vienna" - but I could see the connection easily. The actual set-up of the Polaroid integral film revival is a bit more complex. The Dutch polaroid plant was bought-out by a group of ex-workers there. The entire idea to relaunc the product, the legal and patent issues, the R&D of the material and the manufacturing and packaging was initiated by Harman Technology, a B2B company that is behind the Ilford brand. The Boys from Vienna were contacted by Harman to be the voice and distribution channel because they were at the heart of an alternative cult community churning out stuff that can be seen in online galleries at www.polanoid.net. The Boys from Vienna don't do R&D or had any hardcore business impetus to revive Polaroid integral film.

 

Instax aside, Fuji is manufacturing exquisite medium and large-format packfilms - which I use. They are far superior to any packfilm stock Polaroid had launched since the late 1980s.

 

The Beaulieu 9008-series was developed by Ritter Film + Videotechnik, the German distributor of Beaulieu. It was launched in 1999/2000 and retailed then for the Deutsche Mark equivalent of US$7900. 5 more grand got you the Beaulieu SD8/60 magazine, a modified Beaulieu R16 uniaxial film mag.

 

Re new S8 camera prospect. I think that just restarting to manufacture a camera like the Beaulieu 4008 series would cover all basics. PL-Mount adapters are available, and mechanical improvements can be easily done. The lack of market place success for designs like the Ikonoskop models showed that coming up with an all-new design is to capital-intensive to break even. It ain't gonna happen. The only camera manufacturer that experimented in seriousness with Super 8 were Arri with a DS8 version of the 16S (prototype only) and of course Jean-Pierre at Aaton who was very seriously into this. But both designs favoured DS8 and not cartridge-based film stock. And I doubt that with 95% of S8 cameras currently available catering for the Instamatic cartridge, Kodak will start offering an entirely new reel-version of Super 8 (i.e. DS8) for maybe a few several dozen cameras sold, while the overwhelming majority of S8 users will get to know the format from buying a cartridge camera second hand and - at best - have it refurbished by the many excellent tech guys all over this planet.

 

Re price: no matter what you do: if you choose to remanufacture a Beaulieu 4008 from scratch, or start with a new design with full R&D, the body will cost around US$3-4k without a lens. LOMO/Quartz-style cameras - sure - can be made cheaper, but this isn't catering to pros or semi-pros who want top-quality image steadiness and frame stability. It just isn't. And the results from a LOMO/Quartz-style camera can also be had from some delapidated Pippifax Autommovix S23 XLMSS bought on a flee-market purchase.

 

In toto: there are just too many top S8 cameras easily available for little money that can be made run very very well with great TLC to meet professional or semi-prof. demands. If you want a f***-up "Camden Town" underground squirt movie look, you just buy any heap of junk camera you can get because PL-Mounted Zeiss T* imagery with Aaton-like frame stability isn't what you want aesthetically in the first place. So even though I would love to see a new top-grade contemporary S8 camera coming out of Munich or Grenoble, I myself can understand if JPB says that there just isn't a market for that that would legitimise the costs anymore, because it's so easy to buy an excellent product at Super8shop.com, Wittner Cinetech or Super8forum.com .

[Hal Smith]

Why not modify the hordes of Arri SR's that for all practical purposes been retired by the increasing use of digital? If you run the film down the pulldown side of a modified gate the principal modification would be the pulldown stroke (not unlike a 2-perf mod of a 35mm camera), the new gate, and new rollers. I think you could recenter the lens and change backfocal distance with a special C-mount to PL or Arri bayonet adapter (Tim Carroll would know about this). You could live with the viewfinder as is with new GG markings at the cost of a smaller image.

[K Borowski]

Karl... Fuji Instax film is in no way 'identical' to Polaroid instant film. Instax cannot be used in any legacy Polaroid camera, not even with modification, because Instax is exposed through the back of the instant print, whereas Polaroid is exposed through the front of the print.

 

I'd hardly call the SX-70 or 600-series cameras "legacy" Edward. I'm sure I have both in the upstairs closet. They cost, new, probably right around $60 today (a new Instax is a trivial $80, for much the same thing). And the SX-70 took FLASH CUBES. I know they're still popular, but that is because of the compatibility of SX-70 films with emulsion transferring, not because the cameras were such wonderful, high-tech machines. They had primitive exposure compensation, fixed focal length, slow lenses and automatic flash. I'd say a consumer zoom camera from the '90s with autofocus, that underexposed any film under 800 speed is about as "legacy."

 

So yeah, you have to buy a new camera to use Instax film, but when 6 packs of film (THREE with the Overpriced Impossible film) equal that camera's cost, who cares? I'm not a fan of throwing things into landfills, but when they're replaced by something comparable, and half the price for the films, so long.

 

 

The quality of the Fuji films is comparable to original Polaroid, not the shoddy, poorly designed stuff I've seen from Impossible. If you're using them for fine art transfers, fine, but I wouldn't even use the shoddy stuff they've come out with for continuity photos, they look so flakey.

 

Meanwhile, PROFESSIONAL cameras, designed for law enforcement, continuity, the SPECTRA series that Polaroid made are unsupported, nor are the medium-format, large-format 60- and 50-series films.

 

While they're at it, maybe Impossible should bring back that iZone sticker film and sell it for $45/20 exposure pack :blink:

[Tim Carroll]

Morning Hal,

 

I had to laugh, just spent the last hour reading through this whole thread with the idea of maybe modifying a few old Arriflex 16S cameras to use with some of John Schwind's 100 ft rolls of R8 in a DS8 fashion. Was wondering what a fellow engineers thoughts were on this. And now I know.

 

Had not considered the Arriflex 16SR. Might be a possibility.

 

My own concerns on this are in the area of lenses. Everyone immediately thinks of availability of wide angle lenses, which I know is a concern. But my concerns lie more along the issues of lens sharpness and contrast. The smaller the format, the larger the "blowup" when going to a presentation format, and in my experience, as you get smaller, you want sharper and slightly higher contrast lenses (to increase the perceived sharpness) and aside from the 5mm Switar, I'm not sure what "readily available" wide angle lens is going to give acceptable results for 8mm. Plus the medium and telephoto end of things, I would think you'd want them all to be extra sharp and a little higher contrast than the lenses used for 16mm and 35mm.

 

The other big issue would be that the FFD for C-mount lenses is 17.52mm, where the ARRI standard/bayonet/PL mount is 52mm. So you would have to sink the C-mount 34.48mm into the camera, which might cause some clearance problems with the mirror.

 

Something to think about though.

 

Best,

-Tim

[K Borowski]

Why not modify the hordes of Arri SR's that for all practical purposes been retired by the increasing use of digital? If you run the film down the pulldown side of a modified gate the principal modification would be the pulldown stroke (not unlike a 2-perf mod of a 35mm camera), the new gate, and new rollers. I think you could recenter the lens and change backfocal distance with a special C-mount to PL or Arri bayonet adapter (Tim Carroll would know about this). You could live with the viewfinder as is with new GG markings at the cost of a smaller image.

 

Hal, this is about the only post on here that I've heard that makes sense.

 

Instead of building cameras from scratch, I think DS8 (or DR8) is about the only way to get more than 50 feet of continuous shooting on 8mm today. Kodak has been giving John a hard time even about 100-foot lengths. I am not sure if he has to cut those down himself, or just the 25-foot lengths.

 

Of course there are already excellent cameras for this out there, albeit old ones. . . Isn't there a crystal sync Bolex H8 that runs DS8?

 

Tim, as far as coming out with new *lenses* for 8mm cameras, don't think that is going to happen. Are there any sharp CCD lenses for scientific imaging out there that are made for this small of an image area? I'd think that would be the only source.

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, as far as coming out with new *lenses* for 8mm cameras, don't think that is going to happen. Are there any sharp CCD lenses for scientific imaging out there that are made for this small of an image area? I'd think that would be the only source.

 

Karl,

 

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't recommending or suggesting new lenses for 8mm. I was pointing out that it doesn't make sense to convert 16mm cameras to 8mm if there aren't readily available (read "inexpensive") lenses to use with the converted cameras. I'm a mechanical engineer with over thirty five years experience in precision machining and prototype work, I can make a mechanical motion picture camera in any configuration you can dream of if you have the cash. Converting any 16mm camera to shoot Regular 8, Double 8 or DS8 is not a problem, but why do it is there aren't good lenses available to make the converted camera useful.

 

Just my 2¢ worth.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Edward Koehler]

Tim... I wanted to point out there's plenty of wide angle lenses in D-mount from regular 8mm cameras. Also, there's ultra wide angle (3mm) c-mount lenses available for 1/2" and 2/3" CCTV and machine vision cameras, specifically from Fujinon and Schneider-Kreuznach, that perform wonderfully on Super 8.

 

Karl... by saying 'legacy' when we speak of gear, we refer to a product line or format that has been surpassed in favor of newer, not necessarily better technology. In some instances, like this Polaroid example, the equipment is no longer supported by the manufacturer. Old Polaroid cameras are legacy equipment despite their age, their original sale price, or what flash or lens they used. It's not a quality descriptor. I don't know what your understanding of the term 'legacy' is... but if you want to argue semantics, you can do it in that upstairs closet of yours.

 

What else? SX-70 used flashbars, not flashcubes. Spectra is not very 'professional' either, despite police enforcement and continuity use. T.I.P is supporting Spectra. The Fuji stocks are superior to the Polaroid instant film in nearly every way except contrast.

 

You seem to not understand that the people shooting The Impossible Project products, or Polaroid for that matter, are not interested in fine image quality. They want a look, they want something moody. They like the cheap Diana plastic lens. They like soft focus and vignetting. Some of them affix their DSLRs to old super-cheap bake-lite TLRs through a cardboard poster tube to fashion a 'TTV contraption'... in other words they photograph the image on the dirty viewfinder of an old TLR with their DSLR. The dirtier the better. Why? For mood, for a look, because they're bored. Because they could care less about your conception of 'professional' or whatever you think 'legacy' might mean.

[Andries Molenaar]

While they're at it, maybe Impossible should bring back that iZone sticker film and sell it for $45/20 exposure pack :blink:

 

Why are you fulminating about a product you don't want and are not using?

Polaroid is no longer a consumer product although shooting it at occasions gives still very good reactions and makes it worth the costs.

The Impossible project are evolving their products and the latest BW film gives really nice pictures which look a lot like AZO prints.

A reason alone to start with this material!

Soon they will have Pak 100 again and apparently big polaroid (8x10 and 20x24) is in the works too.

 

I read somewhere that Polaroid is starting up again the production for Izone or something of that kind. So your wishes are heard.

Prices will likely be more affordable.

 

Considering the new S8 camera. It would be difficult to get anything going and sales are likely limited to a few 100. If at all.

Somebody ought to start a business and offer refurbish top cameras of the past. I.e. Leicina special, Canon 1014, Nikon R10. Beauliexes

 

Oh, that is allready happening :) Some even charge half the value of car for them.

 

These Agfa Movexooms are really nice too and usually have very low milage. Their housing is very well sealed so little suffering of the environment (cellars, attics, cupboard etc)

Edited October 17, 2010 by Andries Molenaar

[K Borowski]

Karl,

 

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't recommending or suggesting new lenses for 8mm. I was pointing out that it doesn't make sense to convert 16mm cameras to 8mm if there aren't readily available (read "inexpensive") lenses to use with the converted cameras.

 

Tim, my thoughts were more along the lines of what Edward points out in the post below your last, just re-housing available lenses, or having a modified lens mount to take such lenses.

 

As for your having knowledge in mechanical engineering, I have no doubt. I wish you could pass a modicum of your knowledge onto some of the wild-eyed dreamers who waste everyone's time with impossible ideas and speculation. My modest couple of years in an incomplete engineering degree gave me a real advantage when it came to understanding lenses, optics, elements (although I guess that is more physics than engineering).

 

I used to eat that kind of stuff up when I was a gullible kid, and hate to see the next generation of "new-bes" similarly corrupted by it. I had a tonne of S8 and R8 cameras when I was younger, because I was *convinced* that it was HD-worthy stuff. Not that 8mm is bad, it holds up great in standard-def, but it totally falls apart in high-def.

[K Borowski]

Karl... by saying 'legacy' when we speak of gear, we refer to a product line or format that has been surpassed in favor of newer, not necessarily better technology. In some instances, like this Polaroid example, the equipment is no longer supported by the manufacturer. Old Polaroid cameras are legacy equipment despite their age, their original sale price, or what flash or lens they used. It's not a quality descriptor. I don't know what your understanding of the term 'legacy' is... but if you want to argue semantics, you can do it in that upstairs closet of yours.

 

What else? SX-70 used flashbars, not flashcubes. Spectra is not very 'professional' either, despite police enforcement and continuity use. T.I.P is supporting Spectra. The Fuji stocks are superior to the Polaroid instant film in nearly every way except contrast.

 

So you want to fight, huh? I'm not going to throw egg back, but there is a real "upstairs closet" (actually a drawer in a living room bookshelf) that *had* an SX-70 and 600 series camera in it. I went in to take a picture, with some real FP 100C I have sitting in my Polaroid back to prove it to you, and wipe the smugness out of your posts, but I was too late. Those cameras got junked. I'm kind of bummed that the SX-70 is gone because I probably could have gotten $20 out of it on eBay or something from an artist, but on the 600, honestly, no loss.

 

Polaroid made (makes?) crap. The Impossible Project makes more of the same, crap. Yeah, they have brought a lot of hype and marketing into instant film that has increased its exposure to the public (no pun intended), but when that detracts from a REAL WORKABLE QUALITY product, like Fuji, then it is ultimately a loss to the medium.

 

I couldn't care less about flashbars vs. flashcubes. Both are obsolescent crap.

 

 

Flashbulbs are the only item of powder-based technology still made, and even they are on their last leg, ,for specialist cave photography.

 

 

You want to argue semantics with me? PROFESSIONAL means something someone uses to MAKE MONEY, or MAKE A PRODUCT. That means Spectra is the most professional Polaroid film out there, because cops used it in the course of MAKING MONEY, far more than most photographers or filmmakers make. SX-70 is less professional, or not professional at all. It is practically landfill material now.

 

As for Impossible film being "art" that is a bunch of fluff. Same with Diana cameras. I've actually seen interesting work done with the latter, but why not just slap a diffusion filter and a vignetter on a MF rangefinder? You'd get the same result. It's like a disposable 120 camera, an interesting child's toy or novelty, nothing more.

 

Polaroid narrowly beats out Kodak in its trail of obsolescent junk filling land. The trail of dead formats they left behind them could probably go around the world several times.

 

 

So, how much S8 or Polaroid do you use every year, internet hero? You're just out for big talk and to pick a fight. You don't actually DO anything to keep the media alive. You just expect it offered out on a silver platter, instead of understanding simple supply and demand.

[K Borowski]

Why are you fulminating about a product you don't want and are not using?

Polaroid is no longer a consumer product although shooting it at occasions gives still very good reactions and makes it worth the costs.

The Impossible project are evolving their products and the latest BW film gives really nice pictures which look a lot like AZO prints.

A reason alone to start with this material!

Soon they will have Pak 100 again and apparently big polaroid (8x10 and 20x24) is in the works too.

 

[. . .]

 

Oh, that is allready happening :) Some even charge half the value of car for them.

 

These Agfa Movexooms are really nice too and usually have very low milage. Their housing is very well sealed so little suffering of the environment (cellars, attics, cupboard etc)

 

I DO use Polaroid, made by Fuji under license from Polaroid. It is high quality, and I use it for professional work. Fast-fading, poor-consistency material probably wouldn't be that big a problem for most of my uses, as a simple frame/exposure guide. However, pro-bono polas I give out as party favors would NOT be well-received if they faded in six mos.

 

As for comparing unstable, over-priced 3x3 inch (or whatever) Polaroids to fine-art, spotless, fade-less contact printing paper, that's just silly. Azo wasn't all it was cracked up to be though. It was a simple paper dating to the 1890s.

 

 

I know a girl whose sister worked for Polaroid. She used to shoot 20x24" fine art photos, one of a kind, like an artist. Then (I assume) she got laid off like everyone else involved with instant film at the company. I highly doubt that company of yours will be able to make 20x24" material to the specifications or standards of an exhibitor.

 

If you had the faintest idea of the needs of the professional market, you'd understand my cynicism. If anything, it hastens the demise of the only remaining reliable source of instant film. I don't know why it is such a big deal to you guys to just go out and buy an instax. It's not as if Polaroid didn't force its users into camera after camera as they came out with model after model. Even at $80, the cost of the camera is trivial next to the high cost of the instant film.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

Years ago a swiss guy named Ruedi Muster (famous for creating DS-8 Bolexes) created a new film format.

He made a H16 with DS-8 sprockets and rollers and gave it a gate half the height of 16mm but full in horizontal.

So it was kind of a Techniscope DS-8 camera. This i find absolutely fascinating. All the hype about silly things

like a widescreen Super 8 (Max 8 etc.) and discussions about building new S8 cameras is IMHO just nonsense.

This camera and format would have made it big time. Sad it never happened.

[K Borowski]

Years ago a swiss guy named Ruedi Muster (famous for creating DS-8 Bolexes) created a new film format.

He made a H16 with DS-8 sprockets and rollers and gave it a gate half the height of 16mm but full in horizontal.

 

Oliver, wasn't this camera produced? I know there are special H8s that run DS8, so something similar appears to be available, even if it isn't as widescreen as the camera you are talking about. Couldn't you just file the gate (carefully) on such a camera to make it as widescreen as possible?

 

This is what I don't get: Excellent DS8 cameras are available, with processing as cheap as processing 1/4 as much run time as S16, yet people just want new stuff instead, new cameras, when there are some really fine cameras out there, more than anyone could need.

 

They don't hook into twitter and they don't have LCD counters and programmable speed-ramps. But, for all practical purposes, these cameras are just as good as any modern camera that could be machined today, save for maybe being heavier than a modern camera could be.

 

 

These formats, like DS8 are on life-support from a few passionate hobbyist middlemen who order 10,000-foot (3,048m) lengths of film and cut it down themselves, yet people want a new film length for a new camera?

 

All I have to say is dream on, and keep mental masterbation as a one person activity, like any other kind.

[Anthony Schilling]

I doubt we ever see a new pro version as long as there is somebody still servicing Nizo and Canon. BUT,I wouldn't be surprised if Lomo came out with some new plastic cheapo version of an S8 camera, and load carts with Velvia of their Afga 200 reversal or something... but that would be about it.

[Edward Koehler]

So you want to fight, huh? I'm not going to throw egg back, but there is a real "upstairs closet" (actually a drawer in a living room bookshelf) that *had* an SX-70 and 600 series camera in it. I went in to take a picture, with some real FP 100C I have sitting in my Polaroid back to prove it to you, and wipe the smugness out of your posts, but I was too late. Those cameras got junked. I'm kind of bummed that the SX-70 is gone because I probably could have gotten $20 out of it on eBay or something from an artist, but on the 600, honestly, no loss.

 

Polaroid made (makes?) crap. The Impossible Project makes more of the same, crap. Yeah, they have brought a lot of hype and marketing into instant film that has increased its exposure to the public (no pun intended), but when that detracts from a REAL WORKABLE QUALITY product, like Fuji, then it is ultimately a loss to the medium.

 

I couldn't care less about flashbars vs. flashcubes. Both are obsolescent crap.

 

 

Flashbulbs are the only item of powder-based technology still made, and even they are on their last leg, ,for specialist cave photography.

 

 

You want to argue semantics with me? PROFESSIONAL means something someone uses to MAKE MONEY, or MAKE A PRODUCT. That means Spectra is the most professional Polaroid film out there, because cops used it in the course of MAKING MONEY, far more than most photographers or filmmakers make. SX-70 is less professional, or not professional at all. It is practically landfill material now.

 

As for Impossible film being "art" that is a bunch of fluff. Same with Diana cameras. I've actually seen interesting work done with the latter, but why not just slap a diffusion filter and a vignetter on a MF rangefinder? You'd get the same result. It's like a disposable 120 camera, an interesting child's toy or novelty, nothing more.

 

Polaroid narrowly beats out Kodak in its trail of obsolescent junk filling land. The trail of dead formats they left behind them could probably go around the world several times.

 

 

So, how much S8 or Polaroid do you use every year, internet hero? You're just out for big talk and to pick a fight. You don't actually DO anything to keep the media alive. You just expect it offered out on a silver platter, instead of understanding simple supply and demand.

 

You've come back out from under your bridge, eh Karl? I was merely reciprocating a bit of the superciliousness you've spewed in this thread.

 

You seem to regard all in this community as hobbyists, seeming to assume that as a film loader you must know more than anyone here... but you don't realize with whom you're engaging. I for one worked up through camera crew at a time when we still shot film and Polaroid, and witnessed the transition to HD and 4K Digital Cinema acquisition. So that vainglory of yours doesn't float with me. I do realize you have to try on your 'big boy hat' somewhere and it's best if we put your online persona in it's place here, than for you to have to be put in place on set.

 

More on the topic of a new Super 8 camera, I entirely agree with Anthony Schilling's statement above.

[K Borowski]

Wow, you've worked with FOUR KAY?!?!

 

 

Call me a troll. I prefer the title of "realist." You don't see serious film shooters talking about new 35mm cameras or new IMAX cameras.

 

I don't care if you're a DP, you've been spouting delusional BS that is going to influence some poor kid into taking this stuff seriously.

 

SIXTEEN millmeter is on borrowed time. Where do you think that leaves S8?

 

 

 

And funny, I haven't witnessed the transition to HD and digital acquisition. Guess I'm in a different circle, yet again, from where you think I am.

 

 

 

Anthony: No offense, but Lomo making a S8 camera? A movie camera isn't like a disposable camera in its simplicity. I'd give it a million to one odds that that would ever happen.

 

Edward, if S8 isn't hobbyist, what would YOU call it? I've certainly never used 8mm for anything other than home movies.

 

It is a borderline professional format for music videos, mostly for a crummy home-movie look rather than the grain as an aesthetic.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Karl Borowski

[Edward Koehler]

Karl... if you're soo thoroughly convinced of the imminent demise of film, then you should be pursuing a role as DIT rather than Film Loader. But good luck with whatever you end up doing.

[Carl Looper]

Call me a troll.

 

You are a troll.

 

I prefer the title of "realist."

 

Andre Bazin was a realist. That didn't mean he'd bring a hammer down on speculation.

 

You don't see serious film shooters talking about new 35mm cameras or new IMAX cameras.

 

I'm happy to entertain the idea of a new Super 8 camera - even if it's just pure speculation. Its only by taking anything seriously that you can assess the actual reality of anything. No pain. No gain.

 

I don't care if you're a DP, you've been spouting delusional BS that is going to influence some poor kid into taking this stuff seriously.

 

Kids can learn from their mistakes. They can also learn from taking wild ideas seriously. They will not be poorer for it.

 

SIXTEEN millmeter is on borrowed time. Where do you think that leaves S8?

 

I don't know if 16mm is on borrowed time, but S8 is certainly cheaper than 16mm. In other words one can imagine a move in the market, from from 16mm to S8, if only because of the price. I was certin S8 was going to die 10 years ago. All the signs were there. But it didn't.

 

With a better understanding of the technical relationship between film and digital intermediate/distribution there is an opportunity to rebrand/repurpose S8 as a professional format.

 

if S8 isn't hobbyist, what would YOU call it? I've certainly never used 8mm for anything other than home movies.

 

S8 is a film format that for some reason is still with us. While originally marketed as a home movie format, it enjoyed brief use during the seventies as a professional medium. And has always been used by artists in a non-home movie manner. 16mm was also invented as a home movie medium. It was only later rebranded as a professional medium. And like Super8, 16mm has always been used by artists in a non-home movie manner.

 

And home movies need not be artistically empty. Indeed I've seen a number of creative and well crafted "home movies" that have more to say in a few minutes than the hours of rubbish on television and in the cinema.

 

It is a borderline professional format for music videos, mostly for a crummy home-movie look rather than the grain as an aesthetic.

 

A "crummy home movie look" can be achieved using any format and the correct digital signal processing techniques. But using Super 8 to achieve that look is probably cheaper. It is not, however, necessarily more artistically valid. Lichtenstein's comic book art is, from certain points of view, artistically valid despite being done in paint rather than with a cheap offset printer.

[K Borowski]

Karl... if you're soo thoroughly convinced of the imminent demise of film, then you should be pursuing a role as DIT rather than Film Loader. But good luck with whatever you end up doing.

 

You seem to be foolish enough to think I am anti-film. I am probably the most diehard film guy on here. But wasting time, energy, and speculation on something that just isn't going to happen is like a big circle jerk. I'm done with this thread. But I am not done loading film, ACing, and getting paid for it. Working with film on the production, and post-production end are what is going to keep it alive, NOT incessant mental masturbation.

 

 

 

 

Carl: S16 users aren't going to switch to S8, they're going to go to HD. Name a single television series that was shot on S8. Not going to happen. Reason people are dumping S16 is that it honestly doesn't hold up too well at 1080i with the 500T stocks. How, then, do you think that S8 can handle this format with less than 1/4 of the image area?

[Carl Looper]

Carl: S16 users aren't going to switch to S8, they're going to go to HD. Name a single television series that was shot on S8. Not going to happen. Reason people are dumping S16 is that it honestly doesn't hold up too well at 1080i with the 500T stocks. How, then, do you think that S8 can handle this format with less than 1/4 of the image area?

 

The biggest move from 16mm to non-film media occurred in the early 80s with video. That should have been the end of 16mm you would have thought. Indeed video should have been the end of Super8. It certainly spelt the end of the cameras . But the film has persisted. It is somewhat surprising that these smaller guages have persisted. I expect that if and when 35mm dies that will mean the death of the smaller guages.

 

In recent years we have seen the dominant market for video eagerly and easily move across into digital video. And with advances in digital video there have been those remaining in the 16mm space moving across into digital. 35mm users ahve been doing as it well.

 

But there is an interesting background movement going on. Apart from die-hard filmmakers with a film-or-death position there are those like myself who understand the virtues and limiations of both film and digital and can see very useful hybridisations wherein the best of both can be exploited.

 

Super8 does sound like a non-intutive alternative but there are very good reasons to move from 16mm to Super8. The first reason is that Super8 is cheaper than 16mm (but not as cheap as digital). If used correctly and properly handled in the digital domain, it can compete with digital on purely technical grounds. Its not necessarily going to outperform gimungus sensors.

 

But one has to understand that bigger isn't always better. What happened to Cinerama? Or why does IMAX almost always show crap films?

 

Because there is a careful balancing point between technical production values and creativity. While both should be possible the cost of one appears to put too much pressure on the other. Not always. But most often. Big business has to play it safer more often than it doesn't.

 

But sure, it does sound unlikely, a new Super8 camera.