New Super 8 film camera!

[K Borowski]

Someone who makes his living in the film industry?

[Carl Looper]

I'm tempted to reply to Karl... but let's not feed him any longer, now that we know what he is.

Borowski needs to understand that there is an entire domain of filmmaking (both theory and practice) that operates outside of his limited field of view. The audience for such are not necessarily watching TV or sleep walking into the nearest cinema-plex on cheap Tuesdays.

 

They go to art gallerys. They go to film festivals. They read history. They have an understanding of the big picture - one much bigger than the latest quickest way to earn a living with a camera.

 

The problem is that Borowski keeps forcing the context back into that of conventional filmmaking and in such a context this discussion could seem rather strange, misguided, delusional, etc.

 

Perhaps if Borowski made some attempt to understand the various contexts in which the discussion shifts he might discover why he doesn't understand the discussion.

[Edward Koehler]

He's also not the only one here who makes a living in the film industry. He's loaded a few jobs and seems to think that renders him some superior status to come in this forum and belittle its contributors, assuming any Super 8 enthusiast must be amateur. He comes here to inflate his own ego, rather than to contribute anything of worth. Such a personality is not well-received in the film industry, which is likely why he's loading jobs using short ends left over from a Domino's commercial.

 

It's not just on this one point that Borowski is gravely mistaken. One of the projects I'm editing at the moment is a 'making of' video for a food product commercial shot in 35mm. This is a national commercial with a decent budget shot on fresh stock. The footage consists of the original commercial and behind-the-scenes HDV and Super 8 footage. The output resolution is ProRes 444 1920x1080. This is not the only, or last, paid project in the world to use Super 8 in this way. Filmmakers will continue to use Super 8 for its distinct characteristics. Borowski only demonstrates his ignorance in his continued contempt for Super 8, and all other formats not deemed 'professional' by him alone.

 

I won't be addressing him directly any longer, and I think it's best we all do the same.

[Edward Koehler]

LOMO has made Super8 cameras in the past, including double S8 using 25' spools.

 

They were hardly top of the line, even if some had metal bodies.

 

http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_lomo/cameras_lomo.htm

 

The old Russian Lomo cameras are a different entity to the Lomography 'toy' cameras we refer to as 'Lomo'. Lomography AG is an Austrian company which was granted rights of distribution to the LOMO LC-A. I don't know if Lomography ever marketed the Lomo super 8 cameras, but it would seem that if they have a working relationship with Lomo on the LC-a, could (or would) they market and distribute one of the Russian Lomo Super 8 cameras?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomography

[Tom Jensen]

Yes , film is an art but in reality, because the expense of production and the profits to be made, it is a business as well. There is absolutely 0 demand for a new Super 8 camera. Particularly, a consumer model. Karl obviously got frustrated that this point isn't fully appreciated. People can dream all they want but current Super 8 models are not in high demand, film is in short supply and the industry is headed in a different direction.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Your welcome, Carl.

 

Interesting how you built custom controllers. I am actively working on getting these Leitz micro-fiches scanned.

 

Call me crazy but I am mounting my Leicina Special + ST1 on my bike this weekend for time exposure ride through the city, i.e. approx. 3s exposure per frame.

 

The film stock in question is K40. However I expect some major color shifting as the stock is from 1982. That is not a typo. I am not striving for color accuracy but replicating the amazing streaks of color "solidity" that I produced in the early nineties in my film Silly Billy. It played in Germany this summer.

 

I may release it into the public domain sometime in the future ...if anything for the techies and an example of the 10mm Cinegon, ST1 + Leicina Shutter effects.

 

The original footage specifically the b/w sequences look like miniature 16mm.

[K Borowski]

He's also not the only one here who makes a living in the film industry. He's loaded a few jobs and seems to think that renders him some superior status to come in this forum and belittle its contributors, assuming any Super 8 enthusiast must be amateur. He comes here to inflate his own ego, rather than to contribute anything of worth. Such a personality is not well-received in the film industry, which is likely why he's loading jobs using short ends left over from a Domino's commercial.

 

We got their leftover CANS for OUR shortends, a**wipe. Instead of making blueprints for imaginary cameras to add to your collection, you should do a little bit better job of reading what other, non-delusional, *objective* people have to say first. Maybe you can get 16mm ends in Germany, but here in the United States, good luck!

 

And, yes, I think a professional production that can afford a professional film grade is above a hobbyist who shoots a lot of footage that he never does anything with, so he fantasizes about a "better camera" that would fix all of his problem.

 

 

Maybe I should change my designation to "DP" like so many of you hobbyists, instead of putting my real job title. It's amazing how many DPs are on here. . . If I have a RED camera, or make a crummy little 8mm stop-animation movie with a Bolex C8, then I can be a DP!

 

 

For the record, I was one of the people that petitioned this site to add an 8mm section. Looks like I am eating my own words, as all of the crackpots from the nuthouse joined up, even some Bigfoot and conspiracy theorists.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to come on with a dazzling new explanation of the "Zapruder Film." :rolleyes:

 

 

I shoot plenty of 8mm film myself, and tried to make movies with it before I moved up to professional methods. It's just that, a hobbyist/experimental art medium that can't stand up to any mainstream professional production requirements. I don't care if that ties your panties up in a bunch, because it just so happens to be true and you need to man up and deal with it.

 

Super8 didn't even hold up as a TELEVISION NEWS medium, in the early '70s. And now you don't even have K40A or anything of remotely the same quality, just a bunch of really grainy stocks.

 

Now, it seems that Edward feels that I am deciding, on my own, that S8 isn't professional. I'm sorry, wrong again. The industry almost entirely considers S8 as an amateur format. Every filmmaking manual I have concurs. The results I have seen lead me to concur.

 

 

 

Tom, thanks for injecting some badly-needed 3rd party realism into this thread. Some people go on the attack when you point out the fallacies in their strawman arguments, and that is too bad, because there are plenty of worthy projects out there that could use the technical and creative energies poured into this vaporware.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Karl Borowski

[Carl Looper]

Your welcome, Carl.

 

Interesting how you built custom controllers. I am actively working on getting these Leitz micro-fiches scanned.

 

Call me crazy but I am mounting my Leicina Special + ST1 on my bike this weekend for time exposure ride through the city, i.e. approx. 3s exposure per frame.

 

The film stock in question is K40. However I expect some major color shifting as the stock is from 1982. That is not a typo. I am not striving for color accuracy but replicating the amazing streaks of color "solidity" that I produced in the early nineties in my film Silly Billy. It played in Germany this summer.

 

I may release it into the public domain sometime in the future ...if anything for the techies and an example of the 10mm Cinegon, ST1 + Leicina Shutter effects.

 

The original footage specifically the b/w sequences look like miniature 16mm.

 

Sounds great. Would be interesting to see how the 82 stock holds up. As K40 slips into history the very last shots to be made on such are being made right now.

[Carl Looper]

I won't be addressing him directly any longer, and I think it's best we all do the same.

 

I agree. I assume he must be interested because he keeps popping up here. Not sure why this discussion is so threatening to him. I can understand the angst he is feeling about the collapse of the film industry (not the filmmaking industry) but it's not any of us who are responsible for that. It is just simple evolution.

 

But evolution doesn't mean "out with the old in with the new". We learn from history.

 

While bigger and better cars are made, or these days, greener cars, I still see a host of vintage cars driving around the suburbs where I live. Actually driving around. It is so much fun to see. And they obviously really enjoy it - restoring vintage cars to working order.

 

It's a way of interacting with history.

 

But it's silly to devalue such efforts on the basis that such restored vehicles could never win some contemporary super car race. That is not necessarily the point of such restoration.

 

But it can also be about improving vintage technology. There was a film not long ago called the "The World's Fastest Indian". A great film.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412080/

[Tom Jensen]

Let me put a different spin on this. I worked in film from 1985 to 2006. In that time, excluding film school, I worked with Super 8 in a professional capacity maybe twice. Once for certain. Everything else was either film and occasionally, video. A few times we simulated Super 8 using video. It didn't look the same but it didn't really matter because it worked for what it was.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tom Jensen

[Carl Looper]

Let me put a different spin on this. I worked in film from 1985 to 2006. In that time, excluding film school, I worked with Super 8 in a professional capacity maybe twice. Once for certain. Everything else was either film and occasionally, video. A few times we simulated Super 8 using video. It didn't look the same but it didn't really matter because it worked for what it was.

I only ever worked with Super8 in a "professional" capacity just the once. It was the early eighties. I shot a music clip. Worked just fine. We used archival Super 8 (of a protest march) intercut with new footage of the singers (in Super 8) and a couple of video shots. I think there was a bit if 16mm in there as well. The thing was put together on video for television distribution. And was screened a number of times.

 

The problem here is that if the argument is that "professional" (in the narrow sense of the word) use of Super8 is a dead end then okay - it is a dead end. And so to is the argument.

 

Because there are other uses of Super8 that are not dead ends. You can call such usage "hobby" or "amateur" but so what. Who cares?

 

I worked on a printing press in the late nineties, making engravings, despite such printing presses having long ago disappeared from so called 'professional' usage. But the work I did I wouldn't call 'hobbist' or 'amateur'. But if someone else needs to bolster their ego by calling it such then so be it. Thats the language they like to use. That it reflects a very narrow view of the universe is their problem.

 

Carl

[Tom Jensen]

I only ever worked with Super8 in a "professional" capacity just the once. It was the early eighties. I shot a music clip. Worked just fine. We used archival Super 8 (of a protest march) intercut with new footage of the singers (in Super 8) and a couple of video shots. I think there was a bit if 16mm in there as well. The thing was put together on video for television distribution. And was screened a number of times.

 

The problem here is that if the argument is that "professional" (in the narrow sense of the word) use of Super8 is a dead end then okay - it is a dead end. And so to is the argument.

 

Because there are other uses of Super8 that are not dead ends. You can call such usage "hobby" or "amateur" but so what. Who cares?

 

I worked on a printing press in the late nineties, making engravings, despite such printing presses having long ago disappeared from so called 'professional' usage. But the work I did I wouldn't call 'hobbist' or 'amateur'. But if someone else needs to bolster their ego by calling it such then so be it. Thats the language they like to use. That it reflects a very narrow view of the universe is their problem.

 

Carl

Fair enough. Now go read the original post.

[Carl Looper]

Fair enough. Now go read the original post.

The direction in the original post was in terms of persuading a manufacturer to produce a new super 8 camera. And that got knocked on the head with quite good arguments. But the discussion has since moved on from there, in various different directions, that remain related to the original question but spin it in various different ways.

 

But what were reasonable arguments againsts the original assumptions have next to no meaning in the context of the new directions of the discussion.

 

For example, talking about toy cameras has nothing to do with the original question either. But that's an interesting direction. My only argument there (apart from the diffuculty/impossibilty of it) is that I have no interest in toy cameras. I'm more interested in a notionally "professional" camera (in the wider sense of the term) - which has more to do with the original question than toy cameras.

 

Funnily enough, those more familiar with the native quality of larger formats, have more interest in the traditional look of Super8 transfers - which don't look so hot (technically speaking). They want Super8 to remain the "other" of technical quality. But that's one way of using Super 8. Wim Wenders use of Super8 in Paris Texas was absolutely beautiful. There was a self-referentiality that worked to support the story of a man who had lost his wife - who was trapped in his memory of the past.

 

But almost all uses of Super8 by so called professionals working in otherwise different formats will only consider Super8 in the same way - as a way of invoking nostalgia. As if that was all Super8 was or could be.

 

I'm more interested in using Super8 in a professional manner and I mean "professional" in the broadest possible terms. Which has more to do with the original question than using crummy Super8 transfers of film from a toy camera in a crummy music clip. Woopy doo. What's so professional about that?

[Nicholas Kovats]

Once again, Carl, your analysis is spot on.

 

The naysayers treat it as a toy but this where I diverge. No apologies needed for attempting to extract maximum image quality from the tiny Super 8 film.

 

I don't always succeed. But when the results sing...well..it is a great moment indeed.

 

Onward valiant Super 8 craftsmen of the 21st and half century!

[Marty Hamrick]

A new, mass produced, Super8 camera is not just highly improbable. But next to impossible. But that's not the only interpretation of what a "new Super8 camera" means. One can also consider one-off devices - a Super8 camera made from scratch in someone's backyard workshop. A custom made - one off camera, that uses Super8.

 

How were camera's originally made? They were not mass produced in factorys. They were hand made. I'd love to see a hand made Super8 camera, inside a wooden box would be a nice touch. A handle for hand cranking would be cool. I'd love to see one made, not for some mythological mass of consumers that would buy it, but for those who would appreciate the art of it.

 

In the same vein that certain clothes are made purely for the catwalk. Or concept cars made purely for trade shows rather than actual consumption.

 

But a camera that actually works and solves all the technical shortcommings of previous Super 8 cameras. And a really good idea would be to make it in an extensible manner, in which it can be easily disassembled and reassembled, with plenty of space for mod work - adding electronics and so on.

 

I could see Francis Ford Coppola or Oliver Stone using something specially built for a stylized shot, much like the former did for Dracula using a hand cranked Pathe for the London street scene. I've always thought that if I won the lottery and just wanted to play, I would convert a Fujica ZC 1000 to accept a 200 or 400 foot mag and use single strand roll film instead of a cartridge. The Beaulieu 9008 was built with something like that in mind.

[K Borowski]

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.

 

[. . . ]

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

The only ones stroking their own egos here, are people who think they DESERVE a new camera with all these features, probably for a tenth of what it would actually cost to make. Professional features cost money that a hobbyist market would probably scoff at it is so high. If S8 had a professional market, then I'm sure there are rental houses/private owners that would justify spending money on a camera that had these features.

 

Take all the offense you want to from "hobbyist." I don't know of a milder, more positive term. As I said earlier all "professional" means really is that someone makes money out of the work they do; it doesn't make that work better than hobbyist work. Indeed, there is a bunch of crap churned out every year on perfectly-exposed, focused 35mm. That money would be better spent on film grants than on high-budget bombs.

 

 

This whole argument is totally pointless. Carl and Nicholas: Go on stroking each others' egos with bold statements of artistic freedom and expression that not only are totally off the topic of this thread, but are totally ignorant of economics, supply and demand, market saturation, and the fact that Kodak wouldn't make S8 at all if there weren't 35mm and 16mm production to generate the volume they need to stay in business.

 

This isn't paint that Kodak is making. Anyone could probably make OK paint, This is fu*#ing high-tech, multilayer, color photographic film. Be as artistic as you want, but shooting S8 film only hurts companies like Kodak if people migrate to it. They make it because they are banking on hooking people on film and moving them up the format ladder where Kodak can make the real money.

[Tom Jensen]

Now I have an idea that would be cheap to make for the Canon or the Nikon DSLR cameras. Make a fake housing that looks like a Panaflex or an Arricam. Just open the door and slide in the still camera so when people drive by they think you are shooting with a "real" camera. Heck, you might be able to convince yourself of that.

[Carl Looper]

Once again, Carl, your analysis is spot on.

 

The naysayers treat it as a toy but this where I diverge. No apologies needed for attempting to extract maximum image quality from the tiny Super 8 film.

 

I don't always succeed. But when the results sing...well..it is a great moment indeed.

 

Onward valiant Super 8 craftsmen of the 21st and half century!

 

Thanks Nick.

 

Jenson and Borowski are starting to come apart. One can see Borowski's head on the verge of implosion. Borowski's now arguing that people like me could indirectly hurt Kodak. Ha ha. And Jenson's proposing (albeit sarcastically) that a digital camera, inside a fake film camera body, is a good idea. Ha ha. They keep coming back for more.

 

Carl

[Michael Lehnert]

Yes, all recent posters keep coming back for more. It's like a feeding station for drivel. Started as a worthy topic, but by now, it reached the stratospheric niveau of filmshooting.com. Which means that this is the first thread ever that I am going to unsubscribe from here, before someone posts an Adolf "Downfall" Hitler Super 8 theme clip. I hope this thread can die gracefully, as there is nothing more to contribute to it.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Michael,

 

I somewhat agree.

 

This thread has degenerated into extreme negativity which has poisoned the original posters' intention, i.e. generate some respectful and thoughtful discussion on the technical merits of a new Super 8 camera system. But unfortunately for the discussion it has regrettably triggered deep anxieties(?) amongst a few unfortunate souls.

 

How "dare" we dream, postulate, theorize or actually implement new uses for the little format that would not die? Passionate defenses are to be expected but the rigidity of some minds is quite telling.

 

In the spirit of collaboration and knowledge transfer the ardent craftsmen continue their work behind the scenes ...and are actively shooting amazing Super 8 motion picture film.

 

Cheers!

[Carl Looper]

I somewhat agree.

I'm not sure I totally agree.

 

There are (or were) a few "going forward" points that came up, and it's somewhat unfortunate that such have been swamped by the noise of gears stuck in first. For example, I'm quite intrigued by the contributor who mentioned he had the manufacturing plans for a 70s camera with pin registration. Apart from anything else such information would have scholarly historical value. Would have loved to hear some more on that.

 

And there was someone who mentioned he had a machine shop - that he could build a Super8 camera body. I was quite inspired by that contribution. He wasn't someone who felt he "deserved" a camera. He was someone tentatively willing to build one.

 

And myself. My contribution is in the area of technical ideas and digital image processing. The image processing is not strictly a part of the camera system as such but when designing something like a camera it's a good idea to consider the entire system, from acquisition to release. And like the contributor with a machine shop, my contribution wasn't as a consumer - who feels he "deserves" this or that capability but as someone who would participate in the process of designing and building the camera.

 

I'm still quite inspired by the idea of a new camera. As previously mentioned I'm not interested in whether it looks professional. Indeed I suggested a wooden box with crank handle. This wasn't sarcasm. I was being serious. The purpose of the comment was to move the discussion away from look and feel issues (body designs) to the engineering optical and mechanical concerns. The physics of the thing. It would be a professional camera - not because it looked like one - but because it would behave like one.

 

Before one builds anything it is necessary to design it. Designs don't use up expensive resources. like storyboards for a film, the storyboards require only pen and paper (from a materials point of view). the purpose of the storyborads is to test out ideas without consuming large ammounts of filmstock. And it makes the editors job easy. They do little more than assemble the film together. They don't have to extract a film from hours of experiments or mindless cinematography.

 

In the same way, discussion of how to build a camera doesn't cost anything.

 

Well - it shouldn't but, of course, some anxious types could start reading into such words the end of civilisation as we know it.

 

Carl

[Anthony Schilling]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that Ikonoscop had a DS8 prototype in mind based on their S16 model a few years ago, but it nevder got off the ground. They were looking for a few dozen people to commit to a $5000 price tag, but didn't get the response they needed for it to get real.

 

This topic has come up many times in the last five years and it's clear as to why. S8 has experienced some serious evolution in the way of V2/V3 neg stocks, custom loaded stocks, high quality telecine, digital editing tools ect... The changes have created a lot of excitement for the format. I've felt that excitement when squeezing the format myself with pretty impressive results that aren't usually displayed in any of it's commercial use. The phrase "It's what 16mm used to be" is fairly true under the right circumstances.

 

So with all of these new advancements in place, it's understandable that the only thing missing is a new camera model and design that weeds out the shortcomings of 30 year old cameras, cart system, aspect ratio ect... Basically what people are looking to see is something like the Aaton A-Minima in a DS8 version. The A-Minima is one of the cheapest S16 pro packages you can get with a price tag of around $15,000....... And there's the trick. A hypothetical DS8 version would cost the consumer at least the same if not more based on demand, Kodak would have to commit to available stocks. In the end, you would have a roughly 50% cheaper production cost when it comes to film, processing, and post production... but 3 times less resolution compared to S16. That is what you would be weighing out at the end of the day. and it just doesn't add up past what is already in place with the slickness of S16, verses technical flaws of current S8.

I myself am a experienced hobbiest and artist in S8 and reg 16mm, self financed works. If I had wealthy funds available, i'd probably buy myself an A-minima, and still shoot S8 for what it is now-

[Andries Molenaar]

The problem with the cartridge remains when the filmhandling is not altered. For better results it should be looped outside the cartridge and there should be a metal pressure plate.

 

Since a new camera with this feature is unlikely to happen people best divert to the known bunch A-brand-models and have these properly tested/maintained. Especially the pick-up drive friction to stay jitter free and the internal gears to make them run smooth and quiet.

 

Leicina Special or Beaulieu 4/6008 if you want a systemcamera. Otherwise Canon 1014 814, Nikon R10 R8 and few others are fine too.

 

Shooting DS-8 in the few models that exist give a metal plate and longer running times. And it looks cool with the big magazine when on reportage for a wedding and such :)

The Beaulieu SD-8 drive should be good for the 6/7/9/008 should be cool too and has a metal plate with a sprocket drive.

Wittner has plenty materials for all options.

 

Single-8 in a Fujica ZC1000 should do the trick too.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Andries Molenaar

[Terry Mester]

The truth is that there is a plethora of Super8 Cameras out there in people's attics and basements. The decline of Super8 usage is not related to the lack of available good Cameras, but the lack of good Film Stocks. K25D and to a lesser degree K40A are fundamental for Super8, but the wretched Executives ruining Kodak couldn't care less about Film users. Their only concern is maximizing profits for their Mutual Fund masters. I've spent well over a year trying to get Kodak to offer me a price quote for an entire Master Roll of K64, but they turn me down FLAT! They are absolutely determined to kill off Kodachrome! I wanted to offer K64 in all Formats: 8,16,135,120 & Sheet. I'm going to look into the possibility of reviving the former Fujichrome as an alternative to Kodachrome. Without a good Transparency Film, Super8 will fade away. :(

[Carl Looper]

In the end, you would have a roughly 50% cheaper production cost when it comes to film, processing, and post production... but 3 times less resolution compared to S16.

 

The native resolution of Super16, to that of Super8, is more like 2 times.

 

But in terms of digital intermediates, where there is an opportunity to digitally process the film signal, it is not that difficult to improve the native definition of the Super 8 signal by a factor of two. This is due to the fact that one is dealing with a motion picture signal rather than a still image. In a typical motion picture signal there is a high correlation between the image in one frame and the image in adjacent frames. Indeed it is precisely this correlation that makes moving picture compression possible. But the grain - which acts as a limit to the definition of the signal in one frame, is completely uncorrelated with the grain in another frame.

 

This separation of signal and grain (or noise) allows the signal to be enhanced without enhancing the noise. Indeed, the noise drops because it is statistically self cancelling. As the noise drops the resolution increases (because it is the noise which limits the resolution).

 

In other words you can improve the Super8 signal to that of the un-improved Super16. Of course you could do the same for 16mm. And 35mm. But it doesn't happen because 16mm and 25mm are considered adequate without such.

 

But Super 8 isn't. And so it's the perfect medium in which to experiment with this sort of thing. Once you can get Super 8 up to an "adequate" definition then it is no longer a factor in whether to use it or not.

 

Getting Super8 up to the definition of native 35mm is a lot harder but not entirely out of the question. However the lens starts to act as more pesuasive limit and is a lot harder to enhance.