Jump to content

"New" super-8 camera to market


Lasse Roedtnes

Recommended Posts

I might add that this project is infinitely more interesting than the digital bolex idea.

 

What on earth is the point of a digital bolex? To have a digital sensor with a Bolex branded box around it? All I keep thinking is that one could just as well make one's own wooden box, indeed with a hand crank on it , and put one's own digital camera inside that, and that would be just as interesting, if not slightly more, than the way the digital bolex is being sold.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very excited for such a product (looking forward to samples and pictures of the camera itself). But, I'm not sure I could see myself paying more than $1000 for such a camera.

 

I love Super 8... but love it for everything about it.

 

This is an "is what it is" type thing. If we are talking about $3000 or more, I'd be more likely to buy a nice Arriflex 2c 35mm camera or a BL4. As amazing as a perfectly registered, sound synced and feature rich Super 8 camera would be, it wouldn't be worth crazy money to me just because my head would say "why?".

 

I perfectly restored/repaired Beaulieu 4008s or Canon 1014/814 XL-S gives me all I would ever truly want from Super 8. When I want a higher resolution image with better registration and stability, I go 16mm or even 35mm.

 

But, if we're talking $1000 or under... I'm interested. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cool thing about Super8 (compared to 16mm, 35 etc) is that it's cheap, convenient, lightweight, and the nearest a corresponding film camera could possibly get, to the convenience of digital, but with the infinitely rich benefits film provides.

 

If this particular project wasn't already happening I'd suggest it would eventually happen anyway, for precisely these reasons. There is always a new generation of kids that would be asking themselves: what is this thing called film, and how can I start playing with it?

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days Super16 isn't that much more expensive than Super 8.

 

400ft - 10 mins - Super 16 can be done for between $400 (recan/short-end) and $460 for a good 2K scan, film and processing.

 

200ft - 10 mins - Super 8 - Film, Process and HD scan you'll be hard press to do (well) for under $375.

 

It really isn't THAT much more.

 

Now, if we are talking about Tri-X and actually cutting and splicing film to make a short. Yes, that's much cheaper. But the digital age of Datacine, etc is just not that much cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days Super16 isn't that much more expensive than Super 8.

 

 

But its not just cost. If it were just cost you wouldn't shoot film at all. Film, in an economical sense, died thirty years ago. The reason why film continues to be shot is completely mysterious to those not in the know. I'm thinking of kids in particular here. They look at grandpa with a big box on their shoulder (or grandma) and think: WTF. What's important to kids is convenience and ease of use more so than cost.

 

If the kids are interested in film they need something with which to start - something they can feel happy about. Something that doesn't look like it's been pulled out of the recycle bin.

 

Certainly for us old dogs it doesn't really matter.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say film died thirty years ago I'm referring to the precise day that news cameramen replaced their 16mm cameras with video. That was the day that film died. It would be decades later that this news reached Hollywood. So to those who keep predicting that the death of film is sometime next week - wake up - it's been dead for thirty years. What has been happoening ever since that day is the use of film by those who actually enjoy it.

 

So lets pass this on to the future.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But its not just cost. If it were just cost you wouldn't shoot film at all. Film, in an economical sense, died thirty years ago. The reason why film continues to be shot is completely mysterious to those not in the know. I'm thinking of kids in particular here. They look at grandpa with a big box on their shoulder (or grandma) and think: WTF. What's important to kids is convenience and ease of use more so than cost.

 

If the kids are interested in film they need something with which to start - something they can feel happy about. Something that doesn't look like it's been pulled out of the recycle bin.

 

Certainly for us old dogs it doesn't really matter.

 

C

 

The whole film is dead and film VS video thing is a whole different discussion (going on now in a particularly nasty thread in the General Discussion section.)

 

I am simply talking about the reason for Super 8 vs Super 16. I was just commenting on your one point, "cheap". When compared to Super 16, Super 8 isn't so much cheaper that (for me) it's really much of a factor. All the rest of your points, yes. But, cost, not so much these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The whole film is dead and film VS video thing is a whole different discussion (going on now in a particularly nasty thread in the General Discussion section.)

 

Thanks David. I'll divert that tangent to the general discussion area.

 

Yes, you are totally right about cost. In fact I reinvested in 16mm myself recently because the cost was hardly any different from Super 8.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks David. I'll divert that tangent to the general discussion area.

 

Yes, you are totally right about cost. In fact I reinvested in 16mm myself recently because the cost was hardly any different from Super 8.

 

Carl

 

Exactly...

 

Especially when E100D was still readily available, I mostly shot color reversal and projected it. The more I got into color negative and digital transfers, the more I realized that 16mm was no longer way more expensive.

 

Just a year ago, shooting and processing 1 2.5 minute roll of E100D Super 8 was between $30-35. Doing the same with a 2.5 minute spool of 16mm E100D was $55-$60. It was almost double the total cost. It's definitely a no-brainer if you want to shoot reversal and project it. With Tri-X now (going up in cost) it's about the same for B&W reversal. So, if you are happy with B&W, the "cheap" part still holds true.

 

But, if you're going color negative and HD/2K transfer, it's only about 5-10% more. Unless you are looking for the Super 8 look, etc... there's no reason to not go Super 16.

Edited by David Cunningham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, back to the primary subject...

 

I am very excited for the possibility of a new Super 8 camera with an LCD, solid registration, solid sound sync, etc.

 

A big seller for me would also be a c-mount lens format. There are a handful of Super 8 options and the best Zeiss Super16 lenses would take Super 8 to a whole new level of sharpness. I know you can do this with a Beaulieu now. But, they are just so touchy and in constant need of love and care. It would be nice to have a nice, new and rugged c-mount Super 8 camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add that this project is infinitely more interesting than the digital bolex idea.

 

What on earth is the point of a digital bolex? To have a digital sensor with a Bolex branded box around it? All I keep thinking is that one could just as well make one's own wooden box, indeed with a hand crank on it , and put one's own digital camera inside that, and that would be just as interesting, if not slightly more, than the way the digital bolex is being sold.

 

C

 

The idea behind the Digital Bolex is a good one. Global Shutter, 16 glass, RAW, professional connectors. It makes sense. But only IF the camera can actually make it to market and function as advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The idea behind the Digital Bolex is a good one. Global Shutter, 16 glass, RAW, professional connectors. It makes sense. But only IF the camera can actually make it to market and function as advertised.

 

Fair enough.

 

Perhaps the Bolex branding was throwing me. Didn't really notice the specs.

 

What I like about this Super8 camera proposition is the lack of branding - that it isn't trying to sell the camera idea on what some graphic designer might have dreamt up. It's starting where it should - on the mechanics, the specs, the engineering. Hell if it was available tomorrow as a raw metal box I'd love to use it.

 

Look and feel is eventually important of course, but nowhere near as important as the actual engineering. The guts of the machine. What it actually does and how it works. That's what I'm interested in.

 

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, C. Hey look, I don't have the cash for two cameras at the moment. Not gonna happen. I am likely buying a BlackMagic Compact. However, should the feature I am in pre-production on move forward and actually get shot I will have a little paycheck and the desire to buy a new 8mm camera, should one be available and make sense. I am happy with my Canon 1014 XL-S and deal with the drawbacks inherent with the format.

 

By the way... CRYSTAL SYNC IS A MUST for this new camera. Without it the camera will have serious drawbacks. I'd be better of spending $500 having my Canon 1014 XL-S crystal synched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By the way... CRYSTAL SYNC IS A MUST for this new camera. Without it the camera will have serious drawbacks. I'd be better of spending $500 having my Canon 1014 XL-S crystal synched.

 

Yes indeed. That is a really good point. Crystal sync is up there with pin registration. If you are going to build a new film camera make it a damned cool one.

 

I was looking at some 3K scans of Super8 from the 70s earlier today and I thought wow - if today's state-of-the-art datacines were sent back in time to then, news cameramen back then would have thrown down their 16mm cameras and jumped on Super8 no problem. It's an extremely interesting phenomenon to see Super8 reproduced so well. It just goes to show that film is really quite a bizarre medium and capable of inter-participating with video/digital in ways that have been misunderstood for way way too long.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David & Matt,

 

This camera doesnt come with a lense per default - but that's a good thing.

It has a C-Mount so you can use pretty much anything you want - we do not want to be in the business of selling lenses :)

 

And yes it is crystal sync'ed :)

 

Zachariah,

The camera fully supports both 24fps or 25fps you can even program 23.976fps if you want NTSC compatibility when you later on do the telecine.

 

Regards

Lasse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, it's a good idea you mention regarding the laser crossmark - we've been investigating similar techniques but so far none of these ideas have made it into the camera simply because it adds expensive optical solutions to the mix and we would like to have as little optics inside as possible. regards lasse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

I'm on my way out on vacation tomorrow, three weeks in Mallorca so it's going to be a little while until I can post some teasers.

 

By the way someone asked if it was possible to attach an external monitor - well infact there's no monitor build into the camera itself to make it lightweight and because we reckon that most people are not satisfied with buildin viewfinders anyway (some thinks 4" is too small some people like 10" - some wants B&W and some wants something else) so the idea is that one can attach for example a Lilliput monitor or pretty much anything that accepts an industry standard CVBS video signal input and use that as monitor.

 

There's an option to have both "raw video" out and/or "overlaid" video out with all the status details so that one can record the actual video without the overlay while still seeing it on their monitor viewfinder.

 

Stay tuned it's going to be cool!

 

/Lasse

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

I'm on my way out on vacation tomorrow, three weeks in Mallorca so it's going to be a little while until I can post some teasers.

 

By the way someone asked if it was possible to attach an external monitor - well infact there's no monitor build into the camera itself to make it lightweight and because we reckon that most people are not satisfied with buildin viewfinders anyway (some thinks 4" is too small some people like 10" - some wants B&W and some wants something else) so the idea is that one can attach for example a Lilliput monitor or pretty much anything that accepts an industry standard CVBS video signal input and use that as monitor.

 

There's an option to have both "raw video" out and/or "overlaid" video out with all the status details so that one can record the actual video without the overlay while still seeing it on their monitor viewfinder.

 

Stay tuned it's going to be cool!

 

/Lasse

Hello Lasse ,

A camera without a viewfinder ? this is new to me why ? so we are looking at some kind of camera that we can,t film on the fly ?

without this and that ? what the price on this ? Sorry this really sound like some kind of wet dream !

 

At this moment it"s all talk no show ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A camera without a viewfinder ? this is new to me why ? so we are looking at some kind of camera that we can,t film on the fly ?

without this and that ? what the price on this ? Sorry this really sound like some kind of wet dream !

 

 

 

 

Read his first post. I beliieve his proposed camera has a viewfinder , but not the traditional squint through a tiny rubber eyecup type of viewfinder like on most Super 8 cameras.

 

 

Lasse wrote:

"Featuring oscillating mirror shutter for the best optical path through the lens towards the film (no glass or filters in between lens and film) when the shutter is closed the image is projected towards an integrated CMOS camera which acts as a digital viewfinder. "

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Read his first post. I beliieve his proposed camera has a viewfinder , but not the traditional squint through a tiny rubber eyecup type of viewfinder like on most Super 8 cameras.

 

 

Lasse wrote:

"Featuring oscillating mirror shutter for the best optical path through the lens towards the film (no glass or filters in between lens and film) when the shutter is closed the image is projected towards an integrated CMOS camera which acts as a digital viewfinder. "

.

A Hypothetical camera ? "then this can be what you want this to be"

 

A wet Dream with no filming on the fly !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...