2-perf Super8 Anamorphic

[Carl Looper]

 

I haven't properly foillowed this thread, but this is a fact that stands alone. It indicates something.

 

When photons arrive at a digital sensor, reguardless of what information they might inexplicably embody, they are simply counted. Note the avoidance of the word encode, otherwise useful, but muddied. When we put our eye to an optical viewfinder, those same photons impact on our retina. Hopefully, no-one is thinking the odd, reductive thought that the elements in the retina are simply counting them also. Setting that thought to the side, we have to allow that the eye (the cinematographer) is impacted by the same photons, rich with information and intelligence.

 

So the cinematographer is a participant. But if this relatively direct optical experince is eliminated, then I think he is not really a direct experiential participant. It's all something else. And why all don't complain I have no idea.

 

We can also use our eyeballs to look at a scene directly, rather than through a viewfinder (optical or otherwise). Photons are dumb. The signal they carry is far more intelligent - and this is not dependant on any particular photon.

 

This is in fact far more useful than looking through a viewfinder. The view through a viewfinder doesn't tell you where the camera should be placed, or what direction it should be pointing. By the time you are at the viewfinder you've already solved a huge number decisions to be made. The only remaining ones are just focus and fine tuning the framing. And you'll have already solved most of that framing before your eye hit the viewfinder anyway.

 

One develops a sense of space and how a scene will look from different angles. One walks around a scene and uses one's eyes, judging the light, and the shape of the scene, building up a picture (an emperical picture) in one's mind of the various opportunities. One might use one's fingers to form a frame as an aid. Or a director's viewfinder if one doesn't mind carrying that around.

 

Of course, by the time you get to looking through the camera viewfinder it might very well tell you that your choice of framing wasn't so hot after all. But that should be treated as an the exception rather than a rule. Finding out where not to shoot isn't going to solve the question of where to shoot. There are infinitely more positions and directions from which not to shoot something than there are those from which one decides would be good to shoot.

 

C

[Bill DiPietra]

This is how many Super8 filmmakers work with Super8. They treat it as a format in it's own right. And that's the same attitude I'll be taking because that's a really really good attitude. That's how 16mm filmmakers work. And how 35mm filmmakers work. They respect the nature of their chosen medium and make their medium work to it's best advantage. It's not just used as some sort of special effect. There is a love affair at work one might say. May be completely irrational but who cares? Why not I say.

 

No one ever said anything disrespectful about the Super8 format or Super8 film-makers, Carl. I personally feel people should be given the choice of shooting on whatever format they what. But my point is that if one's desire is to shoot Super8, you can use a much cheaper camera than the Logmar. You really don't need all the bells & whistles. Economics may not be what drives Super8 but the economic standing of the person wishing to purchase a Super8 camera certainly plays an important factor. So this begs the question, "Are those who are purchasing the Logmar doing so simply because they want to shoot Super8 or because they want a cool toy?" If the answer to the former of these two questions is "Yes," then this goes back to my argument of there being cheaper options available.

 

I shot Super8 20 years ago in college - basically with an internal light meter and a fixed lens - and I came away with some very nice images (for a student.) I had an old Bell & Howell and one summer I shot a short, in-camera, as I was walking around during the day. So yes...I believe Super8 can stand on its own two feet - just like any other format.

 

But at the end of the day, if you can afford the camera and want to shoot with it...more power to you.

[Tyler Purcell]

Carl.. not to start a 10 week discussion, but optical viewfinders and high quality displays are hypercritical for so many reasons. The biggest one is determining focus and no matter how many special tricks exist, focusing on a motion picture camera is far more difficult then that of a digital one with focus assist. The second one and not really mentioned much is to insure your lens doesn't have any optical issues. I shoot most of my stuff in the environment, not in the sealed vacuum of a lab or dust-free sound stage. Sometimes I have no idea my lens is dirty, but a really good optical viewfinder can allow the operator to see dirt that's impossible to see on a low-quality LCD display. This is a huge problem with modern digital cinema cameras that rely heavily on LCD viewfinders, they're simply not high quality enough. Sometimes the dirt isn't even on the front of the lens, sometimes it sticks to the back when you put the lens on the camera. Third, a really good viewfinder system, like an OLED one for modern digital cameras, will give you an exact representation of what's being shot by your camera. This is not possible with crappy low-end LCD displays. Plus with film cameras, the digital imager isn't very good quality, so you can't really judge anything with it. The only purpose is to determine framing and allow a quick record and playback of the shot.

 

I personally use optical viewfinders to determine what a certain shot is going to look like. I don't just walk around a room and say "ok this is it", that never happens. I'll walk around with the camera in my hand or a directors viewfinder, to check many different angles and lens choices before I commit. Then I know what the B and C locations for any given shot will be because I've tested them by looking directly through the lens optically. This is really the only way to determine these things, every other technique is pretty bogus and I've tried many of them.

[Carl Looper]

Carl.. not to start a 10 week discussion, but optical viewfinders and high quality displays are hypercritical for so many reasons. The biggest one is determining focus and no matter how many special tricks exist, focusing on a motion picture camera is far more difficult then that of a digital one with focus assist. The second one and not really mentioned much is to insure your lens doesn't have any optical issues. I shoot most of my stuff in the environment, not in the sealed vacuum of a lab or dust-free sound stage. Sometimes I have no idea my lens is dirty, but a really good optical viewfinder can allow the operator to see dirt that's impossible to see on a low-quality LCD display. This is a huge problem with modern digital cinema cameras that rely heavily on LCD viewfinders, they're simply not high quality enough. Sometimes the dirt isn't even on the front of the lens, sometimes it sticks to the back when you put the lens on the camera. Third, a really good viewfinder system, like an OLED one for modern digital cameras, will give you an exact representation of what's being shot by your camera. This is not possible with crappy low-end LCD displays. Plus with film cameras, the digital imager isn't very good quality, so you can't really judge anything with it. The only purpose is to determine framing and allow a quick record and playback of the shot.

 

I personally use optical viewfinders to determine what a certain shot is going to look like. I don't just walk around a room and say "ok this is it", that never happens. I'll walk around with the camera in my hand or a directors viewfinder, to check many different angles and lens choices before I commit. Then I know what the B and C locations for any given shot will be because I've tested them by looking directly through the lens optically. This is really the only way to determine these things, every other technique is pretty bogus and I've tried many of them.

 

I do walk around a space and say "ok this is it". I work it out using my eyeballs and brain. I'm not denying the usefulness of the viewfinder - just saying it's not nearly as important as one might otherwise think. Most of the time, I'm just putting the camera where I've already decided it should be. Of course, I'll change my mind sometimes, and that will be based on what the viewfinder is telling me. But that really is just an exception.

 

I design the shots based on the three dimensional space in which I'm working and what the action taking place will be. I design it all during rehersals in the space. Indeed I might even change the action to suit an idea inspired by the location - but the location as a whole - as distinct from the location as seen from just one point of view. I just see the viewfinder as providing feedback on the fine tuning.

 

And focus - yes, it's obviously good for that.

 

The main point here is not whether one should use a viewfinder or not, but in the absence of such, how might one shoot a film? And I think you'd be surprised to discover how easy it is, and that what's more, you'd discover that the work you would do when shooting without a viewfinder, is exactly the same work you will do when when shooting with a viewfinder. It's just that you don't consciously realise you've been doing that work all along. Shooting without a viewfinder is a good way of recognising that, or otherwise developing that skill. The viewfinder then becomes just a way of fine tuning that.

 

C

Edited January 25, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

 

No one ever said anything disrespectful about the Super8 format or Super8 film-makers, Carl. I personally feel people should be given the choice of shooting on whatever format they what. But my point is that if one's desire is to shoot Super8, you can use a much cheaper camera than the Logmar. You really don't need all the bells & whistles. Economics may not be what drives Super8 but the economic standing of the person wishing to purchase a Super8 camera certainly plays an important factor. So this begs the question, "Are those who are purchasing the Logmar doing so simply because they want to shoot Super8 or because they want a cool toy?" If the answer to the former of these two questions is "Yes," then this goes back to my argument of there being cheaper options available.

 

I shot Super8 20 years ago in college - basically with an internal light meter and a fixed lens - and I came away with some very nice images (for a student.) I had an old Bell & Howell and one summer I shot a short, in-camera, as I was walking around during the day. So yes...I believe Super8 can stand on its own two feet - just like any other format.

 

But at the end of the day, if you can afford the camera and want to shoot with it...more power to you.

 

I've shot on many different Super8 cameras - almost all of the Canon ones (as a teenager) and a Leicina in later life, and now a Logmar. Or at least I will be shooting on the Logmar very soon. I mean, really it's more the fact that I acquired the camera that I'm going to be shooting on it, rather than I actually need to shoot on it.

 

But if I'm going to shoot on it I want to exploit it for what the camera can do that other Super8 cameras can't. And really, the only difference is the pin registration. But for me this is precisely the cool thing. I can blow this up on a large screen and get something that isn't what Super8 otherwise looks like in terms of registration. But it will otherwise have the same look and feel as Super8 - which is a look I really really like. Could get the same look shooting 16mm and cropping it - but that feels like cheating :)

 

It's not that I need of any of this. It's because I want this. It's a very different thing.

 

C

Edited January 25, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Bill DiPietra]

But if I'm going to shoot on it I want to exploit it for what the camera can do that other Super8 cameras can't. And really, the only difference is the pin registration. But for me this is precisely the cool thing. I can blow this up on a large screen and get something that isn't what Super8 otherwise looks like i terms of registration. But it will otherwise have the same look and feel as Super8 - which is a look I really like.

 

Cool. Be sure to post something when you're ready. I'll be curious to see the results.

[Tyler Purcell]

SO wait, you work out field of view, depth of field and focal length to achieve that prior to looking through a piece of glass? Man you truly are a magician!

 

I never set the camera where I have decided it to be, that's my "backup" incase all else fails. I always show up and try something new because most actors can't get their poop together on the first few takes anyway. So it gives me enough time to mess around whilst they rehearse. The best is when I'm directing and shooting because I can play around with the location in ways that perhaps I couldn't as just a DP for hire. So yea, I'm constantly trying different lenses, constantly moving the camera around and trying to achieve a certain look.

 

It's really hard to build shallow depth of field in a small imager camera like the BMPCC or S16 for that matter. To me the shallow depth of field look is more professional and it's one of a few things that differentiate the smaller formats from the larger ones, field of view being the other major thing. It's not easy to get all of that right in every scene, it takes a lot of work and you've gotta have a good viewfinder system throughout it all.

 

I spent years shooting with DV and HDV camcorders with fold out LCD displays. You couldn't tell exposure, focus or even framing in some cases. I usually guessed on the settings and sometimes I'd get stuff that looked like crap because I flat-out guessed wrong. I expected that kind of quality 20 years ago when I didn't really care what I shot. Today however, my time is worth more then "guessing". I need to make sure I've got exactly what shot. Since there is no instant replay with film, you only know if you got it after you get the film back. So why mess around with a camera who's viewfinder system is not representative of your final image? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Carl Looper]

SO wait, you work out field of view, depth of field and focal length to achieve that prior to looking through a piece of glass? Man you truly are a magician!

 

I never set the camera where I have decided it to be, that's my "backup" incase all else fails. I always show up and try something new because most actors can't get their poop together on the first few takes anyway. So it gives me enough time to mess around whilst they rehearse. The best is when I'm directing and shooting because I can play around with the location in ways that perhaps I couldn't as just a DP for hire. So yea, I'm constantly trying different lenses, constantly moving the camera around and trying to achieve a certain look.

 

It's really hard to build shallow depth of field in a small imager camera like the BMPCC or S16 for that matter. To me the shallow depth of field look is more professional and it's one of a few things that differentiate the smaller formats from the larger ones, field of view being the other major thing. It's not easy to get all of that right in every scene, it takes a lot of work and you've gotta have a good viewfinder system throughout it all.

 

I spent years shooting with DV and HDV camcorders with fold out LCD displays. You couldn't tell exposure, focus or even framing in some cases. I usually guessed on the settings and sometimes I'd get stuff that looked like crap because I flat-out guessed wrong. I expected that kind of quality 20 years ago when I didn't really care what I shot. Today however, my time is worth more then "guessing". I need to make sure I've got exactly what shot. Since there is no instant replay with film, you only know if you got it after you get the film back. So why mess around with a camera who's viewfinder system is not representative of your final image? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

When I started film making we had depth of field tables we used. This wasn't to obtain a shallow depth of field, but to provide a measure on how careful one's distance setting needed to be given an aperture (based on a light meter reading you'd made). It also allowed one to judge allowable movement and by how much the focus needed to vary

 

For the shallowest depth of field you just need (of course) to put a neutral density filter on the lens - to open the aperture up as wide as it can go. The appropriate ND filter would be the difference in stops between the aperture without such a filter, and the widest aperture. For any other desired depth of field one could consult the tables, select the appropriate aperture and select the appropriate ND filter given that aperture.

 

Now with a very shallow depth of field, it's obvious that focus becomes far more critical. The depth of field tables will tell you how critical. One can, without a viewfinder, use a tape measure and make lens marks (or follow focus marks) to choreograph the focus during a take. All quite awkward of course, but a certain satisfying logic to it all, in which there is no need to have one's eyeballs on the camera. At least in terms of focus. Indeed it's far better to have the focus moving in sync with the action, rather than a camera person necessarily trying to follow the focus at each moment with their eyeballs. One has an understanding of the range of allowable movement and allowable freedom and the shot can gracefully move through the required focus. And you know how sensitive that has to be. And by how much.

 

None of this is to suggest the viewfinder shouldn't be used or one can't get the same with a viewfinder. One can rehearse a follow focus using a viewfinder and hand-on-lens memory. It's to suggest that by knowing the bigger picture outside of what a viewfinder gives you at any given moment, allows one to control the camera in a more confident way.

 

C

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, I mean that's all cinematography 101 and it's a lot easier with these smaller imager cameras since finding shallow depth of field is harder. But you get my point... these are things one experiments with, not simply using charts to determine. The world shouldn't be that rigid.

 

Your theory breaks down the moment you add a moving/roving camera unfortunately. I'm one of those guys who's constantly moving the camera, either panning on a tripod, shoulder mount or on a dolly. Again, it's a trick to make something look more cinematic. So repeat focus pulls? Naa, they never happen. If you aren't good at pulling focus by what it looks like based on your physical location (how close you are to the subject), then you'll always be out of focus. Of course, I also work mostly on documentaries with prime lenses... so you can imagine how difficult THAT is, trying to capture everything with a single (50mm) focal length lens and holding your breath until you can switch lenses. I love zooms and all, but they're too bulky for most of my work where even the pocket camera can be too big. Of course, shooting with my Aaton is a lesson in how it's done right! Great viewfinder and ease of use unlike any digital camera I've ever used.

[Andries Molenaar]

I haven't noticed any announcement that Logmar is abandoning their prime camera just like that after finishing delivery of the 50 beta-test cameras. I was assuming now things had gone quiet because they needed to work on the Kodak designs. I am not on their newsletter as I had no plans to purchase one :)

 

I have plenty good cameras who will last till retirement and way beyond. The killing thing is the film and processing-service.

[Doug Palmer]

David and Carl, thanks for helping me with that query (post no 163) about the inaccuracy of super-8 perfs.

Maybe it's a problem that should be put right if super-8 is to be reintroduced now by Kodak with its new camera, and also with Ferrania's new film.

I still can't understand why it is beyond hope of achieving. New punching machines ? Impossible ?

 

Coming back to Lasse's original idea of a 2-perf camera, interesting it apparently does not require threading, so presumably isn't a pin-regd design. Although Lasse has apparently given up on this idea, if it had materialised... and Kodak's new camera too, it would seem to me that stricter controls on manufacturing super-8 film are essential for it to compete with 16mm and digital. I can't really see the attraction of buying an inferior product at almost the cost of 16mm, just to get that so-called super-8 look. And if people want that jumpy appearance, it will still be there partially even with better perforating, simply by using a crap camera, as the cartridge design isn't going to be improved presumably.

[Carl Looper]

Yea, I mean that's all cinematography 101 and it's a lot easier with these smaller imager cameras since finding shallow depth of field is harder. But you get my point... these are things one experiments with, not simply using charts to determine. The world shouldn't be that rigid.

 

Your theory breaks down the moment you add a moving/roving camera unfortunately. I'm one of those guys who's constantly moving the camera, either panning on a tripod, shoulder mount or on a dolly. Again, it's a trick to make something look more cinematic. So repeat focus pulls? Naa, they never happen. If you aren't good at pulling focus by what it looks like based on your physical location (how close you are to the subject), then you'll always be out of focus. Of course, I also work mostly on documentaries with prime lenses... so you can imagine how difficult THAT is, trying to capture everything with a single (50mm) focal length lens and holding your breath until you can switch lenses. I love zooms and all, but they're too bulky for most of my work where even the pocket camera can be too big. Of course, shooting with my Aaton is a lesson in how it's done right! Great viewfinder and ease of use unlike any digital camera I've ever used.

 

When rehearsing a follow focus one is rehearsing one's ability to respond to the particular dynamics of a take and how not to over respond. One has one's marks and the scene has it's. One gets a sense of how to adjust the speed in sync with the variation in speed of the take.

 

However once again I reiterate: this is not about whether to use a viewfinder or not. It's about what one would do in the absence of a viewfinder, and how this can be understood as greatly informing what one does when one does have a viewfinder. In other words it's about learning cinematography, as distinct from what one otherwise does on a day to day basis. To treat the viewfinder as a crutch (as I'm doing) is to then appreciate the viewfinder all that more when one has one.

 

To walk a hundred miles (and walk a hundred miles more) is to properly appreciate the purpose of a horse, or a car.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

David and Carl, thanks for helping me with that query (post no 163) about the inaccuracy of super-8 perfs.

Maybe it's a problem that should be put right if super-8 is to be reintroduced now by Kodak with its new camera, and also with Ferrania's new film.

I still can't understand why it is beyond hope of achieving. New punching machines ? Impossible ?

 

Coming back to Lasse's original idea of a 2-perf camera, interesting it apparently does not require threading, so presumably isn't a pin-regd design. Although Lasse has apparently given up on this idea, if it had materialised... and Kodak's new camera too, it would seem to me that stricter controls on manufacturing super-8 film are essential for it to compete with 16mm and digital. I can't really see the attraction of buying an inferior product at almost the cost of 16mm, just to get that so-called super-8 look. And if people want that jumpy appearance, it will still be there partially even with better perforating, simply by using a crap camera, as the cartridge design isn't going to be improved presumably.

 

I'm going to be repeating this till the day I die, methinks:

 

There is no problem with the perfs in Super8.

 

Whether the film be used in the Logmar or in any other Super8 camera. The only thing that needed a rethink was the way some modern scanners were scanning Super8 film. And that has (in general) been resolved. There's no need for new perf punches. That was never the issue. That was only ever a convenient scapegoat (if understandable one).

 

But the cart pressure plate problem is still an issue (if one cares about this sort of thing). And that is what some metal pressure plates, custom cart designs, or pin-rego cameras have addressed in their own way.

 

C

Edited January 25, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

I haven't noticed any announcement that Logmar is abandoning their prime camera just like that after finishing delivery of the 50 beta-test cameras. I was assuming now things had gone quiet because they needed to work on the Kodak designs. I am not on their newsletter as I had no plans to purchase one :)

 

I have plenty good cameras who will last till retirement and way beyond. The killing thing is the film and processing-service.

 

Logmar website:

 

The Logmar Super-8 camera was designed from ground up to be the most powerful 8mm camera on the market, surpassing any other camera ever build for this format in terms of image quality and features.

The camera body is manufactured in aircraft grade "6061 alloy" aluminium which has undergone glass blasting, chemical polishing and black anodizing to give the best possible surface finish.

 

Fifty of these cameras were build in conjunction with the fifty year anniversary of Super-8 in one batch in late 2014.

Today the Logmar S-8 camera is a sought after collectors item as we no longer manufacture this camera.

 

Source: http://www.logmar.dk/super-8-2/

Edited January 25, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Freya Black]

Okay 16mm and super8 are just not the same format at all and so they have different pro's and cons and uses.

A Super 8 camera is way lighter and smaller than a professional super 8 camera. It's light years different. I have super 8 cameras I can just throw in my backpack and be away. Even a bolex is far and away heavier than that, and you have the additional weight of the extra lenses and to a certain extent even the film, even with a bolex. If you are using a proper professional camera like the ACL it is much, much heavier. I had a shock when I got my ACL as everyone had been telling me it is the lightest 16mm camera and how amazing it is, and I have the smallest version and it's still really large. It actually makes me wonder how much of an advantage it really is over say an NPR which is already not all that big anyway.

 

Secondly, its true that 16mm cameras are way cheap at the moment. However they are generally still far more expensive than Super 8 cameras. I recently bought a eumig mini 5 for about £5 which while not in great condition, does seem to still be working. You can probably get a nice Super 8 camera or £25 without too much trouble. Probably cheaper than that. My NPR was £250 which is a huge amount more. You could buy a lot of Super 8 film for £225 and I'm of the opinion that £250 for an ACL is a very good deal. (I was mostly after the zoom lens to be honest).

 

Thirdly, if you are using your bolex then you are probably limited to 100ft rolls as the 400ft mag is really quite rare and only works with a very limited subset of bolex cameras. If you are limited to 100ft then you are also limited to only 2:46 minutes at 24fps. Thats only 16 seconds more than a Super 8 cart at 24fps.

 

By the same point how much is a 100ft roll of Tri-X going to cost compared to a Super 8 Tri-X cart. Or a 100ft roll Of Vision 3 50D compared to a cart in Super 8?

 

A Super 8 camera can also be much more of a disposable item than a 16mm camera too so it's easier to use as a crash cam etc.

 

Super 8 is good at some things, 16mm for others. Right tool for the job and all that.

 

Freya

Edited January 25, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

I think one of the reason why there wasn't that much takers to begin with was because the price was just a bit too high, if ti was on the more affordable range of a high-end DSLR camera then I'm sure people would be shelling out and I would've gotten the camera sooner!

 

I mean the whole new Kodak Super 8 camera does genuinely make me happy, it still lack a lot of the more modern and professional features that the Logmar has, and the fact that the creators are in communication with the community things can be done to the camera to people's liking, only making it a much better camera, if not it can still be better! If anything I think the Kodak Super 8 camera should be more of a motivation for them to continue as it offers choices to the people:

 

Kodak Super8 camera = Amateur, home-movie shooting

 

Logmar Super8 camera = Professionalism

 

The prices between the two will obviously inform people subconsciously what each camera is capable of, but since now only one remains in the market (and not the one I would shell money for) is a REAAALLL let down and I cannot continue my investigations with the film format, nor does it encourage those who want to take film more seriously. I thought this was the start of something new and great when I discovered this a couple years ago.

 

 

 

The new Kodak camera seems to borrow heavily from the Logmar design. Is there something specific that you miss from the Logmar model that won't be in the new Kodak camera?

 

Might be worth waiting for the Kodak camera to see if you like that.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

A Super 8 camera is way lighter and smaller than a professional 16mm camera.

!

...is what it should say of course!

[Freya Black]

It's really hard to build shallow depth of field in a small imager camera like the BMPCC or S16 for that matter. To me the shallow depth of field look is more professional and it's one of a few things that differentiate the smaller formats from the larger ones, field of view being the other major thing. It's not easy to get all of that right in every scene, it takes a lot of work and you've gotta have a good viewfinder system throughout it all.

 

I kind of disagree. Lately I've seen far too many films at festivals etc, where there is way too much use of shallow depth of field and it makes the movie or short or whatever look odd. If you look at more mainstream movies it's usually the case that it isn't as overdone. It tends to have the opposite effect of that intended.

 

Freya

Edited January 25, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

A lot of those art people also process their own film and daylight spools are far easier to deal with then super 8 cartridges.

 

The "art people" have also traditionally made prints for projection too, this isn't really that practical with Super8 although there are plenty of people making Super8 work in that context too.

 

I can tell you now however that it is prints that is the big driver towards 16mm in that context.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Most of all, it just looked like a professional product. As a filmmaker, I want whatever I make to look good, I don't want to invest time and energy into something that's going to look shabby. All these years I've had super 8 equipment hanging around and never once did I contemplate using it. Yet, the moment I bought a Super 16mm rig, I started using it and honestly, haven't stopped. Super 16 is such a superior format in every way, even with the very well registered Logmar, you aren't getting the same image quality as S16 with the same sensitivity stock, it's just impossible.

 

Now my friend's film is an application for super 8, but the reason he's using it is because it looks like crap. If it looked any better, it wouldn't work for his application. In my view, that's really not a great calling card for Super 8 as a format and a lot of people use super 8 for the same reason. They want it to look bad, they don't want a clean look to their product and Super 8 fills that very small void.

 

I kind of disagree about the use of the words "shabby" and "bad" here. That's kind of a value judgement. You know there are a lot of people who like the "bad" look for whatever reason. I tend to think of it as just looking different and okay it might not be your thing but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. It could just as easily be said that Super16 looks bad and only 35mm is the way to go.

 

I also note that you imply that a "clean look" would be a good thing and to me that sounds a bit horrible and a lot like much that is wrong about cinema at the moment. I like diversity in the way that stuff looks. I don't really want things to all be homogeneous in the way they look and I think the push for a "clean look" is a push even further in that direction than we have already gone.

 

Freya

[Andries Molenaar]

Thanks Carl,

 

I hadn't looked at their website yet. What a laughable nonsens to present it now as if the stop was pre thought and was a cellebration of 50 years of Super-8.

They gave up just like that after the beta 50 pieces? Most likely this was instignated by the Kodak co-op

or it even was a requirement. Production would be too much hassle anyway if it could work at all from Denmark at Denmark costlevels.

 

Maybe some will still want one. I doubt it will be collectable though, at all.

 

There are plenty good options, directly available, elsewhere now.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Andries Molenaar

[Tom Chabbat]

I wonder if Kodak will succeed making more than 50 camera ;)

 

I think consumerist logics don't apply in the graveyard of consumerism Super 8 is. In such a community, what we need to keep it alive is not new cameras with always more electronic crappy stuff packed inside, but more people to repair the old ones. We have to stop producing things we don't need and take care of what we already have. And if we really need a new camera, we should think in the long term, how to make it durable, easy to maintain and repair for every owner, make it open source so information won't be lost. To me a LCD viewfinder is nothing but future proof... I really don't want be in Logmar owner's place in 50 years when all its electronics will be impossible to replace, while I'm sure some B&H 2709 will still crank !

[Tyler Purcell]

To me a LCD viewfinder is nothing but future proof... I really don't want be in Logmar owner's place in 50 years when all its electronics will be impossible to replace, while I'm sure some B&H 2709 will still crank !

Film cameras are great because they're so mechanical, they shouldn't REQUIRE integrated circuits to work. Crystal oscillators and a small circuit board with some cap's, resistors and voltage regulator of some kind, are all that's necessary. Built-in audio recorder and LCD display? It's just a camcorder at that point.

[Will Montgomery]

Built-in audio recorder and LCD display? It's just a camcorder at that point.

You know people will take that HDMI video out and hook it up to a disk recorder of some sort so they can start editing right away and sync up the film later. I assume that video out was intended for larger monitors rather than recording.

[Tyler Purcell]

I kind of disagree about the use of the words "shabby" and "bad" here. That's kind of a value judgement. You know there are a lot of people who like the "bad" look for whatever reason. I tend to think of it as just looking different and okay it might not be your thing but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. It could just as easily be said that Super16 looks bad and only 35mm is the way to go.

Remember, my comments were directed at the notion of Super 8 being a "professional" format. I'm glad you agree that some people like something that doesn't look good and super 8 fits that profile. I agree with that, it's for sure a "look" and if you want that look, go for it! I just feel, a lot of people who own super 8 are stuck with that look, rather then actually WANTING that look. Where in contrast, it's very hard to make S16 look bad with modern color stocks and decent glass.

 

I also note that you imply that a "clean look" would be a good thing and to me that sounds a bit horrible and a lot like much that is wrong about cinema at the moment. I like diversity in the way that stuff looks. I don't really want things to all be homogeneous in the way they look and I think the push for a "clean look" is a push even further in that direction than we have already gone.

I use film because in my eyes digital is too easy, it doesn't offer anywhere near the same challenge OR reward. You can't fault me for wanting any product I spend money making, to look pleasing to the eye, not full of grain, gate weave and dirt/scratches. If I'm going to spend money, it needs to look and sound like a professional production. To me, reaching that height is part of the fun, it's what makes filmmaking interesting for me. Otherwise, anyone can go outside and shoot their friends hand held with a camcorder and call it a "movie".