Jump to content

New Kodak Super 8 Camera


Recommended Posts

Right, the rocking motion is an inherent issue with the format. So not only does the camera appear to have standard gate issues (the car shot jumps around), but even Kodak's test footage has the rocking boat syndrome. One would think they would have stabilized it in post.

 

I have yet to ever see Super 8 material without the rocking boat syndrome. If you have any Perry, it would be cool to see.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If it's gonna be flawed, let it be flawed. Don't try to make it great through fancy new cameras and scanning technology.   My beef is all this new tech that leads to the same image because Kodak ha

We scan film for students almost every day of the week. There are three or four colleges with film programs that still shoot film around here. Some are annoyed that they have to use it for classes. Mo

I quite like the fact the sample didn't go down the road of an overblown marketing sell with obsessive production values. The sample takes a different route. It says: "here is a test" rather than "her

Posted Images

Wrong. Please read what I wrote. The rocking is because it was stabilized incorrectly in post.

Right, you need "electronics" to fix the problem with the perforations being made wrong.

 

In my book, if every single roll of film has bad perfs, that's an issue with the format, not the scanner.

 

All your doing is compensating for manufacturing issues inherent with the format.

 

Again, I'd like to see some material with this issue fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, you need "electronics" to fix the problem with the perforations being made wrong.

 

 

Scanners like the ScanStation already compensate for this by doing stabilization in-scanner correctly. You're saying that the fact that it's done "electronically" is worse than mechanically? In fact, optical stabilization is *better* than mechanical because it's both more flexible and more accurate.

 

According to Kodak, the perfs aren't "made wrong," they're that way by design. This has been hashed out on this forum and others over and over again, but the basic idea is that pin-registered cameras and pin registered scanners expose the underlying issue, which doesn't come up with the generally sloppier tolerances of typical camera/projector combinations. It's a problem only in the sense that 50 years ago, Kodak didn't conceive of modern film scanners or pin-registered cameras. There are simple workarounds, which in the days before the internet, nobody outside of a lab would have known or even cared about. The end result of scans done on properly shot film with cameras like these is really impressive.

 

-perry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a long time since I posted (been busy) but after looking at the footage all I can ask is, who in the hell is in charge at Kodak? This footage is not just unimpressive. It's bad. Everything that makes 8mm look amateurish is present. Blaming the scanner or anything in post isn't acceptable. They are showing us test footage. What we see is what we see. And it's lousy. They can't even clean the damn gate!

 

Should Kodak want success they need to deliver something that is better than the nearly four decades old bullet proof Nikon R10's I have used over the years. That camera has never failed me. And I have owned a few of them. The R10 isn't the only old camera to kick @ss so I am sure plenty of current Super8 shooters are wondering if they will finally be given a reason to invest in somethign else. So far I don't think so.

 

At the end of last year I sold all my gear thinking this is it for me. I shot my last Super8 project (it was a mix of 8 and digital) and figured I'd only get back in if someone released a new camera that had some improvements over what we were used to. The all to briefly released Logmar certainly had some astounding design improvements, but I fear we are going to get none of them.

 

Call me Mr. Skeptical if you like. I am just being honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a long time since I posted (been busy) but after looking at the footage all I can ask is, who in the hell is in charge at Kodak? This footage is not just unimpressive. It's bad. Everything that makes 8mm look amateurish is present. Blaming the scanner or anything in post isn't acceptable. They are showing us test footage. What we see is what we see. And it's lousy. They can't even clean the damn gate!

 

Should Kodak want success they need to deliver something that is better than the nearly four decades old bullet proof Nikon R10's I have used over the years. That camera has never failed me. And I have owned a few of them. The R10 isn't the only old camera to kick @ss so I am sure plenty of current Super8 shooters are wondering if they will finally be given a reason to invest in somethign else. So far I don't think so.

 

At the end of last year I sold all my gear thinking this is it for me. I shot my last Super8 project (it was a mix of 8 and digital) and figured I'd only get back in if someone released a new camera that had some improvements over what we were used to. The all to briefly released Logmar certainly had some astounding design improvements, but I fear we are going to get none of them.

 

Call me Mr. Skeptical if you like. I am just being honest.

Would agree with you here Matt " My films shot on kodak 100 d with a Leicina special looks way better than this ? seen's more like devolution " & not cheap .

 

We need just good film stock back ie like 100 D & plus X .

Link to post
Share on other sites

50D is an amazing film stock. Your max 8 super 8 films could easily be mistaken for 16mm with proper scanning, stabilization, processing, lenses and of course experience. If Pro8mm is able to come through with a one light print solution for super 8 negative I'll never see the need for a reversal again.

 

I have to say this example test footage is very disappointing as I think it shows a lack of awareness of what is already possible and being achieved with modern scanning and legacy cameras. For them to think this is a good example is scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scanners like the ScanStation already compensate for this by doing stabilization in-scanner correctly. You're saying that the fact that it's done "electronically" is worse than mechanically? In fact, optical stabilization is *better* than mechanical because it's both more flexible and more accurate.

Optical would be "mechanical" in my book. I was thinking "electronic" stabilization would mean zooming up the image in post, finding a reference spot and stabilizing it, after scan. If the ScanStation does this in real-time whist scanning, it's a moot issue. Only, I have yet to see evidence of the fix removing the issue entirely. All the video's I've seen have been stabilized in post.

 

According to Kodak, the perfs aren't "made wrong," they're that way by design.

Sure and there is no good reason for their design.

 

If Kodak want's super 8 to catch on, they have to put more effort into their re-branding, which means making it better then it's been before.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As disappointing as it looks, i'm more concerned as to what I can do with it once the final product comes out. I wasn't expecting rock solid registration with this camera, since it's barely possible with the Logmar and this one just uses the plastic plate. All things considered, the cameras registration itself may be about as good as I could hope for with Super 8. The camera is already over due without a word and everyone is yelling for the new camera on all their other consumer promotions. With probably another 5-6 months until release, maybe they just eeked something out with a working prototype. It's a crap sample unfortunately, but at least we know they have one running. Still needs a max gate and some crystal sync audio and I'll take care of the rest on my end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Optical would be "mechanical" in my book. I was thinking "electronic" stabilization would mean zooming up the image in post, finding a reference spot and stabilizing it, after scan. If the ScanStation does this in real-time whist scanning, it's a moot issue.

 

That's a really weird distinction. For one thing, I could scan a film without any optical pin registration and arrive at an identical result using pretty commonly available desktop software to align the frames in post. This is precisely what the ScanStation does, only it's doing it in real time, saving you a step.

 

But it's the same basic algorithm: find the perf, put it in a fixed location relative to the file size, vertically. Find the film edge, put it in a fixed location laterally. Crop to output size. Not exactly rocket science.

 

 

Only, I have yet to see evidence of the fix removing the issue entirely. All the video's I've seen have been stabilized in post.

 

You'll need to take my word for it. The problem with the perfs being placed inconsistently relative to the film edge causes a lateral jerking motion, IF you use the perf to "pin register" the frame. The perf is held in place, but then the image jerks back and forth. By using the perf for vertical registration and the film edge for horizontal, it's effectively acting like the camera does, where an edge guide or some similar mechanism is holding the perf-opposite side in place. This fully corrects the lateral jerking motion. I personally worked with Lasergraphics (along with at least one other ScanStation owner) to test this and make sure it's good. It is.

 

There remains some slight vertical jitter, but this seems to vary from camera to camera. Some have suggested that the perf next to the film is not the one to use for registration, but I don't see a way around that, at least not in the design of most modern scanners. The vertical jitter is almost imperceptible once you crop the frame lines (it's more apparent when you can see the frame lines moving, but you barely notice it when cropped. And again, different cameras have different levels of vertical jitter.

 

 

Sure and there is no good reason for their design.

 

 

Well, there is. The format was designed for consumer use, and the perfs were never meant to be used as registration references. In most cameras and projectors, the pulldown claw is tiny, and doesn't behave like a registration pin because it doesn't fill the whole perf. In some cameras, the pulldown claw does act like a registration pin. In most cases you don't see this problem in projection. Within the system it was designed for, it's a perfectly good design. You're expecting it to be like 16mm. it isn't. You need to get past that.

 

If Kodak want's super 8 to catch on, they have to put more effort into their re-branding, which means making it better then it's been before.

 

 

They're unlikely to change the mechanical specifications, this late in the game. I do agree they need to work on branding, but I don't expect them to change the way the film is made. For one thing, I wouldn't be surprised if perfect perf placement is a major technical issue. The variance from one perf's position to the next is a fraction of a millimeter. It's not until you start applying precision hardware to the film in camera and in scanning that this problem appears.

Edited by Perry Paolantonio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeesh you guys are being pretty hard on a prototype. It's a Super 8 camera still folks and it still looked like Super 8 to me. Some of the shots didn't have a great exposure but that shot of the truck looked great. To me it still looked like "Super 8" more or less. Meaning, a technically imperfect but aesthetically charming analog motion picture format.

 

I don't understand why someone would come to the Super 8 forum and lodge existential complaints against the format. There is no way I would be able to shoot film for my motion projects were it not for super 8. I don't expect it to look like freaking 65mm just because 50D is available to me. I like that it's grainy and jittery. If I didn't like those things I would either not shot it, get a Logmar, or shoot 16mm.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeesh you guys are being pretty hard on a prototype. It's a Super 8 camera still folks and it still looked like Super 8 to me. Some of the shots didn't have a great exposure but that shot of the truck looked great. To me it still looked like "Super 8" more or less. Meaning, a technically imperfect but aesthetically charming analog motion picture format.

 

I don't understand why someone would come to the Super 8 forum and lodge existential complaints against the format. There is no way I would be able to shoot film for my motion projects were it not for super 8. I don't expect it to look like freaking 65mm just because 50D is available to me. I like that it's grainy and jittery. If I didn't like those things I would either not shot it, get a Logmar, or shoot 16mm.

I thinks it's because some people in the "business" tend to over think and over analyze the simplest and most flawed of film formats.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thinks it's because some people in the "business" tend to over think and over analyze the simplest and most flawed of film formats.

If it's gonna be flawed, let it be flawed. Don't try to make it great through fancy new cameras and scanning technology.

 

My beef is all this new tech that leads to the same image because Kodak hasn't bothered to make the format anything different.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's gonna be flawed, let it be flawed. Don't try to make it great through fancy new cameras and scanning technology.

 

 

+1

 

Kodak should be pushing the format to its highest level with the advent of the new camera. If I want Super-8 to look as bad as that video, I can spot a cheap 2€ Sankyo on Ebay and delete Davinci Resolve from my computer.

Can't see the point on launching such a bad video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

+1

 

Kodak should be pushing the format to its highest level with the advent of the new camera. If I want Super-8 to look as bad as that video, I can spot a cheap 2€ Sankyo on Ebay and delete Davinci Resolve from my computer.

Can't see the point on launching such a bad video.

If they were going to go all the way, it would have to be a DS8 max gate and well perfed stocks to go with it. This camera is basically a new, updated version of your typical S8 camera, at a fair price given the rate of inflation. You get the dependability of a new camera, C-mount lens option, max gate, crystal sync frame rates, and on board audio record options/outs. I think we'll at least see a good improvement in stability vs an old camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed! That's why I dislike that demo so much: it doesn't show any of the goodies that the camera delivers.

It's just old looking, jumpy, uninteresting and bad graded footage. Even the gate is dirty! This is exactly the opposite of marketing.

Edited by Marc Marti
Link to post
Share on other sites

The posted sample looks great.

 

Re. stabilisation

 

If we exposed the same film stock in a brand new top range 1970s Super8 camera (hypothetically speaking) and put the results through exactly the same scanner and post stabilisation process, the results would be exactly the same as that which is posted (I'd suggest).

 

in other words the camera is not the issue.

 

In the scan one would see the same rocking. It's just due to the scanner not using the edge of the film for registration and using post stabilisation for that instead (which has introduced some rocking).

 

The other effect is the vertical (up/down) jitter. This is a function of a cyclic variation in perf pitch and weak pressure in the cart pressure plate (in varying degrees between) which scanners don't code for. This variation in perf pitch is not anything new in Super8 film. Have a look at the Nixon Kodachrome Super8 scanned on the Kinetta. One can see there is vertical jitter there as well - which you can see in the cyclic variation of the frameline thickness. But unless you are otherwise looking for it you could easily just miss it. And it would be even easier to miss if the image was cropped to the image area.

 

None of these effects are "faults" as such. They are features.

 

They are only "faults" if you don't like the effect. And if you don't like the effect then you can alter it, eg. by designing a scanner that uses the edge of the film for registration - and for vertical registration, designing a scanner that uses the same perf that cameras use, and for any remaining vertical registration issue, using a custom cart with a good pressure plate, or custom camera with the same. And then you will have atomic perfect registration in a scan.

 

Otherwise if you're not going to do anything about any of these details - such as design, build or mod your own camera and scanner - or post-stabilise a scan using some art and technical know how - then there's no point calling these things faults. They become (or are) features of the tools you are otherwise using.

 

This is the meaning behind a "good artist never blames their tools". A good artist either makes a virtue of their tools, as they exist, or they mod their tools to obtain a different behaviour (post-stabilisation being one such mod), or they make their own tools in the first place.

 

C

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

Again: we're not blaming the camera. We're blaming the sample. There are lots of people in this forum that would have made better footage even with a 1€ camera.

This video is the most uninteresting advert about super-8 that you can make. It's so wrong on so many levels that it almost looks like a parody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again: we're not blaming the camera. We're blaming the sample. There are lots of people in this forum that would have made better footage even with a 1€ camera.

This video is the most uninteresting advert about super-8 that you can make. It's so wrong on so many levels that it almost looks like a parody.

 

I quite like the fact the sample didn't go down the road of an overblown marketing sell with obsessive production values. The sample takes a different route. It says: "here is a test" rather than "here is an advert". It's a way of involving the community with an ongoing process.

 

If we can recognise what it might otherwise lack, we can also recognise what we might otherwise do if we had the camera.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like the fact the sample didn't go down the road of an overblown marketing sell with obsessive production values. The sample takes a different route. It says: "here is a test" rather than "here is an advert". It's a way of involving the community with an ongoing process.

Right, but if that's what a $499 - $799 NEW super 8 camera can produce... why bother buying one? My Yashica Electro 800 from the early 80's, doesn't look much different.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but if that's what a $499 - $799 NEW super 8 camera can produce... why bother buying one? My Yashica Electro 800 from the early 80's, doesn't look much different.

 

That's very true.

 

But not everyone has a second hand Super8 camera sitting in their cupboard, or want to gamble on a second hand camera off ebay. Certainly the new camera is of interest to the existing film community, but consistent with a 100 years of Kodak marketing, their audience is not just the existing professional, but more so: anyone who wants to play.

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the expensive Pro8mm rebuilt Super 8 cameras and it was worth it to me. I trusted their reliability far more than an eBay find, which matters because if I'm shooting a wedding for a client I'd rather know my camera is going to work than know I only spent 10 dollars on it. Now Kodak is giving us one with a video tap. That would make my life a lot easier if it's integrated with an internal light meter.

 

I'll write to Kodak and see if they can get Christopher Nolan to make freaking Dunkirk featurettes for Kodak on Super 8 so that everyone here is satisfied by the production value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But not everyone has a second hand Super8 camera sitting in their cupboard, or want to gamble on a second hand camera off ebay.

Milk crates Carl... I have so many super 8 cameras, I keep them in milk crates! LOL :P

 

Though in all seriousness, I did buy a dozen super 8 cameras over the last few months for my school, so every kid could play with a camera and understand more about super 8... I think only half of them even fire up when you put batteries in them. HA!

 

I recently helped a friend shoot 12 rolls of Super 8 with my Yashica... purposely pulled out of my inventory because I knew it would generate the best "super 8" look and it sure did!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if I'm shooting a wedding for a client I'd rather know my camera is going to work than know I only spent 10 dollars on it.

Well, its fairly inexpensive to test. Any NEW camera would need to be tested anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...