LOGIN

FILMMAKING
ACTING
WRITING
OFF TOPIC
POLL - FILMMAKING
POLL - ACTING
POLL - WRITING
POLL - OFF TOPIC
SPECIAL - FILMMAKING
SPECIAL - ACTING
SPECIAL - WRITING
SPECIAL - OFF TOPIC
ADMIN MESSAGE
POST NEW TOPIC BACK TO MAIN BOARD
AUTHOR SUBJECT: Kodak's newest Super8 cameras update
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/21/2016 10:57:46 AM
I just got an update from Kodak regarding their new line of Super8 cameras.
The baby will hit the market this spring! The film processing facilities are already in place (they've never been gone, actually).
I can't wait to see this new toy! It seems very, very cool. I haven't heard of the other team in Denmark developing the Logmar. They might end up outrun by Kodak though there's room for different Super8 cameras on the market.

My blog entry about the Kodak cam.

***

I'm still having lots of fun experimenting with my Krasnogorsk-3 and 16mm film. Developing at home is not a problem - it's actually easier than I anticipated - and my 8k scanning method is working well, though I need to further automate the process of digitizing the 16mm stock. I won't need Black Magic Design' Cintel or the RetroScan to achieve great output!

sv

REPLIES:   31
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 12/21/2016 8:00:35 PM
16mm is good but isn't this new thing 8mm? 

I transfered many 8mm film reels to video and my conclusion was 8mm produces quite blurry definition that certainly won't be worth the 8K resolution you want to transfer it to. 

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/21/2016 9:21:21 PM
8mm is higher than 8k in terms of definition because, well, film stock is not limited by any resolution. It's film. It's limited only by the real world laws, outside the digital realm.
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 12/21/2016 11:40:12 PM
Film stock is indeed limited too.  The image is just made up of little dots instead of pixels. 

And in an 8mm picture there are too few dots for professional work. 

But for fun, go nuts.  I'm sure I'll get to like it too.  Like we're living the 70's, but it's now. 

In fact, I think I still have a Kodak 8mm film camera here somewhere.  The projector I do know where it is.  Eunik or Eunig or Eumig or Eufemism or something it was called.


View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 5:44:18 AM
I agree. 8mm or super 8mm is not resolution independent nor is it a viable professional production consideration. It is blurry. It is soft. 8K? No way. Maybe 640x480 would allow 8mm limitations to go unnoticed but, come on, for better or worse, nobody is in a hurry to see soft images with a lot of grain dancing all over the screen.. Super 16mm might work but 8mm? I've looked really hard at it and I don't think it has any kind of a future except maybe for art house shorts... .... 8K???? SV, you can scan 8mm at 2K or 6K or 20K and it doesn't make a difference. All you're doing is reproducing the original image more accurately. The problem is that the original image is not good. Like taking a 640x480 image and resampling it up to 8K. What have you gained? Nothing... No, from my point of view based on actually seeing super8mm films and making super8 films, in today's climate (especially today's) there is no use for 8mm...... but, in all fairness I should also say that I have not been following the latest movement to revive 8mm. Maybe Kodak or some other company has come up with new film stocks that offer ultra fine grain. I doubt it but maybe...
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 6:56:56 AM
Not to mention playback of the film, with a 65 per cent chance of film breakage, burning, complete disintegration or some kind of damage or embarrassment or breaking off of your favorite part of a reel.

I remember when I was about 4 or 5 years old, I wanted to show the servants my longest film I had, which was an extensive coverage of the Apollo Moon Landing project.

So we watch the thing in the dark, as those films had to be watched, with me telling them about the fantastical occurence of humanoid creatures visiting the moon.

Then when I tried to rewind the film, horror struck.  The film had vanished.  I turned on the lights.  We never noticed in the dark, but the thing had climbed off the hind spool and simply ran off out of the projector all over the place all the time we watched.  

There was film all over the room with us sitting in like 10 miles of film.  Film EVERYWHERE all over the floor, trying to burst out the windows.   

The lesson is:  Digital video is the practical way to go.  I think God sent me digital video so I can make films to my leisure. 
 


View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 8:50:17 AM
That's a different argument. I don't think anyone is advocating the exhibition of 8mm. I think SV is talking about shooting in 8mm then scanning to digital..
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 9:01:55 AM
James, I'm only 16mm, personally. And I have no need for 8k scan but the scanner I'm assembling can handle that - if anyone ask me to do that resolution for them I'll be able to deliver the job. I personally don't see why I'd go higher than HD with my own film scans but people like big numbers nowadays!

View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 10:35:23 AM
I suppose 8K would be great format to master film. It would make it more Future Technology Proof..
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 10:51:24 AM
Haha! "Future Technology Proof" is simply film stock! With celluloid you don't need to worry about the next generations of digital gadgets!
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 11:26:10 AM
Well I found the eumig projector.  Still works with the same bulb it came with a million years ago.  I might watch some films with it again just for the fun of it. 

Here's a pic:  (This isn't my actual one, but the exact same one I found a picture of online, except they seem to have replaced the knobs on this one where mine is still original.)



The film camera unfortunately seems my father gave away about a decade ago when he thought film was never coming back.

But that's ok.  I'll just film on video then transfer to film then watch it on a film projector while filming the image with an HD camera in order to digitize it on computer later. 

SV Bell, what's a projector like this worth in money btw? 

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 11:49:44 AM
Projectors are pretty cheap, depending on their condition and the model.
I got my 1933 Kodascope Sixteen-10 for $70.



Lens on mine are in perfect condition, no scratch, no dust, and motor works like new. Even the 750W lamp works. I got it with the wood crate and manual. What I like about the old models is that you can open the covers and access all the gears to modify it. That's what I'm doing. Slowing down the mechanism down to 1 frame per second, I replaced the 750W bulb with a 10W LED, removed the heat shield protecting the film from the lamp's high temperature, and so on.

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 11:56:43 AM
This is the inside of my projector. There's nothing. Just a couple of gears, belts, screws and shafts. Simple things just work, no mumbo jumbo.




View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 12:18:27 PM
Sv, what I mean by future proof is simply that all films will be converted to digital if for no other reason than to archive them. 8K would be better than 4K which would be better than HD... Celluloid does wear out, yellow and colors do fade.... I have a 16mm projector in the closet. It works pretty well once it warms up.. Optical sound and everything!
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 12:29:14 PM
Celluloid does wear out over the centuries, yet films from the early 20s are still viewable today. I can't tell the same about my MiniDV tapes from 1996. Corrupt data or invalid format for most of the tapes. Analog cassettes from the 80s can still be read, but the digital ones from the 90s are mostly gone.

It's interesting, a group of researchers made a documentary about long term preservation of data. They discovered that the longer you want something kept, the oldest technology you need to use. For nuclear facilities burying nuclear waste, they need the records saved for several thousand years. What technology will be available in a few centuries? They opted to save the data by carving the information into stone, and bury it along with the nuclear waste drums...! Back to the stone age!

mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 12/22/2016 11:42:42 PM
Lol, cool projector you have.  Looks like the original prototype by the guy whom Edison stole the patent for a projector from or something.  Some kind of insect design.

Simple but are there still parts for that machine?  Cos I see it has belts.  Belts usually perish and snap.    

So you like to watch your movies at 1 frame per second?  Nice.  Get more entertainment time mileage out of each that way I gather. 

Too bad the projectors are so cheap.  I was hoping to have some kind of investment in this antique.  I'll just throw it away.  Naah.  I'll keep it on my coffee table as a conversation piece.  When the conversation gets too much, I'll just put a cloth over it. 


View My Profile
Posted: 12/23/2016 5:06:19 AM
I'm convinced. I'll carve my movie into stone :)
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/23/2016 6:14:50 AM
 Haha, carving a movie into stone, I never thought of that!  :) Frame rate would be 24 rocks per second.

I'll be launching a Roku channel this spring, featuring only 16mm indie movies, more or less experimental. That will be interesting.

mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 12/23/2016 9:47:40 PM
You people are off your rockers. 

Are you making worthwhile money with roku?

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/25/2016 7:51:35 AM
Worthwhile? Of course not.
I do it because it's fun, not because it pays.


View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 4:58:44 AM
Sv, I admire your crusade. Believe me when I say that I would like nothing more than to see video disappear and have film back. I love film. It serves the purpose better than video ever has. It has a quality that has not been matched by video no matter how much money Hollywood throws at it. It isn't a matter of resolution or sharpness. In my opinion it's has to do with core aesthetics. Film is a look into another reality. Another world. I can't explain it any better than that.
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 5:48:47 AM
I've never said that video should go either, though! There's room for both. The problem really, is that video took all the floor. Manufacturers threw as much money into marketing than in development to make the audience believe digital was the only way to go.

Film captures life and emotion, while digital video captures moving pixels. A very bad movie shot on film will typically look more natural than a perfectly shot movie on digital. Film also have much more range when it comes to low light capabilities. Most videographers think they need high ASA to be able to shoot in low light condition. Film stock captures awesome images in low light at 100 ASA. 400 is enough to shoot outdoor at night. Try that with a digital camera. It's a marketing trick, manufacturers are selling consumers new hardware with 'better low light capabilities', while old cameras from the early 30s can already achieve that!  :-)


View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 7:41:08 AM
I don't think it's a matter of performance. Video will certainly solve it's ASA problems soon enough. All they really need to do is introduce video cameras that offer HDR capability and the exposure argument will be over... No, it has more to do with that which can not be described. At least not by me. I am convinced that there is a psychological response to film that is not felt with video but, I want to be careful saying that because I might simply feel that way because I grew up with film. I have a nostalgic love of it... That being said, I do believe that film registers differently in the mind.. Why is it that video behind the scenes footage of an actual seen being shot has no filmic quality to it yet when the scene is presented as a finished product shot on film it does? Why is it that the Blair Witch Project which was largely shot with a cheap camcorder looks passable after it was transferred to film yet looked like Shiite straight out of the video camera? Watch the outtakes from Blair Witch and you will see what I mean. Also, If that idiot marius is right and we only love film because we grew up with it then it would not matter if a movie were shot on film or video. The story and the acting would be all that matters but it just isn't so. Video is distracting. Bad video is very distracting for certain but ALL video has some kind of distraction that I can't put my finger on. I don't think it's because video is digital. No. A film transferred to video looks fine to me. It looks like film. It has to be in the film itself. Some quality to the photo/chemical reaction of capturing images on film as apposed to sampling electrical signals from a sensor.
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 7:45:53 AM
Besides, James, what's holding you back from getting to film? Go ahead, give it a shot. It's very, very cool. 16mm cameras are cheap, they're everywhere on Ebay, craiglist or second hand stores. Film stock is cheaper than ever (though, of course, digital is free) and you can process your film in house for very cool results. You don't need much for your darkroom. I bought all the stuff needed for under a hundred bucks. Dark tank, chemicals... I do everything in the lavatory, and some folks process film stock right in the bathtub. Actually that's what I was doing when I was processing 35mm film back in school, years ago!

And if you prefer to have a pro lab to process / scan your film, standard rate is 20¢ a foot for processing, and 20¢ for scanning. A spool of 100 foot (about 3 minutes) will then cost $40 to process/scan. Doing it at home with DIY and some patience, it comes down to under $5.

This said, I'm very curious what will be the film price for the new Kodak Super8 camera. Kodak advertised they'll sell film stock with shipping, processing and scan included. Let's wait and see.

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 7:52:14 AM
You nailed it, James: film is photo and chemical reaction, it's anchored in the real world's physics we live in. Video captures images from sampling electrical signal from a sensor. It's a translation of reality. It can't possibly look natural. It's beautiful, it's perfect, but it's not natural and for that, it's totally distracting.

View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 7:57:02 AM
Yes in deed :) About the film to video scan. Is that on a flying spot scanner or a simple film chain (projected image and video camera)? There is a big difference.

View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 8:00:16 AM
I think we are both right. It is the imperfect yet completely natural nature of film that is appealing. Video is stable and predictable yet not at all satisfying.... Like a CGI character that is perfectly mirrored from one side to the other. Absolute perfection yet you sense something is wrong.
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 8:14:33 AM
The low cost solution is projection, and then film with video camera, but this has to be carefully done since both devices must be very well synched. Slightly off-synch and you end up with dark band crossing your picture, when the projector change the frame.

Professional labs use a synched scanner, that photograph each frame as it runs under the lens, usually in real time. These scanners start at $2k, it's not that bad - but still a lot of money if you don't plan on opening a professional service bureau. See this cool model from MovieStuff: RetroScan

What I do is basically the same as this RetroScan device, except it scans 1 frame per second. I took an old 1930's projector, coupled a slow motor to it (since the original mechanism can't go lower than 16 frames per second). I used a Meccano set to build the 60 RPM motor. I place my digital photo camera with a macro lens facing the projector's len, and program the camera to snap a picture every second. It takes about 75 minutes to scan a complete 100' spool. Once done, I just take all the jpegs from the camera's flash card, and compile them in a single movie clip.
It's a poor man scanner, but it works quite well!




View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 8:27:06 AM
Very cool! Back in the day, the Rank-Intel flying spot scanner was the scanner of choice for professional work. The film chain technique was also widely used but the results were not as good. The check at the end of the meal was way less but, as they say, you get what you pay for....... No,Sv. I am at the point when I really must use video. I have too much already tied up in it to start again. You know how it is. There is what we love to eat and what we have to eat.
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/27/2016 8:37:38 AM
I know what you mean. Actually I was thinking the same too, before making the move. When the time came to re-invest in hardware, in software, and so on. Was I to spend more money on tools that will be deprecated in a couple of years, or jump 'back' to hardware that proved reliable for nearly a century? I made the move and it was awesome.
It's awesome to film stuff without the worry of charging batteries. You know you carried X minutes of film stock with you, and you don't waste it with stuff you don't want to film. And you end up with footage you really wanted, not hours of footage you don't care about and edit out.

I say, if you'd like to toy around with film, go for it. It's available, and it's a helluva lot of fun!


View My Profile
Posted: 1/22/2017 5:23:58 AM


Wow, video assist and digital save for editing..


Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 1/22/2017 7:56:37 AM
Yes, very, very cool isn't it?!
I love my 16mm camera, but I really want to get one of those Kodak Super8.

Haha the reviewer seems very surprised about the flickering of the LCD screen when shooting! That's the magic of film, the real life effect of snapping a series of pictures thru a lens and a real mechanical system!

Thanks for sharing, James! I just blogged this video on my site.

Total Views: 708 (counter implemented 2010)

You must be logged in to reply to this thread.



How-To | Rules | Terms & Conditions


IndieClub.com - indie filmmaking, acting, casting calls, movie jobs independent filmmakers VIDEO TUTORIALS IndieClub Homepage
HOME | PRO MEMBERS | MESSAGE BOARD | POSTING BOARD | RESOURCE CORNERS | LOCAL GROUPS | FIND MEMBERS | MY PAGE

Local Companies | RSS FEED