LomoKino

Alastair

Alastair

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,818
Edit My Images
No
Ok.. it's another lifestyle branded product with a price tag to match.. but.. but.. shiny, plastic, prec-ious..

LomoKino, 144 hand-cranked frames of 35mm. They give the frame rate as 3-5fps (28-48 seconds) although early silent cinema framerates were 12-24fps (6-12 seconds).

It shouldn't appeal.. but there's something about a medium that requires interaction frome the audience to view and could be handed round like a stack of prints or slides. Quite a nice wide aspect ratio as well.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
it looks so crap but so beautiful at the same time. Not going to be cheap though to film. A single 35mm film costs at least £1.60 for 36exp. I work that at £6 a pop using the cheapest film available that I know of.
Click to expand...

It's worse that that.. if you want to stick with the low-tech viewer option you need a roll of slide film and E6 processing (and a lab that can be relied upon not to cut the strip automatically).
 
judging by the photos on their site, it only uses a 36 exp roll but shoots 4 narrow frames on each 35mm frame, so the cost would only be the same as 1 roll and processing :)
 
sorry, forgot to read :(
 
Lomo... Further warping peoples' ideas about how film photography (and now recording) used to be.
 
if it keeps people buying film, and processing it, then it all helps keep it available for the rest of us non-hipsters :shrug:
 
TheBigYin said:
if it keeps people buying film, and processing it, then it all helps keep it available for the rest of us non-hipsters :shrug:
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I can just about live with the hipsters as long as film is still made
 
mustanir said:
Lomo... Further warping peoples' ideas about how film photography (and now recording) used to be.
Click to expand...

To be fair, hand-cranked, short film length and silent was pretty much where it started.

Like TBY says if it keeps people shooting film then it's a good thing. So Lomo are making a profit it's not the end of the world, Lomo cameras have been about for years so they're not re-inventing how film used to be, the nowmost people on here know that they can get the Lomo look a whole lot cheaper, I think my Agfa Clack cost me about £5 and it has produces very nice Lomoesque pics.
 
In essence its a very basic 2 perf super 35 motion picture camera which will give series of pictures with a 2.33:1 aspect ratio approximately.

This is similar to how some cheaper theatrical films are shot, its cheaper to shoot in the super 35 format (expose full silent gate and crop to aspect ratio for projection/anamorphise 2.39:1 films for projection) than in anamorphic and if you shoot in the 3 or 2 perf format rather than the usual 4 perf then you save on film stock but at the expense of image quality and you can use the 'big budget effect' of 2.39:1 widescreen filming at small budget prices.
 
TheBigYin said:
if it keeps people buying film, and processing it, then it all helps keep it available for the rest of us non-hipsters :shrug:
Click to expand...

the position I've always maintained with this Lomo stuff. money going into film, who cares if you hate the product and the company and the marketing? every roll of Kodak/Fuji/Ilford film purchased for these products is more money into the film divisions of each respective company, which is only a good thing for every film shooter.
 
Ooh I'm liking that! might have to consider that when I have some spare groats.
 
mustanir said:
Lomo... Further warping peoples' ideas about how film photography (and now recording) used to be.
Click to expand...

:D

35MM film is still used a LOT in the TV/movie industry.... it's hardly 'retro', until you shoot it through a crap plastic lens...


looks a cute toy.
 
I had a play with one in Selfridges the other day. It feels cheap, which it is. But I would be intrigued to see the results from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top