New Kodak Super 8 Camera/Processing

stevelmx5

stevelmx5

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,176
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Seems risky buying one, what when Kodak stop the processing service.
 
robj20 said:
Seems risky buying one, what when Kodak stop the processing service.
Click to expand...
It's standard Super 8 E6 film or negative stock as far as I can tell, so not restricted to only using Kodak to do the processing. I can see that Kodak are trying to offer a complete service included in the price of the cartridge but it's survival as a format is not dependent on Kodak maintaining the supply and process deal.
 
Last edited:
From the specs it's a standard def viewfinder screen so I wonder what's feeding it? Have they embedded a basic digital sensor/lens alongside the analogue lens? If they have, there must be some sort of digital adjustment made to the screen to allow for the layout.

Also, there are two different renders on the site, one is a curved body and he other more angular. I guess there aren't any actual physical cameras in the wild yet.
 
As far as I can tell this has been knocking around for quite a while and despite the fanfare it's not much more than a concept in reality. Unless they've really ramped up the production.
 
Is just come here to post the same thing then saw this thread. I think it's great news!!

As @RaglanSurf says, there are other companies now who supply and develop super 8 so not restricted to Kodak. I have a super 8 camera here that I'm yet to use.

Perhaps with so many directors now shouting about shooting film and Kodak announcing their motion picture film department is now at break even for the first time in years, maybe this is helping the resurgence.

I for one am very excited.
 
I never even shoot video on my phone but I'd like a shot of a Super 8 or the like just to have a go.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I never even shoot video on my phone but I'd like a shot of a Super 8 or the like just to have a go.
Click to expand...
I've got a couple of Super 8 cameras you borrow if you fancy having a go.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I've got a couple of Super 8 cameras you borrow if you fancy having a go.
Click to expand...

I may take you up on that in the summer. £50 for 3 minutes of film (inc process and scan) is a bit out of my play time budget just now.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I may take you up on that in the summer. £50 for 3 minutes of film (inc process and scan) is a bit out of my play time budget just now.
Click to expand...
Ouch, not really meant for the hobbyest then.:)
 
steveo_mcg said:
I may take you up on that in the summer. £50 for 3 minutes of film (inc process and scan) is a bit out of my play time budget just now.
Click to expand...

Just let me know, I've had them for years and they don't get a whole lot of use but they're fun to use and produce a 'look' unlike anything else.

dizidav said:
Ouch, not really meant for the hobbyest then.:)
Click to expand...

Depends on how much you like to spend on your hobby, I know people that like to race cars and they spend more on fuel just getting themselves and their cars to events for an hours racing than I spend on film in 6 months.
 
Ooh, just like the old days, you even get to post it off. Of course, you'll need to get your hands on an old projector to get the full experience.
 
Merluza said:
Ooh, just like the old days, you even get to post it off. Of course, you'll need to get your hands on an old projector to get the full experience.
Click to expand...

..and a screen and put up with the film tearing in the projector and burning holes...at times. I was glad when my father (who used a cine camera a lot) put them all on video, but even that is become obsolete as it's all DVD etc now.
 
I still have my projector, there's something really satisfying about projecting a roll of Super 8 onto a screen. I've never had a reel snap, tear or burn but I have been transported back in time and love the fact that I can still watch the same film I shot over 30 years ago. It's a magical experience in a way that video never can be. Sure it can appear to be expensive but not as pricey as still film photography. 36 frames of 35mm film will cost you somewhere between 15p to 60p per frame to buy, process and scan (Depending on the film and processing used) which makes £50 for 3,600 frames of Super 8 pretty good value.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I still have my projector, there's something really satisfying about projecting a roll of Super 8 onto a screen. I've never had a reel snap, tear or burn but I have been transported back in time and love the fact that I can still watch the same film I shot over 30 years ago. It's a magical experience in a way that video never can be. Sure it can appear to be expensive but not as pricey as still film photography. 36 frames of 35mm film will cost you somewhere between 15p to 60p per frame to buy, process and scan (Depending on the film and processing used) which makes £50 for 3,600 frames of Super 8 pretty good value.
Click to expand...

...or just use a digi phone etc for movies and save all the hassle :eek: :exit: well I was surprised once when my grandson used my wife's phone for video and it came out quite well.

Also..on another forum a guy used his digi SLR for a movie and just selecting one frame and the results were quite good....you all know I'm a filmie but some digi results surprise me.
 
Last edited:
RaglanSurf said:
Just let me know, I've had them for years and they don't get a whole lot of use but they're fun to use and produce a 'look' unlike anything else.
Click to expand...

(y)

RaglanSurf said:
Depends on how much you like to spend on your hobby, I know people that like to race cars and they spend more on fuel just getting themselves and their cars to events for an hours racing than I spend on film in 6 months.
Click to expand...

You'd have to be into rocketry to get into that kind of burn rate.
 
excalibur2 said:
...or just use a digi phone etc for movies and save all the hassle :eek: :exit:
Click to expand...

But a phone is small and convenient to carry, it just fits in your pocket and you can take it anywhere, you're not limited to 4 minutes footage, you can view it back instantly on the same equipment you shot it on, you can share it easily and quickly amongst your friends, you don't need to send it off to a lab for processing, you don't need bulky specialist equipment to view it, you don't need to draw the curtains and turn the lights out to see it properly, the list is endless.

But where the f*** is the fun in that? :bang:
 
steveo_mcg said:
You'd have to be into rocketry to get into that kind of burn rate.
Click to expand...
It's not the burn rate of the car they're racing, 18 mpg for a Range Rover pulling a trailer from Kent to Cadwell Park is about £120 just on fuel and that's at its current low level, add in running the race car, entry fees, accommodation etc. Even at my most carefree shooting rate I'd struggle to shoot £120 of film in a weekend. It would take @Woodsy about 10 years :lol:
 
RaglanSurf said:
But a phone is small and convenient to carry, it just fits in your pocket and you can take it anywhere, you're not limited to 4 minutes footage, you can view it back instantly on the same equipment you shot it on, you can share it easily and quickly amongst your friends, you don't need to send it off to a lab for processing, you don't need bulky specialist equipment to view it, you don't need to draw the curtains and turn the lights out to see it properly, the list is endless.

But where the f*** is the fun in that? :banghead:
Click to expand...

Well we don't want F&C to be known as the "bit of fun" forum..if you want results use what's best...horses for courses...and in this particular subject I just don't get the fun bit and think using a film cine camera is ridiculous.
 
...whereas buying film for 50p from a booty which can result in completely random colours is scientific?

"What's best" is pretty subjective Brian and this section of the forum clearly shows that. I've just waited 2.5 weeks (over Christmas/New Year) to get back two sheets of slide film. I had no idea if they would be sharp, exposed properly or even the right colour. In the same time I've probably shot a couple of hundred digital images, edited them and printed them for frames. Realistically, digital was the 'better' medium but that's not to say I didn't rip open the box from Peak last night like a kid at Christmas ;0)
 
excalibur2 said:
Well we don't want F&C to be known as the "bit of fun" forum..if you want results use what's best...horses for courses...and in this particular subject I just don't get the fun bit and think using a film cine camera is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
When you want Super 8 cine footage the only way to obtain that Super 8 footage is to use Super 8 film and a Super 8 camera. If I want video footage I'll use a video camera or even one of those new-fangled DSLR's that has a video mode or even my phone, there's nothing wrong with video but it's not film.
 
excalibur2 said:
or just use a digi phone etc for movies and save all the hassle
Click to expand...

Editing video involves complicated software and a hefty PC. Editing film involves scissors and glue.[1] There you go, there's one reason cine is/can be better.

[1]cement/tape/whatever
 
RaglanSurf said:
It's not the burn rate of the car they're racing, 18 mpg for a Range Rover pulling a trailer from Kent to Cadwell Park is about £120 just on fuel and that's at its current low level, add in running the race car, entry fees, accommodation etc. Even at my most carefree shooting rate I'd struggle to shoot £120 of film in a weekend. It would take @Woodsy about 10 years :LOL:
Click to expand...

No I know, I'm just having a bit of a giggle. An 90 minutes of super 8 fun would cost over fifteen hundred quid, plus editing and wastage it would be a very expensive way of making movies. I can only imagine what just the film stock cost Tarentino for his latest film.
 
RaglanSurf said:
When you want Super 8 cine footage the only way to obtain that Super 8 footage is to use Super 8 film and a Super 8 camera. If I want video footage I'll use a video camera or even one of those new-fangled DSLR's that has a video mode or even my phone, there's nothing wrong with video but it's not film.
Click to expand...

Well I have a stack of reels that were my father's, and years ago thought I'd play a few on my projector onto a large screen...well at times the film would chew up in the gate and when stopped burnt a hole in the film..so thought sod this and played all of them( that luckly were transferred onto tape by a shop)...and enjoy them on a large TV screen.... Also he had copies made of the tape and given around to the family....an example of convenience ;)
 
The point we're making is that digital still photography is much more convenient than shooting film but we enjoy analogue photography for various reasons.

You yourself appear to hate the idea of a digital camera but it's much simpler than shooting 35mm so what's the point of film?
 
I've thought about experimenting with Super 8 several times over the past year, but I just don't really know where to begin. It seems that Kodak is concentrating on negative stocks at the moment and they don't have any colour reversal films for projection, is that right? I do like the look of their Vision colour negative emulsions, but it would add another step to the process, not to mention additional cost, as I guess I'd either need to get the footage digitised or have a positive printed, right?

I also don't really know very much about the cameras and what to look for in purchasing one. The only thing I know is that I'd like to be able to experiment with various frame rates, such as being able to shoot slow motion sport (so high fps), while also shooting the cinematic standard of 24 fps.
 
steveo_mcg said:
No I know, I'm just having a bit of a giggle. An 90 minutes of super 8 fun would cost over fifteen hundred quid, plus editing and wastage it would be a very expensive way of making movies. I can only imagine what just the film stock cost Tarentino for his latest film.
Click to expand...
Bearing in mind most movies even low budget movies will use a ratio between 10 & 30:1
 
skysh4rk said:
I've thought about experimenting with Super 8 several times over the past year, but I just don't really know where to begin. It seems that Kodak is concentrating on negative stocks at the moment and they don't have any colour reversal films for projection, is that right? I do like the look of their Vision colour negative emulsions, but it would add another step to the process, not to mention additional cost, as I guess I'd either need to get the footage digitised or have a positive printed, right?

I also don't really know very much about the cameras and what to look for in purchasing one. The only thing I know is that I'd like to be able to experiment with various frame rates, such as being able to shoot slow motion sport (so high fps), while also shooting the cinematic standard of 24 fps.
Click to expand...
Have a look here https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/film-department/super-8-film
 
stevelmx5 said:
...whereas buying film for 50p from a booty which can result in completely random colours is scientific?

"What's best" is pretty subjective Brian and this section of the forum clearly shows that. I've just waited 2.5 weeks (over Christmas/New Year) to get back two sheets of slide film. I had no idea if they would be sharp, exposed properly or even the right colour. In the same time I've probably shot a couple of hundred digital images, edited them and printed them for frames. Realistically, digital was the 'better' medium but that's not to say I didn't rip open the box from Peak last night like a kid at Christmas ;0)
Click to expand...

Come on Steve you are an experienced photographer and can't believe you take film shots and have no idea if they would come out..ok night shots etc (or camera light leaks) can be experimental at first but anyone can get the exposure near enough right with just a bit of experience and with the film's lattitude everything works out ok.
I'm not a better photographer than anyone else here but as posted before WISIWIG (well sometimes the camera has let me down) even with bootie film and ok if the colours were off and as long as the film didn't come out of the ark...99% can be corrected in Photoshop.
If anyone likes my shots posted then 95% are taken with old film inc bootie and I think the last one (or near) exp in 2002 the 5% would be vista.
 
Last edited:
I still have an exposed but unprocessed Kodachrome Super8 cartridge at home. :(

It would almost certainly be the best I ever took.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
The point we're making is that digital still photography is much more convenient than shooting film but we enjoy analogue photography for various reasons.

You yourself appear to hate the idea of a digital camera but it's much simpler than shooting 35mm so what's the point of film?
Click to expand...

I'm happy with 35mm and 120 film.......but just can't see the point in using a film cine camera other than a bit of fun for some, but then also can't see the point in using half frame cameras or brownies etc. Must be set in my ways :eek:
 
excalibur2 said:
Come on Steve you are an experienced photographer and can't believe you take film shots and have no idea if they would come out..
Click to expand...

These were the first two sheets of expired 4x5 Astia slide film I've ever shot with a camera I've customised myself (from its original Polaroid roll film) and was shooting at night time in my living room only lit with the lights from the christmas tree, blue window lights and a fire at F8/F11 for 5 and 20 seconds metered with my iphone lightmeter....trust me, I'm shocked they came out at all ;0)
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
These were the first two sheets of expired 4x5 Astia slide film I've ever shot with a camera I've customised myself (from its original Polaroid roll film) and was shooting at night time in my living room only lit with the lights from the christmas tree, blue window lights and a fire at F8/F11 for 5 and 20 seconds metered with my iphone lightmeter....trust me, I'm shocked they came out at all ;0)
Click to expand...

well I have a similar problems with my Xmas night shots (dunno how\if they are going to come out) but I've been lucky in the past in that the camera on semi auto usually has solved the problem....a bit newbie not using manual but my excuse is:- I haven't done manual night shots for about 50 years.;)
 
excalibur2 said:
Come on Steve you are an experienced photographer and can't believe you take film shots and have no idea if they would come out..ok night shots etc (or camera light leaks) can be experimental at first but anyone can get the exposure near enough right with just a bit of experience and with the film's lattitude everything works out ok.
I'm not a better photographer than anyone else here but as posted before WISIWIG (well sometimes the camera has let me down) even with bootie film and ok if the colours were off and as long as the film didn't come out of the ark...99% can be corrected in Photoshop.
If anyone likes my shots posted then 95% are taken with old film inc bootie and I think the last one (or near) exp in 2002 the 5% would be vista.
Click to expand...

I am fairly sure my exposures will be right but what if the photo is garbage? I am not showing garbage to the world and believe me, many of my frames are never going to see the light of day. My keeper rate is much higher with digital but if there's something I really don't like, there's no way I would use it.
 
I've had a closer look at the reports regarding the new super 8 camera and what is particularly intriguing to me is that it seems Kodak is looking to develop a system around this to not only offer a telecined digital file with their Super 8 processing, but also a developed print for projection. If Kodak can make it easy to get a digital file and a print from their colour negative stocks for a reasonable sum, then I'd definitely be looking to jump into this. I can only hope they bring such services to the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top