Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kodak resurrects Super 8

kodak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#31

Post by [deleted] »

johansch wrote: post #26
dietrichepp wrote: post #9

I see USB and... SD card slot on the back? HDMI and... 3.5mm audio? One of the most characteristic features of Super 8, at least to me, is the complete lack of audio (at least, on most Super 8 works). So if you went to a theater to see something on Super 8 there might be a live band playing the soundtrack. I wonder if Kodak is doing something like putting audio on the SD card and then storing digital synchronization…

You're just imagining what the product could be like instead of reading the actual product/specs page? That's an interesting approach, but should probably label your fantasies accordingly. http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/consumer/Product/Product_Specs... "FILM GAUGE: SUPER 8 ( EXTENDED MAX-8 GATE ) FILM LOAD: KODAK CARTRIDGES WITH 50 FT (15 M) SPEED: VARIABLE SPEEDS (9, 12, 18, 24, 25 FPS) ALL WITH CRYSTAL SYNC LENS MO…

[deleted]

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#32

Post by nsxwolf »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #7
smacktoward wrote: post #3

I'm strugging to figure out who exactly this thing would be for . Amateurs for home movies? Nope, digital will always be cheaper, and faster/more convenient to work with to boot. Aspiring filmmakers? Nope, if you want to shoot on film professionally you'll want at least 16mm to avoid the magnification/graininess Super 8 brings with it. People nostalgic for the blurriness of old home movies? Do any of these actually e…

I could see someone trying to shoot a professional movie that wanted that effect for part of it, because that part was supposed to be someone playing a Super-8 movie. But I suspect that there's a Photoshop filter for that...

That use of filters to simulate things like that leaves me cold. Especially bad is when they attempt to fake a CRT television display.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#33

Post by jacquesm »

ghaff wrote: post #30
meric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We weren't in the company. It can be hard to tell. You could open a beauty therapy shop, and it's revenue increase every year, and suddenly after the introduction of cheap laser treatments and race-to-the-bottom competitors, in one year you could face a reduction of 70% of your revenue.[1] [1] Anecdote.

Kodak certainly did a lot of things wrong--especially with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Part of their problem with digital was that they were arguably ahead of curve (and not quite on the right curve) with things like PhotoCD and providing equipment to photo shops to print customer photos. However, the bottom line is that it would probably have been very difficult for even the most brilliant management to replace…

It's one of the best examples of what disruption really means. To me it translates into that no matter how well you prepare yourself none of your best plans will be close enough to the reality on the ground to be of much use and the size of your company actually becomes a hindrance rather than an asset.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#34

Post by ethbro »

meric wrote: post #19
drglitch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As sad as that is, it's a pretty long life for a company that was killed by mis-management: they invented the digital cameras but chose not to cannibalize their incumbent analog business. To combat demise, they chose to fire people and become an IP shell. Last try at survival was to sell off most/all IP and license its name. The rest is history.

We weren't in the company. It can be hard to tell. You could open a beauty therapy shop, and it's revenue increase every year, and suddenly after the introduction of cheap laser treatments and race-to-the-bottom competitors, in one year you could face a reduction of 70% of your revenue.[1] [1] Anecdote.

Of course. Hindsight 20/20, etc.

But I feel like if your business is a mature process based around a singular need, having a future disruption department to keep tabs on the market and feed back into high level management should be de rigueur. Innovating amazing and critical components of digital cameras and then spending $5B to buy a drug company in 1988 deserves to get you some future flak on your corporate leadership's decisions.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#35

Post by ethbro »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
ghaff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kodak certainly did a lot of things wrong--especially with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Part of their problem with digital was that they were arguably ahead of curve (and not quite on the right curve) with things like PhotoCD and providing equipment to photo shops to print customer photos. However, the bottom line is that it would probably have been very difficult for even the most brilliant management to replace…

It's one of the best examples of what disruption really means. To me it translates into that no matter how well you prepare yourself none of your best plans will be close enough to the reality on the ground to be of much use and the size of your company actually becomes a hindrance rather than an asset.

> and the size of your company actually becomes a hindrance rather than an asset.

I'd say less size than diversity. Conglomerate aren't subject to this and still preserve a lot of the benefits of size (although as GE Capital shows... that can go badly too if not risk-managed).

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#36

Post by Aloha »

ghaff wrote: post #30
meric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We weren't in the company. It can be hard to tell. You could open a beauty therapy shop, and it's revenue increase every year, and suddenly after the introduction of cheap laser treatments and race-to-the-bottom competitors, in one year you could face a reduction of 70% of your revenue.[1] [1] Anecdote.

Kodak certainly did a lot of things wrong--especially with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Part of their problem with digital was that they were arguably ahead of curve (and not quite on the right curve) with things like PhotoCD and providing equipment to photo shops to print customer photos. However, the bottom line is that it would probably have been very difficult for even the most brilliant management to replace…

They really did have trouble letting go of the per-imprint pricing model in the end.

I believe that photo-chemical prints are better and longer lasting than any inkjet (anything really other than dye transfer and offset printing), but they didnt get digital cameras out there fast enough, and couldn't let go of the film based model.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#37

Post by rfrank »

Someone1234 wrote: post #29
rfrank wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there theoretically anything preventing them from putting a line like this from insta's TOS in there? "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Priva…

Why does that text concern you? If you want Instagram to display your photograph back to you (or other users at your request) then you have to grant them a license like this. Where terms get concerning is when they want a redistribution license, or they want to allow unnamed third party "partners" to be able to utilise your photograph royalty free. Neither of which appear in the snippet above.

Yeah, I probably could have found a better quote, but it's a random TOS and I'm at work haha. At the end of the day, I don't see a reason to believe why Kodak wouldn't make a play to control the images they scan/upload as much as possible. Or a reason to believe TOS wouldn't change to make that so once adoption of the new Super 8 is at an acceptable level to Kodak.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#38

Post by dietrichepp »

johansch wrote: post #26
dietrichepp wrote: post #9

I see USB and... SD card slot on the back? HDMI and... 3.5mm audio? One of the most characteristic features of Super 8, at least to me, is the complete lack of audio (at least, on most Super 8 works). So if you went to a theater to see something on Super 8 there might be a live band playing the soundtrack. I wonder if Kodak is doing something like putting audio on the SD card and then storing digital synchronization…

You're just imagining what the product could be like instead of reading the actual product/specs page? That's an interesting approach, but should probably label your fantasies accordingly. http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/consumer/Product/Product_Specs... "FILM GAUGE: SUPER 8 ( EXTENDED MAX-8 GATE ) FILM LOAD: KODAK CARTRIDGES WITH 50 FT (15 M) SPEED: VARIABLE SPEEDS (9, 12, 18, 24, 25 FPS) ALL WITH CRYSTAL SYNC LENS MO…

I did read the specs, and they don't answer any of my questions. This comment fails to give me any new information and instead just makes me feel bad, so, congratulations, if that was your goal.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#39

Post by k-mcgrady »

Interesting. Today I've come across quite a few stories on analogue tech. This + new Technic SL-1200 models + new vinyl pressing machines being produced due to vinyl demand continuing to grow + record players and instant film cameras being incredibly popular on Amazon this Christmas. I wonder if we'll see this occur to other analogue tech too?

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#40

Post by Aloha »

dietrichepp wrote: post #9

I see USB and... SD card slot on the back? HDMI and... 3.5mm audio? One of the most characteristic features of Super 8, at least to me, is the complete lack of audio (at least, on most Super 8 works). So if you went to a theater to see something on Super 8 there might be a live band playing the soundtrack. I wonder if Kodak is doing something like putting audio on the SD card and then storing digital synchronization…

Super 8 was designed for magnetic sound from the start.

I suspect this would allow you to record digitally at the same time you were exposing film perhaps, or even use it as a digital video camera without film.

I'm excited, I want one.

Post reply on HN