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

41–50 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#41

Post by madaxe_again »

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…

Never mind audio, this is, sadly, proprietary bullshit, and has been since the 60's. "Super 8 film cartridge" - what? I'd be far more interested if they were just doing reeled 8mm with development services - I have a perfectly serviceable 1930's 8mm that I haven't been able to find film for (well, at any sensible price) for twenty years. I'd love to be able to shoot with it again.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#42

Post by nickbauman »

I wish they would have resurrected 9.5 mm instead. 9.5 mm was an amazing format in that the emulsion went from edge to edge with no pulldown claw sprocket. Instead it used a single sprocket hole between the frames. It was still very cheap film but more than 50% larger emulsion than Super8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9.5_mm_film

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#43

Post by madaxe_again »

dietrichepp wrote: post #10
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #5

Interesting. But it doesn't solve the worst problem I've ever had with analog film: The developer lost the rolls that had our honeymoon pictures on them. (As compensation, they were generous enough to offer us... blank replacement rolls. We were not impressed.) That's the advantage digital has - you don't mail the pictures anywhere. Nobody can lose them for you. (Yeah, you can still lose them yourself...)

Tip from the pros: if the pictures are irreplaceable, then divide them in half. Send half to the developer. If it gets ruined, you've only ruined half. This is how wedding photographers who shot on film avoided getting sued into oblivion by angry brides (and yes, there are many, many photographers who have been sued into oblivion by angry brides, contract or no contract).

Or alternately learn to do manual colour positive processing. It's really not hard, and with a big tank you can do half a dozen 120 reels at a time.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#44

Post by Aloha »

sitharus wrote: post #15
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…

The same people who buy impossible project instant film. Sure you could shoot a perfectly in-focus colour corrected image and filter it, but there's something fun about not knowing the result instantly. It's the reverse of when digital cameras came out, then instant was exciting.

It's interesting, original Polaroid film was probably one of the most color stable (and accurate) films around - I have Polaroids that were stored is less than ideal conditions and nearly 40 years on have much better color stability than their print contemporaries.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#45

Post by Aloha »

nickbauman wrote: post #42

I wish they would have resurrected 9.5 mm instead. 9.5 mm was an amazing format in that the emulsion went from edge to edge with no pulldown claw sprocket. Instead it used a single sprocket hole between the frames. It was still very cheap film but more than 50% larger emulsion than Super8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9.5_mm_film

Unlike 9.5, they never stopped commercial manufacture and processing of Super8 so all of the commercial infrastructure is still there - its less of a revival, and more a introduction of a new Super8 camera.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#46

Post by nickbauman »

Aloha wrote: post #45
nickbauman wrote: post #42

I wish they would have resurrected 9.5 mm instead. 9.5 mm was an amazing format in that the emulsion went from edge to edge with no pulldown claw sprocket. Instead it used a single sprocket hole between the frames. It was still very cheap film but more than 50% larger emulsion than Super8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9.5_mm_film

Unlike 9.5, they never stopped commercial manufacture and processing of Super8 so all of the commercial infrastructure is still there - its less of a revival, and more a introduction of a new Super8 camera.

Good point, but 9.5 is still kinda amazing format, if only.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#47

Post by mmahemoff »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #39

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?

There will always be a big market for items of nostalgia, whether it's taking photos, playing music, enjoying ancient video games, or banging out letters on a typewriter. All good fun as long as people don't spout pseudoscience about its inability to be emulated with modern equipment.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#48

Post by ghaff »

ethbro wrote: post #35
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Although I'd argue that, if anything, a conglomerate is even more likely to just walk away from a business that's in sharp decline rather than taking heroic measures to try to fix things the best they can. Maybe maintain it as a small cash cow business if appropriate, but you probably end up with a lot of the same factories closed and workers laid off.

The company as a whole probably makes it through OK and that's probably a net positive given HQ staffs and so forth will be more likely to keep their jobs and there's less disruption than a bankruptcy but a lot of the same net effect is still the same.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#49

Post by Aloha »

fomoz wrote: post #2

That's crazy amazingly awesome. Need to know how much it costs though, both camera and film/processing/cloud.

I'd expect the camera to cost 2-800 and the processing/film to be about 30 bucks a cartridge. Too bad they don't make a color reversal film anymore, so you can project it too.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#50

Post by Htsthbjig »

sitharus wrote: post #15
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…

The same people who buy impossible project instant film. Sure you could shoot a perfectly in-focus colour corrected image and filter it, but there's something fun about not knowing the result instantly. It's the reverse of when digital cameras came out, then instant was exciting.

"but there's something fun about not knowing the result instantly."

Let me guess, you have never ever used a super 8 camera. I have, and FUN is the last word that will come to my mind about those machines.

Using a new cartridge and not being sure about light exposure in complex scenes, only knowing about it after having sent the cartridge away and returned. Idem with motion response, color and lots of little things that now we have feedback about in seconds, but at the time, took weeks.

I mean, after all the pain now you need to mount the projector, switch light off only to discover that your film is ruined, because you did not take the right decisions or just the developer lab did it wrong. Frustration, anger, disappointment, anything but fun.

This happened several times to my father. It was an expensive process to learn, only fun if you did not pay for it.

It was a pain in the ass.

Post reply on HN