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

81–90 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#81

Post by mng2 »

ghaff wrote: post #56
zzzeek wrote: post #53

dumb question. as someone who shot plenty of super 8 about 35 years ago, what I don't see here is the projector? That was the part that sort of sucked (not to mention editing). You still need a projector to consume this media, right? Or is it just teleported through some hipster USB device now...

It's color negative film anyway. Probably gives better quality scans and is a bit cheaper. [Edit: And actually I don't believe Kodak makes a reversal Super 8 film any longer, although others do.]

Yeah, Kodachrome processing stopped about 5 years ago, since the chemicals were too nasty. I think Kodak still sells B&W reversal though.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#82

Post by drrotmos »

beamatronic wrote: post #65
bprater wrote: post #62

You may have not noticed it, but the benefits of film have been going extinct this decade. Check out how many feature films are shot digitally versus on film. Unless you are Spielberg, you are shooting digitally. Currently, there are small digital cameras like the Blackmagic Pocket Camera (BMPCC) camera, under $1k, which have a capability to shoot images that are so similar to 16mm film that the average consumer coul…

Or unless you are Quentin Tarantino; see Inglorious Basterds (2009) to see what rich colors film can provide.

Or better yet, The Hateful Eight, in which he takes film to a new level, shooting on Ultra Panavision 70 (which perhaps counter-intuitively is 65 mm film).

Other people are going digital, but Quentin Tarantino seems to be busy taking film to the next level instead :)

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#83

Post by Animats »

colechristensen wrote: post #58
mmahemoff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't just nostalgia. Digital music can't simulate having a physical album cover, an e-ink screen won't ever be similar to a printed page, no music encoding will physically prevent loudness-wars mastering the way a vinyl record will (the needle would just jump out of the track), no printer will ever be able to fool someone into thinking a document was written on a typewriter. You can tell the difference if a piece…

"You can tell the difference if a piece of mail was signed by a human with a pen instead of a printer, and it means something."

Not any more. There's an app for that now.[1]

[1] https://vimeo.com/101932145

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#84

Post by timeisapear »

drrotmos wrote: post #82
beamatronic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or unless you are Quentin Tarantino; see Inglorious Basterds (2009) to see what rich colors film can provide.

Or better yet, The Hateful Eight, in which he takes film to a new level, shooting on Ultra Panavision 70 (which perhaps counter-intuitively is 65 mm film). Other people are going digital, but Quentin Tarantino seems to be busy taking film to the next level instead :)

Or JJ Abrams. Or Christopher Nolan. Two of the most profitable and prolific directors of today.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-war...

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#85

Post by extra88 »

drrotmos wrote: post #82
beamatronic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or unless you are Quentin Tarantino; see Inglorious Basterds (2009) to see what rich colors film can provide.

Or better yet, The Hateful Eight, in which he takes film to a new level, shooting on Ultra Panavision 70 (which perhaps counter-intuitively is 65 mm film). Other people are going digital, but Quentin Tarantino seems to be busy taking film to the next level instead :)

Honestly, I thought the opening shots of the snow-covered landscape and a few of the longer interior shots didn't look that good. However the close-ups looked amazing.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#86

Post by sparky_ »

Turbo_hedgehog wrote: post #78
sparky_ wrote: post #52

Interesting to see history repeating itself a bit: "When you purchase film you will be buying the film, processing and digital transfer". Kodak was pursued by the DoJ in the 1950s and ultimately ruled against in an antitrust suit for doing the exact same thing with Kodachrome, the market leader in color (still) photography at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome#Prepaid_processing

Looks like the consent decrees were terminated in 1995. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1300513.html

Interesting.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#87

Post by alasarmas »

Animats wrote: post #83
colechristensen wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just nostalgia. Digital music can't simulate having a physical album cover, an e-ink screen won't ever be similar to a printed page, no music encoding will physically prevent loudness-wars mastering the way a vinyl record will (the needle would just jump out of the track), no printer will ever be able to fool someone into thinking a document was written on a typewriter. You can tell the difference if a piece…

"You can tell the difference if a piece of mail was signed by a human with a pen instead of a printer, and it means something." Not any more. There's an app for that now.[1] [1] https://vimeo.com/101932145

Looks like it doesn't do ballpoint, so it probably can't duplicate the varied indentations into the paper that a ballpoint pen will make. I've been checking mail from my Congresscritters to see which ones are using autopens [0] or similar technology, such as the link you provided. (NB the Wikipedia article for the autopen [0] mentions a model that functions on the x and y axes, but makes no mention of a z axis)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#88

Post by jankins »

kalleboo wrote: post #72
beamatronic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or unless you are Quentin Tarantino; see Inglorious Basterds (2009) to see what rich colors film can provide.

> Sean Mattini .... digital colorist assist Edited and color graded on digital intermediate

The image retains characteristics of film even though it goes through DI, even color quality. (Quality in the sense of 'different', not strictly 'better'.)

I think it's the principle of "you can't work with what's not there" - film (especially talking several years ago vs. today) will capture a different and usually wider dynamic range, and lend a different starting point that that might not be possible or easy to simulate.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#89

Post by lectrick »

Is there an actual double-blind study that proves that digital still cannot beat analog in certain realms? Because I'm having a hard time believing that this "analogue renaissance" isn't just pure marketing hokum.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#90

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

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…

> People nostalgic for the blurriness of old home movies? Do any of these actually exist?

Look at all the people buying vinyl records and ask yourself that again.

Post reply on HN