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

101–110 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#101

Post by purpled_haze »

dietrichepp wrote: post #38
johansch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Description of crystal sync here: http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/index_files/Page269.htm

"a camera's running speed is locked to the digitally divided oscillations of a quartz crystal, with an accuracy of a few parts per million. The function of the pilot cable was to feed a representation of the camera's speed to the recorder. Since with crystal control that speed is precisely known, the cable can be replaced by a similarly accurate crystal generator mounted in the audio recorder. This eliminates any connection between camera and recorder, but permits them to stay in sync with each other. A pilot signal is recorded as above, but it comes from the built-in crystal instead of the camera. The resulting tape is resolved to mag film just the same as a pilot tape. You still need a clapper board for a start mark."

So, it doesn't actually record the sound, but it is capable of being sync'd to the recording of the sound.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#102

Post by LeUsername »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #90
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.

Vinyl version even of the same album is often mastered with less of the Loudness War.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#103

Post by pierrec »

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…

This is pretty indisputable. Yes, recent and popular movies are still being shot on film, which very well reflects the fact that old habits die hard, and that creatives, producers and investors easily let their own biases and "shibboleths" get in the way of hard data.

I suppose one argument might be that the additional hurdles of the traditional workflow can be a constraint that boosts creativity.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#104

Post by jankins »

stephen_g wrote: post #92
jankins wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 si…

Film is beautiful and has a great 'by-default' aesthetic - but many digital imaging systems have been able to capture more dynamic range (and far more resolution) for a few years now, and it isn't that hard to add grain and emulate the kind of image response for popular stocks in post... These days it's really more of a tactile choice - 'do you want to work with film' - than aesthetic.

Well I'll admit my acquaintance with the equipment is dated by a few years since it turned out programming was more fun and paid more :P I imagine it still gets you a different quality and a different set of possibilities, even if digital has taken the rational and technical upper hand in many situations.

More on-topic, it also occurs to me that the Kodak cameras mentioned here will produce an image that the average film student or hobbyist (I guess that's the market?) with a canon or red wouldn't likely be able to reproduce convincingly, so that's interesting.

Anyway what I'd really like to see resurrected is 3-strip technicolor! That'd be retro

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#105

Post by purpled_haze »

n_plus_one wrote: post #60

Here's a nice solution in search of a problem.

I speculate that there is latent demand for it between older people that miss it and younger people that are tired of pure digital and want something more organic and different.

Personally though, I would rather have something similar to analog that doesn't require the cost and time/complexity. I wonder how many folks will buy these to go with them: http://nofilmschool.com/2013/12/nolab-digital-super-8-cartri...

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#106

Post by dietrichepp »

madaxe_again wrote: post #43
dietrichepp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YMMV, the machines are very consistent, it takes some serious discipline to match that consistency at home, and you can get color casts accidentally. The C-41 chemicals are also a bit more unfriendly and more difficult to dispose of properly (not sure about positive). So these days I only do non-chromogenic film at home, but I might have made a different choice in the 1990s.

Speaking of which, Kodak doesn't even make E-6 film any more.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#110

Post by dietrichepp »

acomjean wrote: post #97
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

Kodachrome was slide film. Very few labs would process it, though the colors were bright and some people really liked it. E6 was the process that most slide film used (even some of kodaks). Slide film was always a challenge to expose just right, its dynamic range is pretty narrow compared to negative film. Its what you needed to use for movies though. I can't see this new revival being more than a niche market. Sendi…

Home movies used a positive process, but TV and cinema would typically be shot using a negative process. Kodak has discontinued all of their reversal films except one (and it's black & white).
Post reply on HN