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

121–130 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#121

Post by SwellJoe »

ddingus wrote: post #119
SwellJoe wrote: post #111

I watched the analog-to-digital-to-analog trend happen in professional audio (I was going to school for audio as ProTools was beginning to be a thing, we worked on analog tape machines...but the year after I finished my degree, they brought in digital ADAT machines for the small labs, and eventually went digital in the 24 track room, as well). It's amusing how superstitious people can be, especially in industries tha…

Where there are limits, there is art.

I compose music on a Gameboy and a Commodore 64. You don't have to tell me. But...well, this is just spending unnecessarily large amounts of money for mediocre output.

I feel like there's a difference between working with limited means as a tool for creativity, and something like this.

But, I guess, more importantly: I hate the delusion, under which so many people operate, that analog provides higher quality than digital. If your argument is that this is a great idea because it kinda sucks and working with kinda sucky equipment makes you feel more creative, then I can't argue (again, I enjoy writing music on a Gameboy, which is truly sucky), but the moment you make the argument that it looks/sounds better than modern digital equipment is the moment I dismiss the opinion as hopeless superstition.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#123

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

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…

Polaroid instant film is awesome and is not like Super 8 at all (except they're both old). There is nothing digital that works as well as Polaroid (or Fuji) instant film. No, carrying around a digital printer doesn't work as well, yet. Integrate the digital printer into the camera so that you don't notice the printer at all, then it will moot the instant film. This Super 8 thing just seems crazy. It's conspicuously added inconvenience where instant film is just the opposite, an instant photo.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#124

Post by lifeformed »

SwellJoe wrote: post #111

I watched the analog-to-digital-to-analog trend happen in professional audio (I was going to school for audio as ProTools was beginning to be a thing, we worked on analog tape machines...but the year after I finished my degree, they brought in digital ADAT machines for the small labs, and eventually went digital in the 24 track room, as well). It's amusing how superstitious people can be, especially in industries tha…

It's not about things sounding/looking better, but about them sounding/looking different.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#126

Post by donatj »

mikepurvis wrote: post #120
plaguuuuuu wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With photography, film and audio alike, it's easy to prove that digital has orders of magnitude more precision and accuracy. That's great, but it's not the whole picture. Mixing desks are said to colour the sound in certain ways, and in doing so, introduce harmonics and other sorts of imprecision that would be anathema to digital components, for which THD and SNR are paramount and utter precision is the ultimate goal…

I don't think anyone disputes that. The real question is, can a digital filter provide a close enough approximation of that colouring that going through the analogue path is no longer necessary? Are Instagram and Photoshop an adequate substitute for real life film grain? I say yes, but I'm a software guy. And I've had this argument with a serious pro audio engineer who has a Pro Tools workstation built around a Neve…

> Are Instagram and Photoshop an adequate substitute for real life film grain?

I thought you were making a good point about how filters were shitty needless imitations and then you threw it all out most unexpectedly.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#127

Post by ddingus »

SwellJoe wrote: post #121
ddingus wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where there are limits, there is art.

I compose music on a Gameboy and a Commodore 64. You don't have to tell me. But...well, this is just spending unnecessarily large amounts of money for mediocre output. I feel like there's a difference between working with limited means as a tool for creativity, and something like this. But, I guess, more importantly: I hate the delusion, under which so many people operate, that analog provides higher quality than dig…

Me too, and I like to work with small and old computers too, and for similar reasons.

The thing is, if a tune is really good, that it was done on SID won't matter. It's good art.

Not better in an objective sense, just something we crave.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#129

Post by fancyketchup »

drglitch wrote: post #16
ethbro wrote: post #6

Hearing the name "Kodak" just makes me sad these days. From the wikipedia entry, "From the $90 range in 1997, Kodak shares closed at 76 cents on January 3, 2012" .

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.

I think you're being more than a little unfair.

Part of the problem is that there simply isn't as much money to be made in digital as there was in analog. A digital camera doesn't need film, but film (and film processing) accounted for much of Kodak's profits for many years. So it's not just a simple matter of "make digital cameras instead of analog ones".

Also, remember that Kodak was very big into digital imaging, and was considered the leader in the field of high-end digital cameras. That is, until the Nikon D1 came along around 1999. Even then, Kodak sensors were common among the next few generations of DSLRs.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#130

Post by ddingus »

SwellJoe wrote: post #121
ddingus wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where there are limits, there is art.

I compose music on a Gameboy and a Commodore 64. You don't have to tell me. But...well, this is just spending unnecessarily large amounts of money for mediocre output. I feel like there's a difference between working with limited means as a tool for creativity, and something like this. But, I guess, more importantly: I hate the delusion, under which so many people operate, that analog provides higher quality than dig…

Some times it is.

Go look at great pixel art from the 80's and 90's era on an analog CRT.

Overall, modern displays do more and are better in every way. But, I find watching SD media is best on analog SD media.

Or I see a movie in ultra high resolution. Looks like a set. I can see it. But my copy of "How The West Was Won" reissued on Blu Ray is one of the very best I've seen.

This stuff has subtleties that people appreciate.

I find it much easier to go looking for and appreciate art where I see it, and largely ignore the more objective persist of perfection. It's a good thing, but I don't always care.

Post reply on HN