Live data from Hacker News

Kodak resurrects Super 8

kodak.com

141–150 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appr…

> 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.

Well, this is because the pixel art was specifically designed (sometimes intentionally--sometimes just because that's what the artist used to make it) to the limitations of the CRT's is was going to be used on. Consequently, it looks worse when viewed on something that doesn't have the particular blurring, filtering, circularizing characteristics for which it was designed.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#142

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…

Is it really an issue of image quality? Because while the qualities are different, analog media has its own character. You have to do quite a bit of image manipulation in digital to get that "super 8" look, and it isn't always that convincing. Same with black/white photography vs. digital -- the way a digital chip reacts to light is very different than the way chemicals in film react, and some film stocks have a range and tone that is very hard to emulate with digital images. I don't think it is a question of which is "better" but rather that aesthetic that an individual wants. You have to learn lighting techniques in a new way when you switch from celluloid to digital, and a good DP's intimate understanding of how a particular film stock will respond in the shadows and highlights no longer applies when dealing with a very different medium.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#143
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well it sounds like bad simulations leave you cold. I don't think making a realistic Super 8 effect would be too difficult for a professional VFX artist.

But would it be cheaper than just shooting Super 8?

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#144
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…

Mad Men (TV series) was shot on film, it looks very nice.

But I suppose it could also have been shot digitally and nobody would have spotted the difference. Maybe.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#145
Wow--surprised! Never thought I would see another film camera again. I didn't want to get into the film/digital debate, but I have no life--so here goes:

I can still tell the difference between film and digital. It could be I'm too used to film? It could be I'm partially color blind? Whatever the reason, I like the look of film.

Recent example. I watched Dumb and Dumber Too. Yes--it was bad on a lot of levels, but what really suprised me was the look of the movie. It just looked cheap. Say what you want about a Farelly brothers movie, they always looked great. I then looked into it, and one of the Farelly brothers was given the choice between film, or digital. The producers brought him to a digital lab, where the techs applied the film "look" program to make the digital look like film. Farley couldn't tell the difference. I sure could? They went with digital. If this is their last digital film--they will have settled to controversy--in my little world. I just have a feeling their next movie will be in film?

As to digital photography. When digital finally hit the practical point, I went digital. For myself, it was the Canon 20D, I bought the camera, and three very expensive lenses. Yes, it took great pictures. Great pictures to what? I wasen't a photographer before digital? I didn't know better. Actually, as a kid, I was a photographer. I used a Pentax K1000, and a Canon 350D. A few years ago I found a stash of negatives. I had them blown up, and asked a couple of family members to pick the best pictures. These were nature pictures. All picked my kid pictures. Maybe I was a better photographer as a kid? I don't know.

If I was going to "gear" up again, I think I would stay with film. Not because I think it's that much better, but because the used lenses, are so cheap right now. A used Canon F 2.8 300mm lens is under a grand used. The digital Canon 2.8 300mm lens is a minimum of $3500 used(usually beat up.).

To anyone who honestly wants to get into photography, but funds are tight, look into film. Hell, I wouldn't even bother with color. I would set up a bathroom darkroom, and set up shop.

I guess it's easy for me to throw around this advice. I'm not going back to chemicals in the sink. I have bought the digital equipment, and probally won't go back to film. Oh yea, whatever you do stick with prime lenses. That was my biggest mistake. Buy whatever camera bare. Buy the lenses(glass--if you want to sound like one of those guys--I never wanted to be in that club.) Buy your primes separately. Try to keep your digital camera not in [fully auto] all the time, but then again, I sometimes wonder why.

My ex-girlfriend is a professional photographer--takes studio pictures of old stuff. She loved to brag about it. "I'm a professional Photographer. Did you know, I take pictures for a living?" Yes--it was worse than going to the dentist, but maybe I was being too critical? She has never been in manual mode, TV, or even AV mode. She doesn't know about F stops, or exposure times. I think she got lucky though. I told her the pictures were Spectacular, but I really though they were too Photoshopped. As to her job--well it's a lot about who you know at big corporations.

Good luck--

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#146

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…

I think there are some answers to be found in technological histories, both creative tools and otherwise. The main point to consider is that new technologies augment the possibilities - outright replacement is actually the unusual case, because there's always some odd reason to have the old stuff around.

Artistic workflows definitely rank among those reasons; they do tend towards Taylorist efficiency when the artist doesn't want a restriction, but desire to be a maximally efficient artist in every aspect can lead to a deep probing of your motivations for doing any art to begin with, instead of just jotting down what the piece is supposed to be. So most artists will take on at least one technical restriction of some kind, consciously or no. That restriction subsequently guides and shapes everything else they're doing.

So for people who want their focus to actually be built on the limitations of analog, they need analog. Period. And that isn't most people, since there are many other ways to go about setting limitations, and what is usually needed when it's called for is an indication of analog, not its every nuance and imperfection. But like a car enthusiast who can enjoy old and inefficient designs, someone who really cares about analog audio will want to have the experience of the real stuff, despite the painstaking elements of doing so.

edit: And I welcome digital imitations. The newest VA synths really capture the imperfections of old stuff in a way I haven't heard from previous attempts, and I want to use them for that. But I don't want to have an analog box to tote around and maintain.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#147

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…

> can a digital filter provide a close enough approximation of that colouring that going through the analogue path is no longer necessary?

In principle yes, but it's surprisingly tricky, to the extent that even some very simple analog audio things, like '70s-era voltage-controlled-oscillator synths, are only recently able to be emulated reasonably well. The research field is called "virtual analog synthesis". I'm not sure if there's a canonical overview, but some googling turns up this 2014 PhD thesis: http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2014/isbn9789526055862/isbn9789526055...

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#148

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

I have lots of footage from my grandfather (and my mother) shot on 9.5mm; I still have the cameras and projector.

The problem with 9.5mm is that when the projector jams, which happens rather frequently, it tears the film apart right through the middle or, in milder cases, enlarges each hole between frames. It's horrible and nerve-wracking.

8mm projectors don't jam as frequently, and when they do, each frame is usually somewhat salvageable because only the track of holes on the side gets damaged.

Anyway, as most comments already said, there is no point in shooting analog in 2015 if you're not Tarantino (and even if you are).

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#149

Came across a tweet about the Sony MiniDisc Recorder/Player going for hundreds and even thousands of dollars on Ebay. Nostalgia apparently sells. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m5...

That's amazing. I have one that works absolutely flawlessly; I still need to transfer what I have on those disks before I try to sell it, but then...

Why would people pay that kind of money for this?? Do they need it to play their old disks? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have them transferred to another media by a lab?

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#150
it makes a lot of sense for film makers who want to film in 4K without forking out for a Red camera, just paying per minute of film instead.

If you like in hollywood tho, it's probably cheaper to rent a 4k camera for your next blockbuster.

Post reply on HN