Kodak resurrects Super 8 • Hacker News Board

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#161

Post by SwellJoe » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 12:46 PM UTC

Jgrubb wrote: post #158

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…

Friend, analog audio is not hipster bullshit. Running through vacuum tubes and transformers, printing to tape, dumping it back into a DAW is not hipster bullshit. It's using the best tools for their portions of the job.

Did you miss the part where I went to school for audio? I don't want to appeal merely to authority, but, well, at some point I become frustrated at the level of superstition that backs these kinds of claims.

Look, I own multiple all-tube amps for my guitars. I understand the appeal (though it's much more complicated than "tube is better"). I even understand the science for why tubes sound "good" and why solid state amps sound "less good". (To be clear: It is not merely the presence of tubes.)

There are so many confounding variables, however, that people end up believing that a shitty so-called "tube" preamp that costs $20 to manufacturer and runs on a 5V power supply is somehow superior to a high quality solid state preamp just because it has a tube. The most sought after old Neve consoles and channel strips that people love so much? Solid state; not a tube in sight. They're loved because they were extremely high quality, and have a subtle distinctive sound that is what our favorite records sound like (at least, our favorite records from a certain era of well-funded studio dilettantes).

And, while we're at it, the best way to capture that particular color is digital. The difference between Dark Side of the Moon and a digital recording today that doesn't sound as amazing as Dark Side of the Moon has less than nothing to do with DSOTM being recorded analog vs. digital and everything to do with the kind of budget, time, and skill Pink Floyd had in the studio.

I'm not arguing there isn't a difference in quality to be discerned between different pieces of equipment. There absolutely is. But, Super 8 is not and never was, a high quality way to get images onto a screen. It was a compromise based almost entirely on cost. It just so happened that for many years it was a compromise that was necessary for filmmakers on a tight budget...video took a long while to catch up, and it probably took the switch to extremely high definition digital video to really put the nail into film's coffin.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#162

Post by w8rbt » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

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…

The main driver is efficiency. Smaller, faster, cheaper. More accessible. More convenient. That's basically the heart of all technology advancements.

However, the end result may or may not be better/higher quality. Transportation is moving from mostly hydraulic/mechanical to electrical/computer controlled, Comms (analog to digital), Food (local whole foods to distant mega farms and processing), etc.

Old technology is far less efficient, but can be much more robust. For example, knowledge recorded in a book cannot become corrupt due to a failing hard disk controller, or lost due to electrical surge from a near by lightning strike. And, one can still send a message over radio waves using Morse Code to distant places even when cell phones fail due to network outages or cyber attacks.

So while we are smaller, faster, cheaper and much more accessible today (in almost every way... thanks to technology), our systems are much more fragile and dependent on other components. In many cases, this is why older technology is used.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#163

Post by VLM » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 1:28 PM UTC

lifeformed wrote: post #124

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.

And most important of all, showing off spending money.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#164

Post by VLM » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 1:45 PM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #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 wh…

"I used a Pentax K1000"

I got one of those as a gift, probably so I'd stop borrowing his Spotmatic (the K1000 was basically an 80s version of the 60s Spotmatic, with an annoyingly different lens mount).

I think a large aspect of picture quality when we were kids, is rich grandpa can give you triple digits worth of camera at Christmas, but I paid my own way on consumables and I had to push a broom at the food store for something like ten minutes per pix once all the costs of analog were accounted for. Large sheets of photo paper for enlargements were not cheap, either.

Something often overlooked is the analog era was extremely expensive.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#165

Post by lallysingh » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

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…

At first I was going to disagree with you on the premise that the noise added by the analog system may be quite desirable, but then I read some comments that had the prices in there. Holy crap this is bullshit.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#166

Post by stinos » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

72deluxe wrote: post #154

bambax wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My brother has a bunch of MiniDisc players and recorders. I do not understand why. He refuses to get an MP3 player or use his phone but will instead record audio in REALTIME from CDs etc. to MiniDisc. He says the battery life is really good. The psychoacoustic modelling on the audio is not, however!! He even bought a multitrack minidisc desk. Apparently it was going cheap. I understand why - with 4 tracks of audio, i…

The psychoacoustic modelling on the audio is not, however!!

There were quite some improvements between older and the latest models though, and the latter could also use uncompressed and/or lossless schemes.

the fascination with it at all.

One thing I really liked about it is the handling of discs. I don't know why, but I just liked the feeling of opening the player, ejecting a disc and inserting another one with a satisfactory 'click'.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#167

Post by virtualritz » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #135

Animats wrote: post #63

Amusingly, it's also a video camera, since the viewfinder is an LCD display. Not clear if the manual aperture and shutter time settings affect the viewfinder. You can feed video into the display (why?) but it's not clear if you can get video out of the camera. The film costs $50 to $75 per cartridge, for a running time of 3.5 minutes. Market: wannabe hipsters and old guys in the movie industry. Kodak makes movie film…

Amusing idea: conceal a flash chip in the film cartridge and record video to it from the camera used for the viewfinder. Put in a sound generator to make clicky film advance mechanism noises when taking pictures. The film in the cartridge is just a dummy and is not exposed. When the film cartridge is mailed in for processing, download the video, run it through Filmlook to give it grain and jitter, then upload to the…

No hipster will even notice. :) If done right, it will be even hard to prove there was cheating in the process.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#168

Post by Jgrubb » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #161

Jgrubb wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend, analog audio is not hipster bullshit. Running through vacuum tubes and transformers, printing to tape, dumping it back into a DAW is not hipster bullshit. It's using the best tools for their portions of the job.

Did you miss the part where I went to school for audio? I don't want to appeal merely to authority, but, well, at some point I become frustrated at the level of superstition that backs these kinds of claims. Look, I own multiple all-tube amps for my guitars. I understand the appeal (though it's much more complicated than "tube is better"). I even understand the science for why tubes sound "good" and why solid state a…

Get off your high horse. I went to school for audio too. I own a ton of the same stuff you do. I spent 15 years on the road as a musician and 8 of those in the studio as an engineer. I've soldered custom Trident snake heads onto new snakes so we could build our studio with that board as the centerpiece. I used to use Pro Tools before I discovered (as you apparently did as well) that software is a more comfortable living. I have audio credentials.

If you're telling me that there is no sonic reason to put stuff to tape then I'm sorry, you have no authority to me. BTW, the reason old Neve boards sound that way it because of the transformers and the analog components in the path. You're so convinced of your own opinion that you didn't even read what I wrote.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#169

Post by earlz » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

cornholio wrote: post #156

hellofunk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rang…

At first it might seem like a fad, but "character" is essential when making art. You are trying to reach another human being, not simply deliver the best image possible, so her past experiences, memories, the fact that she grew up watching grainy movies at the local theater, will all interact and elicit a certain emotional or instinctual response. It's not that analog is better, is that your audience reacts uniquely…

Heh, I'd say tube amps are a bit more out there than everything else you listed (unless you mean tube headphone amps or something). It's INCREDIBLY difficult to accurately emulate tubes on normal computers in real-time due to their non-linear behavior. And there is at least some kind of science behind tubes "sounding better" since second-order harmonics are suppose to be more enjoyable for a listener, and are generated naturally by a single-ended tube amp design. I wouldn't say musicians using tube amps are trying to elicit memories of the past, rather that's just the best way they can make their instrument sound good

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#170

Post by earlz » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

snarfy wrote: post #160

mikepurvis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For audio, yes, digital can replicate analog to 100% accuracy. You cannot differentiate the output signal using an oscilloscope. The signals are identical. People using workflows you describe are a cult, IMO.

I think this is true, but definitely not in real-time. Go observe how fast a complicated analog SPICE emulation is. Typically it's about 1000x slower or worse than real-time, though in the end the wave form might exactly match the actual circuit.