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

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#191

Post by dharma1 »

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 mostly shoot digital, but bought a Pentax spotmatic with Takumar 50mm 1.4 lens a couple of years ago for like £60. It's fun and there is definitely a lot of vibe in the pics, but ends up costing about £15-20 to develop and scan a roll of film. For someone who shoots a lot, that adds up

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#192

Post by developer2 »

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…

creators that refuse to touch the same application in an (much cheaper and faster) Windows PC as opposed to the "pro" Mac version

You're ignoring the fact that the application must run within the confines of an operating system.

I'm not using a single application at a time. "The same application" you refer to might be nearly identical on both platforms, but I need to switch between applications. On OS X I have Mission Control (with trackpad gestures!) that makes context switching incredibly efficient. On Windows I have to click taskbar buttons, or press alt+tab hundreds (thousands?) of times a day, or take a break to hit windows+tab to have a laugh at the incredibly useless task switcher (I've never understood why windows+tab was allowed to ship). How people multitask on Windows is beyond me, with no friendly built-in solution and third-party applications that all have problems.

How about copy/pasting? Using ctrl+c and ctrl+v on Windows with a PC keyboard is frustrating compared to the cmd+c and cmd+v finger positioning on an Apple keyboard with OS X. Microsoft requires an awkward readjustment to reach for the control key, while Apple uses your thumb that is already resting on the spacebar to hit the cmd key that is right there. When you use copy/paste hundreds of times in a typical day (ex: programmer), this minor annoyance adds up.

How about finding per-application settings? On OS X this is always accessible via the cmd+, shortcut and the menu entry is always within the app's primary menu. On Windows every application has its own shortcut (if any), and the menu entry might be found under any of File, Edit, View, or Window. It's always a hunt just to open application preferences. I personally find this to be a frustrating experience and a waste of my time.

Finally, I simply prefer the visuals and widgets/controls of OS X compared to Windows. OS X is flat and simple whereas Windows tries way too hard to look "cool" (ie: designed by children for children). Also, OS X developers (other than for game clients) don't think it's cool to throw away the default window border and window controls (minimize, close, etc.). Whereas far too many Windows developers think it's cool to customize their fucking window style. Leave the system components alone.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#193

Post by rodgerd »

ghaff wrote: post #184
rodgerd wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fujifilm did end up doing OK by, among other things, applying their film making expertise to other industries like medical. Another thing they did was carve out a very nice niche for themselves with their X-mount cameras. They've done quite well in part because the in-camera processing engine does a good job of emulating a lot of the old Fuji film stocks (as well as making very nice cameras that offer something dif…

I have an XE-1. Now there's retro i can buy into. Especially with the pancake lens, it really feels like an old fashioned rangefinder in a lot of ways. I don't know how much money they make off that line but they've done a nice job of it to the point where I don't use my DSLR very much unless I'm shooting action or need either ultrawide or telephoto lenses.

I've gone to Olympus, which has much the same appeal for me, and my Canon equipment is very much unused these days.

Interestingly Olympus are one of the few traditional camera vendors whose camera division are moving up in profitiability, so it seems that "doing something different" can work quite well.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#194

Post by nickbauman »

bambax wrote: post #148
nickbauman wrote: post #42

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 usuall…

I see it as a good low-budget transfer format rather than a projection format.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#195

Post by ShinyCyril »

dharma1 wrote: post #179
mjn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I've got a bunch of friends who have worked on this at some point, and I know some of the people cited in that PhD thesis. I can still hear the difference, even with state-of-the art current virtual analog emulations, like Diva. Have to say the gap is narrowing though. One approach I haven't seen used yet is using the latest AI/neural networks to learn and model the inherent nonlinearities in analog audio

I wish I had picked that for my masters dissertation - ML + DSP seems like a really interesting area!

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#196

Post by ddingus »

rodgerd wrote: post #137
ddingus wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where there are limits, there is art.

99% of this is not people creating "better" (whatever that is) art. It is, if my experience with photography is any guide, people churning out the same crap everyone else does, while affecting a position of being somehow superior because they "aren't obsessed with the latest gear" - while being, in fact, vastly more obsessed with what equipment to use.

Their skill may be mapped to specifics. It's a kind of technical debt.

Remapping those onto new gear may cost them more than they feel it's worth, or they don't see the value somehow.

Whether that makes objective sense varies a lot.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#197

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

hellofunk wrote: post #190
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even photography experts can't tell the difference between a digital photo that has simulated grain added to it, and tone manipulation done in post, versus a picture shot on film and scanned to digital. I suspect its the same thing in cinematography. Double blind tests do real havoc to all kinds of fetishism from wine-tasting to high end audio.

You are confusing the experience of the audience with the creative process of the artist.

That is a good point. It is different experience to shoot with film than to shoot digital. However, I haven't heard people argue for film from a strictly process point of view. It is, after all, a strength of digital that everything is just software--easy to manipulate, reset, copy, distribute.

Having said that, you are still probably right. There is always going to be someone that prefers an analog process--maybe BECAUSE of how inconvenient it is--to a digital process. Some people also like working within constraints as it stimulates their creativity.

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#198

Post by thedudemabry »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #115
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…

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 once had an audiophile coworker describe how he listens to his favorite records. In his words, the way it was intended to be listened to is probably (but not always) the closest thing to the artist's desired vision. A 2016 blues album recorded in an old shack in Tennessee and printed to vinyl is intended to be heard on a record player. A 2016 pop album released in stunning digital clarity, but also released on vinyl, is probably best listened to on a good digital setup. All communication and art is about authorial intent. What did they want to listen to?

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#199

Post by madaxe_again »

dietrichepp wrote: post #106
madaxe_again wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed. I've a freezer stuffed with fuji e6 120 and 5x4, and chems for processing.

C41 is a pain in the ass and I only bothered a few times - but with a little practice you can develop positive film perfectly at home - all about being able to work blind, and having a series of tubs at the right temperatures. Admittedly my first few tries ended up with lomo quality from a rollei!

Re: Kodak resurrects Super 8

#200

Post by 72deluxe »

stinos wrote: post #166
72deluxe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

A bit like using an old cassette walkman then!

Wobbling CDs into top-loading CD players was never as satisfying (and you were likely to scratch the underside of it as you slid it into the caddy).

Loading MP3s isn't satisfying at all.

Post reply on HN