Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:42 am
http://gizmodo.com/kodak-reveals-a-digi ... socialflow
No wonder Kodak have problems; this seems the height of insanity.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:58 am
Have they never heard of GoPro?
There again, I'm still waiting for Kodak to process and return the Super 8 cartridge I sent them in 1974.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:41 pm
http://nofilmschool.com/2016/01/kodak-s ... lm-concept
A much more detailed report on the developing situation with Super8. The sample films shot on S8 are "soft" on a small computer screen (24 inch) so they will look very "soft" on a large screen, i.e. out of focus. I know there are complaints/comments on the "hyper-reality" look of HD and particularly UHDTV but this can be adjusted in the edit. In fact the S8 look can be reproduced from video. The famous directors listed as supporters of this Kodak S8 project can afford $50/$70 for 2.5 minutes of film. The old cameras used are reconfigured to have a wider gate more in line with a 16:9 format and a modified Canon 1014 XLS sells for nearly $3,000 which will buy quite a lot of video camera! The Logmar camera is $6,000 which will get you a very good video camera. It is claimed that the new S8 is aimed at film schools and nostalgia buffs. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:47 pm
Yes it is amazing, to coin a phrase, "Can they be serious?". Nostalgia is one thing but actually turning the clock back is another. Of course film was fabulous when properly used but times change and technology moves on. I was never happier than when I was making films on my Beaulieu (can't even spell it now) 16mm film camera in the 70's. I haven't made better stuff since then. But the editing was a pain, sep mag sound etc etc. How many features are being shot on film today, still a few but not for long now. I saw 'Carol' last night in a great little Curzon screen in London, wonderfully done, I think digital but in the credits I glimpsed a mention of Super 16mm film! Can anyone shed light on this? Could be some shots in order to create a certain look? The projection was digital, I was sat very near the projector and could have a good look.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:35 pm
"Carol" was shot on Super 16 - source "American Cinematographer"
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:11 am
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:59 pm
Thanks Dave, really interesting. I knew that's how Spielberg started, in his home garage actually, with his brother I believe. Some of the things in your video are relevant today in that the craft involved in film making is more obvious and youngsters would do well to know what was involved. They rather neglect the original 8mm, that is Standard 8mm which was around first and for far more years than Super 8. Why was the boy shooting in the car so amazed at the camera, it looked very much like some of today's video cameras?
Ned, thanks for your explanation of the stock used for the feature film 'Carol'. Why do you think that they used Super 16mm film? Not to save money surely. Presumably to replicate that mid 50's look and atmosphere, which theory certainly succeeded in doing. I would haver thought though that with the sophisticated editing post production facilities of today, they could have done it all digitally.
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:18 pm
Kodak can't be serious. The specs and pictures show it to be no more than an artist's impression, months before even the first cardboard pre-prototype is shown.
And selling a camera without any info on the zoom's speed? Or the camera's shutter speeds? What about film emulsion speeds, neg or pos, and colour balance? Any news on single system sound, aspect ratios or camera noise? Batteries, availability? Nope.
Why shoot chemical when you get back a digital transfer (no bit rates or codecs or resolutions mentioned). A digital transfer loses you the 'analogue beauty' they blabber on about.
BS in my view. And we're miles from April 1st.
Having watched the Vimeo film l am still unmoved, as I would be if they were talking about shooting movies on VHS or Hi8, or watching bulbous CRTs or listening to clicking vinyl. I can't see that film students will learn anything about 'filmmaking' by timelining their QT files that come back from processing.
Just my view.
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:35 pm
Some information about Super8 outside the Kodak announcement. The Pro8mm company has been in business for many years modifying old Super8 cameras and selling Super8 film stock, scan transfers, digitizing. Kodak film division is an organization on life support by kind agreement with a few leading directors who want to continue to shoot on film. However; most films are projected from digital files; most major films go through a digital intermediate where the "look" is finalized, special FX are almost all CGI so we are well into the digital world. Most Super8 film stocks are negative with one color reversal and one b/w reversal. I must admit that I am not aware of the origination of a movie (film or digital) when I go to the movies. The defining factors of a satisfactory image are much more related to lighting and framing than "organic sense of film grain". The huge drawbacks of Super8 are the cost and that it ends up as a digital image for editing and showing. I can't imagine negative cutters conforming the negative to the digital edit which is what film students should do if they want to be authentic "film users".
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:08 pm
I am disappointed that this proposal is not being openly applauded in these columns. I find it very exciting that Kodak are having a renaissance of Super 8 with a new camera and technological advances. I have often been tempted to buy a couple of film cassettes and put them into my old and dusty Bauer Cine camera, play with an idea, it would be fun.
I am sure there will be people who will love it and buy the camera and the film. At what cost? Who cares, if you want something you pay for it. There could be a new band of FILM makers, who if reading this forum will give this the go by.
In all forms of artistic endeavour there should be choices of materials as for drawing and painting oils, watercolour, pastel and acrylic. The preference for movies should be the same, with film or video.
It may create new band of film makers who hate squeaky clean imagery and may relish sitting in darkened rooms watching their creations. Perhaps a new Super 8 session could eventually creep into BIAFF or other festivals.
Its exciting, anything different is, don't put out the fire before it is lit.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:21 pm
They showed very solid cameras and tripods yet the results looked hand-held and, as has already been stated, very soft. Could that be to remove grain? That would be ironic as it was stated to be part of the attraction. Part of the attraction of film has elsewhere been said to be its different gamma, which I think is more or less the same as contrast. Does anyone on the forum reduce the contrast of their videos to get a more filmic effect? Does it work? The crude but effective way I convert film to video by projection increases apparent sharpness helping to make the result appear clearer but also shows up dirt etc more. But then TV often adds scraatches to make it look like film!! I don't think my computer would be able to handle the file that came back.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:13 pm
I use a DSLR for both movie and photography Peter. When in the 'movie' mode the camera settings can be changed to reduce the colour, contrast and increase the softness of the image. The image can then be manipulated and corrected in editing to get the 'look' you may require. This takes out the clinical look of the digital image and to me makes it more pleasing. I also have manual lens which the aperture can be opened up to 1.7 which gives a very shallow depth field.(A N.D. filter is needed) I have not yet used it on a 'serious' project yet but thus far the results look rather good. In saying this, the camera is no longer a point and shoot device, you need to take care and time to get the focus and exposure right, but to me it is worth it. Patrick
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:28 am
Rather late reply to Pqtrick's earlier post. I am not opposed to Super8 use and Pro8 do an excellent job of providing cameras and film. I just find it difficult to believe that Kodak, who we admired so much and presently in survival mode are devoting energy to an unnecessary venture. Just my thought.
ned (at sea)