Personal View site logo
Kodak Wide Gate Super 8 camera
  • image

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/consumer/Product/Product_Specs/?contentId=4294993082&TaxId=4294969683

    It has a max gate dimension of 16:10 and gets only 90 seconds at crystal controlled 24p. C-mount. The film will sold as a package including scanning. This is strange because normal super 8 at 24fps is over 2 minutes. This makes me believe that the image is being applied horizontally to the film plane because the specs say the cartridge is 50 feet. An other guesses ?

    Well, obviously not so after looking at the video V posted .

    image

  • 44 Replies sorted by
  • Who is going to buy this at $2500-$3000?

  • This news been around for a while but in case people didn't hear of it yet, Kodak is bringing back Ektachrome. One of the major benefits of that film is the fact that it's easier for people to develop themselves. It'll be in many formats including Super 8.

  • @mrbill the logmar S8 is the real deal, and not digital. It uses a film movement similar to super35mm so that is in part where the extra resolution comes from (better tracking). Everything from this Kodak cam seems like it has a standard super 8 movement which has its charm.

  • image

    zebra703.jpg
    587 x 438 - 45K
  • cinema5d just kicked that ecosystem number up to 80bucks. Not going in the right direction !

  • Another 16mm version of this was called "Bolex".

    I own a REX-5 and many lenses, even had it converted to super16. The reflex viewfinder works, but, accurate focus is difficult when things are moving, unless you just shoot it wide. The 100' daylight spools worked well, just not in direct sunlight and gave you 2 min. 50 sec of run time. I used to budget $100 per 100' for processing & cheapie transfer only, and got my raw film stock for free as the shortends or waste ends off my AC jobs.

    I like my GH4 with focus peaking and post production color correction just fine. I hope I can remember to charge the batteries after using the spring wound bolex. lol.

    Shooting film costs big bucks.

  • Just wondering, is this made by the real Kodak or the Asian company Kodak sold the right to use their name on consumer products. This was part of Kodak's selloff to get out of bankruptcy.

  • you can even get digital camera apps that look similar to super 8. Super * is only useful as small sections in a movie to suggest a past family home movie or similar nostalgic purposes. Otherwise super 8 is garbage. Hell even 16mm isn't great. The Black Magic pocket camera for example is a pretty decent 16mm replica to most eyes if graded in that style.

  • It's a cheap 8mm camera. It's not going to rival 4k. It's also not going to rival 70mm film. Super 8 sucked in the 70s, it will still suck. The only thing this can be used for is filming the kids in the backyard. Hands up, everyone who wants to do that in film.

  • Super-8 wasn't impressive even in the 1970's.

    Some things were really better in the past - like the toasters that you could buy in the 1990s that had a photo sensor actually measuring the color of the toasted bread, so regardless whether you put frozen, fresh or dried toast into it, the result is always consistent. It would make sense restarting a production of such useful lost technology.

    But Super-8? Really, that should rest in peace.

  • Honestly, the top-quality 16mm I have seen does look a lot better than top-quality Super 8.

  • Honestly, the 16mm I have seen on the net does not look a bit better than top-quality Super 8.

  • I think that's partially what they're trying, with the "complete ecosystem" idea. Hopefully by controlling the ecosystem to something manageable, they can begin to bring cost down, and even keep tweaking it to bring cost incrementally lower over time. I too would like to see a 16mm version of this, but for the price, I'll probably give this a shot too. I think I can convince a few bands to use it for music videos. They're already into recording to tape and releasing to vinyl, so why not? It'll force me to get back into using my light meter and watching exposure, and then I can perhaps start thinking about doing some 16mm stuff if I feel confident. I've only ever shot film for stills, and then only black and white, so if nothing else this will be a relatively inexpensive way to get my feet wet.

    It'd be really cool if they came up with a way for people to process their own film at home. I know there are ways it can sort of be done, but I agree that a new or modified film process in order to bring cost down or make it DIY-friendly would be the best way to go about keeping film alive.

  • they tried that already...it was called the a minima ! It cost 15 grand ! You can modify a number of 16mm cameras to ultra16 though. But the truth is....this is a revolution we've already had. In 16mm, you'd most likely be paying $150 min for 2 1/2 minutes of footage. There was an old book called something like "feature films for used car prices" that went into depth about shooting a feature using a 1to1 shooting ratio. Even stan brakhage switched to 8mm. Like I said before...if kodak wants film to come back, they've got to teach the pony some new tricks....i.e. very cheap stock, or reusable film.

  • Kodak should do the same thing with Super16, a small lightweight camera using 16mm film with super16 gate and recording digital audio, with the 16mm film inside a cartridge to make things easy to load and unload the camera without the risk of damage the film. And then process and 4k scan... this would be the film renascense. 16mm film and process/scan is not so much expensive comparing to super8 and quality is much better, can rival 4k digital cameras with proper scan. 100ft cartridge for 16mm would be ok.

    This is an old 16mm magazine with 50ft:

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/16mm-Kodak-Film-Magazine-Kodachrome-II-50ft-16mm-/321964443471?hash=item4af693874f:g:OGQAAOSw14xWGCpB

  • Ehh for me this is progress I would prefer to shoot on film if I could afford it. Digital is great and has made crazy progress recently. But there just something magical about the look of real film that video can't quite replicate. If this was Super 16mm with 4K transfers I would buy this in a heart beat. Still might grab it though.
    Still the cost of film is prohibitive.

  • Pro8mm in Burbank has been buying up 35mm film stock and splitting it lengthwise to use in 8mm cameras for several years now. They offer film-develop-scan packages that look pretty good. What's exciting about this new camera to me is that it's a lot cheaper than the refurbished high-end cameras on the market and the film-scan packages cost a helluva lot less.

  • @mrbill - I disagree about the Logmar sample. That looks like film to me. Kodak Vision III is very tight grained especially at 50D especially if properly exposed. I doubt that it's a fraud. It looks exactly like film and nothing like digital (or plug-ins) to my eye. I don't see the missing film blur you're talking about but if you do, it may be due to shutter angle, etc.

  • @mrbill...you gotta play the ebay sniping game . I just went and there looks like a renewed buyup on s8 beaulieu cameras...only a few. And the 4008 grip is painful but the viewfinder was state of the art only found in 16mm cameras of the day. Yeah and plusone on the nikon r10....a beaut ! Did you know aaton was ready to release a s8 camera...before s8 died ?

    I think the question here is...what will the scanned film actually look like ? Will it be worth the expense , when you can buy a similar size 4k sensor camera ( the pany fz300 ) for the same price and never have to pay anything more.

  • I found the 4008 painful to use, especially finding focus. +1 on the Canon 1014 XLS. Wish I had mine back.

  • I used to have a brace of the 4008's - you're quite right, just beautiful design. Had a pair of the Nizo 801 Professionals too, which were great cameras, and a Nikon R10, which made beautiful pictures. Wish I'd kept even just one of them!

    P.s. If you see a 4008 for $200, please let me know!

  • ...now...if kodak would only bring back kodachrome , I'd be happy !