Personal View site logo
Kodak Wide Gate Super 8 camera
  • 44 Replies sorted by
  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • cinema5d just kicked that ecosystem number up to 80bucks. Not going in the right direction !

  • image

    zebra703.jpg
    587 x 438 - 45K
  • @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.

  • 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.

  • Who is going to buy this at $2500-$3000?