A new super 8 movie camera? What is Jeff Clarke smoking?

<p>I spent the first 8 years of my career at Kodak focused on super 8 movie film. It was 1982 when Kodak stopped selling super 8 cameras. 33 years later, they are introducing a hybrid film/video camera. This will be a high end camera focusing on style more than features. I wonder what the estimated sales volume is--a few dozen?<br>

http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/Super8_Design/default.htm</p>

<p>http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/01/05/kodak-goes-retro-with-new-super-8-camera/</p>

<p>Only color neg and B&W super 8 films are still for sale: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/products/production/spotlight_on_super_8/index.htm</p>

<p>Never underestimate the power of the hipster economy.</p>

<p>I have a super 8 cartridge just sitting on my desk right now, and I was wondering why the heck I would ever need to use it. If anything, they should try to bring back some sort of 16mm movie film, the picture quality isn't terrible, and there are still daylight loading cartridges for those not comfortable with spooling their own film [not that anyone makes them anymore]. The development cost must be off the walls though, considering how expensive 32 exposures can be to develop, and the processes for developing these older films doesn't even exist anymore last time I checked unless it's that newfangled super 8 film [not color like you stated above] which is kind of a drag.</p>

<p>Why knock it? Others may be interested even if you aren't. Isn;t it great that new film stuff is coming out. I use film and enjoy it. Now if some more people would come out with scanners.</p>

Apparently there's a new Hasselblad scanner in the

making (not for 8mm films though).

<p>I think there are reasons why there is only 3d images of this thing. They are either trying to find out if there is a market first, or seeing if they can create one.</p>

<p>Just wait 'till these hipsters find out how little recording time there will actually be.....They'll go back to their phones quick enough.</p>

 

I'm not quite sure I understand. If this is a film camera, what are all the ports and memory card slot for?

<p>hybrid....</p>

Indeed. But what does that mean? It has a digital sensor in there as well? And the user can select to record digitally or to film? How is that implemented I wonder. Does the digital viewfinder work when recording to film, or only when recording digitally? There really isn't much information at all on the Kodak web page.

<p>Maybe someone got the idea that without new film cameras it is real hard to sell new film. All of these cheap used film cameras won't last forever.</p>

<p>I don't think they completely know what they want it to be, yet.</p>

<p>I'm wondering why they want to put the handle on the top, that would require some grip to keep holding onto it like that for a while</p>

<p>Will it be Vaporware?</p>

<p>I just posted on Casual Photo Conversations about how this new Super 8 camera shows how Kodak is out of touch with reality, so I won't repeat myself here. I don't have the experience Ron Andrews had with Super 8, but was a big supporter of the format back in the day.<br /><br />"they should try to bring back some sort of 16mm movie film, the picture quality isn't terrible, and there are still daylight loading cartridges for those not comfortable with spooling their own film [not that anyone makes them anymore]."<br /><br />Spencer -- 16mm never went anywhere. Not nearly as widely used as it once was, but it's still a professional product and you don't have to spool your own. As for daylight loading cartridges, I think you're thinking of the old 50-foot magazines used in amateur 16mm cameas, but they disappeared in the 1960s or so. Those you would have to spool yourself today and it's a bit complicated even if you can find them. Much easier to use a standard 100-foot or 400-foot rolls.</p>

<p>This will be a hot seller for Kodak. $50 to process 4 minutes of film, yeh everyone will jump on that.</p>

<p>They would do a lot better making 70mm double perf Tri-X, 127 Tri-X, and 220 Tri-X than with Super 8.</p>

<p>Kodak's commitment to Super 8 is amazing. That this format soldiers on despite video, despite the products being difficult to find (even on Kodak's website), despite the cost to process and scan the results, is amazing. There are artists, students, and filmmakers of every kind using Super 8 today. Why not support and encourage those people with new cameras? How is this bad?</p>

<p>Kodak has never had a bigger, better offering in Super 8 at any time before today. They offer two tungsten-balanced negatives, one daylight-balanced negative, and a reversal Tri-X. No more Ektachrome, but Ektachrome went away in all formats.</p>

 

<p>A hybrid camera simply makes sense. I thought the newer Super 16 cameras (like the AATON A-Minima) should have adopted the same approach. Optical viewfinders are expensive and require precision manufacture. Digital viewfinders can be built from commodity parts and bring a lot of modern convenience to the shooting of film. Film cameras used to have both an optical finder and an optional "video tap." Why not just make a camera with a fixed "video tap" that can be used for viewfinding, scratch recording and playbacks? Makes perfect sense to me. A new camera can also offer "crystal synced" speeds, cheaply and reliably. This was difficult/expensive/rare on older cameras, that relied on crude electrical and mechanical governors to shoot at "approximately" the correct speed. Believe me, trying to match sound up to a crappy old camera that can't hold sync is no fun.</p>

<p>Kodak is also tackling the problem of "where do I buy film? how do I develop film? can I get this scanned?" They want to have infrastructure so that Super 8 users can buy film, with processing and scanning included, for one price. Including electronic delivery of the footage. Again, this makes perfect sense. It's a bit of back-to-the-future (you press the button, we do the rest.) But it's necessary now that you can't develop Super 8 at every pharmacy counter, and labs are closing across the world.</p>

<p>As to "why?" I say why not? It's an artistic medium. It has it's own look. Blowing up the tiny frame of Super 8 film reveals all of the texture inherent in analog film. That is no longer a liability -- it's a desirable choice. I'm looking forward to keeping a viable artistic medium alive. Bravo Kodak.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David, <br>

In general, I agree with you, but I still find this the most surprising announcement from Kodak I've ever seen. If they can make this work, the project team should be given a ticker-tape parade down State Street. <br /><br />I should apologize for my question about Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke in the subject line. It was partly based on an inside joke in Rochester. Building 12 at Eastman Business Park is now growing medical marijuana. This is the same place where super 8 cartridges were once spooled. </p>

<p>I presume that the camera records the sound for you on a flash card, somehow time-synced to the film. Maybe even in a way that you don't have to waste 5 seconds of film on a clapper.<br>

It is interesting to see Kodak go back to vertical integration. Selling:</p>

<ul>

<li>Camera</li>

<li>Film</li>

<li>Processing</li>

<li>Scanning</li>

</ul>

<p>They must have kicked the lawyers into realizing that the 1955 consent decree isn't really a danger to Kodak anymore. They aren't in any way a monopoly anymore, and anti-trust enforcement has been pretty much totally gutted. But they probably won't bundle processing in the film price.<br>

Of course, they probably are outsourcing the processing and scanning.</p>

<p>I would image hybrid in the same sense as Canon eos film carried to the next level</p>

<p>Presumably they can reuse some parts of previous designs, so don't have to start from scratch.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the usual model, to make money on film not cameras, presumably still applies. It won't take much film sales to make up for the camera.</p>

<p>As well as I know it, there are still schools teaching film movie technology, and need cameras and film.</p>

<p>If they want to keep the professional movie industry going, they will have to keep teaching students how to do it.</p>

<p>I suspect they won't sell much for home movies of kids growing up, though. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It is likely to cost between $400 to $750, Mr. Clarke estimated. Processing the film should cost $50 to $75 a cartridge, he said."</em><br>

From the OP's linked WSJ blog entry</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So we're to pay extraordinarily more for the bad old Lo-Fi days because people like the warmth and organic look of film? Yes, what ever Clark is smoking it's created a reality distortion field to rival Steve Jobs'. At least Steve made things that we could actually use in our daily lives. <em><br /></em></p>

<p>Is this the best direction Kodak's CEO can come up with? Smartest guys in the room!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kodak's commitment to Super 8 is amazing. That this format soldiers on despite video, despite the products being difficult to find (even on Kodak's website), despite the cost to process and scan the results, is amazing. There are artists, students, and filmmakers of every kind using Super 8 today. Why not support and encourage those people with new cameras? How is this bad?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is not just bad, it's terrible. Super 8 is really 16mm shot in 8mm passes; the cartridge get's reversed. Where it get's bad is you need a slitter to process it into a useable reel. Not prone to the budding DIY film maker. It's great for Kodak because they are forcing most of the business back to them.</p>

<p>16mm however, is a great choice because you don't have to do anything extra to the format. Send it away or DIY, no problem.</p>

<p>Peter, it was regular 8 that was over-perfed 16mm that you flipped and was slit after processing. Super 8 film stock is 8mm wide, and you don't flip the cartridge.</p>

<p>I have just shown my age.... ;)</p>

 

<p>You are thinking of Standard 8mm. Super 8 is not split after processing.</p>