New Kodak Super8

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yesterday I shot some aerial video to make a movie for my client to show their real estate development... mostly land and rolling hills. Very simple stuff with no actors or anything beyond my control. I think the edited film will be under a minute but I shot 70 minutes of footage for this. While it might be possible to shoot less, I want to have a variety of shots to choose from to best depict motion when editing. So I wanted some that were pull backs, fly ins, fly left to right, fly right to left, rotate left, rotate right, moving up, moving down, etc.

 

Not that it could have been shot on Super 8 but consider what 80 minutes of Super 8 capture costs?  I can't see anyone making even a 5 minute student film without shooting 10 times as much footage unless they are either very sloppy, or precise, planned and rehearsed on a level that is so high I can barely picture the best pros being able to do that. An hour of Super 8 footage will cost between $1200 and $1800 according to Kodak.  Now that is pretty cheap if you are shooting a commercial and want some special footage for effect.  But for a student?  Additionally, how much footage does a student need to shoot to become somewhat competent in the first place? Wouldn't it be better for them to train on video? Super 8's cost would be prohibitive for the work I do too and I'm pretty experienced.

Edited January 15, 2016 by AlanG

[AlanG]

There is this new Super 8 camera from Logmar. It costs about $6000 with lens so there must be some higher end users. (It has some kind of pin registration system.) The Kodak sure seems to have some exterior design similarities.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

I've never heard of Logmar. Thanks for posting the info.

 

Well if people are buying a $6K camera surely there must be some room for Kodak's offering?

[earleygallery]

Some people seem rather excited about the Kodak. 

 

Here's a link to a forum for film makers, 

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=69894&page=1

 

And here's an article with lots of quotes from famous film makers about the new Kodak, 

 

http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3146-surprise-new-super-8-camera-from-kodak

 

Steven Spielberg, Writer, Director, Producer – Multiple Academy Award® Winner

“When I watch the news, I expect and want it to look like live television. However, I don't want that in my movies. I want our century-plus medium to keep its filmic look and I like seeing very fine, swimming grain up there on the screen. To me, it's just more alive and it imbues an image with mystery, so it's never literal. I love movies that aren't literally up in my face with images so clear there is nothing left to our imaginations. Had I shot it on a digital camera, the Omaha Beach landings in Saving Private Ryan would have crossed the line for those that found them almost unbearable. Paintings done on a computer and paintings done on canvas require an artist to make us feel something. To be the curser or the brush, that is the question and certainly both can produce remarkable results. But doesn't the same hold true for the cinematic arts? Digital or celluloid? Vive la difference! Shouldn't both be made available for an artist to choose?”

 

Quentin Tarantino, Writer, Director, Producer – Multiple Academy Award® Winner
"On film, there's a special magic on a set when you say ‘action' and to the point that the take runs until you say ‘cut,' that's a sacred time. I’ve always believed in the magic of movies and to me the magic is connected to film. When you’re filming something on film you aren’t recording movement, you're taking a series of still pictures and when shown at 24 frames per second through a lightbulb, THAT creates the illusion of movement. That illusion is connected to the magic of making movies. The fact that Kodak is giving a new generation of filmmakers the opportunity to shoot on Super 8 is truly an incredible gift.”

 

Steve McQueen, Writer Director, Producer, Artist - Academy Award® Winner
"Super 8 taught me how to be a filmmaker. At the time, it was all about expense, meaning that I had to know what I wanted to shoot or at least edit in my head what I wanted to shoot before I shot it. It taught me how precious an image is and can be. It taught me how to refine my technique in editing and, ultimately, how beautiful film is. To this day I still shoot on Super 8."

Edited January 15, 2016 by earleygallery

[AlanG]

Here's what one of my old films looks like.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-Nm9H3UsU&feature=youtu.be

[earleygallery]

Nice to see you looking happy Alan! 

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yesterday I shot some aerial video to make a movie for my client to show their real estate development... mostly land and rolling hills. Very simple stuff with no actors or anything beyond my control. I think the edited film will be under a minute but I shot 70 minutes of footage for this. While it might be possible to shoot less, I want to have a variety of shots to choose from to best depict motion when editing. So I wanted some that were pull backs, fly ins, fly left to right, fly right to left, rotate left, rotate right, moving up, moving down, etc.

 

Not that it could have been shot on Super 8 but consider what 80 minutes of Super 8 capture costs? [... snip the good stuff...!

 

You are entirely right, of course. Considering everything, your aerial work is not scripted as very much heavily-moderated work is, and your takes are good to go. I really like that kind of work.

 

Shooting the same in film would be suicide!

.

[AlanG]

FWIW here is the aerial footage shot on Thursday afternoon. I took about 70 minutes of footage down to 1 minute.  I can't see driving an hour each way charging my fee and not shooting for at least an hour. Plus I have a lot of fun flying my multirotors so it is hard to stop. (I can't tell my clients this.) It took an hour or so of editing and I had the video sample uploaded to my client by Friday afternoon. It wasn't needed this quickly but I never procrastinate. They may suggest I edit it and give me material for the title and ending or their ad agency may do the final work. This is nothing special but is useful to the client and is my attempt to make a boring subject look OK. The original footage is 4K but is scaled down here and is typical of what even cheap tiny stabilized cameras can do today.

 

https://youtu.be/MR4sMCINf2c

Edited January 16, 2016 by AlanG

[AlanG]

I've never heard of Logmar. Thanks for posting the info.

 

Well if people are buying a $6K camera surely there must be some room for Kodak's offering?

My hat's off to them if they can sell these, (Logmar and Kodak) but it really makes me wonder why anyone would spend so much and work so hard to get an image that looks about as good as cheap P&S video that has been degraded to look like film.

Edited January 16, 2016 by AlanG

[Michael Hiles]

Seems to me that the suitability (or not) of Super 8 depends on the final viewing situation. Showing a Super 8 film (including digitized) in a 1,000 seat theatre sounds like a recipe for an awful experience. But on a 16 inch computer screen is I suspect a different story. 

 

Alan's clip is excellent - congrats. Oh, and different strokes for different folks, and good luck to Kodak. It won't be for me, but then I don't make films.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Michael Hiles

[plasticman]

Drone video footage is obviously about as far away from the intended use of these Super-8 cameras and films as it's possible to get. Not really sure why Alan has to bring drone video into pretty much every thread about film at some point. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it's best suited to digital capture - I certainly wouldn't dream of using anything else.

 

Anyway, the thread has been useful to me - I never knew manufacturers were currently producing a new Super-8 camera that costs as much as a digital Leica  

[wattsy]

It's quite heartening to see a product like the Logmar being manufactured. Designed and built in Denmark for a price comparable to the more mass produced M240. I particularly like their philosophy and apparent willingness to do something a bit different.

 

 

Why bother with film when XYZ company is going digital?

We do not believe in digital footage, it's as simple as that. Our passion is not for "plastic like" colours and high definition marketing jargon over which sensor chip has the most amount of pixels (and least amount of bad ones), so you won’t see us developing a camera for this market, also the digital film camera market is already dominated by big players such as Panasonic, Black Magic and Arriflex so we wouldn't be able to "pack a punch" especially being number #400 vendor of a camera in this space

We find it much more interesting playing in a niche market space where evolution has stood still for many years, a space where we can actually provide new features not seen before and gain momentum by the “news factor” of someone doing something that seems completely odd.

It is our promise to you that we will never compromise on quality and hence our cameras are all build and designed locally here in Denmark.

[jaapv]

We currently have 30 cameras out in the field

Quite a niche

 

Whatever else, they manage to have an authentic look:

 

 

[AlanG]

If you like this authentic look it is pretty easy to simulate in post as I showed in my beach video clip.

 

As for aerial photography... that is the only kind of video I shoot commercially. But my points would apply to any video. However even Hollywood directors will be limited if they don't consider using small and tiny cameras in various situations where a film camera couldn't go or would be too valuable to risk destroying.

[AlanG]

I watched that Logmar video and something was bothering me. I realized the video was rocking slightly.  I have no idea why but this seems unacceptable. Maybe this has something to do with the digital conversion system or tripod used.  (Assuming he wasn't just balancing it on something.)  Additionally it was very flat... easily adjusted in post but whoever made this film certainly was not doing the best job in terms of color and contrast tuning. (Color grading in film terms.)  BTW DaVinci Resolve is very good color grading and editing software and is free.

 

So here is a clip that if you view full screen will see it rocking. Then towards the end I adjust the levels a little in a split screen and you can see how flat the image is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkvSqgS5-jQ

Edited January 20, 2016 by AlanG

[thebarnman]

I'm very excited about this new camera.  I like the idea of the Logmar with it's pin registration system, however the new Kodak camera's format will be Max8 (16x9) with hopefully some sort of stabilization.  Are there any Leica lens that can fit correctly (with an adapter) to a C mount? 

 

Such as these for example?  http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-Cine-Movie-Primes-Summicron-Summilux-Lenses.html

Edited January 29, 2016 by thebarnman

[wattsy]

So here is a clip that if you view full screen will see it rocking. Then towards the end I adjust the levels a little in a split screen and you can see how flat the image is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkvSqgS5-jQ

 

 

I prefer the original "flat" version to your gaudier interpretation. That you'd bother doing this (and presumably think your version is better ) amply demonstrates you simply don't get what some people are doing. Why can't you accept that and move on?

Edited January 29, 2016 by wattsy

[AlanG]

I prefer the original "flat" version to your gaudier interpretation. That you'd bother doing this (and presumably think your version is better ) amply demonstrates you simply don't get what some people are doing. Why can't you accept that and move on?

 

So having white and black points is now gaudy? Preferences have nothing to do with it. The images are flat and I just wanted to show that you shouldn't hold that against it as it is easy to adjust for that. It's better to start out a little flat than too contrasty. The rocking image is a defect from filming or scanning.

Edited January 29, 2016 by AlanG

[pico]

Is the fuzz in the gate an affectation?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Nah- just oldfashioned dirt... If asked nicely Kodak will add tramlines to the film