It's not instagram, it's analog!
February 20, 2016 7:52 AM Subscribe
Kodak's Analog Renaissance with Super 8 Camera
"Kodak’s Super 8 project tells an interesting tale about opportunity and value in today’s post-digital economy."
"Kodak’s Super 8 project tells an interesting tale about opportunity and value in today’s post-digital economy."
Once again, in the ring, it's Analog vs. Digital, back for yet another exciting rematch!
I'm barely literate in conversations about modern film-making, but this is pretty interesting. Kodak rolls out some heavy hitters in their promo blurbs. Spielberg, posing this as a contest between "the pixel and the brush," writing that "I like seeing very fine, swimming grain up there on the screen." pretty much sums up the pro-analog side of the aesthetic debate.
I remember walking the streets of Nagoya and hearing some tinny-sounding crap music blasting out of an electronics store and thinking "Ah, that's what digital music sounds like!" (I'd only read about it at the time.) Now, I can hardly tell the difference between digital and vinyl. Of course, I'm not an audiophile.
I think I could tell the difference between digital and 35mm, not to mention Super 8, though.
Looking forward to seeing what comes of it. I'll tell you what, though, I wouldn't want to edit film the way I used to (16mm, B&W), cutting it into 200 shots for a ten-minute film, taping them up on the wall, splicing them together, running it through the projector, and then re-splicing it to fix the rhythm, or whatever didn't look right. It was hella fun at the time, though, back in the 70's when I was young and had the time.
posted by kozad at 8:22 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm barely literate in conversations about modern film-making, but this is pretty interesting. Kodak rolls out some heavy hitters in their promo blurbs. Spielberg, posing this as a contest between "the pixel and the brush," writing that "I like seeing very fine, swimming grain up there on the screen." pretty much sums up the pro-analog side of the aesthetic debate.
I remember walking the streets of Nagoya and hearing some tinny-sounding crap music blasting out of an electronics store and thinking "Ah, that's what digital music sounds like!" (I'd only read about it at the time.) Now, I can hardly tell the difference between digital and vinyl. Of course, I'm not an audiophile.
I think I could tell the difference between digital and 35mm, not to mention Super 8, though.
Looking forward to seeing what comes of it. I'll tell you what, though, I wouldn't want to edit film the way I used to (16mm, B&W), cutting it into 200 shots for a ten-minute film, taping them up on the wall, splicing them together, running it through the projector, and then re-splicing it to fix the rhythm, or whatever didn't look right. It was hella fun at the time, though, back in the 70's when I was young and had the time.
posted by kozad at 8:22 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Film can render things more beautifully and with more integrity, because it uses light to shine through silver halide crystals, and is fixed on a polyester medium which will last hundreds of years. The cost is the re-adoption factor. Maybe the lenses can be interchangeable.
posted by Brian B. at 8:34 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 8:34 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The hip kids are going to be really disappointed when they discover all those über-cool light leaks, scratches, and poor color balance aren't actually inherent to the format.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:35 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 8:35 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you're going to digitize it to do your edits on a computer anyway, what's the point of using a cumbersome analogue film? Seriously. The conversion is happening either on your device or someone else's device.
Also, this bullet point is embarrassing:
An integrated microphone is a true innovation for a Super 8 Camera.
posted by demiurge at 8:51 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, this bullet point is embarrassing:
An integrated microphone is a true innovation for a Super 8 Camera.
posted by demiurge at 8:51 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Demiurge -- the theory is that you get a better or more interesting source capture of your live action and practical FX on film (including the artifacts of the film reel motor, shutter action, etc.) than on chip, and that advantage persists even as you digitize that source and the workflow is digital thereafter, with possibility a dump back to film for a 70mm or IMAX projection in a few select theaters.
There was an FPP a while back about the inability of professionals and cineastes to distinguish between otherwise identical video that had a film source and a digital source with a "film look" filter.
posted by MattD at 9:11 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
There was an FPP a while back about the inability of professionals and cineastes to distinguish between otherwise identical video that had a film source and a digital source with a "film look" filter.
posted by MattD at 9:11 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Kodak has decades of research and development by scientists and engineers of their color film technology, with meticulous attention paid to things like the rendering of skin tones. Someday digital will look as good as film does, but it’s not there yet, and won’t be for a long time.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:13 AM on February 20, 2016
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:13 AM on February 20, 2016
Demiurge, when you shoot film and edit on computer, the cuts still need to be done to the film original at the end of the process. The avid spits out an edit decision list and the assistants do the splicing.
posted by Evstar at 9:13 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Evstar at 9:13 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, this bullet point is embarrassing:
An integrated microphone is a true innovation for a Super 8 Camera.
Interestingly, the Super-8 spec actually does include sound.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:13 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
An integrated microphone is a true innovation for a Super 8 Camera.
Interestingly, the Super-8 spec actually does include sound.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:13 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wish that I was younger, young enough to have had access to the virtually free digital cinema tools as a 15 YO. Instead super-8, let alone 16mm, was an economically unattainable medium. When I hear successful directors bloviating about the inherent superiority of film I have to say I don't really buy it. Difference between a blue ray projector and a film projector at the neigborhood revival theatre? Huge, absolutely. Interstellar shot on film vs digital I'm thinking thats a stretch. On a consumer note, isn't iphone video better for the planet than chemical/physical film? I tend to think of these sort of 'phile' things being all about peacock strutting, thats pretty broad brush I'll admit.
posted by Pembquist at 9:15 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Pembquist at 9:15 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Super 8 format sucks for one big reason: Reels are three minutes long. The one advantage IMO over digital is tactile editing, which, well...
And I don't quite understand why they thought making new cameras was necessary. You can get an old one for like a dollar. The problem is that nobody develops the film anymore, and sound film hasn't been available in Super 8 for decades. Because Kodak. Are they fixing that, or...?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:26 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
And I don't quite understand why they thought making new cameras was necessary. You can get an old one for like a dollar. The problem is that nobody develops the film anymore, and sound film hasn't been available in Super 8 for decades. Because Kodak. Are they fixing that, or...?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:26 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Man, the timing is just off on this with a fall release. My girlfriend and I are taking an analog vacation this summer: train to NY, QM2 to Europe, 35mm cameras and a Carousel for the slide show when we get home. No phones, no internet whenever possible.
If anyone has a contact at Kodak, I'd be eternally grateful if I could buy a pre-release of this camera for the trip.
posted by hwyengr at 9:28 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
If anyone has a contact at Kodak, I'd be eternally grateful if I could buy a pre-release of this camera for the trip.
posted by hwyengr at 9:28 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
8mm was exciting because *you could make movies*!!! It wasn't exciting because you had to wait a week for the film to develop, or that you could only shoot two minutes on the single reel that ate up your allowance for the week, or that you'd accidentally light the film on fire every time the projector got stuck, or that you had to scratch tiny lightsabers on the film that looked like glowing calzones when you were done.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:36 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:36 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
what's the point of using a cumbersome analogue film? Seriously.
For some, it's novelty as conspicuous consumption. For most, it's a form of nostalgia by artifact - I recently had a group of friends entranced by one of the Fuji instant cameras (the one rather akin to Polaroids), despite the fact that everyone there had a camera phone that could take far better quality photos.
For others, there is a certain je ne sais quoi that analog has that digitial doesn't. In some cases, the limitations are something that encourage artists to work better. With analog, you don't have infinite takes, you have to more carefully figure out what you want to do and how to capture it, because you might only have three shots at it. That can bring out the best in some people.
And for high end film stuff, like what Hateful 8 was shot with, it really is that good.
posted by Candleman at 9:41 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
For some, it's novelty as conspicuous consumption. For most, it's a form of nostalgia by artifact - I recently had a group of friends entranced by one of the Fuji instant cameras (the one rather akin to Polaroids), despite the fact that everyone there had a camera phone that could take far better quality photos.
For others, there is a certain je ne sais quoi that analog has that digitial doesn't. In some cases, the limitations are something that encourage artists to work better. With analog, you don't have infinite takes, you have to more carefully figure out what you want to do and how to capture it, because you might only have three shots at it. That can bring out the best in some people.
And for high end film stuff, like what Hateful 8 was shot with, it really is that good.
posted by Candleman at 9:41 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Super 8 format sucks for one big reason: Reels are three minutes long.
Super 8 format rocks for one big reason: Reels are three minutes long, so you have to think about the shot and what you're trying to accomplish before you start the camera. This is *invaluable* training if you're intending to actually get into moviemaking, because even in the digital era, you need to think about what you're trying to accomplish with the shot before you start shooting, because time is money.
posted by eriko at 9:41 AM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Super 8 format rocks for one big reason: Reels are three minutes long, so you have to think about the shot and what you're trying to accomplish before you start the camera. This is *invaluable* training if you're intending to actually get into moviemaking, because even in the digital era, you need to think about what you're trying to accomplish with the shot before you start shooting, because time is money.
posted by eriko at 9:41 AM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'll tell you what, though, I wouldn't want to edit film the way I used to (16mm, B&W), cutting it into 200 shots for a ten-minute film
Editing super-8 film is what started my love of filmmaking. I miss the tactile nature of holding film by it's delicate and sometimes sharp edges and having to count each frame. I miss splicing on a guillotine. I don't miss shooting on actual film so much because of costs involved but editing on film is something I still grieve. It even has a very distinct odor, the scent of celluloid. Maybe the audiophile equivalent is sniffing a freshly opened vinyl record. Celluloid too has an odor. It smells like chemicals!
posted by cazoo at 9:43 AM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Editing super-8 film is what started my love of filmmaking. I miss the tactile nature of holding film by it's delicate and sometimes sharp edges and having to count each frame. I miss splicing on a guillotine. I don't miss shooting on actual film so much because of costs involved but editing on film is something I still grieve. It even has a very distinct odor, the scent of celluloid. Maybe the audiophile equivalent is sniffing a freshly opened vinyl record. Celluloid too has an odor. It smells like chemicals!
posted by cazoo at 9:43 AM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'll buy one. Of course I just shot 8 shots on 120 slide film with my
Kodak No. 2 Folding Pocket Brownie Model B. The power of film is joyful to me.
posted by JohnR at 9:48 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Kodak No. 2 Folding Pocket Brownie Model B. The power of film is joyful to me.
posted by JohnR at 9:48 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't want to be creating work that's increasingly resonant with the word nostalgia, or to have the way I create photographs be associated with mentalities of superiority or resistance, or injected conceptually with relationships to decline and scarcity.
Kodak can do WTF they want, as long as it means they keep producing Portra 400 i'm happy.
posted by lawrencium at 9:53 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Kodak can do WTF they want, as long as it means they keep producing Portra 400 i'm happy.
posted by lawrencium at 9:53 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really don't understand where Kodak is going with this. From what I understand, yes, it includes a microphone, but it records sound digitally to an SD card. So you have a digital audio track that needs to be combined with your analog video. Which kind of seems to be missing the point. As does the fact that it has a flip-out LCD display for a viewfinder. It's an analog camera with a built-in digital sensor and audio recorder.
And then there's the cost. Last I heard, film was going to cost $50-$75 a cartridge, including development, with the camera itself going for $400-$750.
If you're that obsessed, get a Lomokino. At least you can grab 35mm film on the cheap.
Also, how sweet of a gig does Yves Behar seem to have? It's like he designs chunky angular gadgets for anyone and everyone these days.
posted by themadthinker at 10:07 AM on February 20, 2016
And then there's the cost. Last I heard, film was going to cost $50-$75 a cartridge, including development, with the camera itself going for $400-$750.
If you're that obsessed, get a Lomokino. At least you can grab 35mm film on the cheap.
Also, how sweet of a gig does Yves Behar seem to have? It's like he designs chunky angular gadgets for anyone and everyone these days.
posted by themadthinker at 10:07 AM on February 20, 2016
Oh for fuck's sake, what kind of corporate retro bullshit is next. Super 8 will continue to suck, no matter how many hipsters are willing to pay for it. And yeah, I too get a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about the home movies of yesteryear. That doesn't mean the phrase "post-digital society" has any meaning whatsoever.
In other news, my retro novocaine-free dentist is switching back to film-based x-rays. Nostalgic fun, and there's just that indescribable feeling you get from the extra radiation dose.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 10:14 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
In other news, my retro novocaine-free dentist is switching back to film-based x-rays. Nostalgic fun, and there's just that indescribable feeling you get from the extra radiation dose.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 10:14 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is the Lomokino incapable of shooting 24fps? All of the samples I looked at were at like 4fps. Which, I guess, if that's what you're going for... /shrug
posted by xedrik at 10:16 AM on February 20, 2016
posted by xedrik at 10:16 AM on February 20, 2016
Dunno, I like the idea of huge corporations embracing their old tech because there's still amateur enthusiasts who like it and finding old stock is very difficult. Plus, much as I like the ability to take a gigabyte of photos going somewhere, there are still situations where I think "I wish I had a Polaroid now",usually when I went to gigs and got a picture with someone.
But these quotes they included? Yikes.
*does wanking motion*
posted by lmfsilva at 10:29 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
But these quotes they included? Yikes.
*does wanking motion*
posted by lmfsilva at 10:29 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
lmfsiva - I agree that corporations serving amateur enthusiasts is a good thing. But last time I checked (10 seconds ago) there was no shortage of original super-8 cameras, at a fraction of the cost.
The way you serve amateur enthusiasts is by making sure there's affordable film stock available, and labs to develop it. Not by bolting a digital monitor on decades-old technology that was sucky in the first place, and then trying to use it to profit from misplaced nostalgia.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 10:40 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
The way you serve amateur enthusiasts is by making sure there's affordable film stock available, and labs to develop it. Not by bolting a digital monitor on decades-old technology that was sucky in the first place, and then trying to use it to profit from misplaced nostalgia.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 10:40 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, this bullet point is embarrassing:
An integrated microphone is a true innovation for a Super 8 Camera.
posted by kozad
Interestingly, the Super-8 spec actually does include sound.
posted by Thorzdad
The big point kozad's making is that Kodak missed an opportunity by not including an XLR input rather than a proprietary microphone. Without a "blimp" (the baffled enclosure atop older film cameras resembling Mickey Mouse ears), 8, 16 and 32mm cameras were prone to recording the sound of the motors operating the shutter and advancing the footage for the next frame of exposure.
Separating the source of audio would also allow a wider range of recording options, as well as permitting better control over recording levels and electrical balance.
Adding a mic to the camera makes the device convenient for a casual user, but for people more serious about shooting footage (such as wedding photographers who work on a professional level, or independent outfits who produce presskits and documentaries), it makes their work a little harder - but not impossible - by having them drag extra gear around, spending more time checking and preparing footage for editing, or even considering more convenient alternatives, such as the ARRIFLEX line, which has served for decades as a workhorse for the film/TV/experimental video industry.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:40 AM on February 20, 2016
An integrated microphone is a true innovation for a Super 8 Camera.
posted by kozad
Interestingly, the Super-8 spec actually does include sound.
posted by Thorzdad
The big point kozad's making is that Kodak missed an opportunity by not including an XLR input rather than a proprietary microphone. Without a "blimp" (the baffled enclosure atop older film cameras resembling Mickey Mouse ears), 8, 16 and 32mm cameras were prone to recording the sound of the motors operating the shutter and advancing the footage for the next frame of exposure.
Separating the source of audio would also allow a wider range of recording options, as well as permitting better control over recording levels and electrical balance.
Adding a mic to the camera makes the device convenient for a casual user, but for people more serious about shooting footage (such as wedding photographers who work on a professional level, or independent outfits who produce presskits and documentaries), it makes their work a little harder - but not impossible - by having them drag extra gear around, spending more time checking and preparing footage for editing, or even considering more convenient alternatives, such as the ARRIFLEX line, which has served for decades as a workhorse for the film/TV/experimental video industry.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:40 AM on February 20, 2016
If I'm a hipster for enjoying the aesthetic of Super 8 and the experience of shooting on it... Well, fuck it. Gimme a fixie to ride. Sure beats pissing in other people's cheerios.
posted by brundlefly at 11:02 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 11:02 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Super 8 format rocks for one big reason: Reels are three minutes long, so you have to think about the shot and what you're trying to accomplish before you start the camera.
Reintroducing an arbitrary constraint is like Twitter's original character limit, so we have seen it it can lead to something interesting... but really, virtually nobody writes essays or stories like this any more, so why should they do it for making movies?
posted by colie at 11:11 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reintroducing an arbitrary constraint is like Twitter's original character limit, so we have seen it it can lead to something interesting... but really, virtually nobody writes essays or stories like this any more, so why should they do it for making movies?
posted by colie at 11:11 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The way you serve amateur enthusiasts is by making sure there's affordable film stock available, and labs to develop it.
Well, if the new film is compatible with old cameras and they develop anything that comes in a Kodak cartridge, that's good. If it's designed to only work with the new, much expensive camera, then yeah, it's a cash-in.
The price of said development will also be a factor. If they do the digital file conversion for free/included in price (imagine the box has a display sleeve that once removed turns the box into a self-addressed package and the costumer only pays shipping), I can see people having fun with this. If the camera is expensive, the film is expensive/proprietary and development is expensive, people will just shrug it off and go back to their Super-8 cameras or play with VHS apps on their smartphone.
posted by lmfsilva at 11:16 AM on February 20, 2016
Well, if the new film is compatible with old cameras and they develop anything that comes in a Kodak cartridge, that's good. If it's designed to only work with the new, much expensive camera, then yeah, it's a cash-in.
The price of said development will also be a factor. If they do the digital file conversion for free/included in price (imagine the box has a display sleeve that once removed turns the box into a self-addressed package and the costumer only pays shipping), I can see people having fun with this. If the camera is expensive, the film is expensive/proprietary and development is expensive, people will just shrug it off and go back to their Super-8 cameras or play with VHS apps on their smartphone.
posted by lmfsilva at 11:16 AM on February 20, 2016
I've gone back and starting shooting some still work on film with a Canon AE-1 that I picked up for $15 and I'm kind of loving it. You really do have to think about each shot before you take it and the quality of the images is maybe not better than digital but definitely different in a way that I'd have trouble duplicating.
posted by octothorpe at 11:16 AM on February 20, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 11:16 AM on February 20, 2016
I was getting ready to completely mock the idea of this, but having a preview of exposure and control over it similar to what we have with modern digital formats while still rendering to film is actually pretty interesting, although a bit niche.
Working in both digital and analog stills, I really find the whole debate over superiority of one or the other MOSTLY similar to audiophile debates... with any reasonably modern equipment and if you are producing color prints, by the time you are looking at a finished product, it's generally hard to distinguish where it came from unless there's an obvious tell - HDR, for example, is rather distinct to the digital world (leaving aside opinions over HDR itself), and there's also a digital bloom that's very distinct. If you are going for sheer resolution, well any medium format or larger analog film is going to blow away just about any digital format, and with a considerably greater bang for your buck, but it most likely won't make a difference unless you are printing huge, or viewing very close up.
Black and white prints are where I will always prefer to work in film, because there is a VERY tangible difference between digital black and white, and the richness and depth of tones you can get in a good variable contrast paper far surpass anything I've seen in the digital world.
So for me, a preference for the medium I use it has come down to what the end result is going to be. If it's something I will want mostly in digital form, be it for publication for sharing with others, digital is a no-brainer. Same with if I'm working on a deadline or if I have severe time constraints while shooting... I've brought both digital and analog to events in the past, with the intention of using the digital as a backup if I really screw up, but I almost always end up using the digital source for the end result.
I think much of this comes down to my own abilities and patience, though. When I'm doing something very intentional and with the time available to put into it, I love working with black and white film. I love being able to control every aspect of the process, from the initial exposure to the development to the final print. I've personally never had much luck with processing color on my own, and I've left that to the professional labs - they can do much better than I can, and the cost-benefit of doing it myself really seems to go away with color - for me, at least.
I haven't done as much with video, but when I have, it's been strictly digital. The idea of working in super-8 is interesting to me from a discipline perspective - You have to be very confident in your abilities and your vision, and it encourages a form of control that has largely been thrown to the wind. It also encourages a certain type of "lets see if we can work with that" attitude when things don't quite come out the way you want them to. But outside of that, I can't see any good reason to work with it- It's not going to have the acuity of any reasonably sized (Micro 4/3 or larger) digital format, developing it professionally isn't the most accessible (or cheap) thing, and developing it yourself has a few barriers as well. I could see working with it in black and white, like I mentioned above, but developing color is not anything that I (and many others) would want to take on.
There is certainly a certain aesthetic that I can see with film in motion that I do not necessarily see with digital in motion. Things like graininess, or how overexposure is handled in the medium, or some of the odd artifacts that you see in anything digital that isn't either really high end or really well lit. I can see making use of this aesthetic intentionally, but you have to already know what you are doing to some degree.
Working with Super 8 would also probably encourage you to be much more intentional about scene lighting - with digital, you can get away with higher ISO and the like than you can with film - It may not be artfully lit, but you will have an end result that is usable more often than not. Note that I didn't say "good" - I think having to be more intentional about lighting sheerly for the sake of exposure would encourage more mindfulness over how the lighting affects the end result.
Outside of wanting to put myself within those constraints, I can't see a good reason for this. The cost of film vs. digital is one thing when you are working in stills, but it becomes an entirely different thing when you are working with video. You can produce really wonderful work in stills relatively cheaply - film may seem expensive, but a camera body and lens you can use forever (and buy used relatively cheaply) makes up for some of that.
I don't see how working in Super 8 would be anything other than a money pit. I really don't know if the prices I'm seeing online for Super 8 film are realistic or not, but that's not cheap for 3 minutes - especially if you have a reason to believe you may need more than one take. I think it's really worth noting that just about every single person that they have a quote from would have started working with film when Super 8 was the only affordable option for an amateur.
Those quotes are something else, though -- most of those quotes are nothing but nostalgia, the rest are aesthetics, or simply flat out wrong - for example: "...film and film equipment will hold up in the most mean and extreme conditions that mother nature can throw at a film crew in the field." Unprocessed film is inherently fragile, and film equipment has many more moving parts. I can see a small argument for not having to worry about dust and debris on a sensor, but that's about it.
My other favorite quote: "When you’re filming something on film you aren’t recording movement, you’re taking a series of still pictures..." Guess what, that's exactly what you are doing when you record something on digital as well!
This really comes down to intentionality, giving yourself restraints, aesthetics, and budget. Unless money is no object, the trade-offs won't be worth it unless you are well aware of what you are doing already. For most amateurs, I don't see that math making sense - you have to really really love the idea and aesthetic of film, and value it over all of the advantages that can come with shooting digital.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:18 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Working in both digital and analog stills, I really find the whole debate over superiority of one or the other MOSTLY similar to audiophile debates... with any reasonably modern equipment and if you are producing color prints, by the time you are looking at a finished product, it's generally hard to distinguish where it came from unless there's an obvious tell - HDR, for example, is rather distinct to the digital world (leaving aside opinions over HDR itself), and there's also a digital bloom that's very distinct. If you are going for sheer resolution, well any medium format or larger analog film is going to blow away just about any digital format, and with a considerably greater bang for your buck, but it most likely won't make a difference unless you are printing huge, or viewing very close up.
Black and white prints are where I will always prefer to work in film, because there is a VERY tangible difference between digital black and white, and the richness and depth of tones you can get in a good variable contrast paper far surpass anything I've seen in the digital world.
So for me, a preference for the medium I use it has come down to what the end result is going to be. If it's something I will want mostly in digital form, be it for publication for sharing with others, digital is a no-brainer. Same with if I'm working on a deadline or if I have severe time constraints while shooting... I've brought both digital and analog to events in the past, with the intention of using the digital as a backup if I really screw up, but I almost always end up using the digital source for the end result.
I think much of this comes down to my own abilities and patience, though. When I'm doing something very intentional and with the time available to put into it, I love working with black and white film. I love being able to control every aspect of the process, from the initial exposure to the development to the final print. I've personally never had much luck with processing color on my own, and I've left that to the professional labs - they can do much better than I can, and the cost-benefit of doing it myself really seems to go away with color - for me, at least.
I haven't done as much with video, but when I have, it's been strictly digital. The idea of working in super-8 is interesting to me from a discipline perspective - You have to be very confident in your abilities and your vision, and it encourages a form of control that has largely been thrown to the wind. It also encourages a certain type of "lets see if we can work with that" attitude when things don't quite come out the way you want them to. But outside of that, I can't see any good reason to work with it- It's not going to have the acuity of any reasonably sized (Micro 4/3 or larger) digital format, developing it professionally isn't the most accessible (or cheap) thing, and developing it yourself has a few barriers as well. I could see working with it in black and white, like I mentioned above, but developing color is not anything that I (and many others) would want to take on.
There is certainly a certain aesthetic that I can see with film in motion that I do not necessarily see with digital in motion. Things like graininess, or how overexposure is handled in the medium, or some of the odd artifacts that you see in anything digital that isn't either really high end or really well lit. I can see making use of this aesthetic intentionally, but you have to already know what you are doing to some degree.
Working with Super 8 would also probably encourage you to be much more intentional about scene lighting - with digital, you can get away with higher ISO and the like than you can with film - It may not be artfully lit, but you will have an end result that is usable more often than not. Note that I didn't say "good" - I think having to be more intentional about lighting sheerly for the sake of exposure would encourage more mindfulness over how the lighting affects the end result.
Outside of wanting to put myself within those constraints, I can't see a good reason for this. The cost of film vs. digital is one thing when you are working in stills, but it becomes an entirely different thing when you are working with video. You can produce really wonderful work in stills relatively cheaply - film may seem expensive, but a camera body and lens you can use forever (and buy used relatively cheaply) makes up for some of that.
I don't see how working in Super 8 would be anything other than a money pit. I really don't know if the prices I'm seeing online for Super 8 film are realistic or not, but that's not cheap for 3 minutes - especially if you have a reason to believe you may need more than one take. I think it's really worth noting that just about every single person that they have a quote from would have started working with film when Super 8 was the only affordable option for an amateur.
Those quotes are something else, though -- most of those quotes are nothing but nostalgia, the rest are aesthetics, or simply flat out wrong - for example: "...film and film equipment will hold up in the most mean and extreme conditions that mother nature can throw at a film crew in the field." Unprocessed film is inherently fragile, and film equipment has many more moving parts. I can see a small argument for not having to worry about dust and debris on a sensor, but that's about it.
My other favorite quote: "When you’re filming something on film you aren’t recording movement, you’re taking a series of still pictures..." Guess what, that's exactly what you are doing when you record something on digital as well!
This really comes down to intentionality, giving yourself restraints, aesthetics, and budget. Unless money is no object, the trade-offs won't be worth it unless you are well aware of what you are doing already. For most amateurs, I don't see that math making sense - you have to really really love the idea and aesthetic of film, and value it over all of the advantages that can come with shooting digital.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:18 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree that corporations serving amateur enthusiasts is a good thing. But last time I checked (10 seconds ago) there was no shortage of original super-8 cameras, at a fraction of the cost.
It's not just the camera that Kodak is launching. The company is creating a whole new eco-system for 8mm shooters. Cartridges will soon be sold with processing included. Said processing also includes a 4k scan and an upload to the cloud. Most importantly though -- and I think this is the *real* reason why Kodak is doing this -- it's bringing people into film and helping to keep the last remaining labs going.
Any extra business going to the labs is surely a good thing. They need to be able to survive without being completely dependent on studios and production companies. When the infrastructure goes, film is as good as dead.
Also, those questioning the point of the on board sound: it does away with the need for a clapper board. The output file will be a contiguous recording that, when matched to the first frame of the processed neg, will match the image exactly.
posted by run"monty at 12:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not just the camera that Kodak is launching. The company is creating a whole new eco-system for 8mm shooters. Cartridges will soon be sold with processing included. Said processing also includes a 4k scan and an upload to the cloud. Most importantly though -- and I think this is the *real* reason why Kodak is doing this -- it's bringing people into film and helping to keep the last remaining labs going.
Any extra business going to the labs is surely a good thing. They need to be able to survive without being completely dependent on studios and production companies. When the infrastructure goes, film is as good as dead.
Also, those questioning the point of the on board sound: it does away with the need for a clapper board. The output file will be a contiguous recording that, when matched to the first frame of the processed neg, will match the image exactly.
posted by run"monty at 12:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not just the camera that Kodak is launching. The company is creating a whole new eco-system for 8mm shooters. Cartridges will soon be sold with processing included
That's the real announcement. The camera is almost a throw-in. It's the statement from Kodak that they will be making and processing the film that makes this useful. All the cameras in the world are useless if there's no film stock for them to expose.
It looks like the 50D (ISO 50 Daylight balanced) isn't quite ready to ship. The two tungsten balanced stocks (200T and 500T) and the B&W reversal are shipping now. They have the 50D film on offer in 16mm and 35mm, so they just haven't made the film in Super8 perf yet. There's also a 250D in the larger sizes that could end up in Super8 as well.
So, if you need to shoot *now* and use daylight, you get the 200T and a #85 filter and expose at 125.
posted by eriko at 1:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's the real announcement. The camera is almost a throw-in. It's the statement from Kodak that they will be making and processing the film that makes this useful. All the cameras in the world are useless if there's no film stock for them to expose.
It looks like the 50D (ISO 50 Daylight balanced) isn't quite ready to ship. The two tungsten balanced stocks (200T and 500T) and the B&W reversal are shipping now. They have the 50D film on offer in 16mm and 35mm, so they just haven't made the film in Super8 perf yet. There's also a 250D in the larger sizes that could end up in Super8 as well.
So, if you need to shoot *now* and use daylight, you get the 200T and a #85 filter and expose at 125.
posted by eriko at 1:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I find it grating when people get all "look at the hipster" when someone says they prefer to shoot film over digital. It's just another medium. I first learned to shoot on film as a teenager, and I shot on film at film school in my 20s. I loved the process that went into it, including the parts that made it sometimes awkward and inconvenient.
These cameras are ultimately art supplies, and it's not unreasonable to want a certain kind of medium and working process. Given the choice, I'd rather shoot on film over digital, even if the products looked indistinguishable onscreen - you can't shoot film the way you shoot digital, and that's important to me. Talking about practical things, like how digital cameras are cheaper or better quality, misses the point; you don't use a camera for strictly practical purposes anyway.
posted by teponaztli at 1:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
These cameras are ultimately art supplies, and it's not unreasonable to want a certain kind of medium and working process. Given the choice, I'd rather shoot on film over digital, even if the products looked indistinguishable onscreen - you can't shoot film the way you shoot digital, and that's important to me. Talking about practical things, like how digital cameras are cheaper or better quality, misses the point; you don't use a camera for strictly practical purposes anyway.
posted by teponaztli at 1:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I switched to digital, the minute it became possible to do so. I'm happy with it. This ain't my fight. You kids have fun.
posted by evilDoug at 5:40 PM on February 20, 2016
posted by evilDoug at 5:40 PM on February 20, 2016
Hold on, let me trim my beard so it doesn't catch on my fixie's chain and close up my artisanal-selfie popup-store so I can ride down to pick up one of these!
posted by signal at 6:27 PM on February 20, 2016
posted by signal at 6:27 PM on February 20, 2016
run"monty: "Also, those questioning the point of the on board sound: it does away with the need for a clapper board. The output file will be a contiguous recording that, when matched to the first frame of the processed neg, will match the image exactly."
My first thought is I'd still like the option of XLR input because then I could take advantage of that syncing with other microphone positioning. I guess I could still record externally and then sync that to the on-board audio track.
My second thought is can it overcrank and undercrank, and if so what does it do to keep the audio track synced?
posted by RobotHero at 9:04 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
My first thought is I'd still like the option of XLR input because then I could take advantage of that syncing with other microphone positioning. I guess I could still record externally and then sync that to the on-board audio track.
My second thought is can it overcrank and undercrank, and if so what does it do to keep the audio track synced?
posted by RobotHero at 9:04 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dabbled in Super-8 maybe ten years ago. I shot a roll of Kodachrome that was probably too old (it came back all clear). I also shot a roll of B&W reversal... that I still haven't reviewed. It was the idea of shooting film, cutting it and splicing it that appealed to me. Of course who has the time for that these days...
posted by Standard Orange at 12:09 AM on February 21, 2016
posted by Standard Orange at 12:09 AM on February 21, 2016
My second thought is can it overcrank and undercrank, and if so what does it do to keep the audio track synced?
There's crystal sync at all speeds (9, 12, 18, 24, 25 FPS). No overcrank though.
posted by run"monty at 3:28 AM on February 21, 2016
There's crystal sync at all speeds (9, 12, 18, 24, 25 FPS). No overcrank though.
posted by run"monty at 3:28 AM on February 21, 2016
There is still no digital cinema camera that equals the quality of 35mm film capture. The ARRI Alexa, Sony F-65, RED Dragon, Panavision Genesis and all the rest have come a long way but still don't have the exposure range / latitude, genuine sharpness, colorimetry, lack of digital artifacts, lens flexibility or beautiful grain of film. That's a fact. And as pointed out upthread, those image characteristics remain all the way though digital post production and delivery.
But..........
It's crazy expensive shooting film vs. shooting digitally. The last indie film I worked on we of course wanted to shoot 35mm film. The director shot a modest 61 hours of raw footage. Our cost of digital drives and dailies processing was around: $15,000. Had we shot on film, cost for film stock, laboratory processing and dailies would have been aprox.: $430,000. (!)
It's fantastically cool that Kodak is bringing out this Super 8mm camera and support system but at $50 - $75 for a 2 1/2 minute film cartridge I imagine it will have limited use. Perhaps a single sequence that needs a film look, a VFX shot that is supposed to look like the 1950s, someone wanting to learn about shooting film, a fashion shoot and.... I'm not sure what else. But again, hats off to Kodak for bringing it out!
P.S. - the integrated audio is a great feature as that's not available in pro film cameras. Shooting motion picture film requires capturing "dual system" audio on a separate tape recorder and then synchronizing the tape to the film on a shot-by-shot basis in post production.
P.P.S. - The same is NOT true for digital playback in cinema. In a 1985 SMPTE paper called "Resolution Requirements for HDTV Based Upon the Performance of 35mm Motion-Picture Films for Theatrical Viewing" Kaiser, Mahler and McMann measured the best case fidelity of a 35mm release print on a projection screen at less than 800 lines of resolution. Combined with all the other issues of physical prints a properly set up DCP digital playback is superior to a film print.
posted by Dean358 at 6:42 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
But..........
It's crazy expensive shooting film vs. shooting digitally. The last indie film I worked on we of course wanted to shoot 35mm film. The director shot a modest 61 hours of raw footage. Our cost of digital drives and dailies processing was around: $15,000. Had we shot on film, cost for film stock, laboratory processing and dailies would have been aprox.: $430,000. (!)
It's fantastically cool that Kodak is bringing out this Super 8mm camera and support system but at $50 - $75 for a 2 1/2 minute film cartridge I imagine it will have limited use. Perhaps a single sequence that needs a film look, a VFX shot that is supposed to look like the 1950s, someone wanting to learn about shooting film, a fashion shoot and.... I'm not sure what else. But again, hats off to Kodak for bringing it out!
P.S. - the integrated audio is a great feature as that's not available in pro film cameras. Shooting motion picture film requires capturing "dual system" audio on a separate tape recorder and then synchronizing the tape to the film on a shot-by-shot basis in post production.
P.P.S. - The same is NOT true for digital playback in cinema. In a 1985 SMPTE paper called "Resolution Requirements for HDTV Based Upon the Performance of 35mm Motion-Picture Films for Theatrical Viewing" Kaiser, Mahler and McMann measured the best case fidelity of a 35mm release print on a projection screen at less than 800 lines of resolution. Combined with all the other issues of physical prints a properly set up DCP digital playback is superior to a film print.
posted by Dean358 at 6:42 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am reminded of when I was recording on Hi8 tape (an analog format, BTW) and told a friend that today we'd be shooting using B&W tape. He was all like "That's cool! I had no idea they still made that!" Geeky joke played for a couple of chuckles.
Am wondering if this will include a glue-on twirly hipster mustache, you know, for kids.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 11:55 AM on February 21, 2016
Am wondering if this will include a glue-on twirly hipster mustache, you know, for kids.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 11:55 AM on February 21, 2016
Holy crap the pricing on this makes it as much of a rich kid toy that most of leicas line. $75 for 2.5 minutes? Yea, it's not thousands of dollars, but the film is ridiculously expensive. A few cartridges of film in and you're hitting the price of a used sony NEX(or something along those lines) and a basic but decent lens. You could likely achieve the same effect with some time in after effects or any decent edit suite, many of which have student or other discount licenses(or in the case of adobe, their rental model).
This is just the epitome of film fetishization to me. And that whole movement irks me in general, but this is egregious.
Kodak has decades of research and development by scientists and engineers of their color film technology, with meticulous attention paid to things like the rendering of skin tones. Someday digital will look as good as film does, but it’s not there yet, and won’t be for a long time.
Yea, about that.
These kinds of statements are a major bugbear for a friend of mine who is both a POC and a pro photog. She can go on for a very long time about the relationship between white hipsters obsession with film and institutional racism etc because it's only "superior" if your subjects are the general environment without humans, or white people.
posted by emptythought at 1:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is just the epitome of film fetishization to me. And that whole movement irks me in general, but this is egregious.
Kodak has decades of research and development by scientists and engineers of their color film technology, with meticulous attention paid to things like the rendering of skin tones. Someday digital will look as good as film does, but it’s not there yet, and won’t be for a long time.
Yea, about that.
These kinds of statements are a major bugbear for a friend of mine who is both a POC and a pro photog. She can go on for a very long time about the relationship between white hipsters obsession with film and institutional racism etc because it's only "superior" if your subjects are the general environment without humans, or white people.
posted by emptythought at 1:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I remember right, $50-$75 per roll is actually not that much more than what film+developing already goes for with 8mm and super 8. A friend was looking into it a few years ago, and it was at least $40 per 2.5 minutes. Obviously $75 is nearly twice that, but it's not an order of magnitude higher. There just aren't a whole lot of places that will develop nowadays.
The only people I know who still regularly shoot on 8mm are experimental filmmakers, and for them it's a really major part of their working process. The argument that you can make stuff look filmic with plugins and filters really doesn't work for them. But they're also developing a lot of their own film and doing weird stuff with it, so I'm not sure if they're entirely the demographic for this anyway.
If I had the money, the only reason I'd consider getting this camera and paying that much for film+developing would be if I were shooting B&W and I wanted to push the grain (or even if I wanted to push the grain in color). One of the quotes in the link mentioned grain, and I think that might be what's guiding people. Digital grain isn't that great, and if you're going to make grain a part of your aesthetic I can see situations where it would be worth the cost. It's definitely expensive, but this sort of thing already was, and if someone's got the funds I can see how this would be worth it for them.
posted by teponaztli at 3:09 PM on February 21, 2016
The only people I know who still regularly shoot on 8mm are experimental filmmakers, and for them it's a really major part of their working process. The argument that you can make stuff look filmic with plugins and filters really doesn't work for them. But they're also developing a lot of their own film and doing weird stuff with it, so I'm not sure if they're entirely the demographic for this anyway.
If I had the money, the only reason I'd consider getting this camera and paying that much for film+developing would be if I were shooting B&W and I wanted to push the grain (or even if I wanted to push the grain in color). One of the quotes in the link mentioned grain, and I think that might be what's guiding people. Digital grain isn't that great, and if you're going to make grain a part of your aesthetic I can see situations where it would be worth the cost. It's definitely expensive, but this sort of thing already was, and if someone's got the funds I can see how this would be worth it for them.
posted by teponaztli at 3:09 PM on February 21, 2016
For me this raises another question I've always had: Is it axiomatic that the "better" thing always costs oodles more than the "not better"? So if the costs were reversed would video "look" better than film? I keep hearing that film is untouchable or that video is just as good, I've tried looking at side by sides and I just can't tell or if I can I can't get up a strong opinion about which is which or which is better. Not trying to take anything away from connoisseurs but I think the academy of aesthetics could benefit from a randomized double blind trial, though maybe that raises the core issue which is are people really partisans of different levels of quality or just attached to process. Like calligraphy.
posted by Pembquist at 4:05 PM on February 21, 2016
posted by Pembquist at 4:05 PM on February 21, 2016
The previous MetaFilter post mentioned above links to professional cinematographer Steve Yedlin’s comparison of 35mm film versus digital, when both are shot and processed with the same “filmic” look in mind. It includes the material to conduct your own blind test, except that Yedlin hasn’t revealed the answers.
A demo like this can prove that high-end digital can be indistinguishable from 35mm for a particular shot. But the knowledge and process required to achieve the same result can be very different.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:47 PM on February 21, 2016
A demo like this can prove that high-end digital can be indistinguishable from 35mm for a particular shot. But the knowledge and process required to achieve the same result can be very different.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:47 PM on February 21, 2016
It includes the material to conduct your own blind test, except that Yedlin hasn’t revealed the answers.
Just watched the hi-res version. The moral of the story: use the best lenses you can afford.
posted by run"monty at 11:00 AM on February 22, 2016
Just watched the hi-res version. The moral of the story: use the best lenses you can afford.
posted by run"monty at 11:00 AM on February 22, 2016
« Older Ice stacking on Lake Superior | Canada’s prisons are the ‘new residential schools’ Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Most "smart" versions of products seem like an implicit insult to the customer; "Finally, an umbrella smart enough to make up for the failings of you, the consumer too stupid to properly own and operate a traditional umbrella!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:12 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]