Discussions about a hypothetical new S-8 camera

[carllooper]

The developer posted the following:

I'm on my way out on vacation tomorrow, three weeks in Mallorca so it's going to be a little while until I can post some teasers.

By the way someone asked if it was possible to attach an external monitor - well infact there's no monitor build into the camera itself to make it lightweight and because we reckon that most people are not satisfied with buildin viewfinders anyway (some thinks 4" is too small some people like 10" - some wants B&W and some wants something else) so the idea is that one can attach for example a Lilliput monitor or pretty much anything that accepts an industry standard CVBS video signal input and use that as monitor.

There's an option to have both "raw video" out and/or "overlaid" video out with all the status details so that one can record the actual video without the overlay while still seeing it on their monitor viewfinder.

Stay tuned it's going to be cool!

/Lasse

I am so looking forward to this. But as one of those on cinematography.com said:

"I hope this isn't a big c**t tease"

I'm choosing to believe it. I always believe first before I change my mind ... it's a lot easier to be miserable later than earlier because, for one thing, you might not be miserable later!

C

[nikonr10]

Well this topic is then Hypothetical ,going around and around , No price on what this wet dream will cost ? and without a viewfinder ,

[super8man]

Just get a micro 4/3 camera or Pentax Q and shoot HD all day long with cine lenses:

[super8man]

Booster, its the C300 by Elmo...the C200 did two formats. I forget if you could use the Single 8 attachment in the C200...probably not.

[carllooper]

Just get a micro 4/3 camera or Pentax Q and shoot HD all day long with cine lenses:

I don't get this?

It would be like saying "why make a new movie, there's plenty that have already been made".

In any case the whole idea of designing and building a film camera would be to facilitate shooting film, ie. film in the material physical sense of a film - that photochemical material which Victorian Age boffins invented.

How would a Pentax Q facilitate that?

The interesting thing about this project is that the proposed film camera would be an improvement on previous Super8 cameras, ie. with a proper pressure plate, pin registration, crystal sync, and so on. In other words it would be a new camera in that there isn't any Super8 camera that ticks all the boxes that this particular camera aims at ticking.

I completely agree with this project - even it turns out to be someone's self delusion.

There is a slightly circular argument going on here which I understand, which depends on whether film or convenience is important to you. But it doesn't have to be an either/or decision. If you prefer both film AND convenience, then that which satisfies both is Super8, and Super8 cameras can be improved upon. It is a nice neat project for someone with the right tools and skills.

C

[super8man]

I know what you are saying and I "get" it. However, why "super 8"?

I mean, what does "super 8" bring to the table that 16mm and 8mm doesn't bring.

Since, if 16mm is too big, then, surely, 8mm must be better than super 8 since it's significantly smaller.

I have personally seen color home movies on 8mm Kodachrome and the colors were mindblowing, as was the sharpness.

If someone could just explain that: what does super 8 bring that say, 9.5 mm doesn't bring. Or, the holiest of grails, SINGLE 8.

I have shot single 8 and projected it and it was the finest thing. But again, if a company back in the day had created a camera that did everything a SINGLE 8 camera did for REGULAR 8mm, there would never have been a need for super 8, single 8, etc.

Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoy film. Of all types.

[carllooper]

I know what you are saying and I "get" it. However, why "super 8"?

I mean, what does "super 8" bring to the table that 16mm and 8mm doesn't bring.

I think it's just the convenience thing. Which can be quite useful in some scenarios. To be able to whack in a new cart, and pull the trigger, in a matter of seconds. It's just a particular type of film making it supports. A more lazy one perhaps. But one that does produce it's own kind of results.

I'm still quite happy with my UltraPan8 and 16mm of course. More than happy. I'm not really into running around trying to catch a volume of time constrained moments. Much prefer the methodical approach where one creates the image more than steals the image. But I can understand Super8. It's kind of a fake version of video. But I mean that in a good way. It's the closest film can come to the convenience of shooting video/digital without having to be video/digital.



This is the best picture I could find of this scene from 2001:A Space Oddysey. There is a guy in the middle of the room, the one kneeling down, who is filming the conference we can see, with a very tiny camera (barely visible in this image). The scene is taking place aboard a space station. If my memory serves me correctly, the camera he is using is a film camera. I believe, in the movie, you can hear the faint chatter of it's motor.

C

[sciolist]

I think it's just the convenience thing. Which can be quite useful in some scenarios. To be able to whack in a new cart, and pull the trigger, in a matter of seconds. It's just a particular type of film making it supports. A more lazy one perhaps. But one that does produce it's own kind of results.C

The description of the proposed camera, cited in the post that began this thread, included the following:

"The camera uses standard Kodak film cassettes, however the film is brought out of the cassette and into the widened gate with integrated pressure plate and pin registration, which completely freezes the film during exposure to make sure the bouncing never occurs which is a typical trademark of older super-8 cameras."

If that’s the case, the convenience of which you speak doesn’t exist. I've got a Visual Instrumentation Corporation SP-1R high-speed Super 8 camera incorporating this design (viz., pin registration with a loop of film pulled out of the cartridge) and it's no breeze to load. I like this proposal a lot; it's just that the convenience of the Super 8 cartridge isn't likely to be enjoyed by owners of the camera if and when it comes to market.

[JeremyC]

Carl,

The still from 2001 takes place on the moon just when they are about to discuss the monolith. The person with the camera is taking stills and leaves before the meeting starts. I guess the camera clicks the same way 40 years later a camera phone 'clicks' or 'whirrs' when taking a photo i.e. fake.

Apologies for nerd point. 8O

[DTNethery]

I know what you are saying and I "get" it. However, why "super 8"?

I mean, what does "super 8" bring to the table that 16mm and 8mm doesn't bring.

Since, if 16mm is too big, then, surely, 8mm must be better than super 8 since it's significantly smaller.

I have 16mm cameras (Bolex , Kodak K100,) 8mm cameras (Bolex H8, Bolex D8L) and Super 8 (Nizo S480, Canon 814 XL, until recently Canon 514 XL which quit working on me , Nikon 8X Super Zoom) . I won't compare 16mm to Super 8mm . Super 8mm is what it is . If I want premium image quality I'll shoot 16mm.


But to me shooting Super 8 is more enjoyable because of the brighter reflex viewfinders and overall ease of use (loading, changing film, etc.) compared to 8mm.

The Bolex 8mm cameras are capable of great image quality , but I don't enjoy shooting with them as much .

But the biggest draw back to 8mm is the lack of film stocks. Hard to find and a limited selection. If we had the same number of film stocks available in 8mm as in Super 8mm I'd shoot more 8mm.

[carllooper]

Carl,

The still from 2001 takes place on the moon just when they are about to discuss the monolith. The person with the camera is taking stills and leaves before the meeting starts. I guess the camera clicks the same way 40 years later a camera phone 'clicks' or 'whirrs' when taking a photo i.e. fake.

Apologies for nerd point. 8O

Ah yes, I realised that after posting. It's on the moon base rather than the space station. But are you sure it's a still camera? I could have sworn it was a movie camera, but heh, you've just given me another reason to watch this classic all over again.

cheers
Carl

[carllooper]

The description of the proposed camera, cited in the post that began this thread, included the following:

"The camera uses standard Kodak film cassettes, however the film is brought out of the cassette and into the widened gate with integrated pressure plate and pin registration, which completely freezes the film during exposure to make sure the bouncing never occurs which is a typical trademark of older super-8 cameras."

If that’s the case, the convenience of which you speak doesn’t exist. I've got a Visual Instrumentation Corporation SP-1R high-speed Super 8 camera incorporating this design (viz., pin registration with a loop of film pulled out of the cartridge) and it's no breeze to load. I like this proposal a lot; it's just that the convenience of the Super 8 cartridge isn't likely to be enjoyed by owners of the camera if and when it comes to market.

Ah yes, very true, not quite as convenient as a traditional Super8 camera. A bit of over-exaggeration on my part. An interesting idea (if somewhat fluffy) would be to automate that, ie. where the camera engages the cart and pulls out the film, like videotape camera/players. Wouldn't have to be as fluffy as videotape machines - could be some sort of snap-lock system that uses the energy supplied by the user, as they push the cart in, to drive the engagement method. Whacklockety-click ... drrrrr ... of course, even without such fluff it's the improvement in results, that pin registration provides, that is the important thing. Even if it compromises convenience a tad.

Its all a bit of a balancing act really. The more importance you put on technical quality the more you might move from 8mm/Super8 to 16mm, to 35mm. The more importance you put on convenience the more you might move back down to Super8 and across the dividing line, to video and up to digital. Having crossed that divide you might not be capable of returning to film - you might have to return to a different kind of technical quality, by means of bigger and better sensors.

But it's at that interface, between film and digital, that is where one can start to see the fundamental differences between film and digital. It's strangely a-historical. Super8 occurs at that moment of transition. Thirty years ago. But the transition proper is thirty years later. The transition has to wait for video/digital to mature before the real difference between film and digital actually becomes technically visible. Super8 (and 8mm), because it blows up film to such a large scale, is where the difference has always been most visible, if only to the eye. Digital has to reach 4K before one can actually appreciate the difference in a technical sense. In a bizzare sort of way. The difference is not where it was assumed.

Super8. Half toy. Half seriously cool fun. Half convenient. Half art. And with the ongoing improvement in datacines: half seriously cool beauty, power and history.

Art can be made with anything.

C

[S8 Booster]

Another one which never made it:

http://www.cnet.com/news/first-new-supe ... rs/9683783

The key to a new cam would be film supply.

Since there seems to be none Tusk/Tesla in the film world and the future of film is next to nothing there will be no Tuskla ie having control of both the mechanichs (car/charge points/consumer) and energy (film supply).

Its not going to happen.

Shoot...

[carllooper]

Its not going to happen.

When I look into my crystal ball, all I see is the world refracted in an interesting way. While I can't see any new Super8 camera in there, I don't think that actually means anything.

Carl

[super8man]

Look, they have an "APP" for that:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20061824-233.html

I hate to say it but the train has left the station. I think this same discussion has been taken up in the "wooden boats" forum. Speaking from experience, while it is interesting to contemplate building a 40-foot wooden sailboat, the days of affordable and available quality timber has pretty much disappeared. There's no going back. Enjoy what we had and what is left but any talk of something new is pretty much bordering on penny stock dreams with someone behind a curtain pulling the strings. Keep your thoughts close and your money closer.