Jump to content


Photo

Am I crazy?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 16 January 2006 - 10:00 AM

I would like to see someone build a new Super 8 camera. For example a hybrid between the Canon 1014 and the GL2. It would have a 16x9 gate, sync sound recorded to mini-dv and a LCD video assist built in,interchangable lenses. Cost $1500 -3000?
  • 0

#2 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 16 January 2006 - 10:16 AM

I would like to see someone build a new Super 8 camera. For example a hybrid between the Canon 1014 and the GL2. It would have a 16x9 gate, sync sound recorded to mini-dv and a LCD video assist built in,interchangable lenses. Cost $1500 -3000?


Unlikely today.
  • 0

#3 G . Stephen Bruno

G . Stephen Bruno
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2006 - 11:44 AM

you should get on that brant, sounds cool if anything.
i'd buy it, but thats just because im also crazy.
  • 0

#4 Stefan Kahlert

Stefan Kahlert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 January 2006 - 12:27 PM

Cost $1500 -3000?

Even old rebuild cameras are more expensive. Taking the price of say a canon 1014XLS asked at around 1980, adding roghly 120% for the rise in price we have seen for comparable products (optical/electromechanical) and taking into account the small market such a camera would be aiming at compared to the 1014XLS in its day, I'd guess that a range from 5000 up to 9000 USD would be more likely for a camera of comparable quality.

Stefan
  • 0

#5 Mike Crane

Mike Crane
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 January 2006 - 02:15 PM

You would not get any new motion picture camera for such a price with features like that these days. Way too much work involved with limited quantities that would be sold.

As early as the 80's, Aaton was approached to build professional super 8 cameras with limited features. They wanted about 10K each (wholesale).

Within reason, you could probably buy a rebuilt Canon 1014 with 24fps crystal and/or a gate mod for about $1500- 2000.
  • 0

#6 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 16 January 2006 - 02:32 PM

I have torn apart a few super 8 cameras and the electronics should be cheaper today. Kodak should develop this and take the HP printer approach. Cheap printers but thier profit is in the consumables. So an affordable film camera with mordern features could sell more film. Just my 2 cents.
  • 0

#7 Stephen Phipps

Stephen Phipps

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 January 2006 - 04:16 PM

The market is already saturated with high quality used amateur Super 8 cameras selling for $300 or less. Someone on another board mentioned there's around 60,000 folks who shoot Super 8 regularly. I'd suspect 99% of these users have at least one high quality camera out of necessity. The other 100 million folks who enjoy movie making are satisfied with their Mini DV and camcorder equipment. Most of them wouldn't understand how a projector works, or would get tired of messing with it after its first use.

In short, we're darn lucky just to have any current Super 8 film manufacturing... let alone new camera production.

I have torn apart a few super 8 cameras and the electronics should be cheaper today. Kodak should develop this and take the HP printer approach. Cheap printers but thier profit is in the consumables. So an affordable film camera with mordern features could sell more film. Just my 2 cents.


  • 0

#8 Kitao Sakurai

Kitao Sakurai
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2006 - 05:23 PM

Hey,


What you want is already out there, actually:


http://www.duallcame...log/index.shtml



This is a rental from Duall camera here in New York, where I rent a lot of stuff from. They have converted several Beaulieu super 8 cameras to take PL-mount lenses (!!!!) as well as adding crystal sync bases. Additionally, these cameras will accept rods for matte box/follow focus... I think they even have video tap too...

I do not work for them, to let you know...

The 16/9 thing it does not have, but If I were you I'd just crop in post... 1.33 to 1.78 isn't THAT bad... Duart just got a super 8 gate for their Ursula telecine, and I did a supervised TK onto digi of plusx and trix stuff that I had shot at 24p... Man, it. was. BEAUTIFUL!!! a good transfer really makes all the difference. I think the optics in a lot of the good consumer s8 cameras are totally fine... I was using a cannon xls, and it was RAZOR sharp. I think a lot of what people blame on bad optics is really bad transfer or bad projection... Some of this stuff, if you saw it on tv, you'd think it was 35mm shot in the late 50's, no kidding. I'll try to put some frame grabs off of the stuff once I digitize it.

kitao
  • 0

#9 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2006 - 06:00 PM

I've seen this Beaul-enstein ("Franken-lieu?") on Duall's website, and it looks like they've pulled out all the stops, except, as Kitao pointed out, the lack of a widescreen modification. At first I didn't understand the logic behind the PL mount - but I guess that's so that you can utilize the Optars, which apparently go wide enough in focal length to make sense for Super-8 usage. Of course, you're still shooting a frame the size of a bug's toenail - but I would love to see those frame grabs.
  • 0

#10 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 20 January 2006 - 10:06 PM

That is awesome, please some frame grabs would be great
  • 0

#11 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 21 January 2006 - 04:38 AM

The market is already saturated with high quality used amateur Super 8 cameras selling for $300 or less. Someone on another board mentioned there's around 60,000 folks who shoot Super 8 regularly. I'd suspect 99% of these users have at least one high quality camera out of necessity. The other 100 million folks who enjoy movie making are satisfied with their Mini DV and camcorder equipment. Most of them wouldn't understand how a projector works, or would get tired of messing with it after its first use.

In short, we're darn lucky just to have any current Super 8 film manufacturing... let alone new camera production.



So on the one hand 60,000 people shooting the format is Super-8 but it's a niche market and we should be lucky there is any film at all?

When you consider that NO ADVERTISING of Super-8 film has been done by Kodak in the last 25 years that I am aware of that is a still a very solid base.

The premise for a new camera a valid one. Combining an orientable viewfinder with pre-fab "effects modules" ala the Bell & Howell MS45 would have been a huge success and would have sold into the thousands. Super-8 could have been the mini-dv of the film world, but Kodak didn't see it that way when it mattered most.
  • 0

#12 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:08 PM

The premise for a new camera a valid one. Combining an orientable viewfinder with pre-fab "effects modules" ala the Bell & Howell MS45 would have been a huge success and would have sold into the thousands. Super-8 could have been the mini-dv of the film world, but Kodak didn't see it that way when it mattered most.


If it were valid, we'd have one.

Modern technical advances make such things as crystal synch and whatnot unneeded for the short narrative films or music video and brief inserts in features that super 8 is so well suited for. Desktop NLE makes crystal synch a non-requirement. Crystal synch didn't exist until some 60 or 70 years into the filmmaking process, and even then, we can still get super 8 cameras that are crystal synched if people still aren't "getting it" with regards to modern editing abilities (and some don't).

Completely rebuilt, new to spec Beaulieus are readily available. Leicina Specials in top condition (easily self-serviced) are harder to find, but show up all the time on ebay. What more does anybody need? They don't. But if people are determined to use lesser Japanazoom prosumer home movie cameras for inferior results, then, as has been pointed out, as new reconditioned Canon 1014 / 814 xls are readily available. So are reconditioned Nizos! New, in the box, super 8 cameras show up all the time on ebay.

Moveable viewfinder is a great thing, but now it's readily available and mountable on any camera with a little effort. Sure, the only super 8 cameras offering angle finder accessories were of professional design (the exclusive territory of Beaulieu and Leicina), but today we can find a handy-dandy cheap viewfinder to fit on any SLR and, with a little creativity, on any super 8 camera. The Zigview is but one of many possibilities these days: http://www.bristolca....uk/page542.htm

That Bell and Howell model you mention is a complete joke in today's world. Poor optics, cheesy construction. Like all Bell and Howell super 8 cameras, built for the lowest common denominator.

And this is the key to understanding this "dilemma" of not having a new super 8 camera -- which doesn't exist at all except in the imaginations of a few who can't see the whole picture. Super 8 no longer belongs to millions and millions of Common Man Joe idiots. The common denominator no longer rules. In fact, they no longer matter. Super 8 now belongs to an audience that's not millions, but 10's of thousands. Serious people who love film. It now belongs to professional filmmakers, aspiring to be professional filmmakers, and amateurs who are serious and knowledgeable about what they're doing. Unfortunately on the internet, we have both a glut of idiot amateurs who just don't get this (see the absolutely awful and innacurate filmshooting/chimpbrain/conspiracy/slotcar.com) added to some professional filmmakers who don't get that super 8 doesn't equal "bad film" anymore and hasn't for a couple of years now, and is a very interesting aesthetic viable alternative for a strong "film flavour" to productions. Add those to the businessmen with hidden agendas, and super 8 has its unfair detractors, no doubt.

Kodak is not to be blamed for super 8's reduction in popularity, or its initial lack of embrace by professionals and serious filmmakers who know something. No, at that time, they simply didn't have the technology for viable filmstocks that were able to make it good enough as an alternative for serious use, and the situation for video transfer and edit was completely hopeless and completely unlike what we have today. How many PC based NLE edit systems were in place back in the mid 80's, Alex? ZERO. How many Rank super 8 transfer facitlities were in place in the mid 80's, Alex? ZERO. And the film stock was garbage k40 and negatives back then were way too grainy for proper super 8 use. There was no hope. Kodak couldn't do a damn thing to change that back then even if they wanted to.

Now that has changed. Kodak recognizes super 8 as a filmstock worthy of professional use. It markets EXCLUSIVELY professional grade emulsions (now that shitty home movie grade K40 is gone). And people serious about using super 8 can pick and choose the best super 8 cameras in excellent condition, often rebuilt to as new condition, for under a $1000. And, miracles of miracles, they can achieve professional results at home on their computers.*

* Provided they follow as their personal religion the three Golden Rules I outlined and proved beyond any possible sane conjecture in the seminal thread of this forum: http://www.cinematog...showtopic=10601
  • 0

#13 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 21 January 2006 - 10:42 PM

http://www.ijmincorp....com/index.html

anyone heard of this guy.
  • 0

#14 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:34 PM

Unlikely today.


I've always said the only way we would see something new, that would rival existing S8 cameras is to reinvent and reintroduce the format as a new small guage film format... involving 16:9 frames from a new camera that ran 100ft daylight spools of DS8. Kodak would only have to offer the standard 16mm daylight spools with S8 perfs.. and offer the whole line of stocks available in 16mm. Still unlikely, but the best case scenario.
  • 0

#15 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 22 January 2006 - 08:51 PM

The modular design that Bell and Howel came up with was brilliant and progressive EVEN if the camera did not meet your professional standards. The module idea would only work on a small camera for a small format like Super-8 because the power requirements are so minimal for Super-8. The Modular design is an idea that would have been a big hit nowadays.

Modular design means you slap a module onto the side facing of the super-8 camera and the camera instantly can offer the functions that the module provides. Different modules can offer different features such as, Super slow motion, (including fully variable speed dial), another module could have time-exposure (both with photo sensor or settable time increments), another mod could have crystal sync, (May not be completely necessary, but it's still cool to have crystal sync functionality) a single frame module, single frame (along with traditional time-lapse, plus time-lapse bursts options, perhaps a programmable module in which the filmmaker designs the type of filming operations they would like to try out.

As for an orientable viewfinder, hands down the most overlooked feature missing from all Super-8 cameras is the orientable viewfinder. When I frame a shot, I never consider my comfort level first, I first set the frame that I think the shot should be, then I position the viewfinder to allow me the greatest freedom to easily transfer my weight as necessary during the shot, this allows me to achieve a smooth pan or tilt, or simply to look through the viewfinder while miminally having to actually touch the camera...., and then there is Super-8. :blink:, and NO orientable viewfinder.

I tried a Super-8 shot once in which the perfect place for the camera to be positioned was about two feet off of the ground, pointing upward. Try positioning yourself for that kind of a shot. To high to lay on the ground, Too low to bend down. The uncomfortable and practically impossible postion also caused me to hold my weight at such a bizarre angle that I actually began fogging the viewfinder from the workout that ensued.

Anyways, my premise was that Kodak frowned upon Super-8 being to 16mm and 35mm as mini-dv is to BetaCam SP, Digital Betacam and DVC Pro and DV-CAM. In my opinion it was a dumb move, a.k.a., a non move by Kodak not to help super-8 be the little brother to 16mm and 35mm, typical of Wall Street Companies that are pressured into showing instant profit on all investments so they become to afraid to try ventures that "only" will attract small paying newbies.
  • 0

#16 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 23 January 2006 - 01:33 PM

Super 8 in a 16x9 gate with modern features would sell. Everyone says "just get one of e-bay" even if you get a good camera it is still 30 yrs or so old.
  • 0

#17 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 26 January 2006 - 02:07 AM

http://www.ijmincorp....com/index.html

anyone heard of this guy.


That is Irv Higdon.

He's been in the Super-8 business since Super-8 as created. Basically, your supposed to get a warrantied super-8 product from Irv, but you will pay more. On the other hand, being lied to on Ebay about the condition of a camera or projector for sale is a bigger drag in my opion.
  • 0

#18 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2006 - 03:52 AM

Super 8 in a 16x9 gate with modern features would sell. Everyone says "just get one of e-bay" even if you get a good camera it is still 30 yrs or so old.

A 1.78:1 (16x9) gate in a Super-8 camera would cut your exposed film area by 25%. Framing using a 1.78:1 ground glass will still result in a picture that is 25% less than what's on the film. Forget about using Super-8 for widescreen. Use a progressive scan DV camera instead, preferably PAL. It'll look better blown up to 35mm, and you can still simulate the grain and color aesthetic of 8mm.
  • 0

#19 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 26 January 2006 - 06:48 AM

A 1.78:1 (16x9) gate in a Super-8 camera would cut your exposed film area by 25%. Framing using a 1.78:1 ground glass will still result in a picture that is 25% less than what's on the film. Forget about using Super-8 for widescreen. Use a progressive scan DV camera instead, preferably PAL. It'll look better blown up to 35mm, and you can still simulate the grain and color aesthetic of 8mm.


Or use Super-16, which has a proven track history of high quality HD and feature production.
  • 0

#20 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 26 January 2006 - 02:45 PM

Super 8 in a 16x9 gate with modern features would sell. Everyone says "just get one of e-bay" even if you get a good camera it is still 30 yrs or so old.


There is no 16x9 gate in a Super 8 camera.
Pro8 says their widened gate is 1.58/1.

A standard Super 8 gate is 5.79x4.14mm.
Super 8 is actually 7.976mm wide.
The distance from the perf edge to the frame edge 1.47mm.

Add that to the frame width and subtract the sum from 7.976mm.
You get 0.716mm.
Add that to 5.79, you get 6.506mm.
Divide by the frame height, 4.14mm, you get an aspect ratio of 1.57/1.

That's the camera aperture and it goes all the way to the edge of the film.

So the height is still cropped, and you have to send it to Pro8 for the Xfer.

---LV
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

CineLab

Visual Products

Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab