CES 2016: Close up with Kodak's new Super 8 movie camera

I think they are the same cartridges.

Yes they are the same. You can already get film for your cameras. Great cameras as well.

Oil painting? no way - this is too modern for my taste... I use earthy pigments and charcoal on stone walls. nothing beats it.
Look at some 20'000 year old cave paintings man, we're still amazed by them ... so charcoal & fingerpaint it is. good bye evil digital.

It was a joke. Most camera makers are desperate to get 4K in the specs but Kodak aree releasing a film camera....you can work it out from there I'm sure ;-)

Even if you want a projector that is not a problem as there is a huge secondhand market for them.

For this format to fit a 16:9 it would either have to be pillar boxed or S T R E A T C H E D
out to fit, besides that elusive "film and retro look" can easily be had shooting digital and editing with film effects that also include dust/scratches and grain to give it that "look" amongst other enhancements.

KrisAK that camera on eBay does not have a LCD screen and does not allow you to record sound onto a SD card.

Photomedium, just because you're not the market doesn't mean there isn't one. The world would be a very boring place if we created everything with the same paint or process.

EzeE nice video. There will also be a market for using this camera for adverts.

Stu 5 --only time will tell. I personally don't think you know what you are talking about. What a waste of Kodaks talent- if they have any left. Maybe you can get a job at Kodak. Sorry you and Kodak are wrong on this one. If might be as bad as Kodak disc film and cameras. Maybe Kodak will bring that back also with an led screen and an SD card so that in case they ruin your film you will have a backup.

@EzeE: The film shown is soft (=blurry), has blemishes, has low dynamic range, is completely oversaturated, and overall looks a lot worse than digital HD video. Sure, it is good if you are trying to make some retro feel (but then again, as photomedium said, you can simulate it through digital means). And if as KrisAK said, the good stuff is the 16mm film, then the 8mm film looks quite bad.

@Stu5: Do you really think that film school won't change over the next decade? If what you say is true, they are already behind. If you want to use this camera for fun, that's great. Get it and enjoy. But people will not be using this for serious films in the future. Again, if you like it, that's awesome for you. You get what you want. You're the 0.1% of people that this is made for. Maybe this technology is worth keeping around. But it cannot compete with what is available today in terms of both quality and ease of use.

What are processing charges?

Marty4650, this is not low fi. You can do 2k and 4k scans of Super 8. Just because you're not the market doesn't mean there isn't one.

Here's an example of it at 2K
https://vimeo.com/21138554

As I said the processing charges are included in the film cost. The film cost also includes a digital transfer.

It also includes a digital transfer in cost of the film and processing as well Marty4650. This product is not designed for you. It is designed for professional film makers and students studying film. You clearly do not understand that industry. Kodak and all the Hollywood backing this camera has got do understand it. Out of interest who do you think Kodak is owned by?

You won't have to do the digital conversion: Kodak will. When you send in the film for processing, you get the processed film back and you get links to download digital copies of it. The idea is not that you will share the films by having a target audience sit in a darkened room; the idea is that you edit digital versions of the Super-8 film (if desired with the sound you recorded when filming). I'm not interested in doing any of this, but that doesn't mean the idea is without merit for some. After all, many people swear that vinyl records are the bee's knees; I'll never go back to vinyl.

The intent isn't to project it which is why they're offering scanning with it. This allows it to be edited with modern software like Premier and post it online. You can do 2K and 4k scans of Super 8 that look great. Here's an example: https://vimeo.com/21138554

There are many point and shoot digital photo cameras out there that do HD video too aimed at the tourist market for under 100 bucks. Many of them have video effects that look like film/polaroid/high contrast/low dreamy contrast/ portrait mode/soft skin mode/etc. etc. some don't even know these effects exist in their photo camera because they don't read the instruction book and can't be bothered. I am sure there are cheap cameras that in their menu somewhere there is that holy grail effect of film look.

The resolution of a 6 x 3.5mm frame, hmm, 1K

Yes - miserable resolution, but charming and organic. And while I suspect this product will remain ultra-niche, I hope that it will pave the way for larger formats in the future :)))

As people realized about a decade ago, 24×36mm film starts to lose to digital at about 6–8MPix (and needs about 12 times more light). With 4×6mm frame, Super 8mm may be worth 150KPix (with comparable performance to 1×1.5mm digital sensor).

Here's an example of a 2K scan of Super 8 https://vimeo.com/21138554

You can do 2k and 4K scans of Super 8. There's a place in LA called Pro8mm and that's all they do.

One of the advantages of film is that it can be transfered to other formats easily. You can do 4K scans of film from 100 years ago and will be able to do that if we have 8K or more in the future. You can't do that with digital video.

If we only had one kind of paint or process to create with the world would be a very boring place.

EzeE, are you sure it was S8, quote -
`no. the bolex rx5 was converted to super 16mm'

Ilza, If you go to the Kodak site and look at the technical publications for 500T you can see that it has 7-8 stops either way which is about 13 stops conservatively. The Red Dragon is really the only sensor claiming more at 18 stops. The Alexa is at 14 and the Red Epic is 13.5. In DSLR's the Nikon D800 is 11.5 and the 5D MK3 is 8.7

@EzeE

What you say makes no sense at all. Read the booklet. Kodak clearly CLAIMS: 11.0 stop of dynamic range. The sample photo shows the same: the boxes №7 and №8 of the photo are completely blown away. Now, manufacturers of digital cameras CLAIM much higher dynamic range.

Can one push processing to get higher dynamic range than what Kodak itself claims? Probably (from -5 to +8 on the left graph; maybe even -6) — but for this one would need digital processing. And this would result in significantly increased noise. And the maximum one can push is 14 stops.

But now, when we are PUSHING beyond the manufacturer’s claims, what can we do with digital? I can push my lowly NEX-6 to 19 stops of dynamic range (see my post on dynamic range). Again, 5 stops more more than this film.

Now: resolution. Again, suppose we are pushing beyond all the limits; so 18% gray is 8 stops below saturation. According to Kodak, averaging over 50µ circle one gets 10% noise on this film.

continued…

continued…

With digital, 10% noise corresponds to collection of 100 photons (with decent sensor, read-out noise won’t matter here). With 50K full well at ISO=100, AND 8 steps below saturation, AND at ISO=500, this means collection of 160 photons per pixel.

In short: in digital, every pixel (of “quality” 50Ke⁻/ISO100) is equivalent to a square with side 55µ on this film (noisewise, with 8 stops headroom over 18%gray). Or: this film is noise-equivalent to 33KPix per cm² (even if it pushed A LOT).

So, to reconstruct the performance of A7ii, one would need 130cm² of this film. (And: digital would have much better noise at highlights, since no pushing is needed; and it would have dynamic range better BY MANY STOPS.)

Just for comparison: IMAX cameras use less than 35cm² of film (per frame). Is the picture clear now?

Ilya

Actually: mea culpa!

Above, I did the calculation of the noise for 6 stops below saturation (while I was CLAIMING that it is for 8 stops below saturation). So above, the actual exposure is 40 captured photons per pixel (and not 160, as I claimed!).

Which means that other numbers are ALSO 4x off. In particular, to reconstruct the performance of A7ii, one would need 33cm² of this film.

So this film used in IMAX camera can produce a similar resolution (normalized to a certain S/N ratio) to the contemporary digital sensor. (But it would still have less dynamic range.)