In a bit of a surprise, one of the hottest products to make an appearance at CES 2016 was an analog product: Kodak's Super 8 movie camera. Built around the classic Super 8 film format, the camera does make some nods to contemporary digital technology: instead of an optical viewfinder there's a flip out LCD screen, and there's also a SD card slot for recording sound.
But the film is the real star of the show, and processing is included in the cost. If you're into the retro thing looking to make some films (or even just someone on a quest for the nostalgic look of Super 8) this might be just the camera you need to go along with your vinyl albums. DPReview editor Dale Baskin talks with Kodak's Josh Coon to learn a bit more about this camera.
Hipsters are more interested in "analog" world where things are processed and could easily be interpreted via different mediums, optically.
Digital files are not analog nor optical. You would have to know how to write a code to decode a file. Digital image is made of zeros and ones and there is no way you can optically extract information.
Analog film is organic. It is also optical. It lets you extract data with the use of optics and chemicals rather than computers. That appeals to "hipsters" as it makes them feel like they can actually have a tangible value on it.
I appreciate them. At least they produce results than you people producing works as a result of your computers doing the work for you.
Color negative film, but you get back a positive film to view? I'm glad scanning is included in price. Does anyone remember just how fuzzy Super 8 Kodachrome was and now they are going to introduce film grain as well? I wish they had done this in 16mm so the film would be worth viewing. Does Kodak have a low cost scanning service for the box of Super 8 films I already have?
You would get back a developed negative. You would also need a widescreen projector as they are using more of the film due to dropping the sound stripe. An 8mm scanning service is a good idea for un-spliced film. Kodak made some pro scanners in the past.
Why do I feel if I opened this hipster-bait camera there'd be a small animal with a tiny hammer and chisel aka The Flintstones. I understand Kodak's next big release will be the Kodachrome Cave Painting.
Finally.. a tool for the hipster who wants to feel cool, the dinosaur who could never keep up with digital and the hopeless nostalgic who's emotions dictate the medium they use. May it serve you well. As for the actual pro film makers out there, the market just got a little less saturated. Enjoy it.
A new Super 8 camera by Kodak is a welcome product for us that use film and enjoy its organic look . It is a niche market but with the advent of digital scanning in higher resolutions has given film a new start . Plus film is film and a tangible asset for those that want to have a reliable archiving source once hard drives fail to fulfill that memorable promise of keeping their date safe . As a filmmaker , I do prefer film to digital image and lately have been impressed by the number of young folks that come to my Super 8 workshops. Way to go Kodak showing new generations the power of film . For those that like film keep their cameras , the other people that want to get rid of them send me your offers , I buy them once enrollment for 2016 film classes are high and I need them for the students .
This is a nostalgia product at the end of the day that will flame out pretty quickly but I think does have fun merit. I've shoot in super 8 in the early 90's trying to be a pre-hipster and it sucked but taught me the value of composition. But this is like bringing back 8-track audio. Analogue in the audio arena is the top dog when it comes to quality and sound reproduction. It will be the last analogue "tech" that lingers around the longest because of that...a record player with a good amp (tube or class D) and nice speakers sounds beautiful and beats out any MP3, Lossless, FLAC, CD digital format out there and beats out the old tech too..reel to reel, cassette, 8-track. This is why Sony many years back created Super Audio CD to attempt to capture the quality of vinyl on a digital format. Issue with records is it is not remotely convenient in every way and $$. Lately, vinyl has been cool with the hipsters but the core older audiophile folk out there that have been vinyl all along.
Excuse my ignorance of the word "hipster(s)" Can anyone tell me what does it mean/definition or perhaps relate to. I am at a loss here, I read/hear it quite often but I guess I have to be "in the groove" sort of thing to "get it"
This is a joke isn't it? Kodak has taken technology from the 50s and 60s and spliced it with a digital viewfinder to create what? Something that will look exactly like it was shot in the 50s and 60s and for 5x times the budget of anything you shoot today. I'm still 'reeling' from the stupidity. (sorry, couldn't resist)
Why is it that hipsters all think the best technology belongs to the 70s' and not earlier or later? I think Phonograph cylinder and CinemaScope are much more interesting than records and Super 8 as far as the history and technological aspect are concerned.
Anything that keeps some degree of analog film alive is fine...even if it probably looks like a hipster magnet. I see on occasion people out with 8 and 16 cams, not very often, but they're out there. They will get the right to look at the "newbies" skeptically with this Kodak...but again, its still good.
Think of it as telling a story in 4 minutes with with no redo's, no splitting for edits...no effects. Of course you don't have to, but the challenge of film is about not fixing it all in post, but actually doing it right the first time. You'll think about it before hitting the trigger, unless you don't care about cost.
Anyone who was seriously thinking of using 8 for something, and it does have a look all it's own, won't use 8 because of this camera.
A few will buy them. but I still see the big brains slapping themselves on the back saying" digi - tail, what is digi-tail?" laughing in the board room. next year they'll set up a committee to find out what is this internet thing they keep hearing about.
Film has no future in movies. The Revenant was Nominated for 12 Oscars including Cinematography and was shot with the digital Arri 65. With high frame rates of 120 fps, HDR etc digital is the only way to go.
I'm still yawning. Maybe it's just me. But I don't understand the raison d'etre for this camera. Has Kodak not heard that while it was hibernating the world has moved to pretty cool video cameras on virtually every phone and every camera?
I was surprised to see that there's actually a pretty decent community build around super 8mm film. After browsing around a bit and checking out some footage I'm pretty intrigued myself.
Years ago I wanted to simulate some very old film like qualities for specific illustrative purposes in a documentary. I used a digitally simulated effect that kind of worked but the projector recorded images from these films seem just have the right "feeling".
It's the experimental qualities, the failures and unforeseen successes that kind of makes me feel excited for the medium. I don't do video in any shape or form except parties and a few personal stuff. But this looks like it could be fun. Or maybe I'm just a hipster by heart. ;)
I grew up watching my father's 8mm films. He was very careful about his shots (he had to be, there was only about 3 or 4 minutes of film before the reel ran out!). After sending them off to be processed (no chance to edit of course), he'd then have to load them onto a spool and spend ages threading the film into his projector. 4 minutes later the film was over. There really is no point buying a new 8mm film camera. Buy a good quality digital video camera, then mash up the results with every single color-degradation and scratch/noise effect you can find, and you'll get a good looking 8mm film! This product is truly ridiculous.
Well it is for you Reactive but it is not designed for you. Film is still used for movies, music videos, adverts and for students studying film. It is aimed at these people. It is why the camera has caused such a buss in the industry. It is why it has Hollywood support.
You have no idea. Super 8 is better quality than hi-8. The dynamic range for a start far exceeds Hi-8. Look at a decent 2k or 4k transfer from 8mm and you will see for yourself what it is really capable.
Does this mean a potential new life for my Beaulieu super8 cameras (4008 silent & 5008 sound, with excellent long power zooms by Schneider & Angenieux, respectively?
I am presuming the Kodak super8 cartridges are the same as 40 years ago?
Super 8 cartridges have been available all along. However, the current offerings are negative stocks only for color, and a single black & white reversal stock for direct projection.
Even if I wouldn't buy one of those (I make pictures, not movies)... if this helps to produce more and more Vison 3 stuff then I love it. Kodak films like TriX400, Portra or the movieemulsions are top notch!
another item to add to the list of " I could have been a contender" if only..... I really have to give them an E for effort and boldness to venture where no camera has gone before.
It is nice to have the live view, for making sure your exposure and other aspects are spot on before blowing 30 bucks per minute. Anything else... ummm Well Good luck Kodak, I hope it's profitable for you.
Clearly more a production tool than a consumer device. Only the B&W film is a reversal emulsion. The color stocks are all negative films, so projecting those (other than as a party gag) is of limited utility. Double system sound has always been the serious option, since sound recorded on film means you lose synch when physically editing (sound head is not adjacent to film gate, as a loop is required to allow the sound stripe to pass over the recording head in continuous motion, while the film is exposed as it stops and starts through the gate 18 fps or 24fps). Full editing is much more approachable in the present than in 1980, with digital files for both sound and image. But, they really should have considered reviving the 200 ft. Super 8 camera cartridge. THAT would be sweet. And spendy, yes.
I don't expect this to go anywhere but the same "pros" who disparage film are quick to accept pretty much anything electronic that has a long menu and a lot of button presses.
And it's not as if there were any big breakthroughs at CES. About the best that can be said is that Nikon's timing was good in that nobody else showed anything.
I wonder if Kodak would consider reviving the Daguerreotype? There was something about the tone range, the whiff of Mercury vapour and adequate time to really get to know your subject during the extra long exposures, that has vanished from modern 'instant' photography.
Failing that Kodak might also like to revive 'Bromoil' or 'Carbro' printing process for the same 'Pseudo-8' cine customers who appear to have time and money to spare.
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 ;-)
You can do 2k and 4K scans of Super 8. There's a place in LA called Pro8mm and that's all they do. Here's an example of a 2K scan of Super 8 https://vimeo.com/21138554
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.
Well...you can do a 4K scan of an 8mm film frame, but that doesn't mean the film actually has 4K of information on it, especially if it was high ISO. A 4K scan of a high ISO 8mm frame is a 4K scan of exquisitely detailed grain particles.
ExeE, if 100 years from now someone plays back a properly migrated 1920x1080 (2K) digital video made today, they're going to get 2K worth of information out of it, with all original colors.
If 100 years from now someone plays back an 8mm film, chances are the film will have faded beyond recognition. Thousands of films from only 30-40 years ago are already gone or faded to garbage. Scan that 100-year-old 8mm film and what you will have is 2K or 4K of faint, discolored images.
"In 1993, the Librarian of Congress alerted Congress that motion pictures were disintegrating faster than archives could save them. The works most at risk were not popular commercial blockbusters but culturally significant documentaries, silent-era works, home movies, avant-garde films, newsreels, industrials, and independent productions that were hidden away in nonprofit and public organizations across the country." - filmpreservation.org
Well of course you could scan it at that scale, but the point - of the joke - was that super 8 isn't a hi-def product, when everyone else is trying to get the max Kodak are leaping back to murky 70's home movies. I've got some.
Well film IS what KODAK does well, so why not try to relive their past success? Just the fact that it reminds many of the successful years will make this a talked about product in many news outlets, thus reviving the KODAK brand. The fact that there probably aren't any 8mm projectors around will mean it is a total failure. Nothing changes if nothing changes!
Super 8 didn't disappear as Kodak never stopped selling/making it. This is why there's a market for this camera.
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. You can do 2K and 4k scans of Super 8 that look great.
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.
Yes. Here is an example of a p&s video that I made to look like old Super 8 film. I can add as much grain, dust and scratches as I want. I degraded the image in various other ways too.
@Stu5 you are not likely to project Super 8 today unless you film in b/w. The color film is negative. I guess you could spend even more money and have it printed as a positive after physically splicing it. But why not shoot video and degrade it to taste as I did here.
Once again Kodak is showing why it failed in the past. This is the dumbest idea that I have seen from them to date. I wish Kodak would hire a Fuji executive to show them how to run a photographic company. I dream of Kodak recapturing their past greatness, but it seems it's not to be.
So it is dumb is it. Have you even seen the Hollywood backing this camera has from directors and cameramen. Do you even know who the target audience is? Here is a clue it is not amateur photographers. Do you have an idea of the positive reception this camera has received in the pro market. Any idea students at film colleges are still taught film. Any idea that when those students become film directors and cameramen that they will be using movie cameras that use larger Kodak film stock. Any idea that people will be able to hire these cameras out at film rental companies. Any idea in fact that FILM is actually still used for making movie and music videos and the film stock is still getting better in quality.
@Stu 5 - Why not just pick up a camera on eBay, buy a cartridge at B&H (~$25), and have it transferred via one of many online services. It's very doable, right now, for very little money. (Well, at least, a lot less than Kodak would have you spend.)
I think it's the cynical aspect of this that's rubbing people the wrong way.
Stu, I have no idea about any of the questions you pose. However, I don't see students or institutions spending that kind of money for the running cost of that system, nor the youtube crowd jumping into that after they all moved to 4K videos in ~2014. Their videos run much longer than3 mins. Sorry, but from where I stand the target audience, if that even exists, appears to be a bunch of dumbasses. I will grant you the supply of those is endless.
You could buy used, but Kodak knows that the cameras are old and not reliable, plus they don't make a film with sound on it anymore. This new camera gives you an LCD so you can see what you're shooting and it records sound. People never stopped shooting Super 8 which is why Kodak never stopped making it. They are only opening up the market that is already there.
As for Fuji, they still make film and in fact their Instax instant films/cameras are one of their most profitable products and something they're constantly evolving and marketing.
EzeE, you can take the output from a modern camera, down sample it, compress the DR, add color saturation, some white noise and make it look like an early 70's low budget porn. For less.
photo medium well in that case you do not know much about the film industry. How do you think students learn how to use a 35mm movie camera if they don't actually get to use one with film stock in it? It's not by just reading the instruction book. They have to actually use it. How much do you think a 35mm movie camera cost compared to a 8mm movie camera? How much do you think 35mm movie film cost compared to 8mm movie film. Do you honestly think they are going to worry about the cost? Yes of course their videos last longer than 3 minutes... thats why you edit things. That is what people do with film the edit scenes together, sometimes not shot of the same piece of film. They even do that when they make movies on 35mm film stock.
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.
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.
Stu.... what a great deal! 2 1/2 minutes of video for only $75! And that INCLUDES the processing!
Look, if you want this toy, then go buy it. You just can't defend this as a great product.
But don't take my word for it. Wait a year, and see how many of them end up a yard sales and on Craigslist. The market will sort this one out.
It's an interesting curiosity for people obsessed with 1971 technology. But I think that Kodak has blundered again. Even with new ownership, they refuse to accept the present or embrace the future.
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?
It once was common to shoot still images on film and then scan them for retouching, adjustments, and delivery. Once digital cameras improved, the idea of scanning film mostly disappeared. Well digital video has been way better than Super 8 for quite a while. As a matter of fact, Super 8 pretty much died decades ago when video camcorders came out.
So now we are to shoot Super 8 and scan it for editing and viewing. Why not just skip the film step and shoot directly to video?
EzeE aye, scanning it at 2/4k doesn't mean you have the equivalent info in it... and when you use higher ISO film, well it's bound to be coarse, grainy beyond anything you currently would really consider to be high quality.
Super8 was never a great format, not back then, not now.
And those processing charges included, make the short recording times even more expensive.
Then getting it properly scanned at 2 or 4k isn't cheap either...
The new Kodak Body is a far cry from professional grade cinematic analog film equipment too. The "professional" aspect isn't there to boot with.
it's a fancy toy, with expensive processing & film costs for those who think riding the retro wave is their statement agains the evil mainstream digital empire. Just look back at the now silly debate of Film vs. Digital in most regards... 100Mpx Medium format backs, affordable full frame (35mm) dslrs / mirrorless, etc... and there's only the rare odd "pro" still using film.. a dying breed or nostalgic bunch
Kodak didn't film its sample video with this camera did they? It was a non-working prototype and how good would the video look? Please send me to some really good Super 8 videos online.
Some Hollywood directors are still in love with film but they have huge budgets and also have video review as they shoot. Anyone using Super 8 will be spending a lot of money to learn the medium and will spend a lot more if they want to film repeated takes in order to refine their shots. The carts only hold 2.5 minutes at 24fps so if you want to be ready for something and only have 30 seconds left in your cart, you might want to stick in a new one. If you are shooting anything seriously, at the end of the day you'll have a lot bits of footage left on various carts.
Additionally, other than Tri-X reversal, one will be shooting color neg film and converting to digital for editing and viewing. So the idea of projecting film is gone.
I think shooting in Super 8 would be more of a special effect that would be cut within a movie—think about childhood flashbacks, dream sequences, and of course horror movies. And for short pieces, say 30 second commercials or 5-minute fine art movies it could give you work a distinctive look you can't get anywhere else. Just another tool in other words.
I think it would be fitting that the camera be built of styrene plastic and have a built-in water gun. Oh, and also it should have a pull string to power it.
Apart from the cost and image quality discussion, if I use this product, I will have to convert the film output to digital as soon as possible because it is very difficult to store film in a good condition for long period. Its digitalization will be also convenient to put sound and share with other peoples, How about a projector for the film ? I donot know it still exists.
Even this is a proto type, I donot think this concept is a good idea.
How about if they had a device to convert the film to digital in the camera? Or how about just pitting a really crappy sensor in a digital camera? That might do the trick.
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.
@EZeE -"You can do 2K and 4k scans of Super 8 that look great. Here's an example: https://vimeo.com/21138554"
I can see occasional use of Super 8 for effect on some projects. Although I think you can simulate it nicely in post from digital. The video you linked says it was shot with a 16mm Bolex RX5 along with a Beaulieu 4008 Super 8. You can see the difference in grain throughout the footage.
What remains to be seen is how good will be the digital conversions supplied when this film is processed by Kodak.
Its only a mock-up to get attention and test how naive journalists are. The Kodak people laughed all the way home - if they have anywhere to go. As far as I know, their old heaquarter is totally deserted.
I can imagine the execs and marketing team at kodak sitting around a table dreaming this up. "What are are we good at? What is our core competency?". " Sir, we are good at making film, but no one wants film devices". Sir - "or do they...".
What a bizzare idea. It's one thing to make retro style cameras but this is like bringing out a valve computer but sticking a modern monitor on it. Most strange.
Of course!! Let's go back to the Golden Era when lab workers were the voice of censorship and scraped film that contained artistic nudes work from a photographer. Oh, but yes...! They cheerfully gave you a brand new film as replacement. Let's go back to those Happy Days when the monkey behind the counter was the anointed one, the Voice of Morals, who called the police to denounce pedophilia as soon as he saw innocent pictures of children frolicking in the bathtub. ************************************* **Note to my usual detractors who are already salivating answers about porn, pedophilia and child abuse...Go ahead. Make my day. I won't be answering your pigmented imagination.
I don't have a clue what Kodak is attempting to accomplish here, realistically speaking, but the whole idea seems like crapola.
One question I was left with at the end was about resolution... what will be the final resolution of the files Kodak delivers? Regardless, even if the digital files are in 4K or better (which I highly doubt) the total cost is absolutely absurd when compared to the rest of today's video options.
What a bunch of crapola though. Are Kodak's execs on crack and think it is 1980? (I guess that makes two questions I have...) My advice to Kodak... go ahead and make one for Spielberg and then try to develop something more marketable.... perhaps a digital Brownie?
Nothing wrong with the 80s - very fond childhood memories. But it's not just nostalgia that will make me buy one of these. Analog has its role and place just as digital does. Whatever the motivation or inspiration (even 'crack' ;) I'm all for it. It's the best news I heard from CES.
There is no doubt that the resolution will be miserable. I suspect only those who used 8mm in film school 'way back when' will be interested in a product such as this for nostalgia reasons.
If I were to create and manufacture a new hybrid digital/film camera for today's market... it would need to have enough "wow" features (including resolution) to capture the attention of most people interested in video. What I'm seeing here from Kodak doesn't cut it. You'd might as well just buy an existing good quality Super 8 camera on the used market.
I suppose this could be a good idea but Kodak seems to only be going partway there to make the good idea an irresistible product... which, unfortunately, is par for the course for Kodak in recent years.
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).
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.
As I said in another place: stop this nonsense with “can do 2K or 4K scans”. Do a wall-projection, and shoot with 8K camera — and what you get is an 8K scan. But this says NOTHING about the QUALITY of the image you get.
As I said, film (due to incredibly high noise and very low usable dynamic range) is more or less equivalent to a digital sensor 1/15 of the film’s frame area. Have you seen anybody using 1×1.5mm digital sensors? And why is it so?
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
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.
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?
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.)
I’m not trying to get into a film vs digital debate. Each has there merits, but to say film has incredibly high noise and very low usable dynamic range is inaccurate. If this were the case Hollywood directors, cinematographers and certainly the producers and backers of these multimillion dollar films wouldn’t be using it. If you want to argue with them, please be my guest. Here’s a list from the last 2 years. If you click on the read more they have in-depth interviews with the DP's about why they shot it on film.http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/default.htm
I don't know who is more annoying -- old guys who were so amazed by digital that they slag anything analog -- or young guys who think anything more difficult to use than their cellphone isn't worth bothering with.
Nobody -- including Kodak -- thinks that Super 8 is going to be a consumer medium for people who want a quick family video. Super 8 is an artistic medium. It's a gateway drug for filmmakers to understand filmmaking, which INCLUDES things like double-system sound (picture on film, sound on seperate recording.) Shooting film in any medium, still or motion, is now an aesthetic choice. Potentially an expensive aesthetic choice. I'm glad Kodak is investing in the ecosystem needed to keep film available for those of us who wish to use it.
Why do you feel like you have to slag an artistic medium? Do you take your Nikon D810 into the art supply store and insult the people buying oil paints?
I find that I often like my analog photos more than my digital photos.
With digital, I'm in love with the technology. "Wow! Look at that resolution! And not too much noise!" And I fill a folder with 100 pictures of a brick wall, because I can.
With analog, I'm not thinking about the technology at all. I'm taking pictures of things that are interesting or important to me, and nothing else.
With that said, this camera is not for me. I limit my film use these days to 35mm, and mostly black and white. But I bet some people will take videos with this that they will still be interested in seeing years from now, unlike all of the "test" videos of meaningless subjects that litter youtube and vimeo.
The Fujifilm X-T30 is a $900 camera that's an incredibly capable stills/video hybrid. Image and 4K video quality are top-notch and, aside from some ergonomic and autofocus stumbles, the X-T30 does just about everything right. Learn more in our in-depth review.
The Amaran AL-MW is a tiny, color-accurate LED light that runs for hours on a charge, includes color filters and diffusers, and is submersible to 10m. If you're in need of a small, portable light for the studio or in the field it might just earn a spot in your camera bag.
Sony's a6400 combines a proven 24MP APS-C sensor, a new 'Bionz X' processor, and one of the best autofocus implementations we've yet seen - all in a compact, affordable camera body. Check out our impressions in our initial review.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-G95 (G90 outside North America) is a 20MP mid-range mirrorless camera aimed at both stills and video shooters, but it faces some pretty stiff competition.
The new Huawei P30 Pro is the first smartphone to offer a 5x optical tele. We've had a closer look at the innovative zoom system's image quality performance.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
A question frequently asked on the Internet is 'what's the best DSLR?' In this buying guide we've answered that question – but also whether it's the right question to be asking in the first place.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
The Fujifilm X-T30 and Sony a6400 are two of the newest, most exciting mid-range mirrorless cameras on the market. Chris and Jordan break down the differences between these models to see which comes out on top.
One of the main features that defines Instagram is its like count. Jane Manchun Wong, who is renowned for her reverse engineering skills, recently discovered that the service is considering hiding like counts.
Leica is facing backlash in China following the publication of a video called 'The Hunt' set in 1989 during, among other things, the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests.
Back in March 2019, Facebook said only 'tens of thousands of Instagram users' were affected; that number has now ballooned to 'millions of Instagram users,' according to Facebook's latest update.
We've spent a little more time shooting with Sony's new a6400, and as we work towards the completion of a full review, we've updated our initial gallery of sample images with additional shooting in and around Seattle.
Fujifilm has released a firmware update for its X-T30 midrange mirrorless camera. It tries to address one of the most frustrating things about the camera: how easy it is to accidentally press the Q.Menu button.
The 12th year of the World Photography Awards, in partnership with Sony, had a record-breaking number of entries. The winners have been revealed in this prestigious, global competition that gives burgeoning artists exposure and funding to develop personal projects.
For most of Managing Editor Allison Johnson's photography, smartphones have already replaced a traditional camera. But a recent trip reinforced a couple of key reasons why she's not ready to quite ready to leave the dedicated camera at home – yet.
In the final part of our beginners' guide to camera fundamentals, we look at the trade-offs you contend with when you choose a sensor size. We hope it helps you find the balance that works best for you.
The roof and spire of Notre Dame Cathedral were destroyed in a devastating fire this past Monday. Drone footage shows the extent of the damage done to the historic Parisian landmark.
Nikon's Z6 offers 24MP full-frame image quality in a tough and lightweight body. Photographer Diego Rizzo took a Z6 to Guatemala recently to shoot the Fuego volcano - watch our video to see how he got on.
The Fujifilm X-T30 is a $900 camera that's an incredibly capable stills/video hybrid. Image and 4K video quality are top-notch and, aside from some ergonomic and autofocus stumbles, the X-T30 does just about everything right. Learn more in our in-depth review.
In part two of our beginners' guides to the fundamentals of cameras, we're going to look at the benefits that a larger sensor can bring. Part three will look at the trade-offs that this brings.
In the first of a three-part beginners' guide, we're going to look at whether you need to worry about pixel size when choosing a camera. Parts two and three will look at the benefits of a larger sensor size, and the trade-offs you make.
Nikon's new Z 24-70mm F2.8 S promises a substantial size and weight reduction compared to its F-mount predecessor and a boost in optical quality. See how it performs in our sample gallery.
Comments