Menneisyys

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Sep 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 3649, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Decooler: Most of the sample reel stuff isnt from this machine at all, but from old original kodak Super 8 film footage,as the machine is newer than the footage!!

That said people still buy film cameras despite their cost and quality disadvantages. People still buy Leicas, new. Very Weird, and these very expensive gizmos will suit them well, as the film photographer is short of options for cinema, plus , as they haven't any projectors and the cassettes are therefore pointless, they get to see a digitized version of their little cinema.

DO old original Kodak Super 8 cassettes fit and work in these machines?

"DO old original Kodak Super 8 cassettes fit and work in these machines?"

Yeah.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

Vallkar: As per Kodak's website, many cinema films are Shot on Film. View the list.
https://www.kodak.com/GB/en/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

"A "dust spot" appears at the upper left about 48 sec into the film and persists."

Thanks for spotting it! It's the scanner: some dust has fallen from the film's surface to the scanner's diffusor and stayed there afterwards. Unfortunately, it pretty frequently happens in the first scan runs. (The one that also "cleans" the film.) I'll re-scan the film.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

Vallkar: As per Kodak's website, many cinema films are Shot on Film. View the list.
https://www.kodak.com/GB/en/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

BTW, I've scanned one of these GDR DEFA films, Nr. 196 "In der Sächsischen Schweiz" ("In the Saxon Switzerland"). This is a Regular (Normal) 8 scan (with the Somikon scanner) and is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Yl20Ayg4s

Note that I haven't post-processed the scan (lining up the frames so that there's no wobbling; normalizing brightness; cropping etc.)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron801: I don't really get a product like this... If I want the very best quality and flexibility with motion picture stuff, I'll get the latest and greatest 4k video cam that has all of the features for that. If I like the idea of shooting old super 8 film, it's likely because I have a nostalgic connection to it, in which case, I'm going to want an old, low-tech (by today's standards) camera. Not to mention the fact that even a really good one of these old cameras is likely to be really cheap, which will mean that I'll have plenty of money left over for the film and processing... which is going to be expensive.

I see a product like this attempting to be a couple of different things at once and failing at all of them; It's not going to be the best performing camera, nor is it going to satisfy a wish to use a medium that feels very vintage/retro...

If it was priced around $1000 (or less), I'd switch to it, particularly if the, by Kodak, promised advantages (larger image size, better film transfer etc) over older tech are true. With the current price, however, I'll stick with my Canon 1014XL-S. At least the latter has a proper viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Yes, it is unsharp. Yes, it has bad colors. Yes, it uses film, which costs a lot. Everything you need! Its like getting an old Masonite Lloyd to drive around in modern traffic. Kind of fun, maybe.

"But - this camera is not for free, neither is the film plus processing."

Yup - but they aren't that more expensive than back in the 80's. Back then, in today's price, film price was similar. (In Europe) higher-end brands were even more expensive than today's Kodak offerings. It's only the supercheap (but, in hindsight, pretty good!) East-German ORWO that was cheaper than today's Kodak films.

"You do not need to consider a cheap app. Some kind of semi pro program maybe?"

Dunno if an automated tool even exists.

And I've forgotten to add longevity. Even old (celluloid-based) 8mm may far outlive anything digital, assuming good-quality emulsion. For example, the (cheap) ORWO color Regular 8mm films I've shot 33+ years ago still have excellent colors and show absolutely no color tints. (This unfortunately isn't the case with the, then, in Europe, top-of-the-line AGFA films of the same age. My AGFA S8 films have lost almost entirely(!) their green components during these years.)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: Cognitive dissonance - I'm watching film on my computer, but then I'm not watching film ... Ah well - more fun in the new world.

Yup, digitized frames are still "real" Super8, with all its problems (wobbling, registration problems, dust etc.)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

Vallkar: As per Kodak's website, many cinema films are Shot on Film. View the list.
https://www.kodak.com/GB/en/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

(Nevertheless, they're 35mm (at least.) 8mm is strictly an amateur format - very few commercial titles have been directly shot on it. It wasn't even used for TV reporting - here, for example, 16mm was used for the daily news before switching to all-video.

Now, distributing commercial titles was very widespread on 8mm, even in the mid-80's. And not only full-length films but also shorter animated stuff and a lot of travel movies. For example, Germans have produced tons of the latter. I have an extensive library of old East-German DEFA films, released in the 50s...70s, introducing India and a lot of other countries / cultures. These films were released on both Regular8 and (after its introduction) Super8.

Before the war, in Germany, 16mm was the most common format for commercially distributed film. I don't even think 8mm was even used for home movie distribution.)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Menneisyys: Guys,

if you come to Finland (Helsinki or, for that matter, in Sonkajärvi during the World Wife Carrying Championships 2018) some time and you see a guy shooting with a 8mm film camera (a Canon 1014XL-S) - that'll most probably be me :) I plan to shoot Helsinki's 2018 events on Super 8.

OT:

"Such grace! Being carried upside down :) "

It's the most effective way. You can also do it with the wife sitting on one's shoulders / back - as is also depicted in the official logo of the games: https://eukonkanto.fi/media/2000/2000/1/0/1/25229/mm_LOGO_17.jpg . However, it's far less stable etc.

"Any injuries?"

Drops etc. are frequent. This is why almost all the women wear a bike hat.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: I'm just astonished by some of the comments here. People want to rush out and buy something that has no detailed technical spec to support it, appears to make small sized copies as jpegs, that are of unknown quality and there are no proper reviews of the product - that I'm aware of. Okay, maybe quality isn't an issue when you're buying cheap badged equipment to digitize endless numbers of so-so holiday snaps?

See the amazon.com reviews for all the other rebadges of the same scanner. It's no more - and no less. Perfectly adequate for holiday snaps - and nothing else.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Yes, it is unsharp. Yes, it has bad colors. Yes, it uses film, which costs a lot. Everything you need! Its like getting an old Masonite Lloyd to drive around in modern traffic. Kind of fun, maybe.

"And then ... why digitize?"

You CAN digitize to be absolutely safe. For storing a copy elsewhere to avoid losses due to fire / mold / etc. This is why my 8mm scanner is scanning one of my old family films while I'm tryping this next to my keyboard so that I can intervene if there is any problems during scanning. I've even uploaded an image of this, also showing this very topic, to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/38833402995/in/dateposted/

But you don't have to. You can always show your film with a regular, old-fashioned projector (if it's a reserval film, that is).

"What about phone apps that simulates 8 mm film?"

Getting the same effects is very hard to achieve if you really want THAT authentic 8mm look. A LOT of work is involved. Those cheapo apps just can't provide the same authentic look-and-feel as the real thing.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 22:03 UTC
In reply to:

Menneisyys: Guys,

if you come to Finland (Helsinki or, for that matter, in Sonkajärvi during the World Wife Carrying Championships 2018) some time and you see a guy shooting with a 8mm film camera (a Canon 1014XL-S) - that'll most probably be me :) I plan to shoot Helsinki's 2018 events on Super 8.

"Kärringkånk :)"

Yeah :) In previous years, I've shot it on video and stills. (See my 2014 montages of all participiants at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/albums/72157648232147455 if interested.) Now I'll add Super8 for absolute retroness :)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: What are they thinking??? Any smartphone takes movies better and easier than Super 8 ever did. I have no intension of ever again spending hours threading bits of film through and an editor then splicing them with splicing tape. The first thing most users will do is digitise their films anyway.

The 8mm community is still thriving. There's some magic involved in 8mm. At least *I* love shooting 8mm. It's fun and really retro.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:34 UTC

Guys,

if you come to Finland (Helsinki or, for that matter, in Sonkajärvi during the World Wife Carrying Championships 2018) some time and you see a guy shooting with a 8mm film camera (a Canon 1014XL-S) - that'll most probably be me :) I plan to shoot Helsinki's 2018 events on Super 8.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:32 UTC as 56th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

dr8: 40 years ago when I was shooting super 8 with my Nikon super zoom, the LAST thing I wanted was all that jerking & shaking of the camera. I guess that's an artsy thing though..... I guess I'm not an artist... :(

8mm indeed isn't very stable WRT film registration. Nevertheless, the new Kodak camera is stated to have a redesigned registration mechanism. We'll see how it works in the practice. I personally have high hopes it produces less shake than was the norm back in the S8 days.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: Cognitive dissonance - I'm watching film on my computer, but then I'm not watching film ... Ah well - more fun in the new world.

You can also use a projector as you also have the real film (unless it's negative and you don't want to have a positive copy made). This is how real fans of home films do their stuff. Just look around at http://8mmforum.film-tech.com - people use projectors to watch old (mostly commercial) films instead of just purchasing them on DVD / BD / whatever and watching on contemporary AV hardware. It's just more fun - and RETRO.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

tedolf: I can't understand this.

Why would somebody want to do this?

TEdolph

It's just fun to shoot film when everybody else uses video. Particularly if one has shot a lot of film back in the day (like me).

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

Brian P Smith: This company just has to stop and give up.

Please.

"Camera is too expensive but they use old ones."

It definitely is. Kodak should have marketed the new camera at around $1000 or lower. At this price point, it's DOA for most (previous) film fans like me. Why should we pay $2000+ for the new Kodak when we can get a, say, Canon 1014XL-S for $600 in very good condition? (Assuming we won't want to swap lenses.)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Yes, it is unsharp. Yes, it has bad colors. Yes, it uses film, which costs a lot. Everything you need! Its like getting an old Masonite Lloyd to drive around in modern traffic. Kind of fun, maybe.

It definitely is. I, who shot tons of family / travel stuff on 8mm in the 80's (before the video cameras), plan to re-start shooting on Super8, with my newly-acquired, top-condition Canon 1014XL-S. It's just fun to shoot film when everybody else uses video.

I'd certainly welcome a more accessible film developing service, particularly here in Europe (Finland).

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

EssexAsh: Perfectly good 14mp film scanners like this are ten a penny. Not sure why this one justifies the price

As I've pointed out in another post, the sliding screen is a big plus because of the very bad viewing angles of these screens. (At least on my 14 Mpixel scanner.) Then, you won't need to raise the front of the scanner to be able to make out what's on the screen.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: I bought a similar machine 5 years a go (German brand). It had a 9MP sensor, but even at the highest quality setting, the saved JPEGs were were heavily compressed, ranging in size from 900K to 1.2MB. Basically, very poor IQ. So I'm not really sure what this sentence for the Kodak means: "Content is scanned as 14MP JPEGs, though users can enlarge the resolution up to 22MP."

This unit is MUCH better. These 14 Mpixel devices produce 1.5 Mbyte images, which also means they exhibit far less compression artifacts.

Of course, for professiona(!) work they're unsuited (mainly because of the limited DR and the slight cropping) but I've had excellent results for scanning my old and definitely lo-fi film rolls. (Back then, in the eighties, I didn't know much of the right technique of photography to produce as good images as possible...)

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 17:48 UTC
Total: 3649, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »