Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak to launch new Super 8 camera

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Kodak to launch new Super 8 camera (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Kodak to launch new Super 8 camera

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 01-08-2016 07:39 AM

They are proposing Max 8 image to take up the area occupied by the former sound track to create a 16.9 widescreen image.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 01-08-2016 01:45 PM

quote: Emeil de Jong
I understood Kodak sends you a file of the scanned film, I guess they will provide some software that can add the audio from the SD card to that file.

The camera appears to have a flip-open video viewfinder, like 1990s camcorders. Therefore, there must be a video imaging device in this thing as well as the film gate. I wonder if it records both video and audio onto the SD card, so that the owner can use it as a video camera when (s)he is too skint to afford film rolls, or for rehearsal shots before a take, and/or as a video assist to review a shot after the take but before processing?

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-08-2016 03:53 PM

quote: Emiel De Jong
I understood Kodak sends you a file of the scanned film, I guess they will provide some software that can add the audio from the SD card to that file.
But (no, I am definitely not thinking from a practical viewpoint here ;-) it would be totally cool indeed if they would use digital technology to make sound on film! It is possible to print in camera a tiny optical analog track on the side, or, mini dolby digital... Then imagine this super8 projector with little reverse scan soundhead...

quote: Richard Fowler
They are proposing Max 8 image to take up the area occupied by the former sound track to create a 16.9 widescreen image.

Most people I know do not understand that picture and sound are two separate entities that are married together at the time of presentation/viewing to create the illusion of seamless image and sound.

If this new camera does not, somehow, tackle this problem it will be a resounding flop!

Even your lowly "iThingy" automatically records sound and picture. Who, in their right mind, would buy something as expensive as this new camera if it doesn't record sound and play it back seamlessly?

Using some form of LED to digitally create a soundtrack on the film at the time of the recording would be the way to go.

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013

posted 01-08-2016 04:30 PM

Randy, I'm really sympathetic to your point of view, but on-film sound recording can't be done in a camera that small with a standard-shaped Super 8 cartridge. The geometry is difficult because the sound needs to be about 4 inches advanced from the image.

The use of the Max 8 gate precludes on-film sound recording, as already noted.

The reason this might not be a resounding failure is because, since mag sound on camera film went away, nobody has had the ability you describe. It's ALWAYS double-system or silent. What this camera can do is create a sound file that perfectly locks with the film image, including shot lengths, right out of the camera. I have dozens of rolls of Super 8 footage shot 5 - 10 years ago, all with digitally recorded sound, that still are unedited and unprojectable to this day: all of the sound is wild and 3/4s of it is still uncut. It's very do-able, just takes time. The portions I've finished work perfectly. So if the camera eliminates all that lining up and trimming, it's definitely a leg up.

So with what Kodak has here, you potentially could even project a roll right from the lab with locked sound, using the pulse-sync capabilities of an Elmo GS-1200 projector, or that of certain Bauer models. That would require no more prep than identifying where the starting frame is.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-08-2016 05:01 PM

quote: Bill Brandenstein
The use of the Max 8 gate precludes on-film sound recording, as already noted.

I get it.

That still doesn't negate the need for some kind of synched sound. How can it be done? Time code on the film?

A single synch point at the beginning probably won't do.
What happens when the camera is stopped between shots/takes?

There would have to be a synch blip at the beginning of every shot.

What will happen if the film is cut and spliced?

Or? Is this whole system meant only for filming then scaning, the rest of the work to be done entirely in digital space?

That would be a waste. Wouldn't it?

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 01-08-2016 05:14 PM

I think that is basically what Kodak is after.

They propose the 'film look' + the advanced digital editing capabilities. Then if you still want to project, you can.

If they wouldn't take this approach, they would also have to make and sell film + sound editing and projection gear.

No, they propose what some Hollywood big boys like J.J. Abrams do.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-08-2016 07:42 PM

oOdak received a BEst Of Show Award at CES for the introduction of the camera which is apparently going to be made by Logmar in Denmark.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-08-2016 08:34 PM

Unless this is aimed at Aunt Millie, internal sound recording seems like it would largely be a waste. Anyone using it professionally or semi-professionally would record sound separately using a Sound Devices/Zaxcom/Nagra/etc. recorder, which will be easier to use, provide better sound quality, and allow the soundman to move about without being connected to the cameraman with cables.

Also, the 50' roll of film would be kind of limiting for sync sound shooting, anyway. I can't really imagine doing a doc-style interview where I had to stop every two and a half minutes to reload the camera.

Does this camera even run silently?

Again, I don't mean to dump on this too much, since I am in favor of anything that keeps film alive for production and/or exhibition, but I still don't see the point of this. For the occasional music video or commercial that needs the super-8 look, millions of cameras already exist. For "serious" film-making, 16mm is a far more practical format that can be used for about the same price as s8.

Edit: if an internal syncing mechanism is needed, they could borrow some technology of the 1970s, using a small light bulb (probably an LED now) inside the camera that would flash briefly at the start of each take to fog a frame or two of film at the same time when a beep is recorded on the separate soundtrack. This would be just as easy to sync in post as a regular slate. Aaton and Arri both have timecode-on-film systems, but they seem overly complicated for this purpose and require special equipment to be read in telecine. For those reasons, they are not commonly used.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-08-2016 11:16 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
Again, I don't mean to dump on this too much, since I am in favor of anything that keeps film alive for production and/or exhibition, but I still don't see the point of this. For the occasional music video or commercial that needs the super-8 look, millions of cameras already exist. For "serious" film-making, 16mm is a far more practical format that can be used for about the same price as s8.

Like Scott, I don't want to dump on it, either but if it doesn't have any kind of sound sync or sound-on-film features, I figure it would be a waste to spend the estimated $400 to $750 to buy one of these cameras when I can just use the Bolex that I already own. I can just use my digital audio recorder and sync it with a clap stick made from a couple of rulers and a stove bolt.

But... Then, again, if this camera takes off, that means that there will be more places that process film. Right? [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Emiel De Jong
Film Handler

Posts: 48
From: Geldrop The Netherlands
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 01-09-2016 04:34 AM

To sync the sound from the SD card with the scanned images afterwards the only thing is needed that for every new shot some marker is recorded with the sound. Start and end of the roll can be tricky when, like in the old days, some frames from start and end are cut in the lab. But, unless the roll is used for one continuous take, the length of the different shots on it should provide all the information that is needed for some simple software to sync this sound automatically.
I agree with Scott that for a professional filmmaker 16mm is in every aspect more practical. This "new" super8 system will be just a lot of fun to play with. I like very much the sheer improbability of this whole project in this day and age.
I think back of the days I started filmmaking in the '80's when all normal people were putting their super8 gear down in favor of video8 and VHS videocameras which offered shitty images but also sound to go with them. Sound was the big problem for super8, the sound-on-film cartridges were expensive and editing possibilities limited. I was tinkering with this modified Uher recorder from hell that should synchronize its perforated tape to the camera. For years I had to explain to everyone why I still preferred to shoot on film.
And now in 2016, when seemingly every effort has been taken worldwide to kill film in general, super 8 is back! With sound sync problems! Oh yeah...

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 01-09-2016 11:49 AM

quote: Emiel de Jong
To sync the sound from the SD card with the scanned images afterwards the only thing is needed that for every new shot some marker is recorded with the sound.

Maybe Kodak is trying to encourage the return of another "retro" technology ... ?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-09-2016 12:49 PM

That's not at all far fetched because you will need a slate of some sort to use with this camera because it records audio on a micro SD card for later syncing in post editing.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013

posted 01-09-2016 07:16 PM

I really don't understand what the big deal is. We already know from the specs that the camera has crystal sync, so sample rate and shutter rate are locked together. Next, if it puts a wave file on the SD card with start and stop timed by your trigger, there is no post-production sync work to be done other than to slide the wave file into place in your video NLE. Why wouldn't Kodak make this so the cut is done by your index finger? What isn't clear is if there's a file for each shot, or if it's a file per roll. If the latter, it would be just as simple for there to be a marker placed in the file at the start of each shot - wave file markers have been around for decades.

I think the bigger problem is camera noise. Sync, no issue.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-09-2016 07:32 PM

quote: Bill Brandenstein
What isn't clear is if there's a file for each shot, or if it's a file per roll. If the latter, it would be just as simple for there to be a marker placed in the file at the start of each shot - wave file markers have been around for decades.

That would only work if the camera motor could go from 0 fps to 24 fps (and back) instantaneously. Cameras don't do that, and the run-up and run-down time would cause sync to drift slightly from shot to shot. I suppose that it would be possible to design the camera to have a carefully calibrated run-up and run-down time and to design the sound recording system to take this into account and add or drop a specific number of samples for each take to account for this, but I really doubt that they are doing this on a sub-$1k device.

I still say that internal sound recording is a pointless feature, especially on a camera that can only shoot 50' of film before needing to be reloaded.

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013

posted 01-09-2016 09:04 PM

Scott, that is truly a good point. When I do pulse-sync stuff I always have to add 2 frames' worth of audio in spite of the fact that the motor doesn't sound like it takes all that long to spring to life. A camera motor would be better, but even a quarter-frame delay added up over many shots would make a mess.

Well then.

I suppose this is intended for the pro-sumer crowd, or the trendy Millennials who like retro stuff like vinyl, as much as people who like film. And I agree, Scott, I'm probably not going to want to use the built-in mic if I can at all possibly opt for something better.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.