Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

[carllooper]

With digital there are as yet no cameras with interchangable sensors (more's the pity) so the research into improving the image via the sensor will mean upgrading the camera every so often.

It is only because consumers have neither the desire, nor capability (creative, technical, economic) to build their own digital cameras that this is the case.

For a little while you could in fact purchase digital backs for SLR cameras. But it is the sad fact that most consumers just don't want to be technicians. They don't want to understand how a camera works.

The consumer wants ready-made solutions. Consider Super8 cameras. They connect a camera aperture to an internal light meter. For the consumers of the day this was a great thing. For a technician like myself it is absolutely horrible.

The real problem is not the manufacturers as such but simply the mass of consumers (real or imagined) who want their technology to solve the problems. The manufacturers attempt to solve those problems. But for themselves (the manufacturers) they have evolved a much better system - interchangeable components, competition, research and development - but this can't be exported to the consumer because the consumer doesn't want it. They might say they do but when push comes to shove they don't. They want someone else to do it (the manufacturer). And therein is the problem.

But as a consumer turned quasi-manufacturer one can in fact assemble a digital camera from various components, including a choice of sensors, housings, lenses, etc.

In fact it has never been easier to do that.

Film technology emerged (indeed was invented) by gifted DIY artist/technicians. And propogated out from such because there was a far greater prevalance of DIY attitudes in society at that time. But it quickly became obvious that there was an even greater prevalence of those with no interest in DIY. The technology quickly "improved" into what these consumers wanted rather than what technicians could create.

Consider the Apple marketing idea that went something like this: "instead of you having to think like a machine, here's a machine that thinks like you".

Or that great sequence of ads between "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC". And what was supposedly great about an Apple? Well it didn't have "syntax errors".

But what is a syntax error?

Well a syntax error is a mistake that a software developer can make while writing software. The "syntax error" notification notifies the developer when they made a typo in their code. It is a very useful message. The developer can work out from the message why their program isn't working. The developer (not the computer) has made a syntax error. As a developer you want such error messages. They help you complete the task of writing software that will work. Indeed the software won't work at all if you have a syntax error. But Apple turns this around (cleverly) and positions the error as an error the machine makes. Apple computers don't have syntax errors. Indeed they don't. But then neither do PCs.

In the digital age there has been inversions between consumer and producer. The Social Network is based on a simple idea (and by no means originating with Facebook) that the consumer be repositioned as the producer. This very forum operates in that way. The forum itself (the software running this forum) is based on the idea that we - the users - will produce the content.

This differs entirely from the "professional" paradigm introduced in the early 20th century where the amateur - until then highly respected - was repositioned as "non-professional". The term"professional" was invented to exclude the amateur. Only professional filmmakers were allowed to make proper films. Amateurs made "home movies". An entire language emerged around this completely artificial and anti-competitive distinction. This was a direct consequence of making consumer oriented film technology. Fear.

[CinemanUK]

Respectfully, this is historically incorrect. The very existence of super 8 was to replace regular 8. Ever try to put a super 8 cart in a regular 8 camera? Can you honestly say that super 8 has superior image quality compared to regular 8? Do all super 8 cameras handle Vision 200 stock? E64 stock?

Kodak might have intended that Super8 replace Regular 8, but the fact of the matter is that they did not succeed, and they did not succeed because other film manufacturers/suppliers were able to continue to (and still do) supply Regular 8 film. It should also be noted that Kodak continued to make Regular 8mm film available, and it has never been impossible to obtain Regular 8 film, There are many users who are able to continue to use their Regular 8 cameras even today. What I said, therefore, is quite correct.

How do they force you to buy something you don't want? I still have a tube type VHS camera that works perfectly fine if I felt it had good enough quality. And, if it ever stops working, I can certainly get another one on ebay just as you can buy another Canon 1014 on ebay.

Speaking from personal experience, they achieve the goal of continuing sales and profit by imposing a limited life on support, and by the fact that it is rarely possible to upgrade a camera in order to implement the results of research and development. Can you upgrade your VHS camera? Of course not. Neither can you upgrade 8mm video cameras, or Hi8 cameras. However, we have been able to "upgrade" film cameras by the introduction of add on equipment such as anamophic lenses, or by adapting to film in Super 16, and, of course, by improvements to filmstock. We have not had to replace cameras in order to achieve these "upgrades". To these, one can add improvements to filmstock.

Power? No. But certainly they have a desire to sell you something new. This was no different when super 8 manufacturers did what they could to maintain their market share in the face of Betamax home video cameras. The advent of home video was probably THE driving force behind the increase in more and more sophistication in super 8 cameras. I'd say we owe a lot to the home video camera manufacturers of the late 70s and early 80s. It has provided us with an unprecedented number of groovy super 8 cameras that otherwise would probably never have come about without the influence of electronic competition.

You must excuse me if I say that this is the first time I have seen it claimed that the increasing sophistication of Super8 cameras is owed to the manufacturers of video cameras. I have to say that I have some doubts about whether you are correct. My first cine camera (a Regular 8mm which I still have and which is still working) had automatic exposure and an excellent zoom lense long before consumer video cameras were on the market and I think the increasing sophistaction was rather more attributable to the desire of those who could afford to pay higher prices being prepared to do so in order to get a "better" camera - rather like people buying cars welcome a number of models within a particular range.

Ever try to put a sound cart in a silent super 8 camera? Just because a manufacturer comes out with something new does not mean you have to abandon what you already have. Ebay is a wonderland of choices, both new and old. The fact that we are discussing this on a super 8 forum undermines your position that we are forced to buy into something new.

I am not sure why the production of sound cartridges was discontinued, but the fact that they were never prevented silent film cartridges being loaded, and so the discontinuance did not require any cinematographer to dispose of his camera. Alternative and arguably better sound recording systems were certainly developed and it may simply have been the case that these came to be increasingly preferred. Try putting an 8mm video tape into a VHS camera. Of course one cannot, but it illustrates the comparison.

Similarly, I am not sure I understand the point you seek make in relation to this subject being discussed on a "Super8 forum". The Forum is described as "small gauge film forum" and the topic is explicitly embraces both Super8 and 16mm. You may remember that the point on which I engaged you was your assertion in your message dated 23 March 2011 that "Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced. My point was simply that I disagreed with you and put forward the argument that research and development money goes to power the roundabout of designed obselence. With respect nothing you have said serves to disprove this.

[carllooper]

I am not sure why the production of sound cartridges was discontinued, but the fact that they were never prevented silent film cartridges being loaded, and so the discontinuance did not require any cinematographer to dispose of his camera. Alternative and arguably better sound recording systems were certainly developed and it may simply have been the case that these came to be increasingly preferred. Try putting an 8mm video tape into a VHS camera. Of course one cannot, but it illustrates the comparison.

This argument is on somewhat shaky grounds. One could just as easily argue, along exactly the same lines, with:

Try putting Regular8 film into a Super8 camera. Of course one cannot.

So what point is being illustrated by 8mm video tape and VHS camera that couldn't be illustrated by Regular8 and Super8?

Nothing really. Except that using film technology for the illustration could undermine the overall defense of film technology. Film technology is good but not because it was any better at "backwards compatibility" than video and later, digital technologies.

Indeed digital technology emerges, if only in concept, as a direct response to the idea (or ideal) of universal compatibility.

But like film technology, digital also has it's origin across a number of DIY projects. Babbages difference engine. Or the hackers of the Enigma Code in WWII. They built their own computers. The industrial exploitation of these DIY ideas was a secondary effect.

When I first encountered computers you bought them as a DIY kit and assembled them yourself. The output device for such systems were blinking lights. Look at the way computers were still being represented in films such as the first Alien film (1979). To communicate with the spaceship's computer, called "Mother", you sat in a sat in a room of blinking lights. There was, however, a screen but all it displayed was a command line prompt interface, in which letters slowly appeared to the sound of a teletype machine.

Carl

[MovieStuff]

Kodak might have intended that Super8 replace Regular 8,

"Might"?

...but the fact of the matter is that they did not succeed...

Oh but they did! Kodak succeeded at replacing regular 8 with super 8 as well as digital video replaced analog video. Just as no one was forced to buy super 8 to replace their regular 8, no one was forced to buy a digital video camera to replace their analog video camera. It seems important to you that video camera manufacturers drop support for their product line after X number of years while ignoring that Elmo, Bauer, Canon, Eumig, Fujica, Yashica, Beaulieu, Bolex, etc all did the same thing. I am in my mid-50's and I worked in a retail camera store in my youth for years. All these companies dropped support for one model as soon as the next model came out.

The fact that you can put new film in an old film camera is about as relevant to this discussion as being able to put a brand new VHS tape in a circa 1980s VHS camcorder. What does that prove? Neither the VHS camcorder manufacturer nor the super 8 camera manufacturer currently provide support for their old product line.

Speaking from personal experience, they achieve the goal of continuing sales and profit by imposing a limited life on support,

As did all the super 8 camera manufacturers during their day. Again, you make a distinction without a difference.

Can you upgrade your VHS camera? Of course not. Neither can you upgrade 8mm video cameras, or Hi8 cameras.

Nor super 8 cameras nor regular 8 cameras.

However, we have been able to "upgrade" film cameras by the introduction of add on equipment such as anamophic lenses,

You can add an anamorphic lens to any camera, whether video or film. Sorry. Weak example.

or by adapting to film in Super 16,

How would you make a super 16 camera out of an Elmo 1012 super 8 camera? Oh, that's right. You'd have to replace your obsolete super 8 camera for a superior 16mm camera. ;)

Look, you can no more make an "improvement" to a super 8 camera than you can to video camera. And a removable lens is actually more common on video cameras than super 8 cameras.

and, of course, by improvements to filmstock.

Which costs as much or more to shoot in volume that it would cost to upgrade to another video camera that has better imagery. Sorry, but to keep casually leaving economics out of the equation is getting a bit obtuse. You present your argument as if film were cheap to shoot and video was expensive when, in fact, just the opposite is true.

We have not had to replace cameras in order to achieve these "upgrades".

Of course you do. You can't load 16mm film into a super 8 camera nor super 8 film into an 8mm camera. So if you are shooting in 8mm and want the features of the latest and greatest super 8 camera, then you have to buy the super 8 cameras. If you want 16mm quality, then you will have to replace your Super 8 camera with a 16mm camera.

To these, one can add improvements to filmstock.

So all super 8 cameras handle Vision 200? E64?

You must excuse me if I say that this is the first time I have seen it claimed that the increasing sophistication of Super8 cameras is owed to the manufacturers of video cameras. I have to say that I have some doubts about whether you are correct. My first cine camera (a Regular 8mm which I still have and which is still working) had automatic exposure and an excellent zoom lense long before consumer video cameras were on the market

I never referred to zoom lenses and auto exposure as sophisticated features. I am talking about things like studio quiet operation like you find in the last model Nizos, multiple exposure and lap dissolve capabilities, microprocessor control, electronic shutter control, etc. These are the sorts of things that camera manufacturers started putting into their super 8 cameras in the last years to try and maintain their market share against the coming onslaught of home video. I know for a fact that this is the case because I went to countless seminars sponsored by Elmo, Canon, Bolex and the such where they addressed this strategy in great detail. Believe me, if home video was not on the horizon, super 8 manufacturers would have trickled out the features across as many future models as they could. This trend is not unique to the electronics industry.

...and I think the increasing sophistaction was rather more attributable to the desire of those who could afford to pay higher prices being prepared to do so in order to get a "better" camera

But I thought this approach was unique to the dastardly video camera manufacturers. ;)

I am not sure why the production of sound cartridges was discontinued, but the fact that they were never prevented silent film cartridges being loaded, and so the discontinuance did not require any cinematographer to dispose of his camera.

But, of course, that isn't the argument I was making, was it?

I asked if you could put a SOUND CART in a SILENT camera. You can't. Which means if you want to shoot on sound film, you had to replace your obsolete silent camera and get the latest, greatest sound camera. If the silent cameras could have accepted sound carts, then it would cut into future sound camera sales because they knew a large number of people would not necessarily want location sound but would want to add music and narration. Short of having their film striped (a service that Kodak offered at additional cost, of course), they would have to buy another camera to have a built in sound stripe on their film.

It is important in your argument to realize that Kodak had planned on the eventual implementation of sound from the very first days of super 8 design. The camera manufacturers knew this and could have made their silent cameras to accept future sound carts but didn't for the very same built-in obsolescence that you seem to feel is unique to the video industry but not the film industry.

Try putting an 8mm video tape into a VHS camera. Of course one cannot, but it illustrates the comparison.

Kind of like trying to put a super 8 cart into an 8mm camera? ;)

Similarly, I am not sure I understand the point you seek make in relation to this subject being discussed on a "Super8 forum".

Sorry. It used to be called "Shooting8mm". I stand corrected in my reference to the forum but not in my position about the easy availability of both film and video cameras in the used market. You can replace a broken video camera just as easily as you can replace a broken film camera. Thus no one is "forced" to buy into the next format if they don't want. You can still shoot and edit with VHS decks if you so desire.

You may remember that the point on which I engaged you was your assertion in your message dated 23 March 2011 that "Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced. My point was simply that I disagreed with you and put forward the argument that research and development money goes to power the roundabout of designed obselence. With respect nothing you have said serves to disprove this.

Of course it does. Unless, of course, you actually feel that R&D on consumer HD was completed in the late 70s and that the camera manufacturers have been "holding back" all this time. If not, then you have to admit that R&D goes to improving image quality to capture and maintain market share. If I am wrong, then the image quality of neither film nor video would get any better over the years.

Also, let's be clear about something that you seem to confuse: The makers of "film" are not the same as the makers of "film cameras". That you can still put new film in an old camera that still works proves about as much as me putting a new VHS tape in an old camcorder that still works. This says nothing about the ethics of video camera manufacturers compared to film camera manufacturers. They both drop support of their product when the next model comes out.

Roger

[Phillip Rhodes]

Super 8 is now a by-product of 35mm (stills/motion) production. What will finally kill off Super 8 will be the end of 35mm.

I would imagine that for every foot of Super 8 produced, thousands of feet of 35mm film are manufactured. Once Hollywood finally switches to all digital production then it will become uneconomical to manufacture 35mm and thereafter Super 8 (and 16mm) will finally disappear.

Just look at stills photography: First there were digital compact cameras, then Digital SLRs, and now every other mobile phone is fitted with a camera. We take more photographs each day now in the 21st century than were taken in the first hundred years of photography. As each day passes and new digital photographic technology is introduced we become further divorced from traditional film. Some long established photographic retailers no longer stock film, let alone film cameras.

The reason why Super 8 has become less popular is down to cost. It has nothing to do with quality or convenience. Super 8 has a magical quality that even in this age of digital video it is still appreciated. We don't even concern ourselves that we have to send our Super 8 cartridges across vast distances.

You can buy a decent Super 8 camera on eBay for £1.99!!! But that first Super 8 cartridge will set you back £12 - double that if you include processing and triple that if you include telecine. All for less than three minutes of footage!

For Super 8 to survive it has to reinvent itself. The selling point of the format should be its inherent quality, but price will always be a barrier. Forget Super 8 projectors. Telecine is that future. Then again, you can always shoot digitally and add a Super 8 film-look filter in post-production, but we all know that it's not the same.

The price of film has to come down. Lower film prices equates more sales, and more sales equates more processing, which should equate lower processing costs. I honestly don't think that we will see Super 8 film processing and telecine made available on every high street. The only way to keep Super 8 alive is to lower film prices, and everything else will fall into place.

And if Kodak can offer students hefty discounts then they should be able to offer the same discounts to the rest of us, or (a) are they not make any profit from selling to students, or (b) are those not in further education subsidising students? I have to add that I have nothing against with students.

DSLR are not the terminator for Super 8. The terminator is the cost of the film. Please take note KODAK!!!

[carllooper]

I would imagine that for every foot of Super 8 produced, thousands of feet of 35mm film are manufactured. Once Hollywood finally switches to all digital production then it will become uneconomical to manufacture 35mm and thereafter Super 8 (and 16mm) will finally disappear.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Certainly film manufacturers will need to downscale, shutting plants - as Kodak did in Australia many years ago.

But it won't be for lack of silver (as was once feared).

While the big end of town moves across into the digital domain, leaving behind all of their "old" technology, there is also a new group of people willing and able to move in to pick up bargains - 35mm cameras on ebay - as another thread noted.

It will be a different market but a market nevertheless. Film manufacturers could adapt to this smaller niche market if they were so inclined. Or other players might enter the space but with smaller boutique manufacturing setups.

I don't know what the real cost of manufacturing film is, but so long as there is demand there is the opportunity for supply. Costs could climb. They could also fall. It just depends on how well a manufacturer can optimise their supply. For all I know Kodak supply chains could have been so well optimised over the years thast it costs them next to nothing to make filmstock no matter how small they make themsleves.

Who knows. I certainly don't.

But in 2007 Kodak was predicting about 10 years left in film, and considering selling off their film business by about 2010.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 343516.ece

So no doubt they will eventually call it quits - but the important point is that they would sell it rather than just dump it. Its in their interest to do that. And it would be in the interest of a buyer to scale the business down to the demand meaning that prices need not rise and if well done could even drop a little.

It really depends on the film community.

Carl

[aj]

You can buy a decent Super 8 camera on eBay for £1.99!!! But that first Super 8 cartridge will set you back £12 - double that if you include processing and triple that if you include telecine. All for less than three minutes of footage!

For Super 8 to survive it has to reinvent itself. The selling point of the format should be its inherent quality, but price will always be a barrier. Forget Super 8 projectors. Telecine is that future. Then again, you can always shoot digitally and add a Super 8 film-look filter in post-production, but we all know that it's not the same.

The price of film has to come down.

A fleamarket find is hardly a price reference. A refurbished A-model Super-8 will cost some Euro 1000-2000. The much wanted newly built would likely costs around Euro 5000.

Considering filmprice you need to look at the current high price of silver and when comparing with 30 years ago there was some inflation like a factor 10 if not more. Best would be to apply a Levi-jeans index.
A list price (ex tax) as mentioned elsewhere of $11.50 for a tri-x is really really cheap.

Unfortunately this price is not available outside USA. Unless the dollar becomes a dime

[CinemanUK]

If not, then you have to admit that R&D goes to improving image quality to capture and maintain market share.

Finally we have it!

Your original claim was :

Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced.

It was your original claim with which I disagreed . Manufacturers have not invested vast sums in research and development merely to improve image quality which is what you asserted. It was to maintain income and profitability, which is what I claimed in my first response when I said "R & D is driven by the need for more and more sales....".

[Phillip Rhodes]

Just because Super 8, 16mm and now 35mm camera kit has become affordable through the likes of eBay, doesn't mean that new owners of old kit have the same spending power as the studios. If I can afford to buy a decent Super 8 camera for a few pounds but cannot afford the film, It goes without saying that I cannot afford 16mm or 35mm film.

Regarding the price of silver going through the roof. I'm old enough to remember silver doubling in price in the 1970s. Accordingly the price of black and white photographic paper doubled over night! Thing is, the amount of silver in a pack of 100 sheets of 10" x 8" was worth around 2p - which increased to 4p. So why double the price of paper?

The problem with the price of Super 8 film is that there are too many vendors who are making a few quid here and there. Me banging the drum demanding that Kodak smell the coffee and realise that not everyone is either a student or has the film paid for them by a client, has only antagonised those with a vested interest in keeping prices high.

The only way for Super 8 to survive and flourish is for prices to come down. Then and only then will more people experiment with Super 8.

[Will2]

The only way for Super 8 to survive and flourish is for prices to come down. Then and only then will more people experiment with Super 8.

Probably right but I also think a little marketing and simplifying of the process might go a long way.

If Kodak or even a transfer house (like Moviestuff) offered complete packages with simple 1, 2, 3 instructions on how to shoot film and have it returned to them processed and transferred on a data DVD ready to edit that might grab the attention of more football (soccer) moms and dads and possibly drive some sales.

You'd also need the right publicity/PR with stories on morning TV shows about film still being alive and "now there's a place that makes it easy."

We've talked about it before and I guess it boiled down to no one making or supporting the cameras anymore as well as the expense.

[aj]

If Kodak or even a transfer house (like Moviestuff) offered complete packages with simple 1, 2, 3 instructions on how to shoot film and have it returned to them processed and transferred on a data DVD ready to edit that might grab the attention of more football (soccer) moms and dads and possibly drive some sales.

I thought Dwayne's was offering such a service. And they do Ektachrome at a nice price

More modern would be if the lab would do a teleciné and post the rolls for three months on a private webserver or use a site like smugmug.com The hosting wouldn't cost that much. Shipping a disk could be an extra service.

And of course then there should be a steady source for known good and tested S8 cameras. Not at Euro 1000+ but more like Euro 200-400. But then somebody need to do the work for that amount Until now seems that most want to drive a Mercedes off this work

[Will2]

More modern would be if the lab would do a teleciné and post the rolls for three months on a private webserver or use a site like smugmug.com The hosting wouldn't cost that much. Shipping a disk could be an extra service.

I like this.

I thought Dwayne's was offering such a service.

I guess they do, but they need a web page that lays it out simply and clearly, like "Super 8 for Dummies." And they should have a one price kit that comes with film, simple instructions & even a return mailer. Now you kind of buy each service separately. Of course once you see that all-in-one price you might get scared away.

[MovieStuff]

If not, then you have to admit that R&D goes to improving image quality to capture and maintain market share.

Finally we have it!

Your original claim was :

Thus the R&D money goes into more advances in digital to bridge that quality gap for the unconvinced.

It was your original claim with which I disagreed .

Which is why you were wrong. The "unconvinced" will not buy the new digital product if they think that film is still better. So the R&D is used to make the product better so that the previously unconvinced will be convinced and make the switch to digital. Do you really not understand this concept?

Manufacturers have not invested vast sums in research and development merely to improve image quality which is what you asserted.

But I didn't. Why you feel the need to misrepresent what I clearly stated is beyond me. I said that where goes the market share, so goes the money for R&D to improve the quality of the product that services that market. The goal is ALWAYS to sell more product. To suggest that any commercial company, film or digital, uses R&D to just to make something better for altruistic reasons is stupid, which is why I never said nor implied that (unless, of course, you conveniently leave out my entire quote.)

It was to maintain income and profitability, which is what I claimed in my first response when I said "R & D is driven by the need for more and more sales....".

Oh for fuck's sake. You can't even quote yourself correctly. Your position was that R&D is used to create new systems that FORCE people to abandon their old systems. You could not be more wrong. R&D is used to increase the quality of the product to entice people to make the switch. You can spend all the money you want on R&D but you can not force people to drop an older system for a newer system.

This conversation is stupid. I'm out.

Roger

[carllooper]

Oh for fuck's sake. This conversation is stupid. I'm out.

Roger sustained the best argument as far as I'm concerned.

My takeway from the Roger/CinemanUK debate is that unless you can defend film with defensible arguments (or otherwise don't care - in which case there is no argument) then you'll probably find it a lot easier on your nerves and pocket to use digital instead.

Digital is great anyway. It has so many things going for it - whether this is a result of evil capitalist conspiracies or otherwise.

In the end analysis I don't think film making should be defined in terms of whether digital is good, bad or somewhere in between. Film making has it's own history and reasons for having been, and continuing to be.

Carl

[Pj]

This has turned into quite a thread; a lot of things have been discussed here. Sticking to the original topic, I think the main thing is that the trend these days for most people for whatever reasons, be they economic, simplicity or aesthetics choose to shoot personal and professional projects on digital systems such as DSLR’s. On the other hand some people prefer to shoot their material on film, again for whatever reasons. The important thing is that we have a choice we can shoot film or digital, soon we won't have this choice.

In the increasingly congested world of independent filmmaking it's more important now than ever before for a filmmakes to stand out if they want continue working in their chosen field. Super 8 and 16mm is an ideal way for emerging filmmakers to get noticed in these interesting, competitive and challenging times.

P