The end is near.

[grainy]

...Sure it's more expensive than digital, if you don't include having to rebuy your entire technology every third year....

But you don't. If you are satisfied with the results of any technology, whether film or digital, you don't have to ever move to anything else unless what you prefer is simply too expensive to favor.

Roger

or unless your electronic device die in a very few years...

yes miki! Or the old electronics just stink compared to the new status quo -- a linear video editing rig from"86 is obsolete for good reason - it's a pain to use and NLE systems are better.

[super8man]

Tim, I forgot to mention, yes, they are digitally processed...I am pretty sure everything is these days...once the negs are processed, they are scanned and printed...I think you would be hard pressed to see the difference (B&W excepted since there are so many variables in the paper choices, interpretation, etc. For color, it's pretty much (once color balanced) right or wrong (and yeah there are interpretations here too but they are distinctly different than those for B&W).

Cheers,
Mike

[BAC]

And now, the end is near,
And so I face the final curtain.
My friends, I'll say it clear;
I'll state my case of which I'm certain.

I've lived a life that's full -
I've travelled each and every highway.
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Johhny Rotten's rendition of this song is ironic because the lines of the song are not his. If we interpret the words as something Rotten agreed with - that doing something his own way was important (and it has this sense) - then it's not at the level of lyric writing - since they are not his lyrics. It would be in terms of the way his version differs from Sinatra's version - ie. that it is a punk version of the song.

There is also a tragic aspect here - that life is over. And for Rotten that would turn out to be the actual case not much later.

But there is also a defeatism and fatalism going on here. While celebrating life and individualism (ironically or otherwise) there is also an embrace of death - that it's somehow okay to embrace death, especially when you've done it your way.

The only problem with your post is that Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) is very much alive. In fact, as recently as last year he performed with Public Image Ltd. (PIL). I think you meant Sid Vicious who died of a heroin overdose in 1979 not long after murdering his girlfriend. Otherwise the rest of your post was flawless.

[MovieStuff]

...Sure it's more expensive than digital, if you don't include having to rebuy your entire technology every third year....

But you don't. If you are satisfied with the results of any technology, whether film or digital, you don't have to ever move to anything else unless what you prefer is simply too expensive to favor.

Roger

or unless your electronic device die in a very few years...

Then go on ebay and get another just like it. That's what we do with super 8 cameras that die. I used to have an old Dokorder 4 track from the 70s. I loved it and it died. I can still buy one today on ebay that works fine.

Roger

[carllooper]

I think you meant Sid Vicious who died of a heroin overdose in 1979 not long after murdering his girlfriend

Ah yes - it was Sid Vicious.

cheers
Carl

[Angus]

I do think we will all agree however, that modern digital cameras/camcorders do not last as long as older technology.

In much the same way, I can still rely on my early 1970's Akai open reel and indeed buy three via eBay right now that are in working order.....but I very much doubt *any* of today's digital machines will be functioning in 30-40 years time.

That's not necessarily deliberate on the part of the manufacturers.....they are smaller, cheaper and less repairable - because the research has ended up there.

[MovieStuff]

I do think we will all agree however, that modern digital cameras/camcorders do not last as long as older technology.

In much the same way, I can still rely on my early 1970's Akai open reel and indeed buy three via eBay right now that are in working order.....but I very much doubt *any* of today's digital machines will be functioning in 30-40 years time.

That's not necessarily deliberate on the part of the manufacturers.....they are smaller, cheaper and less repairable - because the research has ended up there.

I agree but it's all about whether or not your get your money's worth out of them. Certainly, if I had shot as much film on my practically-free super 8 camera as I have shot miniDV on my more expensive video camera, then using my super 8 camera would be far from practically-free and would cost more than my video camera.

Roger

[Phillip Rhodes]

Out of interest how much does Walmart charge for processing Super 8 film?

[etimh]

Out of interest how much does Walmart charge for processing Super 8 film?

Too much.

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2004/wal-mart.html

Tim

[mr8mm]

Walmart charges about $7.00 depending on tax in your state. The film is eventually sent to Dwayne's for processing. The good part is no shipping charge at either end. And since it may be a loss leader for Walamrt, you are actually hurting Walmart.

John s.

[Phillip Rhodes]

Does Walmart sell film too?

$7 is around £4.35, and [laughs] I've just realised I have a friend now living in Alaska.

[mr8mm]

Walmart sells Fuji 35mm and one use cameras. I doubt Walmart Alaska will be of much help.

[carllooper]

Certainly, if I had shot as much film on my practically-free super 8 camera as I have shot miniDV on my more expensive video camera, then using my super 8 camera would be far from practically-free and would cost more than my video camera.

For me it's my budget that defines what I can do rather than what I do that defines what my budget will be.

This is not always the case (luckily) but is most often the case (reality).

Now with video/digital, insofar as the tape is cheaper, I am therefore capable of shooting more of it than Super8. Or to put it another way, Super8, insofar as it is more expensive, means that I'll shoot less of it than I would video.

But why should this matter from an economic point of view?

Why would shooting more be necessarily any better (or worse) than shooting less? What is the equation between length of film/video shot and the quality of what one might make?

Now the counter-argument to this can occur where someone else is calling the shots and defining the budget. Within someone elses constraints, shooting video over film could mean all the difference. For example, you are shooting a wedding and the client has x dollars and wants 2 hours of vision - and the only reason you are doing it in the first place is that you need the bucks.

And that's entirely fair enough.

But when you are you're own client (eg. when creating art) you can rearrange the constraints howsoever you like.

Carl

[themagickite]

I mean, let's be clear: There is really no practical, commercial reason for the digi-film companies to make their product any better than it currently is. They could simply wait for film to die on the vine and then we'd be "stuck" with whatever state that digital looks. That's a pretty awful scenario, IMHO. So any company that keeps pushing to make digital emulate film as closely as possible I think is doing so with good intent. They are going past "good enough" and trying to create a viable replacement for film that would be not just commercially satisfying, but aesthetically satisfying, as well. I say hat's off to them for even trying.

.....and here I am, not appreciating that they are so altruistic.

As if Kodak and Fuji made their film stocks better and then offered them at a lower price? No company does anything for altruistic reasons. It's business. But, as I said on a different thread, when Kodak makes their films look better to sell more product, they are praised for pushing the quality envelope. When a digital company does the same thing, they are perceived as greedy and dominating; "forcing" a new product onto a market that ostensibly has no choice.

Roger

that's because when a digital company makes an advance, it means you have to buy another camera, whereas advances made by kodak/fuji allow to use old equipment with a modern imaging system. Although I appreciate many aspects of digital, I HATE the fact that these companies release basically the same camera every year and people with money will by them again every time. It's really irresponsible when you consider the effects this production has on the environment, although I have no idea, I would guess that these factors outweigh any environmental argument against the chemicals involved in film. Just look at all the old videotape equipment out there! It's all useless these days!! well... i do know one girl who still loves to shoot beta....
I reckon(hope) we'll still be able to shoot S8 long after cameras like the RED are chucked out as scrap.
I can foresee a future where there is only one manufacture of film making one b&w stock and one colour stock for every film gauge. I don't think it would get worse than that though, i think film will always be around, after all, it's the ONLY proven archival format.
If they stop making film in my lifetime I will adopt old practices of coating my own plates with chemicals and do it that way, of course i'd need a digital video camera to document my process.

[MovieStuff]

that's because when a digital company makes an advance, it means you have to buy another camera whereas advances made by kodak/fuji allow to use old equipment with a modern imaging system. ....

But you don't have to buy anything new. No one can force you to do that. If you're satisfied with the video or digital still camera you have, then you don't have to buy anything. More to the point, if you have a basic Kodak super 8 camera and you want the features of Canon 1014E, then buying different film won't get you those added features. Why some seem to think that the ability to put new film in an old camera has relevance to this discussion, I really don't understand. If anything, image quality for super 8 has gone down as proven by the tons of spectacular early 8mm Kodachrome II that we see come through our shop compared to the Kodachrome of the 80s and 90s which doesn't hold a candle. With the exception of color negative, there hasn't been an improvement in image quality for 8mm in decades and, ironically, color negative on 8mm requires digital transfer to be viable.

... I HATE the fact that these companies release basically the same camera every year...

And that's one of the reasons why you should not buy another digital camera if you are happy with what you have. ;)

Roger