A new Super 8 camera - possibly

[MovieStuff]

The key word here is "another" Super-8 camera. It's not another Super-8 camera because it would have many features never made before for Super-8 filmmakers.

So what? It's the cost of the camera that matters; not how many features it has. Again, it would take volume to bring such a camera into a reasonable price range. It could be lined with gold but, if the majority of super users can't afford it, then what's the point? And feature film producers with a real budget aren't going to use super 8, no matter how sophisticated the camera. It's the format that the backers would object to, not the camera.

And as valid a reason for saying Scott should make a 16mm camera instead of a Super-8 camera, all the same reasons apply for making a 35mm camera instead of a 16mm camera.

Obviously not true. Historically proven, a feature 35mm production has little to no liklihood of buying a 35mm camera so most any 35mm feature is going to rent what they need and there are plenty of 35mm camera packages out there that will do the job just fine. Scott would have nothing to offer that doesn't already exist. However, there aren't that many light weight Super 16mm mods as there are existing 35mm packages and what Super 16 cameras do exist are numbingly expensive. Unlike Super 8, Super 16 has a proven track record and is accepted by directors, producers and bean counters as a viable format for both television and feature film production. These people will make realistic choices about what format to shoot on and super 8 will never be one of those considerations, even if the super 8 camera were given to them for free, including film and processing.

Again, it's the format that the backers would object to, not the camera. And no matter how good the camera is, super 16 is going to blow Super 8 off the planet's surface, in terms of superior image quality, even when using high speed film. A new super 8 camera would be fun to see and play with but that's about it. Super 8 users just don't have the money to justify one and budgeted features wouldn't even use it as a paper weight.

Roger

[nasq]

Super-8 filmmakers. And as valid a reason for saying Scott should make a 16mm camera instead of a Super-8 camera, all the same reasons apply for making a 35mm camera instead of a 16mm camera.

Shooting an indie in 16mm is somewhat realistic, but with 35mm it's not. I say somewhat, because it all depends on so many things. And besides, there are some cheap 35mm feature-full cameras on the market already, such thing as cheap s16mm camera does not exist. I've always been tempted to buy one of those wonderful (in perspective) Russian 35mm cameras, but then I've though of shooting costs.

The market could be bigger than imagined, for example here in Finland not many features are shot in 35mm nowadays. Most are shot in s16mm and blown up to 35mm. With good prices, buying the camera could maybe be an option for production companies.

I would never buy a new super8 camera at these prices, simply because I have all the features I need IN SUPER8 in older cameras for very reasonable price. Of course I should never say never ;)

The real question here is, is the camera geared towards the amateurs or pros? Of course there are some "prosumers", like me, but I have a feeling we all want to go forward with our careers

[Alex]

I disagree that it is only a price issue and that the features don't matter. Features in fact do make a difference. Pin Registration, quiet running (non intrusive on existing movie shoots for behind the scenes or B-roll footage), crystal sync...

The market you are underestimating is the the secondary camera market.
Meaning the production company has a primary camera for their shoot, but might be intrigued at a second option for their shoot. Getting behind schedule, use the Super-8 camera to shoot insert shots while the main camera keeps on it's schedule.

Need some crazy wild POV shots, shoot it with the Super-8 camera. Is there a scene that probably won't be in the movie but the producers aren't sure as it not crucial to the story, shoot it in 8 and save some money.

Are you a producer about to give a million bucks to a production company, give the $15,000 grand first and a new Super-8 camera and see if they make a competent scene BEFORE committing a big budget to a feature.

Don't forget that the reversal stocks are also available, and grainwise
should cut in with higher ASA stock 16mm.

As for the "poor" super-8 filmmaker. I guess the poor super-8 filmmaker is poorer than the mini-dv videomaker. Because decent three-chip mini dv camcorders still cost into the thousands. Perhaps half of the "poor" super-8 filmmakers are middle aged and probably have spendable income.

It's not fair to label all super-8 filmmakers as poor nor is it accurate to state that only poor super-8 filmmakers would buy the camera. A new super-8 camera might possibly raise the value of existing Super-8 cameras because of the price point for a new Super-8 camera. Multiple Super-8 camera owners could see their stock of cameras increase in value overnight. If a new Super-8 camera sold for 1,500 dollars, then a Canon 814XLS might be worth $500 on ebay. A cost relationship would exist between the old and the new, and most likely the price existing good Super-8 cameras would increase. It's quite possible that those that own several Super-8 cameras would experience a rise in value in their owned equipment that could make getting the new Super-8 camera a no brainer because they could sell their existing cameras easier for more money.

I'm sure many super 8 filmmakers would part (sell) with two of their better super-8 cameras and 500-700 dollars to get a new super-8 camera that offered previously unnattainable features. I agree that the initial orders would not be huge, but once the cameras were seen (and not heard), I think there would be a demand.

[Patrick]

Scott, if you are making cameras specifically on demand and order, and if the costs and manufacture of parts for a super 8 and a S16 camera are esentially the same, with the exception of the gate size, film chamber, and optical viewing system, I wonder if it would be foreseeable to make both super and S16mm cameras? Regardless if someone orders a super 8 camera or S16 camera, you can essentially use the same parts and materials to make the basic body and motor etc. Then, just do the different adjustments and add-ons afterwards, depending on which format is being requested at the time.

Or, if you want to become, really ambitious, create a camera which is multi-format, being able to handle both super 8 and S16mm. This would of course require a change of gate size and sprockets but dual guage projectors can do this simply with a flick of a switch. Of course designing a movie camera that would accomodate both reels of film and also cartridges as well would be very difficult. A slightly more realistic option would be for the camera to accept both double super 8 and S16mm. Both formats use the same width film (16mm) so the film chamber would be mostly a simple hassle-free design.

The lens mount would not be a problem as everyone knows, Beaulieu super 8 and 16mm cameras share the same c mount lens mount. When switching shooting formats, you would just have to switch lenses, the camera operator having on standby, lenses colimnated for super 8 use and lenses colimnated for 16mm use. The viewfinder could have markings for both super 8 and 16mm compositions, similar to the way that some 16mm cameras have 'TV safe area' markings in their viewfinders when shooting for television. You could have the first ever multi format s8 / S16 camera and would be able to cater for both markets in one go.

If anyone thinks that this is a ridiculous and absurd idea, just ignore it. Scott, if you consider it and plan on going ahead with it, please give me credit for the concept!!

[Patrick]

Just another thought on the idea of a multi format movie camera. The viewfinder markings that I proposed in my previous post are probably a bad idea. As discussed before, the viewfinder would be set up basically for the Super 16mm format and there would be markings for super 8 composition. If this was turned into reality, the super 8 markings would be really small and would not make composing very easy or perhaps a little uncomfortable when working on a shoot over a long period of time. There is a movie camera which can change between 16mm and 35mm formats though I don't know what actually happens to the viewfinder during the change. Whatever 'trick' is used by this camera might be the solution to the problem.

[MovieStuff]

The market you are underestimating is the the secondary camera market.
Meaning the production company has a primary camera for their shoot, but might be intrigued at a second option for their shoot.

They can do that now.

Getting behind schedule, use the Super-8 camera to shoot insert shots while the main camera keeps on it's schedule.

If the main footage is 35mm or Super 16mm, it will never happen, even if you made the new Super 8 camera available for free, unless they specifically want the super 8 look and it's already been done with existing cameras.

Need some crazy wild POV shots, shoot it with the Super-8 camera.

And you need a new super 8 camera to do that? Better tell Oliver Stone to trash all the Natural Born Killers footage he shot with his used Beaulieu! How many productions will demand a new camera enough times to bring the price within reach of the majority of super 8 users?

Is there a scene that probably won't be in the movie but the producers aren't sure as it not crucial to the story, shoot it in 8 and save some money.

If the scene isn't needed, then they won't be saving money since the real cost has nothing to do with film and processing and everything to do with labor, which will cost the same (if not more) if shooting in super 8. Shooting material that isn't needed is a waste, regardless of format used.

Are you a producer about to give a million bucks to a production company, give the $15,000 grand first and a new Super-8 camera and see if they make a competent scene BEFORE committing a big budget to a feature.

I've got a better idea: Why not provide them with the actual format they'll be working in to see if they can actually handle a real budget before giving them a big feature project? I would hate to tie a prospective director's hands with super 8 and expect to see a product indicative of their real potential as a feature film director shooting in 35mm. Makes zero sense. That's like making A.J. Foyt do qualifying laps on a tricycle before handing him the keys to a Hemi.

Don't forget that the reversal stocks are also available, and grainwise
should cut in with higher ASA stock 16mm.

No, they won't. Reversal and neg look totally different. Try shooting both, cut them together and see for yourself. Again, if the super 8 look is needed, it can already be accomplised with existing cameras for a lot less.

I guess the poor super-8 filmmaker is poorer than the mini-dv videomaker. Because decent three-chip mini dv camcorders still cost into the thousands. Perhaps half of the "poor" super-8 filmmakers are middle aged and probably have spendable income.

You're making an assumption that for every poor super 8 film maker, there is a counterpart miniDV shooter that owns a three chip camera. The opposite is obviously true. For every poor super 8 film maker, I'll bet there are hundreds of equally poor single chip miniDV producers that are pleased as punch with what they are producing because their friends and relatives all tell them its all terrific.

YOUR ideas about quality and the need for a more sophisticated camera are not the majority's, whether shooting in super 8 or miniDV. Quality has nothing to do with it. Cost is everything to these people until they get to a point where the format is holding them back, then it no longer matters because they'll either move up to 16mm or a better video camera. The world doesn't need, nor will it support, a "better" single chip miniDV or super 8 camera if that camera is too expensive.

It's not fair to label all super-8 filmmakers as poor

I've never seen a rich one, other than Neil Young, and he hardly chose the most expensive, feature laden super 8 camera in the world to shoot his feature on. Instead, he shot at 18fps on a basic home movie camera. You can rest assured Niel Young could have afforded better, and better ones were available to him for the asking. You think that Pro8mm wouldn't have provided him with cameras for free just for promotional considerations?

I'm sure many super 8 filmmakers would part (sell) with two of their better super-8 cameras and 500-700 dollars to get a new super-8 camera that offered previously unnattainable features.

But this is the Catch-22 that you keep avoiding: The price won't drop to only $500-$700 until thousands of super 8 users buy the thing at a more realistic selling price of about $2000+. That is simply not going to happen.

Roger

[Alex]

I'll try to keep this brief.

Yes, insert shots can be used with a super-8 camera.

Digital intermediates would need super-duper 8 and pin registration.

And I have personally heard stories from my editing clients of the DAYS OF FOOTAGE that were shot in 35mm AND NONE OF IT ended up in the television show. These shoots, even with the same number of personnel, could save money on excessive film stock costs. The result would that the camera would PAY FOR ITSELF the first day it was used.

Now that is an incredible bargain.

And as for matching shots, I do it all the time for my clients. I just took a client's VHS copy from their digital master and re-timed it and made it look better than the master it came from. Now if the original production company had taken the time to properly correct the digital master to begin with, I could not have made it better, but they did not take the time because time is money. Film stocks and can be matched, even from different formats, if the smaller film stock's ASA is lower than the bigger film stock, and the shot to be matched is an insert shot.

Instead of coming up for a whole list of valid reasons why you think NOBODY would buy a new super-8 camera, all you have to focus on is that out of 200 countries that now have access to the internet, it would be quite probable to have for a thousand or two thousand people who would love a low cost professional film run & gun camera option.

Any camera that can save the owner the camera's value the first day it is used is a viable product to make.

And you misunderstood my pricing strategy. $700 plus one would sell two of their high end super-8 cameras. The net result is you get back a kick butt camera with professional applications for the price of $700.00 and two high end cameras that most serious Super-8 filmmakers already own. I would do it without a moments hesitation.

[MovieStuff]

Yes, insert shots can be used with a super-8 camera.

But they don't and they won't, regardless of the quality of the super 8 camera. It's the format that is taboo, not the camera. And there is no way you could cut super 8 into a 35mm film and make Super 8 look like 35mm film. Sorry but that is just ridiculous. You can't really even do it with Super 16 unless you're just damed lucky. There is no way you could do it with Super 8. And if the "super 8 look" is what the insert shots need to look like, then that can be acomplised now, with available cameras.

And I have personally heard stories from my editing clients of the DAYS OF FOOTAGE that were shot in 35mm AND NONE OF IT ended up in the television show. These shoots, even with the same number of personnel, could save money on excessive film stock costs. The result would that the camera would PAY FOR ITSELF the first day it was used.

You're missing the point. On a feature, no one cares about the film costs on these "extra" shoots or they wouldn't approve them in the first place. They care about labor and, if they are going to commit to the extraordinary labor costs and overhead that such a shoot will demand, then they're NOT going to risk it by shooting on super 8. They're going to want a 35mm image, otherwise the cost of the shoot isn't justified. Think of it like this: Let's say that they find they DO want to use this footage. Do you really think that it would match the surrounding 35mm footage? Come on.....

Nothing is going to get a line producer fired faster than okaying second unit work to proceed on super 8 in a 35mm production. The guy's salary is going to be worth more than the money saved by shooting in super 8. He better make smarter decisions than that if he wants to earn it.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Taqi]

I am a (very) amateur Super 8 "Shooter"....

Given the market in Super 8 cameras, a new camera would have to be very good indeed - there are simply too many serviceable cameras out there for sale at small money. Personally, I would consider buying a Super 16 camera (similar to Ikonoskpo) for say 3500 US$. Otherwise I would just hire a camera. Super 8? - I would not pay more than 500 US$ - why - because I can get great optics and great camera (even with servicing/repairs) for that money.

So I would say if there's going to be a new, affordable camera, let it be Super 16... (could always be an interchangeable gate for DS8 though..)

[Scotness]

Okay for my two cents let me say this:

I do think there is a market for a new Super 8 camera - but I think it is a small one and I would be better off making a Super 16 camera instead because there is a bigger market for that. With kids and old age climbing up on me I've got to think that way :lol:

I would love to see a new Super 8 camera though - and I was thinking we'd probably end up making one anyway just as a trial run and practise for various electronic things - but then why do that when we can do a trial run in Super 16 anyway? And this I think is the great rub - and possibly trap in Super 8 - yes you can do it - and the cameras are cute but if you're serious about film making why not go for Super 16 when the costs aren't that much different?

Super 8 will always have it's place but if your aim is to make something, get it picked up by a distributor and blown up and put in a cinema then Super 8 is not the way to go. Which is why the market for Super 16 is so much better - and if you're a one man show like me and many others here the possibility of buying a cheap Super 16 camera rather than renting one is better because you will save the money after a few films.

So I would love to see a new Super 8 camera but it's not as worthwhile for me to try and make one as a Super 16 camera is. The way I look at it too - is even if I investigate this and find for various reasons it's not feasbale to sell them - if I come up with a working prototype that was cheaper than purchasing an Ikonoskop then it was all worth it. I'm looking at better features than the Ikonokop too - 400ft mag capabilities and a proper through the lense view finder.

Of course I've estimated that I'd need to sell my camera at around $3k US$ minimum, which obviously places it out of reach of the "shoestring" operators, hence why I've been designing it around more high-end features, like being able to switch between magazined Super8, Super8 w/o the magazine cartridge, Single8 and Double Super 8. I know that there is no way that I will be able to deliver it in sufficient quantity to validate a lower price. Ya know, the way I'm designing mine, it would not be difficult to convert to 16mm or Super16. (I was using a Super16-modified gate design for the front focal length, with a set of lenses shrinking that down to Super-Duper 8 size, to make it pure Super16, just take out the lens array and switch the rear magazine)

That sounds like a fantastic idea downix - good luck! If you had that and the other features I was looking at you'd have everything you could ever need I imagine! Escubria sent me this link too which may be of use to you http://www.lavezzi.com/product274.html though you probably already know it.

Scott, if you are making cameras specifically on demand and order, and if the costs and manufacture of parts for a super 8 and a S16 camera are esentially the same, with the exception of the gate size, film chamber, and optical viewing system, I wonder if it would be foreseeable to make both super and S16mm cameras? Regardless if someone orders a super 8 camera or S16 camera, you can essentially use the same parts and materials to make the basic body and motor etc. Then, just do the different adjustments and add-ons afterwards, depending on which format is being requested at the time.

Or, if you want to become, really ambitious, create a camera which is multi-format, being able to handle both super 8 and S16mm. This would of course require a change of gate size and sprockets but dual guage projectors can do this simply with a flick of a switch. Of course designing a movie camera that would accomodate both reels of film and also cartridges as well would be very difficult. A slightly more realistic option would be for the camera to accept both double super 8 and S16mm. Both formats use the same width film (16mm) so the film chamber would be mostly a simple hassle-free design.

The lens mount would not be a problem as everyone knows, Beaulieu super 8 and 16mm cameras share the same c mount lens mount. When switching shooting formats, you would just have to switch lenses, the camera operator having on standby, lenses colimnated for super 8 use and lenses colimnated for 16mm use. The viewfinder could have markings for both super 8 and 16mm compositions, similar to the way that some 16mm cameras have 'TV safe area' markings in their viewfinders when shooting for television. You could have the first ever multi format s8 / S16 camera and would be able to cater for both markets in one go.

If anyone thinks that this is a ridiculous and absurd idea, just ignore it. Scott, if you consider it and plan on going ahead with it, please give me credit for the concept!!

Combining the features is a great idea but just too complicated for me I think - although as you can see downix is developing that idea - so it looks like it will be done.

The real question here is, is the camera geared towards the amateurs or pros?

As I was saying the only real niche in the market I can see that would make it financially worthwhile is the independents with a little bit of money - there's no way a big funded company would ever look at a camera like this - why should they? - but a wannabe indie who hates video but wants to get something blown up to 35 and sees it might take a few films to break in is likely to buy one.

Anyway it's going to take quite a while to work on this - so I'm off to that

Scot

[Alex]

If everything you guys say is accurate, Pro-8mm would not be in business.

If Pro-8mm had announced their business plan on this forum back in the mid 80's (Ok, no forum back then, but you get the idea), you'd all be citing the same reasons as to why they would not be successful, and of course, you'd be wrong. Wrong to the tune of probably close to a million dollars or more in gross income every year.

And along the way they probably avoided another 2-3 million a year in "high maintenance low money clients".

I do think that an affordable super-16 camera is also needed. I don't agree that the building of either a 16mm or a Super-8 camera somehow means that the other doesn't need to be made as a result, that is an incorrect assumption and the longevity of Pro-8mm proves the point.

[MovieStuff]

Super 8 will always have it's place but if your aim is to make something, get it picked up by a distributor and blown up and put in a cinema then Super 8 is not the way to go.

I agree. And the reason is that (theatrically) super 8 will always look like super 8, which is okay if the super 8 look is what you want and need for the project. But if the desire is to do something that, at the worst, looks like a 16mm print then super 8 really only works in that capacity when limited to video release. If the desire is to do something theatrically that looks like 35mm it is unreasonable to think that super 8 will do the trick when super 16 rarely can, even with its superior image quality.

Which is why the market for Super 16 is so much better - and if you're a one man show like me and many others here the possibility of buying a cheap Super 16 camera rather than renting one is better because you will save the money after a few films.

Exactly. I think there is a viable market for a new, low cost quality Super 16mm camera and people that need it will be more likely to have the money for it and because people are constantly looking for a viable way to produce HD quality material without having to resort to 35mm. Super 8 is fun and I love the look but it is not HD or even close. That is just unrealistic, IMHO.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

If everything you guys say is accurate, Pro-8mm would not be in business.

Not when you really think about it, Alex. Pro8mm provides the majority of its film and telecine services to producers that WANT the super 8 look and do everything they can to bastardize the image and make it look grainy and home movie-ish. Do you really think that Oliver Stone used super 8 in Natural Born Killers because he thought it looked like 35mm? If so, then why didn't he shoot the entire movie in Super 8? Why don't all the music video producers that Pro8mm services shoot ALL their videos in super 8 if there is no perceivable difference between super 8 and 35mm or 16mm?

Pro8mm is doing big business BECAUSE everything we're saying is accurate! The film and broadcast industry does not see the super 8 format as "professional" and Pro8mm does NOT promote the idea that Super 8 can look like 16mm or 35mm. They don't expect it to and neither does the majority of their clientel that pays the bills at Pro8mm.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Taqi]

If everything you guys say is accurate, Pro-8mm would not be in business.

your are right Alex. Yet I saw TV piece on UK TV about the making of a music video (can't remember the artist, R&B, shot in a car..). They were using one of pro-8's Beaulieu 4008s with a fancy paint job. The result was what anyone might expect from pretty much any mid to high range S8 camera in reasonable condition, the kind of camera that can be bought off ebay 50 times a day for less than 50 bucks. But the market for these (pro8) cameras is small.... it's what they say: pro (mug) 8. However an affordable Super 16 camera may have a very real potential - (in the UK there is a thriving market for all modern(ish) H16s..

[MovieStuff]

If everything you guys say is accurate, Pro-8mm would not be in business.

your are right Alex.

If so, then why is Pro8mm selling painted, second hand Beaulieu cameras instead of brand new Super 8 cameras like Scott was talking about? Pro8mm's success in selling used cameras only shows how limited the market is and how easily it is satisfied with used equipment. As you pointed out, the results you saw weren't any different than a second hand camera from ebay.

I can't see the professional market supporting a new super 8 camera, supposedly for better results, when they do everything they can to degrade the super 8 image and make it look like crap every chance they get. They expect little from super 8 and use it like a cheap special effect, not because it looks like 16mm or 35mm. No camera is going to change that attitude.

Roger