A new Super 8 camera - possibly

Post by **Basstruc** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:16 am

I'm not sure that Ikonoskop have that much benefits with there A-Cam and notice that this one is much simplier than the one scott want to build, so 700$ sale price seams to be not realistic.
Matt

Post by **Basstruc** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:19 am

Anyway look at this. Ain't it cute ?
http://www.ikonoskop.se/gallery/images/e1_big.jpg
http://www.ikonoskop.se/gallery/images/f1_big.jpg

Post by **Taqi** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:22 am

MovieStuff wrote:
Taqi wrote:
Alex wrote: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?

Roger

Hence:

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..

There is a section of the industry, when looking for super 8 equipment, will go to Pro 8. That does not, however, make a viable market for a new Super 8 camera. Super 16 may be different... - I know I would like an affordable camera - but I think the market would be marginal and could be saturated very quickly. I'm sure you know this better than me

[/u]

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:26 am

Roger, you're not really asking why Pro-8mm would put a coat of paint on a used car er camera and call it new are you?

They ain't gonna put their own money into anything new, not because it will or won't make money, but just because it would be beneath them to do so.

They put their sweat equity into making their own lab. They would never do it to launch a new camera. But if they did make a new super-8 camera, they would sell it, they just have no desire to make one.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:46 am

Alex wrote: They (Pro8mm) ain't gonna put their own money into anything new, not because it will or won't make money, but just because it would be beneath them to do so. They put their sweat equity into making their own lab. They would never do it to launch a new camera. But if they did make a new super-8 camera, they would sell it, they just have no desire to make one.

Then using Pro8mm's current success as a counter to my argument is meaningless since, by your own admission, they aren't doing anything new at all. They're just selling used cameras. Setting up a lab to service clients that don't give a damn about image fidelity is hardly what I'd call the bastion of quality control or a shining example of how the film and broadcast industry needs a "newer, better" super 8 camera. The cameras that exist do an adequate job for people that don't even demand adequacy and have no respect for the super 8 medium.

So, before this drifts too far from center, let's just get back to the real issue here: If a new Super 8 camera were produced, how much would it be? If it only services a niche market, as you suggest, then it would probably stay in the range of $2000+. The only people with that type of budget are the very producers that could care less about image quality in the first place and think nothing of shooting 500 ASA neg and turning off the grain suppression during telecine. So what's the purpose of this new super-cam? Doesn't help anyone that I know working in super 8.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

Post by **downix** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:53 am

You guys are right, no new camera is going to change the market. Hence why, as I said, I'm doing it for myself, and after I get one done for myself, I'll see what to do then.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:59 am

The Advantages of a new Super-8 film camera are many. One key aspect is the great training it would provide to those who aren't going to work exlusively in film but want to know how film works as a medium.

Film is becoming the unattainable format that many newbies are not bothering to learn about.

As mini-dv works it's magic on the masses, what is the film community doing to keep itself in the younger filmmakers eye. Nada.

And a new Super-16mm camera would end up pricing itself at double to triple the price of a new Super-8 camera, so it would be a great tool for the INDIE serious filmmaker, but perhaps not a great tool for the curious and beginner filmmaker.

The existing Super-8 cameras are good enough to teach serious but beginning filmmakers many things about film, but actually loading the film, learning about registration issues, how the camera sounds when it is properly functioning, setting or resetting backfocus, these are issues that would be better learned on a more professional super-8 camera than what exists now.

Right now, entry level professional filmmaking is dying in it's tracks while mini-dv converts the masses. A super-16mm camera does nothing to address this issue.

Post by **Angus** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:57 am

I think Roger is more or less correct here. The pros aren't likely to buy a new camera, and in any case their numbers are too small to make a significant market.

Us amateurs might buy a new camera for various practical reasons, but it would have to come in at a reasonable price (the US$700 that was mentioned would be OK) and that simply seems unrealisitc at the present time.

Post by **Angus** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:58 am

I think Roger is more or less correct here. The pros aren't likely to buy a new camera, and in any case their numbers are too small to make a significant market.

Us amateurs might buy a new camera for various practical reasons, but it would have to come in at a reasonable price (the US$700 that was mentioned would be OK) and that simply seems unrealisitc at the present time.

Post by **Angus** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:58 am

I think Roger is more or less correct here. The pros aren't likely to buy a new camera, and in any case their numbers are too small to make a significant market.

Us amateurs might buy a new camera for various practical reasons, but it would have to come in at a reasonable price (the US$700 that was mentioned would be OK) and that simply seems unrealisitc at the present time.

Post by **Angus** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:00 am

I think Roger is more or less correct here. The pros aren't likely to buy a new camera, and in any case their numbers are too small to make a significant market.

Us amateurs might buy a new camera for various practical reasons, but it would have to come in at a reasonable price (the US$700 that was mentioned would be OK) and that simply seems unrealisitc at the present time.

Post by **seekaee** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:53 am

I've been working on a number of Music Videos and PSA's lately and for the most part a good portion of them were either shot in 35mm or S16.So yeah, I think a cheap S16 camera could be very warmly received in an industry where everybody is scrambling to get the best deal they can get. Just renting an SR 4 for two days can put you back $700 or more.

Another thing to think about is maybe just selling the Camera Body as a single unit might make it more affordable to manufacture for $700. So long as it was crystal synched, had a TTL viewfinder, equipped with a "C" or some other universal type lens mount, and had the option of holding loads greater then 100'. I think $700 would be more then an amazing price- it would be a STEAL!

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:27 pm

Angus wrote:I think Roger is more or less correct here. The pros aren't likely to buy a new camera, and in any case their numbers are too small to make a significant market.

Well, I'd like to clarify something that may have gotten lost along the way. In my personal opinion, I'd LOVE to see a new super 8 camera with all the features that have been tossed about. Even if it were at $2000+, I'd still think it was just terrific and anyone that wants to build one, I say more power to them. I'm a tech and machine nut, so this would be the sort of thing that would get me hot. However, I probably wouldn't buy one, even if I had the money, because my personal needs for shooting super 8 are easily met with one or more of my $50 ebay cameras that I have laying about.

And that's the real issue here: $2000 would buy a lot of $50 ebay cameras, either for one person or for 40 people. Now, there may very well be a market for a $2000 camera but it won't be very big, as Angus has just pointed out. But if the maker of a $2000 camera can make a profit servicing that niche market, then I think that is just great. Hell, that's what I do now with my telecine equipment but, as I pointed out before, only 1% of my clients are film makers. The majority are people transferring super 8 for a living. How many people would be using this new camera to make a living and, therefore, could afford the $2000+ price tag?

So, ultimately, how does the existence of a new $2000 camera benefit the majority of super 8 users? Well, it does and it doesn't. A new super 8 camera may very well devalue our current cameras, since there are so many used cameras on the market. If one is buying a used camera, then I suppose that is good. If one is selling their camera, then that might be bad. Will the number of used cameras on ebay start to dry up because the reduced profit margin for resellers makes them undesirable to mess with? Will the reduced number of cameras mean that less super 8 film is shot? I dunno.

But one thing I am certain of: the technology inherent in a new super 8 camera will never "trickle down" to us fast enough to be of any benefit. Look how long it took CCD technology to make the jump from broadcast to home use, and that was with a gigantic market, ripe for exploitation, ready and waiting with cash in hand.

Ultimately, I'm not against the development of a new super 8 camera. I think it would be kick. My comments were in direct response to Scott's stated intention of going into business selling them, presumably, to people like us. I felt the need to discuss realistically what the market for this type of product might be. I could very well be wrong on all counts but that's my take on things.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

Post by **christoph** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:49 pm

seekaee wrote: Just renting an SR 4 for two days can put you back $700 or more.

SR4? did i miss something? or were you talking about the SRIII advanced?

on the other hand, this made me check and i realized there is something godard would have liked:
http://www.arri.com/entry/235.htm

++ christoph ++

Post by **matt5791** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:13 pm

MovieStuff wrote:True, but low budget indie producers won't be able to afford it and people with a real budget (and backers watching their every move) are not going to pick Super 8 to shoot in, regardless of how sophisticated the camera is.

But I was under the impression that most super8 being shot today is by professionals, and the indi film maker buys only a tiny proportion of the super8 stock sold. Certainly when I watch television these days I am continually seeing stuff originated on super8. I can think of three recent adverts running on UK TV with super8 footage and a number of television programs that have used the format

They dont shoot the format for economy reasons but, obviously, for asthetic reasons. In this time where film is becoming sharper and cleaner and less and less grainy, super8 really retains all the texture and characteristics of film.

If there is market for a new super8 camera, this would be professional users, and the only question is are there enough of them, or would the advent of a new camera to rent or buy fuel more use of the format - that would be the critical question for any potential manufacturer.

But also, because of this fact the camera would have to be an excellent tool, reliable and robust, and playing on the main benefits of super8 over the larger formats - that is to say, as an example, one way to make the camera particularly appealing would be to make it very small indeed.

I would love to see a new camera, chiefly because a fringe benefit would be to promote the format itself, but the question as to whether it could be justified requires a lot of research into the market.

Matt