Dropping Super-8 Camera Prices Creates "Confusion"
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
ericMartinJarvies
- Senior member
- Posts: 1274
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:26 am
- Location: cabo san lucas, bcs, mexico
- Contact:
oh, i forgot what forum i was in ... back to super 8, yes, agree with both of the last posts. i think fim and video should be maried, and we stick with that for the next 50 years.
eric martin jarvies
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
So Many Interesting Viewpoints!
Both Alex and Paul are actually agreeing with me here.
If you read carefully, what I've said is not that Digital should win out over film and maybe become the cause of its death, but simply that it may, and precisely because products that depend on companies to get made are all market based. Like or not, we live in a market driven world. Products that depend on capital intensive manufacturing depend on a mass market – plain and simple. Perhaps, and hopefully so, there will be small niche companies and individuals in the future who will have the ability to continue creating some of these products, such as silver and dye based film, thereby allowing those of us who enjoy a VINTAGE experience to continue with our “art†or “hobbyâ€Â. But as these products we depend on become more and more dependant on sophisticated technology and manufacturing processes, we become more dependant on the mass market to provide them.
Real artists don't drive the everyday market. The market could care less about them. Mass market forces began to take over a long time ago. Henry Ford, GMC, Dupont, Edison, Alexander Bell, and yes, George Eastman -- all are icons of MASS MARKETING! Before Kodak came around photographers made their own photographic plates to use, now only auteurs in a tiny niche market do that! Polaroid has always been about mass marketing and catering to the masses. Very few of their products ever were made for the artist. Nevertheless, artists did find very creative uses for Polaroid materials. And they will be sad indeed when they can no longer obtain Polaroid film. But one day that will happen.
Commercial enterprises are quite happy to promote and use the artistic icons of the time to validate and promote the sales of their product -- but they know the mass consumer pays the bills!
One day digital will do everything that silver and dye based film now does, at least in terms of its usability and viewbility for moviegoers, television viewers, and home video viewers. One day it will be every bit as high quality (or better) with every bit as much latitude and color saturation -- and zero grain! And it will be cheaper and easier to use.
Ho, it will be EXACTLY what George Eastman was striving for, and what he produced and provided for the public, when he single-handedly destroyed the market for wet plate photography with his better and revolutionary paper backed dry emulsion. One day film will only matter to people who prefer, for any number of reasons, a VINTAGE experience or VINTAGE look, just as today wet plate technology ONLY matters to those who wish, for one reason or another, wet plate photography. Of course, digital will also be quite capable of that VINTAGE look, just as GM or Ford, or Buick could easily make better and safer versions of their great classic automobiles if they choose to do so -- and if the market was willing to pay for it.
As for painting, and all other forms of TANGIBLE ART in which the viewer or participant actively engages the PRIMARY MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION, the point is well taken that it has not become obsolete, and yet misses the obvious point that it has in fact become obsolete, FOR THE AVERAGE BUYING PUBLIC. Hardly anyone has real paintings on their walls any longer, although before Durer and the art print and Daguerre and photography, it was extremely common ( however much quality varied).
No, the mass of people who have art on their walls have PRINTS or PHOTOS (or prints of photos). Painting and all representational art of the PRIMARY MEDIUM, paint, hand pulled etchings and lithographs, sculpture, wood carving, and so on, are exactly a niche market, a very expensive niche market for the most part.
PRIMARY MEDIUM art must be experienced as the ORIGINAL to really gain the full sense and appreciation of it -- and that is why we have museums to display what is for most people economically impossible to personally own. However, film is not a PRIMARY MEDIUM art. No one experiences the fun and beauty of film by eyeballing the actual film medium -- we view it through another medium: projected light.
Therefore, for the average viewer, as long as the quality of sound and image is acceptable, it matters little how the primary image was created or stored. And this is precisely what Hollywood and the digital video manufacturers understand well. Of course, we can argue a lot about the merits of the AVERAGE VIEWER, but those whose primary goal is to make a good return on their time and investment LOVE the average viewer.
Of course, the materials of painting and sculpture are relatively cheap and available as of now -- but that is precisely because it still exists in large part as an irreplaceable TEACHING MEDIUM. There would be little art materials produced for sale in pre-packaged format if only ARTISTS who actually produce mature and professional results were buying it. And we are talking about relatively cheap and low-tech materials to manufacture that can even be self-manufactured if need be.
This point also runs counter to silver film interests, since TEACHING FILMMAKING is actually easier and cheaper with digital medium, given the level of computer skills possessed by today’s first world children, and the instant feedback they get. The generally lower cost of digital filmmaking to the schools makes for an even stronger argument in the budget crisis times. For third world children, most any form of filmmaking is entirely beyond their possibilities outside of a very few, very specialized programs – so which technique is used matters little.
One of the most interesting arguments in favor of non-digital medium is its accessibility to non-technical inspection. You don’t have to own a computer to read Shakespeare, nor to view Rembrandt, and arguable but possible, neither must you have electricity or a projector to view a film. From a morbid and pessimistic viewpoint, should modern civilization cease to exist as we know it, it may one day be possible for some future generation to dig up, say Hollywood, unearth a copy print of “Pee Wee Herman’s Big Adventure†and study it for clues to our present day culture and artistic aspirations. Little chance that could happen with any digital medium, considering the immense technical and cryptographic hurdles that would have to be overcome.
Artists of every age have put themselves above the average public -- by striving to a higher technical goal, having a higher emotional, aesthetic, and spiritual goal, and sometimes simply by putting themselves on a pedestal, justified or not.
Then again, there has always been a breed of artist that thrives on attacking or denigrating the established social standard of “artistâ€Â. This type identifies himself as specifically in opposition to some accepted standard. So every transcendent level of technical and spiritual achievement in art has had its mirror image in the “anti-artist†or “primitivistâ€Â. This is as old as recorded art commentary – several thousands of years.
In the end, artists use all and any means and medium they can get their hands on. The WHAT they use may stir up a lot of controversy with some, but it means very little in terms of an artists final output, the final product. Hardly anyone would try to argue the Giotto was a lesser artist than Rembrandt because Giotto only had tempera colors while Rembrandt had the more technically advanced oils – or vice-versa. While few would professionally advocate silent film any longer, hardly anyone would question the artistic merit of the great silent era films such as Abel Gance’s Napoleon or Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligai, or of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Artists will make digital medium just as profound or lacking in profundity as did the Renaissance painters or the Impressionists.
Ultimately, film will have no technical advantage over digital and the mass market will make film obsolete from the perspective of the commercial and mass market. At this point film will be a specialty, a vintage market, a collector or hobbyist market, just as are products for the Ford Model T.
Whether or not Kodak and Fuji continue to produce film will in large part depend on how much money this specialty market is willing to pay to continue it. Perhaps there will be smaller manufacturers that will find it viable to buy up obsolete Kodak and Fuji equipment and produce, at greatly reduced selection and greatly increased prices, traditional film for film cameras. Some very dedicated followers will make or procure their own equipment to continue the availability of product. Hopefully this day will be far off. Considering the pace of technology, I am not confident that it will be far off.
It only took a very short time for the word processor and its big brother, the computer with printer, to make the typewriter business a bust. People still use them, collect them, and sometimes, prefer them, but as of now, they are an economic dead end. There is no denying this. For those who collect or use typewriters, there are ever fewer places to get them fixed or find supplies for them and it’s doubtful anyone will ever again manufacturer one. One day there will no longer be any ribbons for them and users will have to re-ink the old ones. Users will have to own quite a few in order to have their own spare parts supply, and probably learn to repair them as well.
My ultimate point was, and is, that 8mm film, and soon all film, will lose its mass market support and become more costly to pursue. Cost will be much less an issue than availability to those that choose to continue using film, for whatever reason they choose to continue its use. For those who may complain that costs have risen from a few years ago, this is actually to be expected. No one who pursues a vintage hobby or activity, one that does not enjoy mass market support, can expect the lower prices provided by economies of scale – indeed, as said before, mere availability itself becomes a satisfaction.
Those who are committed to continue the art or sport as it may be, will feel sad that the “good old days†of plentiful products, services and cheaper prices have gone by the way, but they will be sufficiently grateful that there are ANY products or services available to pursue their passion that price, to reasonable limits, will be immaterial. Those for whom price was a motivating or enabling factor will move on to other products and medium.
And for Eric: well I don’t want to get into that discussion, but I will say that I am temporarily forced by economic necessity to live in a community were the City government comes into your backyard and tells you what you can, and cannot have in your own backyard, what kind of fence and driveway you can have, what color your house can be painted, what your front yard looks like, how much noise you can make, and during what hours, and when you must replace your roof, regardless of whether or not it leaks water. I could go on, it gets worse, but you get the idea!
So is there a cause and effect between our Corporatocracy and Anal Cultural Nazism? Would human life be as good, as worth living, without all our mass market focus and related technology and industry? Is there a relationship between the way corporations lie, bend the truth, exaggerate, or hype products and the way governments now deliver “modified†truth to their constituents? Was Galileo a lesser man, the Greeks, or any ancient culture, less than modern America or Europe, the horse and wheel a worse means of transportation, reading, writing, music making, and painting less than filmmaking or videomaking or digital music now? Or better? Has mankind, in any really important way, become better, or worse, than it was 3,000 years ago?
I don’t know?
Ds21z
If you read carefully, what I've said is not that Digital should win out over film and maybe become the cause of its death, but simply that it may, and precisely because products that depend on companies to get made are all market based. Like or not, we live in a market driven world. Products that depend on capital intensive manufacturing depend on a mass market – plain and simple. Perhaps, and hopefully so, there will be small niche companies and individuals in the future who will have the ability to continue creating some of these products, such as silver and dye based film, thereby allowing those of us who enjoy a VINTAGE experience to continue with our “art†or “hobbyâ€Â. But as these products we depend on become more and more dependant on sophisticated technology and manufacturing processes, we become more dependant on the mass market to provide them.
Real artists don't drive the everyday market. The market could care less about them. Mass market forces began to take over a long time ago. Henry Ford, GMC, Dupont, Edison, Alexander Bell, and yes, George Eastman -- all are icons of MASS MARKETING! Before Kodak came around photographers made their own photographic plates to use, now only auteurs in a tiny niche market do that! Polaroid has always been about mass marketing and catering to the masses. Very few of their products ever were made for the artist. Nevertheless, artists did find very creative uses for Polaroid materials. And they will be sad indeed when they can no longer obtain Polaroid film. But one day that will happen.
Commercial enterprises are quite happy to promote and use the artistic icons of the time to validate and promote the sales of their product -- but they know the mass consumer pays the bills!
One day digital will do everything that silver and dye based film now does, at least in terms of its usability and viewbility for moviegoers, television viewers, and home video viewers. One day it will be every bit as high quality (or better) with every bit as much latitude and color saturation -- and zero grain! And it will be cheaper and easier to use.
Ho, it will be EXACTLY what George Eastman was striving for, and what he produced and provided for the public, when he single-handedly destroyed the market for wet plate photography with his better and revolutionary paper backed dry emulsion. One day film will only matter to people who prefer, for any number of reasons, a VINTAGE experience or VINTAGE look, just as today wet plate technology ONLY matters to those who wish, for one reason or another, wet plate photography. Of course, digital will also be quite capable of that VINTAGE look, just as GM or Ford, or Buick could easily make better and safer versions of their great classic automobiles if they choose to do so -- and if the market was willing to pay for it.
As for painting, and all other forms of TANGIBLE ART in which the viewer or participant actively engages the PRIMARY MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION, the point is well taken that it has not become obsolete, and yet misses the obvious point that it has in fact become obsolete, FOR THE AVERAGE BUYING PUBLIC. Hardly anyone has real paintings on their walls any longer, although before Durer and the art print and Daguerre and photography, it was extremely common ( however much quality varied).
No, the mass of people who have art on their walls have PRINTS or PHOTOS (or prints of photos). Painting and all representational art of the PRIMARY MEDIUM, paint, hand pulled etchings and lithographs, sculpture, wood carving, and so on, are exactly a niche market, a very expensive niche market for the most part.
PRIMARY MEDIUM art must be experienced as the ORIGINAL to really gain the full sense and appreciation of it -- and that is why we have museums to display what is for most people economically impossible to personally own. However, film is not a PRIMARY MEDIUM art. No one experiences the fun and beauty of film by eyeballing the actual film medium -- we view it through another medium: projected light.
Therefore, for the average viewer, as long as the quality of sound and image is acceptable, it matters little how the primary image was created or stored. And this is precisely what Hollywood and the digital video manufacturers understand well. Of course, we can argue a lot about the merits of the AVERAGE VIEWER, but those whose primary goal is to make a good return on their time and investment LOVE the average viewer.
Of course, the materials of painting and sculpture are relatively cheap and available as of now -- but that is precisely because it still exists in large part as an irreplaceable TEACHING MEDIUM. There would be little art materials produced for sale in pre-packaged format if only ARTISTS who actually produce mature and professional results were buying it. And we are talking about relatively cheap and low-tech materials to manufacture that can even be self-manufactured if need be.
This point also runs counter to silver film interests, since TEACHING FILMMAKING is actually easier and cheaper with digital medium, given the level of computer skills possessed by today’s first world children, and the instant feedback they get. The generally lower cost of digital filmmaking to the schools makes for an even stronger argument in the budget crisis times. For third world children, most any form of filmmaking is entirely beyond their possibilities outside of a very few, very specialized programs – so which technique is used matters little.
One of the most interesting arguments in favor of non-digital medium is its accessibility to non-technical inspection. You don’t have to own a computer to read Shakespeare, nor to view Rembrandt, and arguable but possible, neither must you have electricity or a projector to view a film. From a morbid and pessimistic viewpoint, should modern civilization cease to exist as we know it, it may one day be possible for some future generation to dig up, say Hollywood, unearth a copy print of “Pee Wee Herman’s Big Adventure†and study it for clues to our present day culture and artistic aspirations. Little chance that could happen with any digital medium, considering the immense technical and cryptographic hurdles that would have to be overcome.
Artists of every age have put themselves above the average public -- by striving to a higher technical goal, having a higher emotional, aesthetic, and spiritual goal, and sometimes simply by putting themselves on a pedestal, justified or not.
Then again, there has always been a breed of artist that thrives on attacking or denigrating the established social standard of “artistâ€Â. This type identifies himself as specifically in opposition to some accepted standard. So every transcendent level of technical and spiritual achievement in art has had its mirror image in the “anti-artist†or “primitivistâ€Â. This is as old as recorded art commentary – several thousands of years.
In the end, artists use all and any means and medium they can get their hands on. The WHAT they use may stir up a lot of controversy with some, but it means very little in terms of an artists final output, the final product. Hardly anyone would try to argue the Giotto was a lesser artist than Rembrandt because Giotto only had tempera colors while Rembrandt had the more technically advanced oils – or vice-versa. While few would professionally advocate silent film any longer, hardly anyone would question the artistic merit of the great silent era films such as Abel Gance’s Napoleon or Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligai, or of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Artists will make digital medium just as profound or lacking in profundity as did the Renaissance painters or the Impressionists.
Ultimately, film will have no technical advantage over digital and the mass market will make film obsolete from the perspective of the commercial and mass market. At this point film will be a specialty, a vintage market, a collector or hobbyist market, just as are products for the Ford Model T.
Whether or not Kodak and Fuji continue to produce film will in large part depend on how much money this specialty market is willing to pay to continue it. Perhaps there will be smaller manufacturers that will find it viable to buy up obsolete Kodak and Fuji equipment and produce, at greatly reduced selection and greatly increased prices, traditional film for film cameras. Some very dedicated followers will make or procure their own equipment to continue the availability of product. Hopefully this day will be far off. Considering the pace of technology, I am not confident that it will be far off.
It only took a very short time for the word processor and its big brother, the computer with printer, to make the typewriter business a bust. People still use them, collect them, and sometimes, prefer them, but as of now, they are an economic dead end. There is no denying this. For those who collect or use typewriters, there are ever fewer places to get them fixed or find supplies for them and it’s doubtful anyone will ever again manufacturer one. One day there will no longer be any ribbons for them and users will have to re-ink the old ones. Users will have to own quite a few in order to have their own spare parts supply, and probably learn to repair them as well.
My ultimate point was, and is, that 8mm film, and soon all film, will lose its mass market support and become more costly to pursue. Cost will be much less an issue than availability to those that choose to continue using film, for whatever reason they choose to continue its use. For those who may complain that costs have risen from a few years ago, this is actually to be expected. No one who pursues a vintage hobby or activity, one that does not enjoy mass market support, can expect the lower prices provided by economies of scale – indeed, as said before, mere availability itself becomes a satisfaction.
Those who are committed to continue the art or sport as it may be, will feel sad that the “good old days†of plentiful products, services and cheaper prices have gone by the way, but they will be sufficiently grateful that there are ANY products or services available to pursue their passion that price, to reasonable limits, will be immaterial. Those for whom price was a motivating or enabling factor will move on to other products and medium.
And for Eric: well I don’t want to get into that discussion, but I will say that I am temporarily forced by economic necessity to live in a community were the City government comes into your backyard and tells you what you can, and cannot have in your own backyard, what kind of fence and driveway you can have, what color your house can be painted, what your front yard looks like, how much noise you can make, and during what hours, and when you must replace your roof, regardless of whether or not it leaks water. I could go on, it gets worse, but you get the idea!
So is there a cause and effect between our Corporatocracy and Anal Cultural Nazism? Would human life be as good, as worth living, without all our mass market focus and related technology and industry? Is there a relationship between the way corporations lie, bend the truth, exaggerate, or hype products and the way governments now deliver “modified†truth to their constituents? Was Galileo a lesser man, the Greeks, or any ancient culture, less than modern America or Europe, the horse and wheel a worse means of transportation, reading, writing, music making, and painting less than filmmaking or videomaking or digital music now? Or better? Has mankind, in any really important way, become better, or worse, than it was 3,000 years ago?
I don’t know?
Ds21z
What comes to mind is that the digital revolution will effect the whole movie making business in ways that many people could never anticipate. When you talk about competition bringing the prices down you must realize that that is a very loaded statement. If feature making becomes a less expensive pursuit, it could effect every aspect of the business. Consider the many talented actors that never get that big break in Holywood. When making feature films for the masses becomes a simpler and cheaper task, many guerilla filmmakers will have access to unkown, yet talented actors and the movies that make it to the theaters are those that are well made not the ones with the big hollywood budgets. No more $20,000,000 price tags on Jim Carey. Distributors will seek out cheaper, quality made films FOR ECONOMIC REASONS and many of unkown actors could establish names for themseves through this avenue alone. If everybody is making movies on the same equipment, what does it matter where it came from as long as it is a quality piece? If people think that independent filmmaking has really taken off in the last few years, think how much more commonplace it will be when features are made on a reusable medium. If you shoot a segment of film and screw up, that's it.! You have to start with new stock. I do not have to tell anybody here how expensive that can be
-
Alex
-
Alex
Mr. Guest, you make a very eloquent and logical portrayal of things.
but I still have one big concern, it's the beancounters of society.
Once you believe in an inevitability, the beancounters all rush up and try to outsmart each other by conforming to the "inevitable reality" WAY BEFORE it is necessary to do so.
It's very dangerous to speak of accepting the future before it has happened, for all you really do is limit your choices.
but I still have one big concern, it's the beancounters of society.
Once you believe in an inevitability, the beancounters all rush up and try to outsmart each other by conforming to the "inevitable reality" WAY BEFORE it is necessary to do so.
It's very dangerous to speak of accepting the future before it has happened, for all you really do is limit your choices.
-
ericMartinJarvies
- Senior member
- Posts: 1274
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:26 am
- Location: cabo san lucas, bcs, mexico
- Contact:
ha! what a crack remark!! that made me laugh. after all that sensless dialoge paul closes in for the succinct reality of the original intention of the post ... buying one and for cheap. fuc all that bulchit!
eric martin jarvies
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
-
Andreas Wideroe
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 4:50 pm
- Real name: Andreas Wideroe
- Location: Kristiansand, Norway
- Contact:
Re: Dropping Super-8 Camera Prices Creates "Confusion&q
This is nothing new. If you buy a toaster and it breaks, fixing it will cost you twice the price of a new one. Come on, we're talking $150 for a pro camera! Why not spend $200 getting it in top shape? I don't mind a second - and where on earth do you get, say a pro DV camera for $350?Alex wrote:"The repair costs more than the camera, WHAT A RIP-OFF!!! 8O 8O
Andreas
Andreas Wideroe
Filmshooting | Com - Administrator
Please help support the Filmshooting forum with donations
Filmshooting | Com - Administrator
Please help support the Filmshooting forum with donations
-
Alex
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
i can assure you it isn't. how many countries have you lived in, to use your own style of argumentation (number of beta sp decks owned and so on)? have you lived in europe or is it south america and the middle east, or even the media image of those parts of the world you're comparing with?Alex wrote:I believe it to be true.Basstruc wrote:Don't say things like this, alex:However, in America the women is respected more than in any other country,
/matt
-
bakanosaru
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 9:23 am
- Location: Auckland, New Zealand
- Contact:
I have to say I agree with Basstruc and Mattias, if you really think that you must live in a very strange little world.
As far as the future of super 8 goes,
why don't we all spend more time living in the present actually shooting film. If and when super 8 stops being made, we will just have to adapt. That is what life is about. Things change, nothing lasts for ever. Perhaps in 50 years time or whenever that fateful day comes we will all just move over to analogue video and discuss the eventual end of production of video cassettes.
Old message.
As far as the future of super 8 goes,
why don't we all spend more time living in the present actually shooting film. If and when super 8 stops being made, we will just have to adapt. That is what life is about. Things change, nothing lasts for ever. Perhaps in 50 years time or whenever that fateful day comes we will all just move over to analogue video and discuss the eventual end of production of video cassettes.
Old message.
The perf dies are being built by a company that does nothing else beside build perforating dies. It's a large company and they use the latest CNC and CAD systems to do the work. Compair that to the old recycled machine that the other company has and draw your own conclusions. I will do my best to keep only the highest quality output. As en example my machine will have 4 registration pins and carbide cutters to punch the holes.
Paul Cotto
Paul Cotto
Guest- wrote:Paul,
Just make sure that that machine of yours is designed well and maintained frequently enough because I do not want to buy film that is going to be the lousy quality of someplace like PRO 8MM.
Don't worry about equipment so much and make your movie!