New Danish Super 8 camera to debut in 2014

[PyrodsTechnology]

[quote="freedom4kids"]I would suggest shooting with a Double Super 8 converted Bolex w/ internal 100ft load or external 400 ft magazine. I believe Wittner sells 3x types of DS8 film in 25 or 100ft loads. You might be able to convince them to sell you longer lengths.

Do you have a preference for shooting long takes? I suspect the average Super 8 shooter is content with 2.5m@24fps 50 ft loads. The economic reality is that it is cheaper to offer longer 16mm loads than the occasional DS8 long roll. Economies of scale. And I make that a statement as very occassional DS8 shooter myself, i.e. http://vimeo.com/45620380 (DS8 E100D)

well, i am already a Bolex/Switar DS8 shooter . The quality of images that camera delivers are very close to 16mm ! But since new S8 camera was in development, imagine an Arri or Aaton or any prof.16mm camera DS8 converted...i think that it is plenty of used/refurbished cameras for occasional S8 shooter. This project should be suitable to catapult S8 to a true pro film format

[Nicholas Kovats]

It would be less expensive to convert a Standard 16mm camera to it's Regular 8mm cousin's transport as they share identical perforation dimension.

Super 8 perfs are larger dimensionally and therefore require more expensive re-tooling. I have looked into a retooling a Standard 16mm Photo-Sonics into a UP8 2.8 Regular 8 transport. It's not cheap as every magazine would also have to be retooled. A DS8 conversion would be even more expensive. Economies of scale dictate the most popular small format - single strand Super 8.

Or one could simply shoot with a Bolex (25/100/400ft loads) in one of seven film formats, i.e.

1. 9.5mm (rare- prototype?)
2. Regular 8
3. Double Super 8
4. Standard 16
5. Super 16
6. UP8 2.8 (full width R8)
7. UP8 3.1 (full width DS8)

[Tscan]

I sold my Scoopic DS8 when the 100D ran out and i can say that the difference compared to the cartridge is huge. The images are a LOT sharper and rock steady. The sharper super steady image of DS8 can resemble 16mm a lot more. I've been using the Adnec pressure plate again recently which helps a lot but still not equal to DS8. That said, this new camera uses a cartridge where the film is threaded through a real gate. Coupled with V3 stocks and amazing telecine resources like Spectra, Lightpress, and Cinelicious... a new camera like this will be the final piece in making the 8mm film format a notable choice.

[Will2]

It's flaws have always been part of the charm but i know through experience that it doesn't have to be that way. Just when i've seen it look it's best something comes along that makes it better. If you look at the issues behind it's historic limitations, you will find that the issues have been ironed out in it's ongoing evolution. Jitter, dust, film stock dynamics, sound sync, transfer quality, ect... can all be dealt with these days with what's available. At the end of the day you have a medium that looks a lot more interesting and be a lot more creative than digital, is cheaper and more portable than 16mm yet different. The grain palate of the small frame size should be it's only "limitation" that sets it apart from S16, and could do a fine job intercut with 16mm for more flavor in a true film.

Absolutely 8mm looks more interesting (to me) than most directly digital images.

I find Super 16 can cut really well with 35mm under certain circumstances, so Maybe Super 8 could cut well with regular 16mm… Not all the issues have been ironed out with it's ongoing evolution, the big one being that IT'S 8MM.

One reason I jumped to 16mm from 8mm was that the good transfers you're talking about cost me less money with 16mm, so while the film & processing can be more (not always with short ends & re-cans) the transfers were equal or less and the quality night and day.

Don't get me wrong, I love pushing the format to it's limits and beyond and think this camera is amazing and a great development; it's just let's be real, for any mainstream production Super 8 simply isn't an option even with this camera. For some indy productions, weddings & experiments it will be wonderful but will certainly "stick out" which is perfect for those types of productions. If you don't want the format to get in the way and tell a story, and have the image be transparent for the story, Super 16 and 35 still rule.

The element of Super 8 being more portable is negated slightly by the complication of this camera but only us hardcore film geeks will be using it and of course we don't mind. I'd love to have one, but I'd pick up an A Minima any day of the week over this for most productions.

[PyrodsTechnology]

this project is awesome. BUT you have to pull out the film from cartridge and load it on the pressure plate, so it is not so quickly as to change a cartridge on a classic S8 camera . Now immagine to shoot a documentary or whatsoever where you have to replace rapidly a cartridge every 2,5 minutes...

[Tscan]

I find Super 16 can cut really well with 35mm under certain circumstances, so Maybe Super 8 could cut well with regular 16mm… Not all the issues have been ironed out with it's ongoing evolution, the big one being that IT'S 8MM.

I'm not suggesting that major projects for Hollywood features could be shot entirely on S8 now. Yes it is still 8mm, which is still raw cinema. It can be 8mm mixed into 35mm, 16mm, or digital for it's unique cinematic appeal without the jitter, frame breathing, poor sync ect. What i'm really trying to say is that 8mm can be used without "starring as its self". 16mm is pretty good these days, in fact really good. With Vision3 and the latest DI, it can look about as slick as what you'd expect from 35mm. S8 is just moving up the same ladder. As for a DIY 15-30min short story, it could be filmed on S8 wonderfully.

[MIKI-814]

yes, it is great, but i would have preferred a new double super 8 camera with its longer load

DS8 is extremely limited in filmstock availability. This would have made no sense to invest money and time in a DS8 camera

[carllooper]

.

Instead of questions such as which film format is an appropriate choice given some already constituted notion of what the work might be, one can also ask other questions such as: what kind of work can be conceived, made and shown, given an already constituted notion of what film format (camera etc) is going to be used.

When I look at a roll of Plus-X Super8 sitting in the fridge, I don't think to myself: Oh - I should throw that out in the bin because it's no good for making a Hollywood blockbuster film.

Nor do I think: oh I should keep that roll of film because it might come in useful for a nostalgic flashback sequence in a Hollywood blockbuster film.

Rather I ask of that roll of film, what kind of film can be made to work using that roll of film. What kind of film really deserves that roll of film. For me that's really hard to answer but for me that's the real question. The real challenge. It's not about Super8 being some sort of option in a drop down list of all film and digital formats known to human kind - as if one needed some help managing a decision on such. When I look at the roll of film I have already decided I am going to expose that particular roll of film. I've already decided (or the roll of film has decided) that Super8 will be what is used. What I haven't yet decided is what I will expose on it. Or how I will use it. That's where it becomes more interesting.

And I'm also with Tscan. Super8 can be made to stand on it's own two feet. It doesn't have to always be playing itself. It can, like other photographic formats, play something other than itself. Indeed, what is it's self? Why should it have any identity other than the one you decide, as an artist, to give it. And that is also a part of what photographic/cinematographic images are about, or can be about - they are images which can be made to become strangely other than what they supposedly are. And that should include Super8. Photographic images can invoke a sense of an external world (or something else) beyond their apparent boundaries, and without in anyway having to either give up, or give in, to their own particular internal graphic intelligence (their particular look).

Regarding a Super8 magazine. The architecture of the new camera looks amenable to such an adaption. If it can be made in such a way that makes it easier to later add a magazine that would be awesome.

C

[Will2]

.
When I look at a roll of Plus-X Super8 sitting in the fridge, I don't think to myself: Oh - I should throw that out in the bin because it's no good for making a Hollywood blockbuster film.

Nor do I think: oh I should keep that roll of film because it might come in useful for a nostalgic flashback sequence in a Hollywood blockbuster film.

Rather I ask of that roll of film, what kind of film can be made to work using that roll of film. What kind of film really deserves that roll of film. For me that's really hard to answer but for me that's the real question. The real challenge. It's not about Super8 being some sort of option in a drop down list of all film and digital formats known to human kind - as if one needed some help managing a decision on such. When I look at the roll of film I have already decided I am going to expose that particular roll of film. I've already decided (or the roll of film has decided) that Super8 will be what is used. What I haven't yet decided is what I will expose on it. Or how I will use it. That's where it becomes more interesting.

I have this vision of a Super 8 cartridge answering your question when asked. Little plastic edges opening in sync with it's answer, "Make a film Noir with me…PLEASE!"

I agree, I look at a Super 8 cartridge and think how I love Super 8 just as it is. I love the idea of a new camera intellectually, but to be honest I'd almost always grab a cheap 310xl for family stuff and my Beaulieu 4008 for something a little more sharp. If I want more perfect anything about it I go 16mm.

The nature of Super 8 has always been it's ease of use over Regular 8 or 16mm. Yes it's film, but Kodak designed the cartridge so everyone could use it quickly and easily. As Roberto said, quick loading is everything for Super 8. I think we all agree that Fuji's 8mm system was technically better with a similar ease of loading. I would love to see a new, small camera that recorded audio digitally but was the same size as a Canon 310xl with modern autofocus & decent lens. THAT I would buy and use constantly. But that's just how I use Super 8; rarely for an art project, mostly to take home movies that I like looking at years later. I totally accept that others see it as a digital alternative that's slightly less expensive than 16mm and has it's own pleasing aesthetic.

I was looking at some VHS home recordings from the early 80's and was sad that no matter what, it will always look like that; no amount of digital wizardry will make it look much better than VHS. All the film I shoot however can look amazing up to 2K and the 35mm will go to 4K no problem (as long as it's in focus and with a decent lens!).

Please don't think I mean to discourage the development of the camera, I'm just saying that everyone has a slightly different thing they like about Super 8.

[reflex]

this project is awesome. BUT you have to pull out the film from cartridge and load it on the pressure plate, so it is not so quickly as to change a cartridge on a classic S8 camera . Now immagine to shoot a documentary or whatsoever where you have to replace rapidly a cartridge every 2,5 minutes...

Nobody in their right mind would shoot a documentary on Super 8 in 2013. This camera is more likely to be used as a B-cam for music videos and projects that would benefit from a few intercut "real film" sequences.

[Will2]

Nobody in their right mind would shoot a documentary on Super 8 in 2013.

Except Kodak which should make a Super 8 documentary about Super 8 to promote Super 8. It always irked me that when 50D was rolling off the line they release a crapily shot video on uTube instead of taking the opportunity to shoot Super 8 of it.

[carllooper]

I have this vision of a Super 8 cartridge answering your question when asked. Little plastic edges opening in sync with it's answer, "Make a film Noir with me…PLEASE!"

Ha ha. Yes indeed. Film Noir.

Film Noir is interesting. Some of the look there can be regarded as a byproduct of constraints imposed by the war. Instead of the filmmakers relying on preconceptions about how a film should look (and therefore having to wait for the constraints to be lifted, ie. wait the war out) the filmmakers just adjusted the kind of film that could work within those constraints. So successful were the film noir filmmakers in adapting to the constraints that even when those constraints fell away, the ideas adopted persisted.

The Film Noir films are lessons in no budget film making. How to make a work on the smell of an oily rag. How to work within severe constraints. How to use the constraints to your advantage.

And part of the lesson learnt would easily be the use of old second hand cameras, ie. rather than waiting for some brand new shiny beast and the promise it otherwise holds.

My own interest in the new camera is only because I can afford it (well almost). On a basic level I just love it as a thing. But in reality I don't actually need it any way. There's nothing the camera would really do any better than the cameras I already have - apart from the pin registration - but even there it's not really necessary as digital registration plus some minimal vertical blur deconvolution can do the trick. However I'm always reminded of what a pioneer filmmaker here in Australia said to me on a shoot (he was an actor in the work and I was the cinematographer): "Carl you always say - don't worry we'll fix it in post. But why not fix it now, then you won't have to fix it in post". Pin registration is a way of "fixing it now".

However from a creative technical point of view I'm just so fascinated by the relationship between what occurs in the field and what occurs back in the studio, where each can imply the other and presuppose the other - interlocking together across time. Or rather - never being separate from each other in the first place. The "fix it in post" is just a figure of speech. Nothing is really being fixed in post as such as there's nothing broken in the first place. The photography component is really just an incomplete part of a larger process.

But not that what happens in the field is just raw data for work back in the studio, ie. not Eisenstein's (or an editor's) point of view. And it would also be something other than studio work as 'raw data' (graphic artist experiments) for works that are predominately field based - I'm thinking of that studio work that goes into groovy title sequences for otherwise field based narratives - like BBC crime series title sequence work. All great stuff - but to get away from such as a rule of thumb methodology.

So Super8 appeals to me as part of a bigger picture involving digital post. The convenience of Super8 in the field married to (or conceptually never separated from) a high tech post that would presuppose the Super 8 - but a high tech post that one can do on a very cheap computer in one's own shed (rather than in some expensive post house), and the conception of works that would fit this framework. And compete with any other work, done in any other way, on any other format. The challenge and reward of such.

Also it's just not true to say that Super8 can't compete with mainstream films. Many things (indeed everything) competes with mainstream films. TV competes. The internet competes. Art galleries compete. Screenings at the local pub compete. A night out at the bowling alley competes. Getting some sleep competes. Eating dinner competes. Riding a bicycle competes. Writing these words on filmshooting.com competes. It all depends on what frame of reference you are using. And no frame of reference is any more central than any other. And even when you limit the frame of reference to mainstream cinema (or as a start: mainstream film festivals) there's easily a way for Super8 to compete within that domain - and like never ever before.

cheers
Carl

[Tscan]

Same here Carl, I don't know that I need it but still want to own it. I'll probably end up getting one. The 2 biggest selling points for me is the pin registration and it's crystal synced with built in audio recording abilities. I'm haven't tried to do any sound synced work lately, but having the ability to do so is something that could help me branch out more. It would make a nice companion with my Retro8 scanner in which I don't know if it could be compatible with a max-8 frame? Anyway it looks like this camera may be out by tax return time?

[carllooper]

The 2 biggest selling points for me is the pin registration and it's crystal synced with built in audio recording abilities.

Yes. I completely forgot about the crystal sync. That is definitely the other feature I'd enjoy so very very much. And the audio recording, although I'd probably use a separate recorder anyway. But if one ever forgot the recorder - the camera would come to the rescue!

Carl

[carllooper]

Please don't think I mean to discourage the development of the camera, I'm just saying that everyone has a slightly different thing they like about Super 8.

No problem Will. I very much appreciate your take on things. You have a very open mind in everything you say. And I totally agree we all have a slightly different take on Super8. I tend to argue my point of view somewhat strongly but that's only because, a. it's my particular point of view (well most of the time) and b. I love to elaborate. But of course the debate or discussion itself is the more important thing (rather than just any one point of view). Hearing everyone's point of view. Allowing everyone's point of view. Encouraging a diversity of opinions. I've probably been somewhat over-trained in arguing an idea as strongly as one can. Even if it's actually faulty although obviously if I knew it was faulty I wouldn't be arguing it (well most of the time). But by arguing a particular point of view, if there are faults, then they will have a greater opportunity to be picked up by someone and successfully countered. And since being successfully countered hurts (I find) it also means one is thrown into thinking a bit more about it, about what better direction to take, out of that collision. An avoidance of pain model but one that risks that pain.

Carl