A new Super 8 camera - possibly

Post by **matt5791** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:15 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.

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

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:25 pm

matt5791 wrote:
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.

All very true. But the context of my statement was in reply to Alex's notion that Super 8 could be shot as a substitute for 16mm or 35mm. I wasn't saying that pros don't use super 8. I was saying that pros would not use super 8 as a substitute for S16 or 35mm film. As you correctly pointed out, pros shooting super 8 don't do it because they think super 8 looks like 16mm or 35mm. They do it because they want the super 8 look and you can get that now with existing cameras. In fact, Pro8mm has made an entire career serving that need with used cameras repainted and sold or rented to the very pros you speak of. Who wants to pay more for a new camera when the current supply of used cameras will meet the needs of the "pros" that, ironically, don't demand the best image that super 8 has to offer? I mean, so what if the new camera offers a better image. The "pros" historically don't seem to care, as evidenced by the hyper-grain and blown out super 8 footage in movies and music videos. Everything they seem to demand of Super 8 can be attained now with existing equipment.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

Post by **marc** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:27 pm

It "aint " never going to happen unless Super 8 goes through a period of being super hot like it was in the mid 90's and Beulieu decides to make another one.

Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:54 pm

There is also another argument related to the topic at hand. Most of the working super 8 cameras in existance have done well to perform so flawlessly for the last 15 - 20 years. But the question is, how much longer will they be working for? Another 10 years? 20 years? Light meters would usually be the first things to go, losing their accuracy. This of course can be solved by using a seperate hand held meter. But the other parts can wear down eventually with more dire results- both the mechanical and electronic components. I can only forsee Kodak continuing to make super 8 film as long as there are operational super 8 cameras in existence.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:55 pm

Roger, just to clarify one point, before Pro-8mm began "reissuing" 4008 cameras, they sold new 7008 camera packages starting at $4,999.00 and going all the way up to $19,999 dollars for the "deluxe" multicamera packages.

Who was their market? Doctors, Lawyers, people with spendable income. In LA, it might be some guy who wanted to impress his "girlfriend" by filming her in a couple of scenes because she wanted to be an actress.

Other filmmakers who purchased the camera packages included those who would rather spend 10 grand shooting with a Super-8 camera rather than 50 grand to shoot with a 3 chip video camera (we are going back to the late 80's, early 90's).

Other clients who purchased these new Beaulieu cameras included Producers who were spending 1/2 million dollars on a feature and wanted to try making a film for a $100,000. They wanted a camera they could run and gun with without having to spend for permits on a daily basis. With the Super-8 camera, they could steal many shots and many locations.

To save on cost overruns, Producers liked the idea of actually owning their own camera that they could give to a DP that would include all necessary accessories to go shoot B-roll or reshoot a scene or to get additional coverage. The cost savings were huge versus having to set up another rental day, and have people to go pick up and return the gear.

As for the look, Cold Case, a TV show, sometimes makes their 35mm either look like super-8, or even "worse", but in an artistic and planned way. Cold Case even shoots in Super-8. So quality issues are not always going to be an issue. The fact that it is FILM that is being shot is the most important criteria.

This discussion should not just be about all the reasons why one would always shoot Super-16mm over Super-8, this discussion also needs to center around how easily the Super-8 camera could pay for itself, isn't that really the real bottom line?

If the Super-8 camera pays for itself the first time it is used, the producers will find a way to incorporate it's use in the future. This is the one thing that does not get addressed in the Super-16mm versus Super-8 debate and it is the best reason why a New Super-8 Camera could be an easy sell to the right market.

Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:22 pm

Accidental double post

Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:29 pm

Accidental double post

Post by **Scotness** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:41 pm

The same thread has been running at cinematography.com and this is what someone said:

Face it, you're going to have quality control issues, liability issues to deal with. Try dealing with some filmmaker who's movie was screwed over by your malfunctioning camera, and who now wants to sue your company now to recover damages. You may be 110% in the right, but you still might have to pay a lawyer to go to court and deal with the problem! What if Aaton (sorry, I don't mean to be picking on Aaton all the time, I'm just using them because of the A-minima!) decides you violated one of their patents? Especially if they're a bigger company than you, they will gladly have their lawyers take you to court if they feel you are violating their patents. We're talking thousands of dollars here in legal fees just to settle the matter.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004 ... #entry9266

Which certainly makes me think - so I'm going to develope it as a prototype and aim to shoot one of my own features with it and then see how it all looks from a business point of view. A long process to be sure but I'll put info on my web site as it progresses.

Scot

Post by **joey peeps** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:08 pm

interesting... i've read a lot about the pros and cons of making your
proposed camera ,opinions.. etc... but no mention of:

1. what is your background experience in manufacturing, as in ...how many products have you successfully been involved with .

2. are you (or your collaborators) engineers (of sorts) . my point here
is that non-engineers can typically design and make something work,
but it takes real engineering skills and experience to cut / allocate specific costs , predict longevity/ failure of components , quality control methods , and making a manufacturing effort effective in general.
blah-blah-blah.... not trying to nit-pick here.
My point is that non-engineers almost always over-engineer! which usually escalates manufacturing costs incredibly.

3. i hope you don't plan to make every part from scratch . the key to
modern production value is purchased parts . sometimes the modification of a mechanical assembly to include surplus components
will allow you to put that money elsewhere in the design .

i've been manufacturing camera parts as a side business/hobby
for quite a few years in my CNC machine shop . c-mount lens accessories , filter adaptors , oem style batteries for the scoopix ,
tripod heads , ...... in between the car and motorcycle parts and
injection molds.
if i can help with your camera, i'd be more than reasonable
with the machining costs.

good luck in your endeavor.
jp

Post by **SteveH** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:33 pm

joey peeps wrote: i've been manufacturing camera parts as a side business/hobby
for quite a few years in my CNC machine shop . c-mount lens accessories , filter adaptors , oem style batteries for the scoopix ,
tripod heads , ...... in between the car and motorcycle parts and
injection molds.

Have you ever made a bracket for holding an anamorphic lens? These are virtually impossible to get hold of and they're not a particularly complicated item either.

Post by **Scotness** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:48 pm

Good points Joey - I am working with people who are more experienced than me so I think they'll put me right. My main aim at this stage is as I said to make a working Super 16mm camera for myself and then I'll see where we stand from there - the liability issues are something which I and my friend Rob have thought about a fair bit so we'll see where we are once we've built our own camera and put it through it's paces.

BTW I've added a DIY movie camera manufacture and repair forum at http://mangoagogo.proboards25.com/index.cgi

Scot

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:35 am

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.

True most of the time, but not necessarily all of the time. Lets say that normally a low budget producer spends 1/2 million for a low budget Super-16mm production that is going straight to home video. This time around the producer wants to give some hungry filmmakers with a track record a shot to try and make something on Super-8.

The producers won't give the Super-8 filmmakers the same 1/2 million dollars. They would give them $100,000, maybe $150,000. The producers would then hedge their bet and make a Super-16mm for $350,000 with their regular crew.

The idea is for the same money the producer can now do two productions and in theory be no worse off than if they had made only one movie at $500,000. However, the adage "Good, Fast, Cheap, pick two", applies. This two films for the price of one idea would require that the Super-8 filmmakers be given more time to make their movie. So the one remaining caveat would be that the two lower budgeted films would take longer to make than just making one $500,000 film.

Now that is a big deal, because anytime anybody invests in a film, they want their return on their investment sooner rather than later. If the investor believed in the filmmakers integrity and talent and could afford to give his two crews more time to make their films, the investor could come out ahead in the long run.

Post by **marc** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 8:23 am

Give it up and just go shoot some film. Be happy with the cameras that you do have because they are nice ones. In fact, they are the cream of the crop!

Post by **downix** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:40 pm

1) 4 directly, indirectly I assisted with 16 products total, mostly computer oriented.

2) Studied to be one, never finished a degree. Too impatient for college. My partner in this is an experienced fabricator.

3) Hell no. In fact, the only part being manufactured is the film gate, the pressure plate, the magazine and the external casing. Every other component is being purchased off the shelf.

Post by **LastQuark** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:58 pm

downix wrote:In fact, the only part being manufactured is the film gate, the pressure plate, the magazine and the external casing. Every other component is being purchased off the shelf.

Downix, if you can build this and plug it to a Beaulieu 6008/7008Pro, most of the desired features in a S8 camera will be there except for the orientable viewfinder. See related link below:

viewtopic.php?t=6043

It is quicker and cheaper than building an entirely new camera from scratch (well, almost from scratch). I'm a buyer

.
Ã‚Â