Will the recession kill off super 8?

[Actor]

The one thing super 8 MUST have to continue is a source of film for users. Most of it comes from Kodak. With banks and auto makers begging for money other businesses are also feeling the pinch. Kodak has not impressed me as the healthiest of companies these last few years. I suspect that their super 8 operation is marginal or break-even, possibly even an expense. If Kodak starts hurting, super 8 is probably a place they could look to cut expenses.

If Kodak drops super 8 could other manufacturers make up for it. I doubt it. Pro8 in California is re-cutting 35mm, which they could continue to do provided they can get carts, which come from Kodak. I doubt other manufacturers have the capacity to fill the gap.

[Superbus_]

Recently I use a handmade super 8 film (based on ilford 35 mm) loaded to kaccema casettes by an expert here: 30$ including processing and dvd version/ casette. Thus I believe we can survive the end of kodak films in super 8 but this market is so little that for a longer period we can't miss kodak. On the other I think kodak is not planning to stop super 8.

[ronnoco]

Recently I use a handmade super 8 film (based on ilford 35 mm) loaded to kaccema casettes by an expert here: 30$ including processing and dvd version/ casette. Thus I believe we can survive the end of kodak films in super 8 but this market is so little that for a longer period we can't miss kodak. On the other I think kodak is not planning to stop super 8.

Have you had any of your 'handmade' film processed superbus ?
I would love to see some images...moving or still of your film..is it possible to upload your film to vimeo so we can see it ?

I have a kaccema cartridge but have not had the courage to attempt loading it with film yet...one of these days I will...maybe sooner than later if things keep going the way they are

mike

[MIKI-814]

I don't think either Kodak would be planning to stop supporting Super8. I doubt even now is profitable in terms of direct incomings but they support it for other strategical reasons.

[Jim Carlile]

Super 8 is a loss leader for them, because they use it to promote their MP stocks. They basically are subsidizing the format these days as a gateway to 35mm professional use. So as long as they stay in the motion picture film business they will maintain super 8-- if it keeps selling.

The bigger likelihood is that Kodak will spin-off their entire celluloid business one of these days. They are itching to get rid of it, but no nibbles at the price they want.

As to the recession? Well, most camera hobbyists have a little money, and will sacrifice food for film! I'd be more worried if I were in the digital camera business.

[Rollef]

If Kodak starts hurting, super 8 is probably a place they could look to cut expenses.

If they do (starts hurting), I doubt super 8 is the one thing they must cut to make ends meet. It will be a part of a "package" and easy to see if it starts to happen. Super 8 alone would be like pissing in the ocean. I doubt it though.

[avr]

I don´t know the Kodak future plan but I think that they invested in a new Vision 3 carts then they won´t stop super 8 production to the short-term and middle-term objective.

[MovieStuff]

Super 8 is a loss leader for them, because they use it to promote their MP stocks. They basically are subsidizing the format these days as a gateway to 35mm professional use....

Not being argumentative but, do you really think that Kodak is seeing their sales of super 8 as a realistic primer for people that might move on to 16mm or 35mm? If Kodak made some obvious pro-active steps to deal with the jitter and cut the prices of their Super 8 stocks to make super 8 really affordable and not just an expensive hobby, then I might agree. But I think the majority of super 8 shooters today are hold-overs from a past era or had shot film as a still photographer and the progression to motion picture film was a natural. But shooting super 8 today is too goddamn frustrating and mistakes and errors are so expensive that I can't imagine Kodak would promote that questionable experience to those neophytes looking to make movies in the future in 16mm or 35mm. The state of super 8 today, in terms of high price and unreliability, would make almost anyone thinking about shooting movies professionally seriously explore digital, not film. 24p Digital is soooooo much more reliable, regardless of the difference in the look of it. Sorry, I know that sounds like heresy on this board but I really feel it is the truth.

Roger

[adamgarner]

I think Super 8 is a specialty item for professional shooters. It's not a gateway film, but it's a "look." It helps to learn on 8mm about film stock etc. That's for sure, and that HELPS folks understand more about film and how the whole thing works. I've learned a shitload about the workflow, choice of stock, processing, telecine, scanning, etc. S8 helped me do this for under 10K.

Now, Kodak probably has cash. I'd be more worried about business that haven't got a cash reserve. They've been around long enough that I'm hopeful they aren't feeling TOO much pain during this recession. I don't think this would effect their S8 line.

Do we all think that s8 would last longer if it were 1/2 the price? Imagine a cart and processing were US$15. What if it only cost 100 bucks an hour to transfer to HD? Would more people shoot it? I think what I'm wondering is "is the price really the issue here?" I don't think so. I think it's that most folks don't really know what to do with it because it's more of an "art form" now, than a commercial medium. They certainly don't promote it (Kodak) and people are surprised when they see my Canon 1014XL-S. They usually light up and have a great reaction, but they had NO idea that s8 was alive.

I think the issue is not the price, but the knowledge. Kodak keeps it tucked away for some reason, probably people like us.

[marc]

If Kodak made some obvious pro-active steps to deal with the jitter and cut the prices of their Super 8 stocks to make super 8 really affordable and not just an expensive hobby, then I might agree. . But shooting super 8 today is too goddamn frustrating and mistakes and errors are so expensive that I can't imagine Kodak would promote that questionable experience to those neophytes looking to make movies in the future in 16mm or 35mm.

Conversely, it is this UNRELIABILITY that Kodak may want to maintain in order to push people up to the higher formats once their threshold of frustration has been crossed. As a loss leader with NO additional money put into it to improve it's quality makes sense. But if they had to invest more money to improve it, the cost would not be worth the benefits, loss leader or not. Add to that, as I mentioned above, the benefit of people NOT getting too comfortable with the format out of frustration with it's declining quality in terms of reliability in recent years and you have a perfect catalyst in people's decision making process to try 16mm or 35mm.( Regular 8mm is still viable in terms of reliability since there is no complex cartridge involved.)

[aj]

This is all about an imaginary problem.

[MovieStuff]

Conversely, it is this UNRELIABILITY that Kodak may want to maintain in order to push people up to the higher formats once their threshold of frustration has been crossed.

Hmmmm. Interesting business plan. Sell a cheaper product that a company knows doesn't work like it's supposed to so that customers will get fed up and buy a more expensive product from the same company..... Sure! Why not? Weirder things have come about.....

Roger

[marc]

Conversely, it is this UNRELIABILITY that Kodak may want to maintain in order to push people up to the higher formats once their threshold of frustration has been crossed.

Hmmmm. Interesting business plan. Sell a cheaper product that a company knows doesn't work like it's supposed to so that customers will get fed up and buy a more expensive product from the same company..... Sure! Why not? Weirder things have come about.....

Roger

Well, when most "professionals" and Film schools are touting Super 8 as the "amateur" format and telling students and newbies alike that unsteadiness is an inherent quality of the format, it really does make sense. I am sure that film schools tout super 8 as the "inexpensive rout for newbies to get the film experience but if you want something steadier you have to move up to 16mm or 35mm". You have said as much yourself by citing several examples where people want to use Super 8 because of it's inferior grain structure and that some clients think that real super 8 looks to good and want you to degrade the image even more.

[MIKI-814]

This is all about an imaginary problem.

I Agree. We do have the format quite alive by now and plenty of filmstocks, maybe more than ever before, so lets forget those fears and just shooooot

[natxo]

the death of super8 will arrive by the absence of cameras manufacturers. The most modern cameras are 25 years old, and some of the top line´s, 35 or 40 years. There is only a company anywhere in the world that constructs "new" cameras -refurbishing old Beaulieus-, and every time there are less qualified technicians to fix our beloved machines. There is no engineering company that supports the format, as can be Arri, Aaton - or ikonoscop- with 16mm. We have companies and enthusiats who are able to cut and perforate fukn, but whereupon we will film?

Sadly, super8 is, along with polaroid, the weakest analog photography format.