The 8mm camera return explained by Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke

Film has the one qual­i­ty dig­i­tal will nev­er have as film is a lay­ered and dig­i­tal is flat. One rea­son even the most expen­sive scan­ners can’t get all the infor­ma­tion off film. 

Great Stuff

very cool they are bring­ing it back– but would you use this for work? who takes respon­si­bil­i­ty if you send it in, and the col­or timer, or what­ev­er lab tech assis­tant, god for­bid even the post­man dam­ages the film. prob­a­bly just have to bite the bullet.

i’d use this for fun, but i don’t know if i’d use it for work where you’ve a client involved.

The igno­rance on these boards.….…..

Just get a real one from eBay for a few quid.

But the ques­tion is how many times will peo­ple shoot Indy films on 8mm before going back to dig­i­tal due to the cost. I hope to see the price in media stor­age devices go down more with this cam­era com­ing out. And I may even get one but I still will shoot 99% of the films on dig­i­tal just because the price of the car­tridge and the transfers

Very good idea. I would real­ly like to own one myself, but the cam­era looks more like a toast­er then an 8mm cam­era. My sug­ges­tion is; change the look if you wan­na sell them. I don’t see myself arriv­img on a set with a white toast­er, but I real­ly dig arriv­ing on set with a retro look cam­era telling my crew; ‑we’re gonna shoot this on film guys..!

Why both­er? It’s a nice nov­el­ty but 8mm looks like pure shit. Even SD video looks better.

What Does 70mm Look Like?

Dou­glas McLaren, the pro­jec­tion­ist for the Music Box The­atre, knows there’s a lot that makes 70mm worth see­ing on the big screen. “From an audi­ence stand­point, it’s a much crisper, brighter, and ide­al­ly more uni­form and sta­ble image,” he explains. Essen­tial­ly, the dif­fer­ence between 35mm and 70mm is sim­i­lar to the dif­fer­ence between DVD and Blu-ray, if switch­ing from DVD to Blu-ray also made your tele­vi­sion bigger. 

The wider, sharp­er image allows view­ers to see, as McLaren puts it, “details in these films that you have just nev­er, ever seen before.” He also points out that most the­aters project films at a res­o­lu­tion of about 2,000 pix­els, which is com­pa­ra­ble to Blu-ray. How­ev­er, the restora­tion scan of Lawrence of Ara­bia was scanned at about [8,000 pix­els], “and the neg­a­tive had even more infor­ma­tion than that. There’s just so much more going on in these 70mm prints than even on your Blu-ray.”

https://www.groupon.com/articles/what-is-70mm-film

way to go kodak!

When I took film study back in 1978… we did every­thing with 8 and super 8mm.… I spent two weeks just mak­ing my sin­gle 10 minute stop action ani­mat­ed project… then send­ing the film off in the mail… then man­u­al­ly splic­ing with my edit­ing reel to reel sys­tem… then there was VHS… yawn… and NOW there is a world of dig­i­tal video options that I can see, trans­pose, splice, edit, tone, save, archive and exper­i­ment with… AND view with­out that angsty Kodak pro­jec­tor.… Go BACK? Um.. no thank you 🙂 I am amazed that they are even think­ing of this… we have pho­to clubs still mak­ing wet plate images, but movie mak­ing? Why? (‘;’)( ‘;’)

Just to be clear on a few points. There are only two ways you are going to get a reel of film back from Kodak. One, is that you shoot rever­sal, where the film itself becomes its own pos­i­tive, pro­jec­tion­able media. They process it, and send it to you on a reel. The sec­ond, is that if you shoot neg­a­tive film, Kodak makes a print of the film as a pos­i­tive for projection.

The first option can’t hap­pen because Kodak stopped pro­duc­ing all col­or rever­sal, and only has black and white. Peo­ple won’t go for that option. So unless they REINTRODUCE col­or rever­sal, or pos­si­bly repack­age that awful 200asa Wit­tner crap, option one is out.

Option two is pos­si­ble, but it would be way expen­sive. Clear­ly, I don’t see the fea­ture of send­ing you back a reel of film. No one projects any­more. They want the look and fun of shoot­ing film, but they want to edit and pre­serve dig­i­tal­ly. The cam­era itself speaks to that in hav­ing a dig­i­tal sound record­ing fea­ture which would be uti­lized in dig­i­tal editing.

Pop­fil­ter, pls

How will one be able to watch the reel of film at home after the pro­cess­ing and scan­ning, since the the film they make is a neg­a­tive film? I see the only 1 B&W and 3 Colour neg­a­tive emul­sions ? Will they give you a copy on dupli­cate pos­i­tive film? I high­ly doubt that.

Kodak is not about cheap you goons.

id rather then do it with 16mm but what­ev­er this is still pret­ty cool

I got my Kodak XL33 Super 8 movie cam­era that I’ve got for free at a barn sale and I have not used it before, and thank­ful­ly, Kodak still makes Super 8 film car­tridges, and I’ll have to get it soon.

where do i buy this

that moment you can buy a old kodak super 8 cam­era for like $20 and use the new film and you will save tons of mon­ey. they should only make the film

we want the cam­era and the ektachrome already!