I can't believe no one has posted this yet?

They are a little late to the hipster camera revival game but include telecine with developing!

Kodak Launches Super 8 Filmmaking Revival Initiative at CES 2016 | Kodak (http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/default.htm)

That's gonna be a great $700 you can spend to use a couple of times and stick onto the shelf until you sell it on eBay for peanuts!

Yea! That’s good news. I don’t have to get rid of our Bolex Super 8 after all. (Note to wife: See, it does pay to hang onto this stuff after all.)

Hmmm…. Now, if only one can rig up a couple XLR connectors to it ….

Hmmm…. Now, if only one can rig up a couple XLR connectors to it ….

Do you really need XLR to film your cat?

There is a strong, but small niche market for Super8, shooting art films, fashion, advertising, music videos, even some weddings, which currently has been using old cameras. There is now one new super 8 camera available the Logmar: Logmar Super 8 Camera - Pro8mm (http://www.pro8mm.com/super-8-cameras/logmar-super-8-camera/)

This is a high end camera, rather then one suitable for people without deep pocket, this announced Kodak camera's price should suit a wider range of users, although perhaps Kodak may be too large a company for such a product.

Currently, sorry to say, chances are that the Super 8 home movie will archive better than the digital equivalent.

This is right up there with that CRAFT camera.

Andrew

Some more details:

New Kodak Super 8 Concept Camera: First Look Video - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-07/new-kodak-super-8-concept-camera-first-look-video)

Currently, sorry to say, chances are that the Super 8 home movie will archive better than the digital equivalent.
That thought had occurred to me! And quite honestly (having had several 8mm, std and super, cameras in the distant past) it's the only real, genuine plus I see in it.

There is far more not said in those articles than said, even for a concept camera. What about sound? And what ISO film are we talking about? I remember you could get 400ASA tungsten balance film in a super 8 cartridge, but the grain was something else. Nowadays there is a general expectation of getting up to the equivalent of ISO 2000 and beyond with not too much noise etc......

And.... it talks of a digital screen for viewfinding? I can see the desirability on one hand - but such seems to be adding a lot of complexity, not to mention battery drain even when not recording. (A beauty of an 8mm film camera was it would be powered from a few AA cells, which would last quite a long time.)

Sorry, but it seems a gimmick dreamed up by marketing people, not a serious photographic proposition for the vast majority of people.

A niche market may well carry on with 8mm film for a while longer for the reasons Brian says (and the idea of processing including a digital scan may well be useful) - but what does this give that a straightforward 8mm camera doesn't?

These are the Super 8 film stocks on sale from Kodak: Super 8mm Products | Motion Picture Film (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/products/production/spotlight_on_super_8/super_8mm_products/index.htm)

The Logmar, which is currently at the beta stage with some users, also has a digital viewfinder

I've had requests from clients to shoot some super-8 at weddings and I know other wedding videographers that have done really well providing that service. Folks like it for emotional events not because of DR (because there is little) or resolution (because there is little), but rather because it feels so nostalgic. I'd never shoot a corporate job with a super-8 cam but I can see how it might could have a market now. It died, became a novelty, and now it's kinda sorta coming back a bit. We'll see I guess.

.....not because of DR (because there is little) or resolution (because there is little), but rather because it feels so nostalgic.So all we need to do is shoot in SD and enlarge it out of all proportion, shouldn't that do it? :-)

Dave

Unless you're using TriX they use now modern neg stocks on Super 8 , so the highlight handling will be better than video. Plus you have the random pixels called grain.

If Kodak is now developing and including telecine in the operation... is there any reason you couldn't just buy any old super8 camera for $50? You don't get the EVF or audio to SD... but I don't see that as being worth $650 more.

Oh boy! First Acme Buggywhips returns, now Kodak is back!

Bear in mind that Kodak developed much of the technology at the centre of digital photography.

Allowing for inflation. $700 is about the same cost as a budget Super 8 camera in the 1970s. Although you can now get a high end used quality one for about that, mods and servicing can add to the costs.

I believe the new camera is Max8, allowing 16:9 framing.

Super 8 shot on the Logmar transferred with a 2k scan

Logmar S8 Camera & Kodak Vision 3 50D Super 8 - 2K Scan - YouTube

I gather the Logmar people are involved in the design of the Kodak camera, although the mechanics are different to that of their Logmar S-8 and "is a "standard slot-in" cassette super8 camera".

Kodak's pitch on Super 8 and the new cameras.

Pro Video Coalition - Kodak revives the Super 8 film camera by Jose Antunes (http://www.provideocoalition.com/kodak-revives-the-super-8-film-camera)

Looking at the second photo in that article I initially thought they were loading the cartridge horizontally instead of vertically - but I realize now that they just have the camera on it's side.

But it got me thinking - at this point, without a lot of need for legacy format support/compatibility, why not mount the cartridge horizontally (similar to IMAX) in order to capture a larger widescreen frame which has an area closer to super 16? It would obviously reduce run times, but for the trade-off of significantly higher image quality it seems like it would be worth it.

I suspect Super 16 makes more sense at that point once you start costing things. There are currently great prices on 16mm professional cameras at the moment.

But it got me thinking - at this point, without a lot of need for legacy format support/compatibility, why not mount the cartridge horizontally (similar to IMAX) in order to capture a larger widescreen frame which has an area closer to super 16? It would obviously reduce run times, but for the trade-off of significantly higher image quality it seems like it would be worth it.

I think the concept of a 2.5 minute run time (50 ft cartridge shooting 24fps) alone is going to be daunting enough for many users, especially those who have come up in the "keep it rolling" 1's and 0's era. Cutting that time down further with a horizontal format would make it a beyond-niche concept, I would think! I once worked on an IMAX doc with the Iwerks 8/70 (8 perf horizontal 70mm) camera. The 500 ft loads also ran about 2.5 minutes and we were capturing unpredictable action. Each time we had rolled half a mag it became a crap shoot and ensuing discussion of whether or not to reload and risk missing something.

I am intrigued at how well this new Super 8 camera will sit with those who again have come up in a paradigm where media is re-useable and once purchased, the process of shooting becomes effectivey "free". $20-30 per minute for acquisition is a very different notion for today's hobbyist or indie filmmaker.

I certainly have nostalgia for film - both 8mm and 16mm - but there comes a point where common sense says that some things are best left in the past.

Ask yourself one simple question. If manufacturers had presented together the first Super8 camera and a modern high-definition digital camera as "the proposed new thing" in 1965, do you think there is even the remotest chance Super 8 would ever have left the drawing board? Personally I believe it would have been comparable to the Alexandra palace TV trials in 1936. Bairds (mechanical) system went head to head with the EMI/RCA system and the latter was so overwhelmingly superior that the trial didn't even go it's full duration. And that was in all respects: technical quality, convenience - you name it.

And it's the same here. It's not simply a quality issue, it's everything from running cost to convenience, the delay of processing - everything. Even that Super 8 will now require separate sound recording and syncing. If you presented Super 8 and a digital HD camera to someone who had never seen a moving picture before, which do you think they'd go for? Super 8 was the best that could be done for it's proposed market at the time of introduction with the technology available. If HD digital had been an option then, Super 8 would never have even got onto the drawing board, let alone off it!

I've heard it said "but it has that unique look". Which may be true - but it's inferior! It only gets any praise because of nostalgia. And decent software can do a pretty good job of old film emulation - Super 8 will never be able to rival HD in quality terms, even if it was run through horizontally. Sorry, I see this purely in marketing gimmickry terms - not serious photographic. Kodak trying a desperate last gasp at capitalising on it's past.

There is an aesthetic aspect to this, different mediums offer different "looks" and textures. What matters is less the technical accuracy, but how appropriate it is for the production it's being used in.

There is an aesthetic aspect to this, different mediums offer different "looks" and textures.
Yes indeed, and in the sense that some productions may be suited by saturated colours, others by subtle colours, and some productions may need softening, others more edgy etc etc I couldn't be more in agreement.

The point I was trying to make is that if a modern HD camera with a range of controls to achieve exactly such had been around for a while, then someone invented film and Super8 and said "hey, what about this new look!" I just don't think they'd get very far. It would simply be seen as inferior in pretty well every way - short running time, separate sound, expense of media, delay due to processing, soft image, weave, grain, poor in low light - you name it.

If anyone really is interested in this for aesthetic reasons, I'd still maintain is it's because of nostalgia, not because of any inherent strength over modern electronic cameras. (Also worth saying it has taken electronic video 50 years to really rival film in some key aspects such as dynamic range. It always used to be the case for most of my career that it was a case of strengths and weaknesses - horses for courses - between the two. But now it's become very difficult to make a sensible case for film on any course.)

If Super 8 came out now, it's main attraction would probably be to the arts community or experimental film makers rather than the mass market, However, you just can't tell what becomes the cool thing to have in the modern world, although, in this case, it won't be for instant gratification.

Like all arts or media, there is a history, so any meduim used carries associations that rise and fall in people's minds and can bring up different emotions. These can be nightmarish as well as nostalgic depending on the context.

The imperfections are what makes it useful.

That’s good news. I don’t have to get rid of our Bolex Super 8 after all.

Oh screw Super 8 -- I still have my dad's Double 8 camera (that's for 16 mm film stock that they split in half after developing -- i.e., when you have shot on one side, you have to find a dark place, open up the camera, flip the reel, and then shoot on the other 8 mm half. Most bizarre, but that was the cream of the top back then... and hence the camera I grew up with. It even did realtime seamless frame-rates (over/under cranking) and stop motion, etc.

-- peer

I can see the attraction of film for certain niche applications, but why on earth would anyone go for 8mm? It will be lower resolution than miniDV - probably more like VHS! If you have to have film, maybe 16mm makes some sense... If Kodak have R&D dollars to spend, better to put them into making 16mm as affordable and easy-to-use as possible, surely?

And another thing - who wants negative cine film? You can't project it, so it has to either be scanned (so you end up with video shown on a TV - better do that with a video camera) or printed to make a positive copy that can be projected. Maybe if it takes off, they'll add Ektachrome or, my old favourite, Kodachrome to the product line?

As far as the process goes, it reminds me of shooting medium format stills. Unfortunately, the low quality of 8mm and the ephemeral nature of video keep it from offering similar value. When I shoot medium format, I really take the effort to make each image special. The goal is to have great art that is at least worth scanning and printing and if it's especially good, the photo will deserve time in the darkroom. It will also be worthy of a nice frame, glass and matte as well as a spot on the wall. It's the opposite of a cell phone photo, which gets some bytes on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook at best.

For the extra effort of shooting and processing film, the footage needs to also be good enough to end up in a place of honor - a nicely finished work. It could be worthwhile for art with an 8mm aesthetic, but that's a rare situation. I don't see myself using 8mm, but for that special project that needs that look, yeah, I'd rather shoot real 8mm than try to fake it in post. But I don't think I'd make a business plan around it.

I was a late convert to DV, even now I have 10 rolls of Fuji Single8 R25 in the fridge and will never sell my Fujica P1 and ZC1000 cameras, Amazing but Fuji only finally gave up processing the film 5 years ago in Japan so not as retro as you think. I sat up and noticed this with great excitement but the dream is better than the reality, 8mm is just too small, I just played back a 20 min film from 25 years ago which cost me over £400 even then plus Rank flying spot transfer on top, at the time against VHS it was incredible but now VS Full frame 4k on tiny A7s???

I guess this boat has sailed