I just bought a Tiptoi pen for my kids (it's a German thing) and was shocked to see that it had a mini USB port. As in the one BEFORE the micro USB on this camera! And it's not even an old product 🤦
And now think about how in the early stages (or years) of having announced this camera would come out, Kodak always talked about around 800$ for it. Somehow the price jumped almost ten fold. Yet the Micro-USB port was here to stay 😂
In spite of the comments here supporting this lame idea, you are correct. I shot sync sound on Regular 8mm for 5 years (1966-1971). Believe me, nostalgia is overrated.
Coming from the generation where 8mm/Super 8 was the only option growing up, I have only one question: why? Why would anyone want this? It's funny how the people who grew up with this stuff generally have no ongoing interest in it.
I gave up Super 8mm in 1990 when my vacation movie cost me $120 for film and processing. I switched to S-VHS. It wasn't better but at that time S-VHS cassettes cost $20. Paying 6 times as much just wasn't in play any more for me. With 1080p (i.e. 1.9 K) it's not even a contest. I shot Super 8 for 20 years and Regular 8 for 6 years before that.
It has a great retro aesthetic that makes it fun and unique, but as someone who already owns three second hand Super8 cameras that collectively were bought for less than a quarter than what this is selling for, I don’t really understand what market Kodak thinks wants this camera. If they’d had made it the video equivalent of say the new Pentax 17 or Rollei 35 AF still cameras - and sold it at roughly those price points - I’d say they’d have a decent market. But at this price and lacking so many features that professionals who might be willing to pay over $5k for? Forget it.
Especially when you can make the footage from any modern digital camera look like any super 8 stock very easily. Besides if you really want to shoot on super 8 mm film, you can pick up a good, used camera.
Bozo youngsters are obsessed with making their shit look old or vintage because they like using aesthetic as a crutch to compensate for the fact that they have nothing to say in the first place (I’m gay)
that price and that micro usb are two dealbreakers but not in that order. micro usb is notorious for breaking off INSIDE the port. this camera costs more than my car
The show Winning Time used one of the prototype models for a few things. The camera is so loud and not easily blimpable so its tricky for normal narrative work. the costs for super 8 are also such that it usually makes more sense to shoot 16mm. That being said, since it is crystal sync at 24 it could be done and would be cool to see. just tricky to convince investors and streaming distributors to accept it (the grain will cause all sorts of compression trouble)
I just shot my first super8 using a Bell and Howell old new stock camera. I was so looking forward to seeing this Kodak camera, when it was first announced years ago at the $800.00 price. 5K sadly is too much for what you get, the cost of super 8, development and scan services are quite high, so I understand no one wants to waste film. I do agree the aesthetic nostalgia is why you shoot Super8. Placing a 8mm film camera lens on a digital camera, with a bit of grain addition and imperfection, you can get close to the look, but the appeal of shooting supe8 is the mechanical and tactile feel of the camera. Thanks so much for sharing. Love to see more analogue coverage on PP.
It's a professionally-priced camera that doesn't work out of the box with professional equipment. If I was going to give them notes 8 years ago for how to fix this, I'd start with the form factor. Make it smaller. Either shape it like a camcorder with a conventional grip (and removable top handle) or like a classic super 8 camera. Other things that should've changed: - Screw threads all over - HDMI type-A instead of type-D - A battery plate for Sony NP-F series - XLR audio and mic holder - Anything but micro USB type-B - Timecode in/out - Lots of buttons and controls - Plug for lenses with auto iris Also, more frame rate options would be nice. It can only do 18, 24, 25, and 36 fps. 12 fps was typical to see in super 8 cameras. Should have 30 fps and single shot. It can probably do any arbitrary frame rate up to 36.
One thing I actually forgot about: Kodak had collaborated on this camera in some part with a manufacturer of pro 8mm equipment called Logmar. Prior to that, they made a proof of concept called the Logmar S-8 which had a very similar design but also featured pin registration (by pulling film from the cartrige and needing to form a Latham loop), built in wifi, a separate accessory shoe, a ton of other ports including XLR in and video out, and shooting a wider frame. You can find test footage from it out there. This camera made sense when they originally showed it off around 2016 for the original, more reasonable price and being a more consumer-friendly version of that concept. I'm not sure when they jacked up the price to target rental houses, it seems like it could have been a reasonable option for people to own given the success of similar priced still film cameras released this year which are in high demand (the Pentax 17 and Mint Rollei 35 AF).
5k for a super 8??? Internal battery? Micro USB???? Love the look of the film stock though. I wish they would just make a solid camera for 1k without all the bells and whistles.
It's a perfect retro-nostalgia camera to be used by the servants of Saudi royalty or hedge-fund billionaires to film those precious moments of the offspring of those rich folk! Imagine the delight of those children when they are grown showing when they got their first Mercedes-AMG One or Bentley Mulliner Bacalar. /S
The last time i used my father's super 8 was about 40 years ago, but at that price, I'd rather dust that old camera if I urge to revisit that experience. Thanks for the review, guys
I’m curious about something. The footage from the Kodak camera in your review seems very beat up with a lot of white and black scratch marks and blotches. I was under the impression that a lot of those defects that you see in old films was a result of film degradation from improper use, storage and handling from repeated plackback on a film projector over time. Were those scratches something you added in post production, or did it come like that out of the box? Was that beat up look intentional on Kodak’s part? Would an original 8mm camera from the 50’s and 60’s have that poor of an image quality?
Those defects in the film come from either the camera scratching the film, the developing machine or during scanning. A reputable lab and a good camera will create results that are high resolution without dust or scratching. Seems like this film was not telecine prepped before scanning to remove the dust and debris of the films surface.
Talking to Alex, he said the damage in these scans are what he would typically expect to see from Super 8 unless a significant premium was paid for the negs to be cleaned before scanning.
The fact that the camera quality (the digital one) is so poor kind of ruins the value proposition for this camera. Being able to pull focus through a digital feed is probably one of the primary advantages that such a system could have. It really feels like this camera was supposed to be far cheaper initially (like $500) and was only released for this absurd price to recoup some of the development costs.
Really well-done, in-depth review! Love that you actually took the time to use it and brought in Alex Mitchell. Answered all the questions we all have about the camera!
I agree completely, they have gotten kind of close to justifying the huge price tag to professionals. Just add proper ports, Type-C for gods sake, and some mounting points or cold shoes.
Really, really glad you made this and shared it. I know it's super expensive and much more challenging than it 'needs' to be, but sometimes there's majesty in that...
I remember this camera appearing ~8 years ago. I'm stunned that it took this long!! Behold the "Analog Renaissance" as Kodak called it, has finally arrived. At this camera's price, only film schools will be buying it. I say this, as I am currently knee deep in Super 8 film I shot 50 years ago and converting it again for the 3rd time. 1st VHS, 2nd DVD, and now I'm using my Sony A7r3 doing frame by frame capture. It's like all the music I had on LP, then Cassette, and then Mp3. A FUNNY thing is that now I'm doing everthing I can to lose the film look. Upres and sharpening to fix the soft images, noise reduction to lose the grain and scratches,. I regret ever using Ektachrome ( except for those scenes in low light) and feel bad for new users as that is all there is available today. If I could get to Fotomat by 4pm, I'd have my film returned the next day. A MONTH you say for processing????? Sounds like an expensive hobby that will certainly fill the need for problem solvers (the real hobby)!
I am 77% into the Devil in the White City. It is about the 1893 Worlds Columbian Exposition [Chicago Worlds Fair] the one Kodak had usage license shenanigans.
It's finally here! Super 8 was definitely a few years before my time, as most of my childhood was stuff like VHS and 8mm/Hi8 tape. The look of the film is definitely very unique and has that classic 70s/80s home movie aesthetic. Too bad it's so costly to operate or I'd think of getting something like this for playing around.
Its amazing how many balls they dropped. Especially considering nearly the ONLY potential end users (besides me who just likes old film) are students and professionals. I honestly would have preferred a solid attempt at a fully mechanical camera that does the basics well and works. I think if they went all the way with it and successfully executed a fully modern bells and whistles idea for those students and pros, that would have been great and a win, but being that it wasn’t executed, I think a solid, high quality, mechanical camera would have been my choice, and probably a better fit for the type of person who still wants a super 8 camera. I think those people are INTENTIONALLY seeking to get away from touch screens and lcds etc.
Jordan, you mention the emotional impact that watching your footage had on you. I like to think that film as a medium really delivers that. Depending on the subject, of course.
Suggestion for onscreen texts. They are useful but is it possible to re-position them into top left,center or right? I have used subtitles always (decades) regardless of source material and how I watch them. Subtitles are positioned above your onscreen texts which usually are ar bottom like subtitles. Makes it harder to read both at same time. I have work around for it but since it is cumbersome I wish a change in this matter. Of course its your decision. About this super8 camera. For that price its for tech savvy aficianados not for your everyday carryon camera to replace smartphone. But darn it would I like to try it! Won't deny that. Thank you for bringing up this gadget. I love to watch any photograph or video related content you guys deliver. Have a nice day.
I think one thing thats worth considering is that this camera is crystal sync speed at 24 and 25. thats very rare for a super 8 camera. so if you need that sync, the camera is certainly worth renting. also side note, the footage does not look like it went on a medium to high end scanner based on the color. if you can afford it, using a vendor with a scanstation (ideally running in HDR mode) or an outright true RGB scanner you'll really get a fuller range of color out of the film. it does cost more, but the best thing about any film format is the insane amount of color that can be extracted from the negative
I can understand an expensive luxury item existing for film enthusiasts with a lot of money, but this is waiting list only on BH. By comparison, Leica's film cameras of a similar price point are in stock and ready to ship. It SEEMS like Kodak intended this for production companies and studios, but the video makes it seem like it's best treated standalone from other equipment.
I don't care when Super 8 footage is shot, it will always look like the 60s and 70s, and it brings back a lot of memories. I think it is valid only if you want sound sync, which was always tricky with the film with the sound strip down the side. Oh, and I actually owned the Canon 310 camera. Loved it.
I have tons of super 8 camera’s so for me its really easy to just pick one of those to film on super 8. I love that kodak is making a really new one but the ten year delay and the pricetag rising in those years makes me think this will not be a big succes. Yes you get a new one but as stated in the video, there are many still good camera’s in the world. One thing I would like to see is affordable film stock!
What differentiates this camera from most other Super 8 cameras is that it’s sound synch at 24 frames. Which means you can use it to record dialog. Also guys, if you shoot tungsten film in daylight without an 85 filter, you gotta correct the white balance to be less blue.
Still, I am just happy some actual new camera's using film have been developed. The Pentax 17, Rollei 35 AF and the Kodak. I am not the intended audience for these camera's but these are some good signs for things to come!
I love seeing you enthused about the products you review so this was fun. Because you mentioned filters simulating film and 16 mm film and 8 mm film footage, etc. within this review I think it would be really good to see examples of simulated film compared to real film.probably beyond the scope of your production schedule, but you’ve got me intrigued. How good are the simulations?
Interesting to hear about one month to get the results to a useable edit stage. In the meantime other customers are live streaming the camera footage to a bank of editing stations to create 15 minutes of content in less than 4 hours. What a world of differences we live in.
Now I just want an episode or two of using vintage lenses on digital and moderately emulating that film aesthetic. Maybe an episode or two in 1080 with only moderately sharp old glass. Sounds fun.
Okay. This got me excited to use. Mainly because of some of its modern features.. like actually monitoring. Now I’m dying to get my hands on one and shoot anamorphic.
For that money it would have been nice if they made thelcd screen a digital representation of what was being recorded, kindof like an SLR style video camera, as if it were a mirror.
Crazy! I enjoyed shooting Super8 as a kid, but film and developing was expensive, plus it was only 3 min of film lol. We had a wind up Bell and Howell with removable grip and a Kodak if memory serves.
If we're talking about a modern take on super 8, there's already the digital bolex camera from a few years back, sure it's digital but it's really good from what I remember
This honestly feels like an expensive "Beta Test" from Kodak, that was stuck in development hell and missed the mark as a result. This in contrast to the other modern new film camera from Pentax which seemed to have a clear vision of what it was gonna be, and they delivered on it. I think if they release a Version 2 of this camera with the fixes and improvements you talk about, and cut the price at least in half, it will be much more palpable for a lot more people.
Videos like this remind me that Kodak had the chance to be apart of the digital camera revolution. Love and respect to analog film shooters, but I can’t help but think how much kit one could acquire for $5500.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked a couple years ago, I thought super 8 was exactly the same price per foot as super 16. If so, why not pick up a used super 16 camera and shoot with higher quality stock? Genuinely asking
I mean, I half get it. Having access to Super8 with something close to modern amenities... that seems fantastic for someone who wants to dabble but doesn't have experience in sourcing or using used cameras. ProSuper8, mentioned in the video, has offerings at $800 which are refurbished and rebuilt and should be trustworthy. If this incorporated some of Jordan's suggestions, I'd say this would be plausible at $1600. That's still a lot, and more expensive than good condition alternatives, yet the addition of newbie-friendly features does have something to offer. But this is not a $1600 camera, it's more than THREE TIMES that. I can understand a camera having a notable markup for R&D, charging more for the convenience it brings. But the actual price is just absurd. Particularly with all the minor flaws like non-pro ports, lack of mounts and shoes, and so forth.
I’d love to shoot super 8 as it is such a unique look but the costs of development are far too high. It’s actually crazy how much it costs to develop one 3 minute roll of super 8.
I would love to hear a discussion on the podcast about the possibility of a digital sensor replicating the look of film that the super 8 film camera makes. What would it take? Global shutter and sensor readout redesigning? A different design in processing?
No real or imaginary interest in this camera or super 8 in general. But really enjoyed your and Alex's review. It was fun. And who does't like Chris hamming it up on camera? But what really got me was the scenes with Jordans kids and family at the beach. Sent me right back to 1965. Loved it. Now i'd better go look in the basement and see if there is an old movie camera I kinda remember from back then. Thanks
This thing looks like it came from another timeline where technology took a completely different direction. It's like someone from the 1960's was told "Show how a Super8 camera will look well into the 21st century."
Im no expert by no means when it comes to editing video but it would seem to me that you should be able to recreate the Super 8 look acutely with digital high resolution data from todays modern cameras during the editing process.
This is a hard one. I loved Super 8 and had a pretty decent Bauer camera. My love was in the need for tight shooting due to the restricted time available in a film cartridge and you soon learned to use very sort takes so shooting was more akin to how a TV advert may look or a movie trailer. That was one part of the fun. The other was in editing the footage and layering on sound using the main stripe and the ridiculously skinny balance stripe and I had a multi-channel reel to reel tape recorder to help that process. This fun factor overcame the high price of shooting on film. Video, even VHS had much better image quality but I never had the passion for video. It just was not the same. When my camera died and I was told it needed a new motor but there were no parts available, that was the end of that. I had my old movies digitised and they are great but one thing isn't. The image quality due to the small film area is poor. Yes, it has an aesthetic which has niche value but there is no denying, as a recording format, Super 8 sucks. This camera may have merit if it were $1500 and the ports and attachment points were fixed up along with the positioning of the lens mount. The propriety battery is dumb along with the bulky size. I cannot see Kodak making money on this. It is a vanity project despite the nostalgic aesthetic.
I get it's Super-8 and Kodak (yay!), which is certainly worth some art-house hipster nostalgia tax, but this simply does not contain anywhere near $5500 worth of design and technology. For commercial productions that want the aesthetic, sure, whatever. For amateurs? You need to really, really love the 1970s vacation look.
That price makes it a BIG NAH, you can buy 35mm cameras for that price, like I am not even joking. For regular dude in the street, BMPCC with a grip and C-mount to MFT adapter will get you a similar experience, better quality but you can easily degrade it to super 8mm there so many filters for Adobe these days that just a button click and you got the Super 8mm feel. BMPCC with some Zeiss Jena, thats true love right there.
I've mounted my Braun Nizo onto a DJI Ronin for some projects recently and I feel having a video feed is useful for a super 8 camera. Like everyone though I'm disappointed by the price.
When I was a young bunny and Jesus was in diapers, I had the good fortune to be in living in Montreal for Expo 67. And as you can imagine, at Expo (where I practically lived) you could see all manners of cameras, this was the impetus for me entering photography 7 years later. But one situation caught my attention. Back then (am I sounding old?) guys, never a woman, would show up with these massive video cameras that were so large that spent most of their time on the shoulder of owner. Without ever touching or using one I knew I could never lug around a heavy camera such as the behemoth's found at the fair. This camera though not as weighty obviously would be a pain at an Expo, Disney location, any venue with an extended all day performance. I get the nostalgia bit, I own the Fuji X100F and feel lucky to have it. But the Kodak beast of a camera, no thanks.
I think its something nice to have if you are a rich person with deep pockets. Otherwise, it is easier to just get the Super 8 asthetic look in post and with a filter.
I'm guessing the lack of support for professional accessories maybe down to Kodak shifting their intended market late on? originally wasnt this talked up as more of an amateur camera? this price though my guess is the main market will probably be professional rental firms, film makers renting one out when they want the nostalgic look for a flashback scenes or something with the viewfinder of this being above what retro bodies would offer.
The problem with viewing this as a "fun camera" is that it doesn't seem readily available for normal consumers, even those who have a ton of money to spend. For comparison, the Leica M-A (similarly priced, niche film camera for well-off enthusiasts) is in stock and ready to ship on BH. This is waiting list only. If it's as inconvenient for professional productions with video rigs as this video made it seem, I'm just not sure who is going to use it.
Ok, I’m really scratching my head here. Just who is this camera for? At the price point I seriously doubt they’re going to get any of the “prosumer” crowd and your own professional filmmaker already outlined a lot of the major challenges using it professionally. Micro USB? Seriously!? And one of the chief advantages of the LCD screen is rendered nearly unusable by the poor quality of the video tap? I’ve seen antique store super 8s that work like a dream for under $250, and since I already have things like wireless mics and recorders, why would I even need this camera even as a novelty? Come on, Kodak, get real. Go back and try again but be serious about it this time and give us a product that doesn’t make a Leica look like a value-for-price bargain by comparison.
I'm not claiming it's a cheap camera BUT if anybody buys this thing to use the cost of film and processing is going to blow away the purchase cost of 5K. Glancing at one major retailers $40 gets you about 2 minutes of run time. What's the old rule of thumb shoot 6x what you hope to end up with? That's BEFORE processing. The big issue is a lack of good labs. Kodak would be smart to offer film with processing at a Kodak run lab.
That Micro-USB port tells you something about how long it's been in development...
Wonder if the sales team said...5000$... is that really what we need to sell this at.
🤢
I just bought a Tiptoi pen for my kids (it's a German thing) and was shocked to see that it had a mini USB port. As in the one BEFORE the micro USB on this camera! And it's not even an old product 🤦
And now think about how in the early stages (or years) of having announced this camera would come out, Kodak always talked about around 800$ for it. Somehow the price jumped almost ten fold. Yet the Micro-USB port was here to stay 😂
So long it's now illegal in the EU lmao
wow! I reckon kodak will sell literally 10s of these!
In spite of the comments here supporting this lame idea, you are correct. I shot sync sound on Regular 8mm for 5 years (1966-1971). Believe me, nostalgia is overrated.
Even that is being generous 😂
Coming from the generation where 8mm/Super 8 was the only option growing up, I have only one question: why? Why would anyone want this? It's funny how the people who grew up with this stuff generally have no ongoing interest in it.
I gave up Super 8mm in 1990 when my vacation movie cost me $120 for film and processing. I switched to S-VHS. It wasn't better but at that time S-VHS cassettes cost $20. Paying 6 times as much just wasn't in play any more for me. With 1080p (i.e. 1.9 K) it's not even a contest. I shot Super 8 for 20 years and Regular 8 for 6 years before that.
It has a great retro aesthetic that makes it fun and unique, but as someone who already owns three second hand Super8 cameras that collectively were bought for less than a quarter than what this is selling for, I don’t really understand what market Kodak thinks wants this camera.
If they’d had made it the video equivalent of say the new Pentax 17 or Rollei 35 AF still cameras - and sold it at roughly those price points - I’d say they’d have a decent market. But at this price and lacking so many features that professionals who might be willing to pay over $5k for? Forget it.
Especially when you can make the footage from any modern digital camera look like any super 8 stock very easily. Besides if you really want to shoot on super 8 mm film, you can pick up a good, used camera.
Bozo youngsters are obsessed with making their shit look old or vintage because they like using aesthetic as a crutch to compensate for the fact that they have nothing to say in the first place (I’m gay)
that price and that micro usb are two dealbreakers but not in that order. micro usb is notorious for breaking off INSIDE the port. this camera costs more than my car
The price is enough to make it a no for me.
The price is absolutely insane.
3:25 I’m sorry did you say… “micro USB” 🤮🤮🤮
yeah they designed this camera probably like 10 years ago and changed nothing
This is honestly an insult for $5500
I'm wondering who's gonna be the first big name to use this to shoot a full-length feature. There's gotta be some madlad out there.
No one will be shooting a full length feature with 8mm film. At best it would be for a flashback scene of times gone by.
The show Winning Time used one of the prototype models for a few things. The camera is so loud and not easily blimpable so its tricky for normal narrative work. the costs for super 8 are also such that it usually makes more sense to shoot 16mm. That being said, since it is crystal sync at 24 it could be done and would be cool to see. just tricky to convince investors and streaming distributors to accept it (the grain will cause all sorts of compression trouble)
I just shot my first super8 using a Bell and Howell old new stock camera. I was so looking forward to seeing this Kodak camera, when it was first announced years ago at the $800.00 price. 5K sadly is too much for what you get, the cost of super 8, development and scan services are quite high, so I understand no one wants to waste film. I do agree the aesthetic nostalgia is why you shoot Super8. Placing a 8mm film camera lens on a digital camera, with a bit of grain addition and imperfection, you can get close to the look, but the appeal of shooting supe8 is the mechanical and tactile feel of the camera. Thanks so much for sharing. Love to see more analogue coverage on PP.
Love the footage you got out of the GH7 throughout the episode! Well done!
Also just a solid episode all around! Loved the format.
It's a professionally-priced camera that doesn't work out of the box with professional equipment. If I was going to give them notes 8 years ago for how to fix this, I'd start with the form factor. Make it smaller. Either shape it like a camcorder with a conventional grip (and removable top handle) or like a classic super 8 camera. Other things that should've changed:
- Screw threads all over
- HDMI type-A instead of type-D
- A battery plate for Sony NP-F series
- XLR audio and mic holder
- Anything but micro USB type-B
- Timecode in/out
- Lots of buttons and controls
- Plug for lenses with auto iris
Also, more frame rate options would be nice. It can only do 18, 24, 25, and 36 fps. 12 fps was typical to see in super 8 cameras. Should have 30 fps and single shot. It can probably do any arbitrary frame rate up to 36.
One thing I actually forgot about: Kodak had collaborated on this camera in some part with a manufacturer of pro 8mm equipment called Logmar. Prior to that, they made a proof of concept called the Logmar S-8 which had a very similar design but also featured pin registration (by pulling film from the cartrige and needing to form a Latham loop), built in wifi, a separate accessory shoe, a ton of other ports including XLR in and video out, and shooting a wider frame. You can find test footage from it out there.
This camera made sense when they originally showed it off around 2016 for the original, more reasonable price and being a more consumer-friendly version of that concept. I'm not sure when they jacked up the price to target rental houses, it seems like it could have been a reasonable option for people to own given the success of similar priced still film cameras released this year which are in high demand (the Pentax 17 and Mint Rollei 35 AF).
5k for a super 8??? Internal battery? Micro USB???? Love the look of the film stock though. I wish they would just make a solid camera for 1k without all the bells and whistles.
It's a perfect retro-nostalgia camera to be used by the servants of Saudi royalty or hedge-fund billionaires to film those precious moments of the offspring of those rich folk!
Imagine the delight of those children when they are grown showing when they got their first Mercedes-AMG One or Bentley Mulliner Bacalar. /S
😂
Probably the worst quality/price ratio on the market. And I don't mean the image quality, it's built like a cheap toy.
It has some sense, but not for 5500, but for 55,00
The last time i used my father's super 8 was about 40 years ago, but at that price, I'd rather dust that old camera if I urge to revisit that experience. Thanks for the review, guys
I'd love to see how close you can get GH7 footage to this look in post.
you can actually get really close, but people often forget the most important step,............ use a Super 8mm lens on digital.
I agreed Daniel: Jordan should challenge himself to create an episode doing just that. What do you think? I bet he could do a darn good job
...or a creative Halloween short?
@@herrreinsch Pentax Q!
2:28 that hard cut to close-up Jordan is certainly an artistic choice. That made me jump :D
Reminds me of why Kodak went bust. They have no idea how to make a camera work properly and at a price point that it's loyal customers can afford.
Kodak never was a serious camera manufacturer. Other than a Brownie... How many successful Kodak cameras were there?
Man if this were like, $1000-$1500 I would have bought it immediately.
Man if this was like 100 to 150 dollars I would have ponder about buying it or not
give this 1k to a charity instead. it wouldnt be wasted that way
I’m curious about something. The footage from the Kodak camera in your review seems very beat up with a lot of white and black scratch marks and blotches. I was under the impression that a lot of those defects that you see in old films was a result of film degradation from improper use, storage and handling from repeated plackback on a film projector over time.
Were those scratches something you added in post production, or did it come like that out of the box? Was that beat up look intentional on Kodak’s part? Would an original 8mm camera from the 50’s and 60’s have that poor of an image quality?
Those defects in the film come from either the camera scratching the film, the developing machine or during scanning. A reputable lab and a good camera will create results that are high resolution without dust or scratching. Seems like this film was not telecine prepped before scanning to remove the dust and debris of the films surface.
Talking to Alex, he said the damage in these scans are what he would typically expect to see from Super 8 unless a significant premium was paid for the negs to be cleaned before scanning.
So you pay a fortune for terrible image quality? I just don't understand why one would use it.
That's one expensive toy
I had a very good 8mm experience years back. We shot it on the 8mm app for iPad and iPhone and it was the best simulation I have ever seen.
He’s back baby! Rising like the phoenix. The ultimate metaphor for a film camera in 2024.
The fact that the camera quality (the digital one) is so poor kind of ruins the value proposition for this camera. Being able to pull focus through a digital feed is probably one of the primary advantages that such a system could have. It really feels like this camera was supposed to be far cheaper initially (like $500) and was only released for this absurd price to recoup some of the development costs.
Fun fact: The archival film sequences on Killer of the Flower Moon were shot with Scorsese's own hand-cranked antique cameras.
Really well-done, in-depth review! Love that you actually took the time to use it and brought in Alex Mitchell. Answered all the questions we all have about the camera!
I agree completely, they have gotten kind of close to justifying the huge price tag to professionals. Just add proper ports, Type-C for gods sake, and some mounting points or cold shoes.
Really, really glad you made this and shared it. I know it's super expensive and much more challenging than it 'needs' to be, but sometimes there's majesty in that...
I remember this camera appearing ~8 years ago. I'm stunned that it took this long!! Behold the "Analog Renaissance" as Kodak called it, has finally arrived. At this camera's price, only film schools will be buying it. I say this, as I am currently knee deep in Super 8 film I shot 50 years ago and converting it again for the 3rd time. 1st VHS, 2nd DVD, and now I'm using my Sony A7r3 doing frame by frame capture. It's like all the music I had on LP, then Cassette, and then Mp3.
A FUNNY thing is that now I'm doing everthing I can to lose the film look. Upres and sharpening to fix the soft images, noise reduction to lose the grain and scratches,. I regret ever using Ektachrome ( except for those scenes in low light) and feel bad for new users as that is all there is available today. If I could get to Fotomat by 4pm, I'd have my film returned the next day. A MONTH you say for processing????? Sounds like an expensive hobby that will certainly fill the need for problem solvers (the real hobby)!
I am 77% into the Devil in the White City. It is about the 1893 Worlds Columbian Exposition [Chicago Worlds Fair] the one Kodak had usage license shenanigans.
It's finally here! Super 8 was definitely a few years before my time, as most of my childhood was stuff like VHS and 8mm/Hi8 tape. The look of the film is definitely very unique and has that classic 70s/80s home movie aesthetic. Too bad it's so costly to operate or I'd think of getting something like this for playing around.
Its amazing how many balls they dropped. Especially considering nearly the ONLY potential end users (besides me who just likes old film) are students and professionals. I honestly would have preferred a solid attempt at a fully mechanical camera that does the basics well and works. I think if they went all the way with it and successfully executed a fully modern bells and whistles idea for those students and pros, that would have been great and a win, but being that it wasn’t executed, I think a solid, high quality, mechanical camera would have been my choice, and probably a better fit for the type of person who still wants a super 8 camera. I think those people are INTENTIONALLY seeking to get away from touch screens and lcds etc.
Jordan, you mention the emotional impact that watching your footage had on you. I like to think that film as a medium really delivers that. Depending on the subject, of course.
Suggestion for onscreen texts. They are useful but is it possible to re-position them into top left,center or right? I have used subtitles always (decades) regardless of source material and how I watch them. Subtitles are positioned above your onscreen texts which usually are ar bottom like subtitles. Makes it harder to read both at same time. I have work around for it but since it is cumbersome I wish a change in this matter. Of course its your decision. About this super8 camera. For that price its for tech savvy aficianados not for your everyday carryon camera to replace smartphone. But darn it would I like to try it! Won't deny that. Thank you for bringing up this gadget. I love to watch any photograph or video related content you guys deliver. Have a nice day.
I think one thing thats worth considering is that this camera is crystal sync speed at 24 and 25. thats very rare for a super 8 camera. so if you need that sync, the camera is certainly worth renting.
also side note, the footage does not look like it went on a medium to high end scanner based on the color. if you can afford it, using a vendor with a scanstation (ideally running in HDR mode) or an outright true RGB scanner you'll really get a fuller range of color out of the film. it does cost more, but the best thing about any film format is the insane amount of color that can be extracted from the negative
BEEN WAITING FOR THIS REVIEW!!!
Price looks reasonable for Leica buyers... if film Leicas were using 110 film.
I can understand an expensive luxury item existing for film enthusiasts with a lot of money, but this is waiting list only on BH. By comparison, Leica's film cameras of a similar price point are in stock and ready to ship. It SEEMS like Kodak intended this for production companies and studios, but the video makes it seem like it's best treated standalone from other equipment.
5000$....isn't that what an R5ii goes for. Which one would I choose???....I have to think about it...
I don't care when Super 8 footage is shot, it will always look like the 60s and 70s, and it brings back a lot of memories. I think it is valid only if you want sound sync, which was always tricky with the film with the sound strip down the side. Oh, and I actually owned the Canon 310 camera. Loved it.
image for the film is sooooo cool!
I have tons of super 8 camera’s so for me its really easy to just pick one of those to film on super 8. I love that kodak is making a really new one but the ten year delay and the pricetag rising in those years makes me think this will not be a big succes. Yes you get a new one but as stated in the video, there are many still good camera’s in the world. One thing I would like to see is affordable film stock!
What differentiates this camera from most other Super 8 cameras is that it’s sound synch at 24 frames. Which means you can use it to record dialog.
Also guys, if you shoot tungsten film in daylight without an 85 filter, you gotta correct the white balance to be less blue.
Excellent review. This will sell particularly to wedding videographers offering vintage experience. Well done Kodak.
No words on the process of developing the film and then digitizing it???
I suggest at least 1 PP video a year in a vastly different format.
One of these days it's gonna be recorded stop-motion with instant film.
Still, I am just happy some actual new camera's using film have been developed. The Pentax 17, Rollei 35 AF and the Kodak. I am not the intended audience for these camera's but these are some good signs for things to come!
I love seeing you enthused about the products you review so this was fun. Because you mentioned filters simulating film and 16 mm film and 8 mm film footage, etc. within this review I think it would be really good to see examples of simulated film compared to real film.probably beyond the scope of your production schedule, but you’ve got me intrigued. How good are the simulations?
there will be at least one blockbuster movie that uses this for a memory flashback.
I wish something like the Logmar 8 or the Beaulieu 4008 pro8 mod would be more popular, those 2 cameras giving us great super 8 footage
So I would never buy one of these unless the price point came down a lot. But man this is so cool! I hope they make more of these!
Interesting to hear about one month to get the results to a useable edit stage. In the meantime other customers are live streaming the camera footage to a bank of editing stations to create 15 minutes of content in less than 4 hours. What a world of differences we live in.
Now I just want an episode or two of using vintage lenses on digital and moderately emulating that film aesthetic. Maybe an episode or two in 1080 with only moderately sharp old glass. Sounds fun.
Okay. This got me excited to use. Mainly because of some of its modern features.. like actually monitoring. Now I’m dying to get my hands on one and shoot anamorphic.
For that money it would have been nice if they made thelcd screen a digital representation of what was being recorded, kindof like an SLR style video camera, as if it were a mirror.
Crazy! I enjoyed shooting Super8 as a kid, but film and developing was expensive, plus it was only 3 min of film lol. We had a wind up Bell and Howell with removable grip and a Kodak if memory serves.
If we're talking about a modern take on super 8, there's already the digital bolex camera from a few years back, sure it's digital but it's really good from what I remember
Our guest Alex has one.
- Jordan
totally with u! the footage really has a quality and get a refurb one :) Good job to Kodak for trying
This is the most exciting camera who guys have ever reviewed.
This honestly feels like an expensive "Beta Test" from Kodak, that was stuck in development hell and missed the mark as a result. This in contrast to the other modern new film camera from Pentax which seemed to have a clear vision of what it was gonna be, and they delivered on it. I think if they release a Version 2 of this camera with the fixes and improvements you talk about, and cut the price at least in half, it will be much more palpable for a lot more people.
... and preferably with a Latham loop....
We need some new Arri film cameras with this kind of “direct to sensor” video monitoring
Videos like this remind me that Kodak had the chance to be apart of the digital camera revolution.
Love and respect to analog film shooters, but I can’t help but think how much kit one could acquire for $5500.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked a couple years ago, I thought super 8 was exactly the same price per foot as super 16. If so, why not pick up a used super 16 camera and shoot with higher quality stock? Genuinely asking
the first modern camera to come with in body image DEstabilization ... ! :D
I think that super 8 is pretty awesome.
Wouldn’t mind using it to take videos of the fam for some fun.
The design looked cuter in white.
This makes sense as a rental once in 5 years type of thing.
I mean, I half get it. Having access to Super8 with something close to modern amenities... that seems fantastic for someone who wants to dabble but doesn't have experience in sourcing or using used cameras. ProSuper8, mentioned in the video, has offerings at $800 which are refurbished and rebuilt and should be trustworthy. If this incorporated some of Jordan's suggestions, I'd say this would be plausible at $1600. That's still a lot, and more expensive than good condition alternatives, yet the addition of newbie-friendly features does have something to offer. But this is not a $1600 camera, it's more than THREE TIMES that.
I can understand a camera having a notable markup for R&D, charging more for the convenience it brings. But the actual price is just absurd. Particularly with all the minor flaws like non-pro ports, lack of mounts and shoes, and so forth.
Love the look of film. But not super 8, which can be matched easily in post. But yeah, if you’re rich and bored I guess this is an option.
I’d love to shoot super 8 as it is such a unique look but the costs of development are far too high. It’s actually crazy how much it costs to develop one 3 minute roll of super 8.
Those warranty terms sound like a violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
Cool camera that produces a unique look. Insanely priced. I’d love to rent one for the weekend, though, and shoot a Super 8 movie.
Despite being crazy expensive, there is no modern alternative.
I would love to hear a discussion on the podcast about the possibility of a digital sensor replicating the look of film that the super 8 film camera makes. What would it take? Global shutter and sensor readout redesigning? A different design in processing?
No real or imaginary interest in this camera or super 8 in general. But really enjoyed your and Alex's review. It was fun. And who does't like Chris hamming it up on camera? But what really got me was the scenes with Jordans kids and family at the beach. Sent me right back to 1965. Loved it. Now i'd better go look in the basement and see if there is an old movie camera I kinda remember from back then. Thanks
Well, that was easy. It's a Cine-Kodak Royal Magazine with a bunch of filters and a roll of Kodachrome II movie film. Says to process by Mar 1966.
This thing looks like it came from another timeline where technology took a completely different direction. It's like someone from the 1960's was told "Show how a Super8 camera will look well into the 21st century."
Im no expert by no means when it comes to editing video but it would seem to me that you should be able to recreate the Super 8 look acutely with digital high resolution data from todays modern cameras during the editing process.
This is a hard one. I loved Super 8 and had a pretty decent Bauer camera. My love was in the need for tight shooting due to the restricted time available in a film cartridge and you soon learned to use very sort takes so shooting was more akin to how a TV advert may look or a movie trailer. That was one part of the fun. The other was in editing the footage and layering on sound using the main stripe and the ridiculously skinny balance stripe and I had a multi-channel reel to reel tape recorder to help that process. This fun factor overcame the high price of shooting on film.
Video, even VHS had much better image quality but I never had the passion for video. It just was not the same. When my camera died and I was told it needed a new motor but there were no parts available, that was the end of that.
I had my old movies digitised and they are great but one thing isn't. The image quality due to the small film area is poor. Yes, it has an aesthetic which has niche value but there is no denying, as a recording format, Super 8 sucks.
This camera may have merit if it were $1500 and the ports and attachment points were fixed up along with the positioning of the lens mount. The propriety battery is dumb along with the bulky size. I cannot see Kodak making money on this. It is a vanity project despite the nostalgic aesthetic.
I get it's Super-8 and Kodak (yay!), which is certainly worth some art-house hipster nostalgia tax, but this simply does not contain anywhere near $5500 worth of design and technology. For commercial productions that want the aesthetic, sure, whatever. For amateurs? You need to really, really love the 1970s vacation look.
I like the look. I'm sure some people will buy it.
I have set a serious option for making 8 and S8mm films in the last 7 years , in Johannesburg , but have had a very little interest and usage of it.
Off: nice you see you here :)
That price makes it a BIG NAH, you can buy 35mm cameras for that price, like I am not even joking.
For regular dude in the street, BMPCC with a grip and C-mount to MFT adapter will get you a similar experience, better quality but you can easily degrade it to super 8mm there so many filters for Adobe these days that just a button click and you got the Super 8mm feel.
BMPCC with some Zeiss Jena, thats true love right there.
This is a fantastic rental option!
I've mounted my Braun Nizo onto a DJI Ronin for some projects recently and I feel having a video feed is useful for a super 8 camera. Like everyone though I'm disappointed by the price.
When I was a young bunny and Jesus was in diapers, I had the good fortune to be in living in Montreal for Expo 67. And as you can imagine, at Expo (where I practically lived) you could see all manners of cameras, this was the impetus for me entering photography 7 years later. But one situation caught my attention. Back then (am I sounding old?) guys, never a woman, would show up with these massive video cameras that were so large that spent most of their time on the shoulder of owner. Without ever touching or using one I knew I could never lug around a heavy camera such as the behemoth's found at the fair. This camera though not as weighty obviously would be a pain at an Expo, Disney location, any venue with an extended all day performance. I get the nostalgia bit, I own the Fuji X100F and feel lucky to have it. But the Kodak beast of a camera, no thanks.
They actually released this thing, took them long enough.
I’ll just put a cheesy Super 8 filter in post from any camera for that look.
How well does the audio sync work? Do you need to slate only once per roll(assuming constant fps) or does it create a separate file per "clip" ?
a couple of guys are seriously discussing a webcam for 5 gran :D
What demographic do you think the product targets (realistically)? Keeping in mind the noticeable TCO.
These are selling on line for $$$ over MSRP. Better jump on board quick!
Is there going to be a video on the Canon C80?
way too expensive, but I want to try it
Why couldn't they at least update the usb port after all this development time?
I think its something nice to have if you are a rich person with deep pockets. Otherwise, it is easier to just get the Super 8 asthetic look in post and with a filter.
I'm guessing the lack of support for professional accessories maybe down to Kodak shifting their intended market late on? originally wasnt this talked up as more of an amateur camera? this price though my guess is the main market will probably be professional rental firms, film makers renting one out when they want the nostalgic look for a flashback scenes or something with the viewfinder of this being above what retro bodies would offer.
The problem with viewing this as a "fun camera" is that it doesn't seem readily available for normal consumers, even those who have a ton of money to spend. For comparison, the Leica M-A (similarly priced, niche film camera for well-off enthusiasts) is in stock and ready to ship on BH. This is waiting list only. If it's as inconvenient for professional productions with video rigs as this video made it seem, I'm just not sure who is going to use it.
sometimes i miss the form factor of a SONY DCR-PC100... a 4k camcorder with this form factor could be nice !
Ok, I’m really scratching my head here. Just who is this camera for? At the price point I seriously doubt they’re going to get any of the “prosumer” crowd and your own professional filmmaker already outlined a lot of the major challenges using it professionally.
Micro USB? Seriously!? And one of the chief advantages of the LCD screen is rendered nearly unusable by the poor quality of the video tap?
I’ve seen antique store super 8s that work like a dream for under $250, and since I already have things like wireless mics and recorders, why would I even need this camera even as a novelty?
Come on, Kodak, get real. Go back and try again but be serious about it this time and give us a product that doesn’t make a Leica look like a value-for-price bargain by comparison.
I'm not claiming it's a cheap camera BUT if anybody buys this thing to use the cost of film and processing is going to blow away the purchase cost of 5K.
Glancing at one major retailers $40 gets you about 2 minutes of run time. What's the old rule of thumb shoot 6x what you hope to end up with? That's BEFORE processing.
The big issue is a lack of good labs. Kodak would be smart to offer film with processing at a Kodak run lab.