so, like, um, you might be the first person I've read that uses run on paragraphs but still speaks eloquently.
While I connected to everything you said, IF, Ektachrome 64 can be used as a replacement for Kodachrome and is not overly grainy (and that is a big big if), then what ektachrome 64 will do is reinvigorate the super-8 reversal market because suddenly several labs all over the world can process the film, same day!
Same day color reversal processing for a not too grainy film stock could be a really big deal.
My hope for saving Kodachrome revolved around a second lab opening up in Los Angeles and another lab in Northern Europe, perhaps an additional one on the east coast. But that is basically impossible at this point.
The Ektachrome 64 will allow for a couple of dozen of labs at the very least to instantly offer same day processing all over the world, which should make super-8 hip to the instant gratification crowd.
Again, the key is, will Super-8 Ektachrome 64 be close enough to Kodachrome 40 to remind one of Kodachrome 40, but with less contrast and not too much more grain.
But will my camera, and many others (currently set to expose 40/160 film), become prohibitively difficult to use because of the inability to get the exposure right? I know that you can manipulate things to get the correct exposure but will the extra work required for the 64 speed film be seen as not really worth it? Or is this really a non-issue? Tim
So I got a super 8 camera last year both to expand my image-making capacity and also as a response to what I saw was the "hegemony of the digital." I just started to feel "unsatisfied" with digital imaging and wanted to re-connect with the reality of film and its processes. The historical legacy of super 8 as a populist medium, together with its relative low-cost, seemed like the obvious path to follow. Admittedly, I'm still working on the basics and have only experimented with shooting the black and white films and Kodachrome 40, but I have had fun and been satisfied with the preliminary results. After reading about the possible (?) discontinuance of K40 and considering some of the dire implications of this, I have become concerned and a little bit angry. I just went over to the Kodak website and I had never really noticed before but the 125 Ektachrome is listed as being discontinued as well. Does this mean that in the near future Kodak only plans to market the one color reversal stock, the Ektachrome 64? This is discouraging. Should I just face facts and realize that the fate of this format and medium is in the hands of Kodak? Is there ANYONE--person, company, or institution that has considered developing a niche boutique business supplying these products? If its not profitable for Kodak's scale of business, maybe it could be profitable for a smaller outfit. I understand that all of this has been debated before and I do appreciate all of the relevant points that are made in this discussion. I know about the cost factor, the (presently) limited scope of people using super 8, and the fact that times change. But I can?t help but wonder, what if all of a sudden there was a new, state of the art camera marketed, together with a full range of amazing sound film stocks that people could edit quickly and easily on their computers? So many people I know today are actually "discontent" with their videocameras and the movies they take but remain at a loss as to explain why. I've heard some people talk with frustration about how that the images seem lifeless and unfeeling somehow. And the immediacy and consequent disposability of the digital image has actually had the opposite effect that was intended. There's no real connection, nothing precious, about an images that you can simply delete and shoot over. Film, by its very material nature (not to mention the physical, psychological and psychic experience of watching real projected film), is crucially compatible with human experience in a way that digital media is not. Video has its place, that can't be denied. But I can't help but think that if super 8 was somehow "revisioned" for the 21st century, with proper state-of-the-art technology and marketing savvy, that it could be resurrected as a mainstream alternative for popular use. My final point here is that Kodak seems to be slowly strangling super 8 of its life not necessarily by some sinister design of corporate greed, but by simple lack of imagination. Out of necessity, the existing super 8 community knows about creative survival strategies. We should figure out how to convince those that presently control the crucial means of this medium to think creatively as well. Not just ?supporting? super 8 with meaningless gestures and convenient product marketing but to think about the economic possibilities inherent in reimagining this phenomenon of super 8 film for a whole new generation. Film is not the past, it?s the future.
Philosophically speaking, you are much better off with a camera that has manual exposure override versus a totally automatic Super-8 camera.
The totally automatic super-8 cameras tend to sell very cheaply, so in theory you won't have invested much money anyways if you own one of those cameras AND it doesn't read 64 ASA.
Upgrading to a camera with manual exposure (perhaps 7%0-80% of all super-8 cameras ever made, just my opinion on the percentage, but it certainly is well over 50%) will make each cartridge you film with a much more meaningful experience.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Well Alex, thanks for the update, but I have since done a lot of research and have, indeed, upgraded to a couple of different cameras that have manual exposure.Originally posted by Alex:
Philosophically speaking, you are much better off with a camera that has manual exposure override versus a totally automatic Super-8 camera.
The totally automatic super-8 cameras tend to sell very cheaply, so in theory you won't have invested much money anyways if you own one of those cameras AND it doesn't read 64 ASA.
Upgrading to a camera with manual exposure (perhaps 7%0-80% of all super-8 cameras ever made, just my opinion on the percentage, but it certainly is well over 50%) will make each cartridge you film with a much more meaningful experience.
Also, I believe that it is not an issue with the new cameras I've acquired: a Canon 814XL-S and a Nikon R10, as they won't have a problem reading the new film. Correct?
Tim
Good choices!
I've been using the new zinc air batteries (wein cell) in my canon 814 auto zoom - seems to work just fine.
Jamie
[quote]Originally posted by tvod:
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alex:
[qb]new cameras I've acquired: a Canon 814XL-S and a
Tim
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks