My Kodak Super 8 conference call!

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

Well, I thought I would share a very nice experience I had this morning. As some of you recall, about a month or so ago, I relayed a conversation I had with west cost Kodak rep Tim Knapp about the future of Super 8 and how I felt that strong support of super 8 by Kodak would provide a "trickle up" effect for the continued use of 16mm and, film, in general. Basically, my position is that beginners starting in film tend to stay in film, for the most part, and that those starting in video tend to stay in video. It has nothing to do with comparative quality, of course, as most beginners' efforts would be less that stellar, even if they shot in 35mm. However, their constituency (mom, dad, friends, etc) will all pat them on the back and tell the budding director that the results look terrific. So the point is that working in a particular medium creates a "comfort zone" that spawns repeated usage by the director until they become self aware enough that they recognize the limitations of the format they are working in. Put simply: People working in Super 8 will generally drift to 16mm. People working in miniDV will probably spend their hard earned paper route money on a Panasonic 24P miniDV or the like rather then on a one shot attempt to shoot 16mm and work in a format that is alien to them.

Tim apparently took my words to heart and wrote an inner office letter pleading my case. As a result, last Wednesday, I received a phone call from Kodak requesting that I participate in a conference call with various department heads directly relative to super 8 and its development and marketing. So, at 9 AM this morning, I received the link up call and had a very pleasant hour long give a take with Karen Dumont and Marian Herz, which head up the color and black and white super 8 divisions at Eastman Kodak Company.

In short, here are the topics we covered and their responses. I have to say going in here that they were VERY receptive to what I had to offer.

------------------------------------------------------------
My position:
Re-introduction of Super 8 Sound film- My feeling was that 8mm's lack of single system sound gave miniDV an unfair advantage in the market place. And there's no point getting into a debate about the quality of single system versus double system sound, here. Simplicity is what a lot of beginning film makers are looking for and I felt that, quality debates aside, re-introducing sound film would be a big plus. They agreed and lamented the demise of sound striped film and said that it had been looked into for redevelopment in the past.

Kodak's response:
Never going to happen as the equipment no longer exists and there were ongoing EPA concerns that forced its demise. Most of us already knew this but I thought it worth restating for the record and put any myths to rest. This is straight from the people that handle these decisions. No ifs ands or buts. No more sound film. Not now. Not ever. (at least from Eastman)

------------------------------------------------------------
My position:
A viable replacement for Kodachome- My feeling is that a lot of super 8 users are waiting for the other shoe to drop as a variety of 8mm film stocks have bit the dust. We all know that Kodak has a love/hate relationship with K40. It is a toxic, expensive, complicated process that gives them no end of EPA hassles. However, it is also their flagship product. Without K40, Eastman is just another Fuji or Agfa, no disrespect intended. Neither Karen nor Marian commented on the prospect of K40's demise (and, to be clear, I did not put them on the spot by asking them), however, I think we all know the writing is on the walls. They asked what I thought would be a good replacement or adjunct to K40 and my offer was a simple, fine grain, slow ASA E-6 (Ektachrome) stock similar to ECO that was produced back in the late 70's for 16mm. ECO is a positive stock with flat colors designed for replication either by printing or via video transfer. After such handling, the colors pop back to life and normal contrast is established. The advantages for those shooting and transferring to video or blowing up to 16mm are obvious. Kodachrome is NOT designed for replication. It is a projection stock and has projection contrast with a heavy D-max. Publications like National Geographic and other mags have learned to work with it over the years but it is probably the least workable stock for telecine or optical printing. Also, let's face it, there are only TWO places in the entire universe that can process Kodachrome and who knows how long that hay ride will last? By coming out with an E-6 based stock (which ANY lab could process), it would decrease turn around times and enhance creativity due to faster feedback. Also, more labs would mean more competitive pricing. And, finally, rather than ignore the fact that more and more S8 users are finishing on video, Kodak could take a proactive position and give low budget film makers something that really is MEANT for video transfer, if they want it, as opposed to making do with K40 and its increased contrast.

Kodak's response:
They seemed to think it was a worthwhile idea that warranted serious evaluation. Granted, there was no "Eureka Moment" here but the most important thing is that they understood the problem and agreed that K40 and video don't really mix. It had simply never occurred to the powers that be how many people were finishing their super 8 projects on video and how hard it was to achieve a professional result. They also agreed that a simple E-6 type process would be the most practical considering the current problems with K40's dye transfer technique and the associated expense that makes labs not want to handle it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
My position:
Ektachrome Type G sucks big time and was a silly thing to leave super 8 film makers with considering that the Ektachrome 160 tungsten, while also grainy, at least had accurate skin tones. Type G is fine if you want to make a Star Trek fan-film about Vulcans but, beyond that, Kodak really dropped the ball in my opinion. Of course, I was more tactful than that but they got the idea.

Kodak's position:
No position, really. They said they'd look into the Ektachrome 160T stuff. I could really care less as I think that any of the high speed Ektachromes are way too grainy to be useful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

My position:
Contrary to the beliefs of Kodak Corporate, the introduction of "professional" stocks like 200 neg is not a viable show of support for the independent low budget film maker. I explained that the majority of the people shooting Super 8 negative were music video producers and the like that were NOT shooting super 8 to maximize the quality it can offer but, rather, were shooting Super 8 negative because it was an easy way to get a really crappy, grainy image. I also pointed out that low budget film makers do not usually have the money for a Rank transfer, which is about the only shot one has at using any type of super 8 negative stock. Therefore, while the existence of "pro neg stocks" may be a boone to artsy directors or music video producers with a budget, it has little use in the day to day efforts of people trying to make a movie in super 8 that don't want a swarm of gnats invading each scene. Shooting and transferring super 8 negative is just too expensive to be practical, in my opinion. Again, I referred them to the idea of an inexpensive, low contrast positive E-6 stock. Keep the negative stocks, by all means, for people that want it but don't confuse the offering of pro negs stocks as a viable alternative to K40 or, worse, a sign of support for the "little guy" trying to work on a shoe string budget.

Kodak's position:
Had not considered the impact of people faced with having to Rank negative stocks. Again, will look into an E-6 ECO type stock for independents that need to see a positive image for editorial purposes BEFORE having their film transferred, thereby saving a butt-load of money.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My position:
Re-introduce the 200 foot carts. I explained that there is an abundance of cameras that will accept them, even if they are the silent 200 foot versions. I also explained that you get more usable footage off a single 200 foot cart than four 50 foot carts since you don't have to stop a take prematurely simply because you ran short on film. Also, the introduction of the 200 foot carts would be a welcome sign to those scared of buying current 50 foot carts that may or may not have jitter. A 200 foot cart would clearly not have jitter at all as it would be totally new. Also, from a marketing and profit margin standpoint, people tend to shoot more if they have a longer magazine. It's a fact. Just look at vidiots that shoot and shoot and shoot because they can fit so much on a single one hour tape. If Kodak wants to see their super 8 volume go up exponentially, give their constituency 200 mags and stand back.

Kodak' position:
VERY receptive. An inquiry will be made of Kodak France to see if they still have the molds and ability to produce 200 carts. Again, no promise but they understood the mutual benefits to both users and Kodak's bottom line.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My position:
The super 8 constituency is scared of getting jittery carts for the simple reason that no one can tell if what they are buying is one of the new carts or one of the old carts. I offered that all they have to do is change the packaging and that will do the trick and leave no doubts that this is the "new stuff". I even suggested that they admit the problem and put "jitter free" on the box so that people can buy with confidence. I also explained that merely offering a replacement of a bad cart does NOT do the trick as there is much more at stake than monetary replacement of film and processing. I told them that there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that will turn someone off from using super 8 (and film, in general), than to have a project that involved dozens of people and days of work and toil ruined due to bad carts. My position is that Kodak needs to take a proactive stance here and show that they are aware of the problem and, more importantly, have actually done something about it that their customers can depend on, as opposed to the constant "guessing" game about the carts that would give the Amazing Kreskin a run for his money. In short, change the packaging to leave no doubt in the user's mind and watch the sale of super 8 grow. In combination with the addition of the 200 foot carts, this would go a LONG way to renew confidence in a languishing medium.

Kodak's response:
They agreed. I can't say they are going to implement any type of immediate change but they admitted that there is no easy way to accurately tell the carts apart though they did stress that the problem is supposedly history. Still, my suggestion, which was well received, was to simply put an adhesive colored dot on the current packages, if they can't actually change the printing itself. The internet will let the word get around very quickly. The down side is that, whether new covers are used or colored dots to make the distinction, this will leave any retailers that have the bad stock out in the cold but that loss will be minimal compared to the current lack of sales due to paranoia about jittery carts.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Well, basically that's the whole jest of our conference call. Also, there were a few things they relayed to me regarding future stocks, etc that I was asked not to reveal. Sorry. But I felt very, very good that I was actually getting positive feedback from people in positions of authority and that they actually understood the concerns of the super 8mm community. I may be wasting my time but this conversation was pretty much the culmination of more than a year's efforts on my part to get to someone in Kodak that can make a difference. Both Karen Dumont and Marian Herz promised that the would seriously look at the various issues and get back to me soon.

Roger

[dr.sanchez]

Thanks, Roger, for being an articulate spokesman for our little format. It sounds like if they took the time to gather some semi-honchos around to chat with you, they still take Super 8 seriously. I especially liked the point that the natural transition from S8 is to 16 and then 35, whereas video begets video. And I love the idea of going to my local photo store to have my ektachrome processed.
As far as film stocks, I really don't mind shooting 200speed TriX. I think the grain looks kinda cool. But it certainly isn't confused with a pro format.

Good Job!

[videoworld]

Hi Roger
What an excellent post, congratulations

[Nigel]

Roger--

I would like to thank you very much for being a very big advocate for the format. What you said to Kodak does represent a faction of Super8 shooters and those shooters need a voice.

However, you did not address the concerns of the "Pro" Super8 Shooter. My experience has shown that the people that make money off of Super8 for Music videos or adjuncts to features would like to see the Neg. line up expanded. They would like to see K40 replaced with the 100D and they have never been concerned with the reintroduction of sound film.

You are correct and I agree that if you begin on film you will continue to shoot film. I am glad that you pointed this out. It is fact often overlooked.

Thank You and please remember that there are other out there that are more than just the film student.

Good Job.

[Screener]

Bravo on an excellent job of advocacy. I have written KODAK before, with the same argument about S8 use begetting filmmakers... I guess I ws just a little TOO adamnat.

I suggested they GIVE super 8 away to film schools.

At any rate, it will be great to see the re-introduction of the 200 foot cartridge. My Elmo 612xls is dying for a load.

[c_77]

That was great and thanks for sharing with us. I personally want to thank you for mentioning the sound film issue even though you knew the answer would inevitably be no!

Though i have yet to do a transfer i understand the need of another reversal stock. I felt that the new negative stocks are a reaction to super8sound and have little to offer the majority of filmmakers. It's good that Kodak has someone like yourself to clue them in.

I haven't received any jittery carts so i can't comment on that issue. I think the thing is that corporations rarely admit fault unless they absolutely have to (lawsuits). Plus they know they own the super 8 film market and so it's not like people can go buy the other brand. But it is a concern for people, especially those who have been shooting it long enough to notice a dip in quality control for filmstocks.

The only thing i disagree with you about is the point you made about film or videomakers sticking with their particluar film or video realms; then again i could be an exception. I could really go either way! I haven't done much video or filmmaking when i was younger and just recently gained interest. Nevertheless, i take photographs on film and won't consider using any of the digicams i could afford at the present. Film simply looks better; pain in the ass, but better. Who knows, perhaps someday in our lifetime digital cameras will even surpass the 'film standard'.

The 200 foot loads should still be an option. I do have an Elmo camera that takes them but i don't have the magazine. It makes far more sense to have an ability of shooting more than 2.5 minutes and it would be very inexpensive for Kodak to repackage this stuff i would imagine.

This was a very encouraging conversation you had with Kodak, especially given their economic struggles. I hope they follow through on some of your suggestions!

[Matt Pacini]

Good job, Roger.
I agree with almost everything you said to them, and obviously, there are a zillion opinions about what the S8 users need, etc., so it's to be expected that there will be some people that want one thing, and others that want another...

If we get 200 foot carts reintroduced out of this, I'll be a happy camper!
They were just discontinued when I started shooting S8, but I've fantasized about them ever since.

I agree with you 100% on the format people start with, they tend to stick with, unless obviously, a professional job dictates another format.

I'm not so sure about replacing K-40 with any kind of Ektachrome though.
I've neve shot with that particular Ektachrome, but I think you err in this one way on this issue:
For Super 8 to compete with video (which it's not doing very well), the format needs a higher speed stock, that has grain that is at least SOMEWHERE near the fine-grain capability of K-40.
In other words, one of the big selling points of video for ametuers, is to shoot in low light.
I agree with Nigel, replacing it with 100D & also 100T would be preferable than another slow-speed reversal stock.
Better yet, add all these other stocks, then let good old supply and demandd work:
If the other stocks are better all around than K-40, then sales of K-40 will come to a screeching halt, showing Kodak that it's OK to kill it.

It should be VERY interesting to see what we get when they introduce the Vision2 stock for Super 8, which they have already said they would do.
(Is this the big secret you were referring to Roger? Because John Plytak has already mentioned it on www.ceinematography.com)

Matt Pacini

[Matt Pacini]

Oh, antoher thing....

I agree that Kodak should give Super8 away to film schools, but not stop there.
They should give it away, (or at least offer HUGE DISCOUNTS) to all schools that have any type of film or video classes, and maybe even work out a deal on camera purchases (God, I wish someone still made S8 cameras...)

That, in my opinion, is the one thing that made Apple computers successful;
they gave tons of free computers to colleges all over the place, and got students used to learning that format.
I don't think they would be around today, if they hadn't done that in the 80's like they did.

Kodak could learn a lesson here.

Matt Pacini

[calgodot]

Excellent work, Roger. You da man! You must have extreme patience with bureaucratic-types. Just seeing the words "conference call" gave me a shiver up my spine.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...my offer was a simple, fine grain, slow ASA E-6 (Ektachrome) stock similar to ECO that was produced back in the late 70's for 16mm. ECO is a positive stock with flat colors designed for replication either by printing or via video transfer. After such handling, the colors pop back to life and normal contrast is established. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love that film stock. I even like the muted colors: it screams 70s to me. I'd love to be able to shoot that S8. Q: Are ECO stocks still manufactured? (I looked through Kodak product sheets online and did not find it, but I've not found lots of things that are actually on the Kodak site.) What is it that establishes the normal contrast in post? Is it an automatic change due to the tranfer or is there a process involved?

IMHO, It's an obvious truth I think that 100D and 100T stocks would also be a nice addition. When you are dealing with only 2 color stocks (I don't count the neg stock), pretty much *any* additional stock will be welcome, as long as it does not have your gnat-fest.

Q: Do people outside the South have gnats? [img]wink.gif[/img]

[Greg Crawford]

KUDO'S ROGER,

THANK YOU.

Two quick point, part of Eastman Kodak's success was due to offering easy to use camera's and film.

POINT 1.

I don't think we need any more easy to use Supper 8 cameras but I wonder if they could help to get a new moderately priced Super 8 camera that was built to last and had a couple production oriented features.

1. Orient able Viewfinders.
2. Follow focus
3. Self blimping
4. Great lens choices!
5. New gate design, where the Super 8 film is gently pulled out of the cart rage and placed around rollers and into a pro gate, for better sharpness.

POINT 2

Since sharpness and "APPARENT SHARPNESS" (CONTRAST) go hand in hand, I wonder if a softer Ektachrome would have the same apparent sharpness as K-40. What do you think?

Thanks again Great Job!