Where is super 8 headed?

[MovieStuff]

I actually posted this as a response in another forum but felt it was good for discussion all around. Here goes:

At the risk of seeming like a heretic, let me be the devils advocate here. I don't think that Super 8, or motion picture film in general, will die because people stop using it. I think its demise, which is inevitable, will come from other pressures that we have zero control over, like environmental concerns over the processing of K40 or the problems inherent in making the dye-transfer process work with the polyester based film that the government is mandating Kodak swtch to in the future. It is all well and fine to sign petitions and cry in the wilderness like Paul Simon,"Please don't take my Kodachrome away!" but the reality is that there were far more Betamx lovers that there are super 8 lovers and Betamax was canned, despite its superior performance over VHS. Can you still get the tape? If you look really hard. More and more companies have dropped Betamax from their production line which, as it logically turns out, now makes Betamax more expensive that VHS.

Today, we see that same process at work in S8. Once was a time you could walk into drug store and buy super 8 film. Not any more. Fewer and fewer places stock it, the price is marked way up when they do, forcing people to special order to try and save money. Even then, the cost of super 8 new is ofter the same or higher than buying short ends of 16mm. Also, the cost of processing super 8 and transfer can often be more since there are fewer places doing it, where as there are countless places that offer 16mm package deals on processing and transfer.

Don't get me wrong. This is not an "anti-super 8" post. But I think people need to be aware that there are market forces that are creeping in to play that we, to a degree, have no control over. It may be counter intuitive, but trying to show Kodak how much everyone loves K40 is not the best thing to do, in my opinion, because the demise of K40 will have nothing to do with market demands. It will be technical and environmental. Instead, I think we need to look for alternatives that Kodak CAN offer that will still meet all their profit, environmental, and technical needs, because K40 presently exists in opposition to those things and it is only a matter of time before fate intervenes.

Previously, I posted the idea of pushing Kodak to re-introduce ECO, which is a fine grain Ektachrome based stock from the 70s. When you project it, the colors are flat as a pancake. But when transferred to video or printed on its mated printing stock, the colors and contrast pop back to where they belong. Granted, it's not K40, but it would be a good substitute in that, unlike K40, ECO was designed from the beginning for reproduction; something that K40 was never intended for. ECO would let people still handle their films on a regular editor (something hard to do with neg) and would also bring the price of processing down as anyone can process Ektachrome. More importantly, for all those with sound projectors, the re-introduction of sound prints would be a boon to the re-birth of super 8 festivals; something that has fallen victim to a lack of film based post for super 8.

Anyway, I'm not a dooms-dayer. But I think that the power of prayer isn't going to help keep K40 or super 8 alive. Nor is it going to be a simple matter of 'buy, buy, buy' to convince Kodak that the market is still profitable enough to keep alive. Profit is relative to expense and right now, films like K40 are a very expensive overhead for a company faced with the digital onslaught. Business is business and the weaker product lines are always the first to go when stockholders' shares are threatened. You and I and maybe even some dedicated few at Kodak love super 8, but the shareholders more than likely don't even know what it is. How could they care when they think that VHS and super 8 film are the same thing? That's the reality we face, I'm afraid.

My two cents.....

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Mr Blackstock]

If kodak stopped producing super 8 film, as well as the other gauges, would a smaller company not take the name and produce films, even products? It happens quite alot, when a company will buy the rights and name and continue production, like the indian "royal enfeild" motorcycle marque. Also, with the common use of computer editing, it might be easier for a company to turn out cheaply a low quality product designed for computer editing.

Other than that, keep hoping known directors continue using 8mm ocasionally.

------------------

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:
If kodak stopped producing super 8 film, as well as the other gauges, would a smaller company not take the name and produce films, even products?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anything is possible, I suppose. However, the heart of super 8 is K40 and, without it, I'm not sure how many people would continue to embrace the medium. I can't see a smaller company taking on the EPA and all the headaches associated with K40. Besides, the smaller company will also have to use polyester for their film, so switching manufacturers won't solve all the problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:

Also, with the common use of computer editing, it might be easier for a company to turn out cheaply a low quality product designed for computer editing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Non-linear editing is already pretty cheap. I can't imaging what a film company could do to make it any cheaper.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Blackstock:

Other than that, keep hoping known directors continue using 8mm ocasionally.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, again, I've have never seen super 8 used in music videos or features where they didn't bastardize the image and make it look worse than super 8 is capable of. "Known directors" seem to delight in trying to make super 8 look as bad as possible as opposed to as good as it can be. As such, I'm not sure how much that speeds the plow to convince Kodak that super 8 needs improvement. All the high profile projects make super 8 look terrible. Faced with such an image, why should Kodak feel compelled to improve super 8 stocks?

Roger


------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Nigel]

Kodak should only feel compeled to do what the dollar tells it to. Which is not a bad thing. S8 will stay around as long as people like us shoot it. Whether Kodak produces it or not. If it is true that Super8Sound made their film slicer then I am sure other people could do the same. Good Luck

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, you know that you and I disagree on the demise of film issue, so I'll toss in a couple counter-arguments here:

1. Everything you say about S8, and K-40 would explain why it should have died in about 1980, yet it is still going strong.

2. There are many, many factors involved in "market conditions" that are hard to predict, or we'd all be millionaires in the stock market. Certainly it all comes under the heading of supply and demand, but islolating one particular aspect, like K-40 being a pain in the ass for Kodak for instance, does not paint the whole picture.
If it did, then K-40 would be long gone, yet they still must be making money on it, or they would have discontinued it long ago. They aren't making the stuff just to be nice, so it must be worth whatever hassle it is for them to keep making it.

3. VHS-vs-BETA is not a good test case for this example, because the reason Beta died, is totally because Sony did not license the technology like JVC did with VHS, so anyone could make VHS decks, which made them much cheaper than Beta decks, because Sony wanted a monopoly on the format.
Same thing with PC's and Macs. Which is cheaper? Which has more machinese out there? (remember, this happened in the days before Windows).
So it's a different issue.

4. You can't buy 16mm or 35mm motion picture film in drug stores either, but that doesn't mean anything. The reason S8 is no longer carried in small stores, is simply because it is no longer being sold to the masses as a "home movie" consumer product.
It's being sold to professional (or at least people trying to be professional!) filmmakers, who have no problem getting it at Kodak or larger photo places, like B&H, who simply priced the little guys out of the market with their cheaper prices anyway.

If film dies, I don't see it happening for at least 20 years.
This sounds ridiculous to many of you, but I remember sitting in my audio engineering class at Soundmaster Audio/Video in N. Hollywood in 1986, and hearing the owner giving us a little talk about the "future of audio and video technology".
He had recently seen a HD video demonstration. (Remember, this is 15 years ago!!!!)
He said it was unbelievable, and in five years, everyone would be switched over to HD TV sets everywhere.

Well, it's 15 years later, and I don't know one single person who owns an HD TV set!

So just because something has particular advantages, (and in the case of HD, there's not even any argument at all that it's better than existing technology), does not mean it's automatically going to be the new standard.
There are very complicated things that drive what standards are adopted, and it's not always what is the best or easiest, or cheapest thing.

Basically, whatever people want to buy, will be sold to them.

If people want to continue to buy standard NTSC TV sets, then that's what they will buy.

If Spielberg, Coppola, Tarrantino and all the other thousands of influential directors want to keep shooting on film, then they will continue to be able to buy film to shoot their movies.

If people continue to buy Kodachrome 40 Super 8 film, then Kodak will keep making it.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[MikeBrantley]

Roger,

One thing I'm confused about is the mention you made about sound film. Why would the availability of a new (old?) stock in place of K40 get us pre-striped sound film? I mean, why can't Kodak stripe any of the currently available stocks?

Not that this has much to do with your main point re the future of K40, but that part confused me.

Onward!

------------------
--Mike Brantley

[c_77]

I don't know, I have a hard time believing that Kodak stopped making sound film strictly for "environmental reasons". It probably just didn't sell well...where any of you using computer editing back then? I want to blaim sound film's demise on computer editing , etc. However, I don't think that the computer editing was as widely available then. Did any of you stop using sound film (when it was still offered) because you thought it was inferior to some other process for adding sound? For this reason, I doubt that Kodak will re-introduce sound film on any film stock.
Later-Chris

------------------

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Roger, you know that you and I disagree on the demise of film issue, so I'll toss in a couple counter-arguments here:

1. Everything you say about S8, and K-40 would explain why it should have died in about 1980, yet it is still going strong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. "Going strong" would be the equivalent of sales at the level super 8 had in its hay-day. I talked with Kodak about a month ago in my quest for ECO. Super 8 sales are up slightly from recent years, but are only a fraction of the market share that existed back in the 70s and 80s. But corporations don't care about relative earnings; they care about the bottom line and what kind of overhead and liability there is for a given product. No matter how you slice it, super 8 isn't making the kind of money for Kodak that it did in the 70's and 80's and the liability is high for K40.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

K-40 being a pain in the ass for Kodak for instance, does not paint the whole picture.
If it did, then K-40 would be long gone, yet they still must be making money on it, or they would have discontinued it long ago.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, not really. That's like saying a dead battery should still be good because it always worked in the past. Everything comes to an end, eventually, and generally after resources have been pressed to their limit. With the EPA breathing down Kodak's neck and them facing future losses due to the onslaught of digital imaging, the shareholders are going to look for ways to trim the fat. I can not think of anything that Kodak sells less of than super 8 and I can't think of anything that causes Kodak more trouble than Kodachrome. Therefore, Super 8 Kodachrome has a big, red bullseye painted on its back, in my opinion. Is this supposition to think that Super 8 K40 is doomed? Of course! But it's an even bigger stretch to assume that it will continue to be produced just because we all wish it. Kodak will do what it needs to protect the bottom line, regardless of how much we prostrate ourselves outside their door.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

3. VHS-vs-BETA is not a good test case for this example, because the reason Beta died, is totally because Sony did not license the technology like JVC did with VHS, so anyone could make VHS decks, which made them much cheaper than Beta decks, because Sony wanted a monopoly on the format.
So it's a different issue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in the reason it died. But it did so in the face of hundreds of thousands of people that loved and demanded the Betamax format; people that no doubt felt as strongly about the superiority of Betamax as you or I feel about super 8 K40. Again, the number of people that stood their ground and kept buying Betamax far outnumbers the small cache of super 8 users that you feel constitutes a market that is "still going strong".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

4. You can't buy 16mm or 35mm motion picture film in drug stores either, but that doesn't mean anything. The reason S8 is no longer carried in small stores, is simply because it is no longer being sold to the masses as a "home movie" consumer product.
It's being sold to professional (or at least people trying to be professional!) filmmakers, who have no problem getting it at Kodak or larger photo places, like B&H, who simply priced the little guys out of the market with their cheaper prices anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sauce for the goose. The number of places you can get super 8 is fewer and fewer as the years go by while the number of places you can get 35mm and 16mm motion picture film increases as the years go by. Also, 16mm short ends now are about the same price as new K40 super 8. The gap is narrowing and S8 is now harder to find than 16mm when it clearly used to be the other way around.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

If film dies, I don't see it happening for at least 20 years.....

If people continue to buy Kodachrome 40 Super 8 film, then Kodak will keep making it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's a guess, at best. We really don't know what Kodak will do other than protect the interests of their stockholders. I would agree with you if you said,"If ENOUGH people continue to buy Kodachrome 40...."

The question is what constitutes "enough"? At some point, corporations look at a product line and say,"Ahh. Not enough profit." They don't say,"Ahh. No profit." They never let it get that far. They always pull the plug while there is still some kind of demand so they don't go in the red. So, while one may see Super 8 as "going strong", Kodak may see things a little differently.

Of course, this is all supposition on both our parts.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeBrantley:

One thing I'm confused about is the mention you made about sound film. Why would the availability of a new (old?) stock in place of K40 get us pre-striped sound film?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! I said "sound prints" not striped stock. In the past, Kodak was the only place that could make Kodachrome prints. They also offered sound striped Kodachrome prints. My feeling is ECO would facilitate processing and printing by more and more small labs; something that is hard to do with Kodachrome.

ECO is designed for printing. Kodachrome is not. It might be a stretch on my part, but any lab that is willing to go the distance and offer ECO printing might well offer striped prints.

As far as Kodak offering sound stock, I wish they would! I see no reason for them not doing it. Of course, as much as we all wish it, most of the sound cameras had auto gain, which is a drag. So, even if sound film came back, it would really only benefit those with really good cameras like Nizo, Beaulieus or a handful of Chinon/Bolex cameras. Not many had manual audio gain, I don't think.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[dogstarman]

Matt,

I have to take issue with you on your comment conerning the reasons why S8 isn't available in grocerey stores, drug stores, and most importantly, most CAMERA SHOPS, the way it was in the past. They reason for this is ENTIRELY on Kodaks head, and I'll tell you why:

If you are a small, independant shop-owner who order less than $100,000 worth of Kodak product a year, and have the records to back that up, Kodak will not even talk to you. They do not want your business, and could care less if you sell any of their products. You cannot get corporate purchasing account with them, thus anything you order from them, you pay retail. Just like you and I do.

I know this, because one of my good friends just bought the camera shop he has worked at for years. It is a small single-man operation, but the annual take for the shop is around $75,000 a year. Not bad, for a single guy my age. However, HE CANNOT GET ANYTHING FROM KODAK. No chemicals, no film, no paper, NOTHING. He orders all his Kodak product from different sources.

See, and big-ass companies (Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Rite Aid, etc.) DO NOT STOCK what people want to buy, people buy what they have in stock. I know. I have gone into a Wal-Greens and asked the manager point blank:
"Will you order K-40 for me and sell it at 15% over cost if I order $1000 worth and pay you cash up front?"

My answer: "Yes we can get it. It is in our books. I cannot order it, because I can't authorize a special order."

WHAT!? Then who can? Here is a customer, saying "I want this. I will pay you cash, up front for this." And you won't get it for them?!?!?

Sorry, this is a bit of a rant. Anyway, my point was: the local shop that actually could and would stock K-40 for customers who wanted to buy it can't, because Kodak won't sell to them. And the big companies that Kodak DOES sell to WON'T stock it, because they can't sell 30 million dollars worth in a fiscal quarter, so that means "Nobody wants it..."

This is all the more screwed-up if you know the history of Kodak, and that the company was BUILT on serving the small, family owned retailer, and thus succeeded because they paid attention to what people actually WANTED...

------------------