Super-8 digital film cassette

[robertj]

With DV technology so far advanced is there any reason why KODAK or SONY or JVC etc cannot produce a digital super-8 video cassette that digitally records the image using a standard super-8 camera. With a suitable microphone jack this could also record sound, even for what used to be "silent" cameras.

Does anyone have any info on this topic, or know how to lobby KODAK SONY JVC enough to get them interested?



------------------
[email protected]

[Carlos8]

Hi,
There's absolute differece between digitally process and photographic process.
Super 8 format is filmic format, I mean the images are printed photographically in a tape with a light sensitive emulsion.

The digital process is purely electronic. The video cameras possess a sensitive electronic light sensor (CCD). that information is coded in binary digits and then registererd in a magnetic support. (tape).

Hope this helps,
Carlos

[ekoe]

nicely put, carlos. if we want digital super8, we shoot minidv.

[robertj]

Some of us are too far from S-8 processing centres to be purist about using the old film medium. The idea is to put a CCD of the correct size and sensitivity in place of the film and be able to use again good equipment like my Beaulieu 4008 with interchangeable lenses and single-frame capacity - try matching that with MiniDV's.

I bet there is a market for DV super-8 - they are all the one's who are not using old film techniques at the moment.

I hope this development is not to be blocked by S-8 dinosaurs!

[cameraguy]

robertj, the cost of such a modification to pre-existing equipment would be mind boggling. Better off to buy a Canon XL-1 DV which already has a interchangeable lens. I live in Canton, CT also (yes, I really do) and I dont feel I am far from processing centers. Why on Earth do you feel this way???

[maurizio]

I agree with Cameraguy: The modification that has been proposed is in its essence a video camcorder and there is absolutely no need for them. Super 8 is filmic, digital is magnetic video, but video nonetheless with almost all of the inherent limitations of the medium per se.

Hope this helps.

[allthenamesiputinaretaken]

Would'nt it be great if that was possible?

[rollemfilm]

no...

[ekoe]

all that research and development for single-frame capacity? you'd fare better simply developing a single frame modification for an existing minidv camera, like the xl-1 or vx2000. this may already exist. i believe some vhs camcorders of the 80's had single-frame capacity. anyone?
my point is, we shoot super8 because we prefer film. why?... because the latitude, resolution, nuance of color and light, filmstock variety, fps versitility, equipment durability and that 'filmlook' referred to which a video shutter speed effect CANNOT duplicate whatever propaganda your minidv operation manual may push.
i believe there will one day be one-time use, disposable ccd's. or at least that's what i've read. but i also believe these will be single ccd's, and inferior ones at that. a ccd the size of a super8mm frame at this point is ludicrous. the fischer price pxl2000 (pixelvision) would probably yield better resolution.
we are not opposed to video. video will only make super8 stronger at this point. i've been around the video block. i sell sony professional digital video equipment.
the more you work in video, the more you come to realize it's strengths, possibilities and limitations. super8 takes over where video leaves off.
your friendly neighborhood bronchiosaur,
ekoe.

[redrice]

coudln't agree more with ekoe: i've been working in DV for two years now, and in super 8 for two months: there's no comparison. they're two completely different media. and part of the point of film is you have to wait for stuff to happen. it doesn't all take place in this pseduo-instantaneous world of virtual (as in, not quite) reality.

that is the time you use for thinking about what you are going to do and what you have done.

not that DV can't be thoughtful too. but that's not the way the medium is conceived and marketed: if it was, it would be film.

in any case, DV is still in its infancy is a plastic medium: it hasn't even found its DW Griffiths yet, let alone its Hawks and its Lang. it's exciting to be in on that: but how many people with camcorders realise the true scale of the challenge, and the likely fate of their own work?

there's nothing so good about DV when most DV movies are just badly-shot, hastily-edited, under-prepared, electronically-garbled 16mm films...

peter the pterodactyl