kaylee

Super 8 never really died to those determined to shoot on it since it was always a comparatively cheap format to shoot even when all the main labs closed and a handful of independent vendors picked up the niche demand. Processing/DIY scanning at home can be fine if you are dealing with 50ft at a time - but can quickly become impractical. Kodak's new camera however seems to be several steps back to make film aquasition appeal to filmmakers as an alternative to digital. No single frame or interchangeable lenses? The new camera from Kodak is fine for a soft introduction to shooting film, but not much else. What Kodak should do is collaborate with Arri on a hybrid S16 and 2perf 35mm camera, using a similar concept to the new S8 ...
The Dream:
S16 camera would cost around £5-7k, form factor similar to an A-minima (200ft internal - 400ft external mag).
2perf 35mm camera - Arri 2c form factor...name your price.
simultaneous HD video/audio recording via reflex (effectively a glorified video tap recording to SSD) - SDI/HDMI out - XLR in etc etc.
Stock cost from Kodak could include Telecine service...user can edit or select takes from the HD proxy video that is then sent to Kodak via cloud. User can send EDL/ text file or the edited proxy video to Kodak who then TK only your selected takes to 2-4K resolution as .dng sequence or prores with synced audio - then they send you the master files via download link or physical drive. A collaboration with Resolve could make the software side really sing - also allowing LUT to be loaded onto the video assist on the camera to show how your selected stock will look when processed. Since you'd also have your processed camera negative, you would also have a physical master of your rushes.
I hope this Super 8 buzz starts some kind of revival, film can look amazing when selected for the appropriate project. But I fear that unless a professional range of hybrid cameras get released as a follow up, film will remain an increasing rarity for the average Joe to contemplate shooting on for anything other than short form projects. The simple fact of the matter is - no new film cameras are being made anymore, Aaton, Arri and Panavision silently stopped making them a few years ago.
If Kodak collaborated with Arri on a 2perf 35mm, I'd expect many people would want to buy or rent. Below is a reminder of 2perf loveliness - a hybrid camera could deliver this quality, in a more 'digitally friendly' workflow that a younger generation of crew have only experienced working with. It would at least give an additional option for celluloid capture....and if embraced enough may be able to be made as a cost effective rival to modest budget productions.
 
 
 

I'll answer each of your points as best i can
 
1. creative people who want the cheapest access to celluloid for motion picture.  The same type of people who still shoot film (1000000% more expensive than digital), listen to vinyl records (which are 1000% more expensive than itunes and 1000000% more expensive than piracy), and those who drive classic cars instead of modern cars (they break down more often and are less fuel efficient, yet they still do it.  it's called going against the grain. enthusiasm. passion. nostagia
2. not always.  8mm film shot, developed and scanned well will outperform full hd digital.  if the 8mm format took off the costs will likely be massively cheaper than 16mm or 35mm due to demand driving prices down.  the 8mm film stock has the same colour and highlight rolloff as the film stock used for interstellar, hateful 8, and the master.  if you only need fullhd then 8mm carefully handled will deliver.
3. it may be too pricey for some, but not everyone.  those who might make the choice to invest in stuff for their art endeavours rather than waste money on big tv's, junkfood and consuming stuff they don;t need tend to spend their money on stuff like this.  
4. patience is a virtue.  you may not be patient enough to wait for development.  I get impatient too.  but as above - there are people who are patient and they benefit!
5. maybe.  I like to think when I'm 50 I'll have the budget to invest in stuff like this for my own enjoyment, capturing family, grandchildren, life, etc.  But I know plenty of commercial film makers who will be investing in this little camera for commercial work.  The value in doing so is heightened by the fact that there are those with your opinions who aren't willing to go to the effort or invest in the action of trying something against the grain.    

If you want to shoot stills and video with one camera then a hybrid sounds like the best tool for the job to me!!

Panasonic AF100 from Oct 2011 - Shot near OSU Campus, Columbus Ohio.  Forget the lens; perhaps the 20mm F/1.7.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3W9u9cu-URWS2plWl9PbGpsODg/view?usp=sharing
 
Here's another 5d3 raw clip with the 300 2.8 IS.  I had no ND or drop in filters, and as such the shutter is far too high. 
But look at those colors!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3W9u9cu-URWZWlLbEFZSE1QZG8/view?usp=sharing
 
Sony FS700 240FPS - I adjusted the WB in post as this was a rental back in 2014 and I was testing it...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3W9u9cu-URWRkxrYXFFZDFZZUk/view?usp=sharing
 

I save everything, so I should have some contributions here.
First up, Canon 1DC 4k
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3W9u9cu-URWUE1oamQwekRwWGs/view?usp=sharing
F/5.6, 70-200 II @ 175mm, Portrait profile 0,-2,-1,+2  WB: 5200
(If you have the camera settings and lenses let's include those too)
Up next, the amazing and stunning Canon 5d3 RAW - Shot at F/1.6 I believe with the 85 1.2 L II + a ton of ND.
Might be the best looking footage I've ever shot from a pure aesthetic point of view.  
Sorry I no longer have the DNG files, but this was brought into Adobe After Effects and I only adjusted the ACR sliders.  That's it.  No "looks" or anything like that.  From Sept 2014:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3W9u9cu-URWcGlZdGRyYUxHRDg/view?usp=sharing
Tough to argue that anything looks better color wise for the money. 

thats great andrew!! could you post a couple screengrabs?

haaa this is too funny~!  we're all on craigslist shopping for used 5d2s right now 
im totally gonna find a cheap one, Dane and i dont care about shutter actuations or a few scratches  $480 as a point of entry for that raw full frame image is p awesome... nice work man!

also, Dane: always interested in 5d3 vs 5d2 raw comparisons!!!!!!

For anyone interested in a GH4 (VLOG-L) + Atomos Ninja Assassin combo
 
File Link: http://www.filedropper.com/assassins001s001t013 (1.88 GB)
Camera: GH4 (VLOG-L Profile) + Atomos Ninja Assassin
Lens: Sigma 18-35 + Metabones Speedbooster XL, F1.8, ISO400
File: Apple ProRes 422 10-bit, 4k (3840x2160), 24fps
 
Frame Grabs
Ungraded:

Graded (IWLTBAP 9280 LUT):  

It completely solves the colour correct hassle of normal SLOG 2.
S Gamut is really tricksy.
Has anyone else tried shooting this way? Downsides? Results?
I am trying this on the FS5 and A7S II and suddenly I can grade SLOG 2 like Canon LOG with just a simple master luma curve adjustment in Premiere and nothing else!

Red One MX
4.5K at max compression (=worst possible image  )
24fps
ISO800
Nikkor 17-35mm @ f4
24fps
http://www.filedropper.com/a165c0190101j8rdc
(The focus is ok until she gets bored and lays down)
Frame Grabs:
Ungraded,

Quick Grade,

 

I thought I'd make a sticky thread for sharing original camera files direct off the card.
Always interesting for people to try the original files without having to look at someone else's grading and compression via Vimeo or YouTube!
Let's get a bunch of stuff up here and make a little vault!
We have so many cameras between us on these forums. 1D C, Red One, Cinema DNG, C300 II, FS7, we can really build up a nice collection.
Here's my initial contribution:
XAVC-L from the FS5 in 8bit 4K and 10bit 1080p -
http://we.tl/yQO2ZM4HdA
Comparison with Cinema DNG raw from the 5D Mark II / Magic Lantern -
http://we.tl/HOACsCROeZ
Got any Red ONE files Mattias?
Also we need to find a better file host than WeTransfer as that only keeps hold of stuff for a couple of weeks and after that we'd have a bunch of dead links. But if you want to share WeTransfer links anyway, please do go ahead until we find a more permanent solution and I will keep a backup of all the files on my drive.

Havent read everything yet but it kinda looks like a Logmar type thing. If so and $2000 or less I will buy it instantly.
S8 is cheap, easy to process and scan at home. The quality out of a goood s8 is nice. But the Logmar with a registration pin is something else.

Not sure if you've read Andrew's post about 7d raw:
http://www.eoshd.com/2013/08/raw-video-on-the-canon-7d-super-35mm-raw-for-under-1000/
The 7D really needs the Mosaic filter to help reduce aliasing. With the filter it's a great camera for raw since it takes CF.

Edit: All this 5D2/forgotten camera excitement got me looking on craigslist. I found a wedding photographer selling her used 5D2 body for $500. ~140k actuations and some scratches on the screen. Talked her down to $480, just met up and bought it. Maybe you should consider selling your 7D and getting a used 5D2 since prices are getting very low. The deal I just got is extremely lucky but I see another on craigslist for $700. Now I can finally do some 5D2 vs 5D3 raw comparison tests of my own. I can post the results if people are interested.

Those are so comfortable. Great ergonomics.
The 5D Mark III added nothing of real note over the Mark II. The old camera is the very definition of a modern classic.
So much room for the monitor in it. And it was a crap monitor  They should have another go with that model. Would be wonderful second time out.
Was it from the Jim Jannard puppy rescue home?

You should probably note that in 2009, CF cards were nowhere close to the required size or speed for raw recording.
I miss my 5DIII every day though, regret trading it up for the paper specs of the A7s. My brother has a 5DII, will have to get ML loaded onto it.
 

Way to dump thousands of sales down the drain Nikon... Note the red box.

Sometimes we can concentrate on the camera 100%, really work it like an artist's paintbrush.
Sometimes we have to apply our focus to the actors instead, to the lights, the other stuff.
Therefore, unless we have a crew with many people, different roles, you are going to have to split your focus.
I would love to have a crew to do all the directing, lighting, carrying my 10kg camera and sticks around for me, making me breakfast, cooking me pie, slipping me a glass of wine in-between shots with my RED ONE!
But the real world doesn't often work like that does it?

Thanks Nate for all these tests.
We have shared some a7rii settings here:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9191-playing-with-sony-a7r-ii-heres-my-fav-picture-profile-post-yours/#comment-103712
Its amazing that Sony has provided a method to match cameras with the picture profiles and very few people actually play with it. It would be of great great value if while you are doing the test that Ebrahim suggested, to try and match the colors of a7rii with the 1dc by playing with color phase and color depths (probably with a cine gamma so you can see it in camera...). Then people can just use these settings if they wish to have a 1Dc profile with their Sony's. No need to color grade every time!
Edit: Find the color matrix that best matches the Canon colors before start playing with the settings... I would guess Pro, Cinema or Movie would be it. 
You will find more information on the picture profiles in the following link: 
http://helpguide.sony.net/di/pp/v1/en/contents/TP0000909111.html
From here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://docs.sony.com/release/Help_C198100111.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwis8M2Y1JHKAhVQ7GMKHfnyDW8QFggnMAQ&usg=AFQjCNFq1tYWvMsGfbF0GLBSTj4mcktgsg&sig2=tg-TYrEDf3hhv7gSIbV9tw
Again, I would be grateful if you could play with the picture profiles.

NICE~! color is looking p darn good from that a7rii... great work Nate!
v interesting info thanks for posting
 

So this is absolutely not a scientific test, but I was curious how the A7Rii would hold up to my 1DC, which I believe gives a wonderful cinematic image, especially when filming people. Chalk it up to Canon's color science, a great sensor, 4:2:2 color, whatever -- but at current used prices I think the 1DC is a steal (and it takes amazing stills) That said, it's also getting long in the tooth, and the A7Rii was an attractive potential upgrade, especially with 42mp stills, IBIS, and small body that makes gimbal work manageable. But I wondered how it would fare image-wise, especially when it comes to skin tones.
I didn't want to use S-Log2 or C-Log, since I don't have any experience grading S-Log2 and I know it can be a challenge, especially on the 8-bit codec. So I shot my 1DC in the neutral profile with sharpness and saturation down, which is what I normally do when not using C-Log. I did my best to match it on the A7Rii -- Andrew's EOSHD Flat settings (Cine4, Black levels up, Detail down, Saturation down a bit) come quite close actually, but I used Pro gamma as Cinema gamma just made the reds look off.
Again, this is by no means a scientific or extensive test, and I did very little grading (no LUT, just a single color correction layer in FCPx). And I'm sure someone could do a better job matching the shots, but this at least gives you a sense of the general differences. My big question was whether I could easily get an image out of the A7Rii that could compete with the 1DC without a ton of post work.
Both cameras are using the same white balance, ISO, and aperture, although the crop factor is slightly different due to APS-H vs APS-C. I used a Canon 50mm/1.2 on both cameras, and both are handheld with no loupe to stabilize, making it easy to tell which camera is which due to Sony's IBIS.
Although I did a number of tests, here's a quick comparison for those interested. This is 4k scaled down to 1080p to make it easier to share: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2135/1DC-A7Rii-Test.mov
Here's a frame grab from FCPx that's higher-res (1DC is zoomed slightly to match so will look less sharp when viewed at full res): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2135/1DC-A7Rii.jpg
My personal opinion thus far: The A7Rii can indeed put out a beautiful image when filming people, although it's still not quite as gorgeous as the 1DC. This could be because the 1DC is slightly softer (maybe due to the low-pass filter, so perhaps the A7Sii could be better) and the A7Rii sensor detail just doesn't benefit skin (most photographers end up smoothing skin a bit, I imagine), or due to color, or maybe I just need to spend more time tweaking Sony's insane number of settings.
It seems like the 1DC has smoother highlight roll-off, and just gives a touch of softness that benefits people, making it *feel* a bit better to me, even if it's technically inferior.
That said, it's close (some might prefer the A7Rii look). And with the A7Rii I gain a lot of great video features the 1DC does not have. Don't know if I'm quite yet ready to retire my Canon and go all in on Sony... but it's tempting and I will be keeping an eye on FS5 firmware updates.
Curious to hear from anyone else who has worked with the A7Rii or A7Sii when it comes to filming people.

Yup, if only the perfect all in one could be invented soon. Maybe CES 2016
In the meantime, If anybody that haven't experienced Red Raw, here is a clip.
Its 4.5K in R28. So pretty big compared to the smaller HD files. And imo pretty cool for the highest compression.
You can use Resolve but if you have Final Cut I sugest installing the free plugin from Reds web page. Then you will find the raw settings under the info tab of the clip on your timeline.
I have so far used that for correcting or just switching the Raw to Log. The graded with what ever like Color Finalle, etc.
http://www.filedropper.com/a165c0190101j8rdc

Need to test that as well, let me get back to you.
oh yeah, FC is fast
https://youtu.be/4rp-Q7i2nEs

congratulations on your purchase andrew  looking forward to hearing more about it!!
...i think this is a fun discussion~!
cuz ykno, if we ALL agreed on this stuff 100% and we ALLLL shot with the SAME CAMERA...... well, how boring would that be~?!
cheers guys~!!

At least (until things change) you are not the only one. I suspect the problem with YouTube is that their goal is to service all platforms at all connection speeds at all times. Consistent high quality playback is always the trade off until the whole world has sufficient affordable bandwidth to support HD/4K streams on billions of devices. Just as they do, I suspect some people will then complain that they can't view 16k HDR video on our watches. Current Codec developments can only improve web video presentation so much, the ultimate fix is with speed of connection and its lowering of cost for mass implementation.
I'm old enough to remember in 1999 having to wait 30mins+ for a 480x320 QuickTime download of the Phantom Menace trailer on an average speed dial-up modem. 6 years before YouTube even existed - so don't forget how good we have it now, back then there was no macro blocking...it was massive blocking.

Catch-22: upload to Vimeo, no one discovers it. Upload to YouTube, tons of views. These aren't corporate or business gigs. They're creative works I do mostly for fun versus the small sum I ask for.
 
I appreciate the helpful comments but it's not a fixable situation until iOS and Android get delivered VP9. I'm sure eventually the codec will be rolled out everywhere. Just needed to vent.
 
It's just a shame to see a natural, contrast-y, out of focus background macroblock to shit because the h.264 encoder sucks so bad at YouTube.