Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by smacktoward 3819 days ago
I'm strugging to figure out who exactly this thing would be for.

Amateurs for home movies? Nope, digital will always be cheaper, and faster/more convenient to work with to boot.

Aspiring filmmakers? Nope, if you want to shoot on film professionally you'll want at least 16mm to avoid the magnification/graininess Super 8 brings with it.

People nostalgic for the blurriness of old home movies? Do any of these actually exist?

5 comments

>avoid the magnification/graininess Super 8 brings with it.

But how else will your viewers know that you were hip enough to shoot on film?

Please tell me their CMS got misconfigured and thought it was April 1. Who knows? Maybe there is an absolutely brilliant marketing person at Kodak but I'm having trouble seeing it.

I mean. "There are some moments that digital just can't deliver, because it doesn't have the incomparable depth and beauty of film." Um, we're not talking 70mm Panavision here. We're talking Super 8. Has whoever wrote this ever seen a Super 8 movie?

The same people who buy impossible project instant film.

Sure you could shoot a perfectly in-focus colour corrected image and filter it, but there's something fun about not knowing the result instantly. It's the reverse of when digital cameras came out, then instant was exciting.

"but there's something fun about not knowing the result instantly."

Let me guess, you have never ever used a super 8 camera. I have, and FUN is the last word that will come to my mind about those machines.

Using a new cartridge and not being sure about light exposure in complex scenes, only knowing about it after having sent the cartridge away and returned. Idem with motion response, color and lots of little things that now we have feedback about in seconds, but at the time, took weeks.

I mean, after all the pain now you need to mount the projector, switch light off only to discover that your film is ruined, because you did not take the right decisions or just the developer lab did it wrong. Frustration, anger, disappointment, anything but fun.

This happened several times to my father. It was an expensive process to learn, only fun if you did not pay for it.

It was a pain in the ass.

I can actually kind of see the instant film thing in that it lets you hand people a rather unique physical artifact at a social activity or whatever. It's a break from "The pics will be up on Facebook." I'm obviously not the target market but this just seems weird. I remember Super 8. We used it because we didn't have an alternative. It was low quality and expensive.
No, I think instant film is fun because you always get a physical artifact that you can give to your friend instantly.
It's interesting, original Polaroid film was probably one of the most color stable (and accurate) films around - I have Polaroids that were stored is less than ideal conditions and nearly 40 years on have much better color stability than their print contemporaries.
I could see someone trying to shoot a professional movie that wanted that effect for part of it, because that part was supposed to be someone playing a Super-8 movie. But I suspect that there's a Photoshop filter for that...
Gus van Sant did exactly this in Paranoid Park.

The skateboard scenes in the movie were shot on Super 8, as inspired by the common style for home made skate films.

Here's a short clip: https://vimeo.com/7170912

That use of filters to simulate things like that leaves me cold. Especially bad is when they attempt to fake a CRT television display.
Well it sounds like bad simulations leave you cold. I don't think making a realistic Super 8 effect would be too difficult for a professional VFX artist.
But would it be cheaper than just shooting Super 8?
> People nostalgic for the blurriness of old home movies? Do any of these actually exist?

Look at all the people buying vinyl records and ask yourself that again.

Vinyl version even of the same album is often mastered with less of the Loudness War.