http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consu mer/Products/Super8/defa

>>2738454

g your broke ass tfo

>>2738454
The answer is easy - Hipster.

>not wanting to shoot glorious Vision 3 in a nifty Super 8 camera from the legendary Kodak

i am laughing at your life, for you are a worthless, simpleton pleb.

>>2738461
i digitize film. theres nothing glorious about super 8

>>2738468

Working the minilab at Walgreens does not qualify your opinion.

>>2738454
Looks kinda neat desu, I wouldn't buy it but I hope it sells well enough.

>>2738454
>tfw no gf or friends to take videos of

>>2738454
>3 min cartridge?

plenty for your intimate videos with your gf, OP.

>>2738454
>ITT: people defending this hipster garbage just because it's film
It's like you fags don't even know how shitty 8mm film looks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n9VqhSJy10

Why the fuck did they make it so ugly? I mean god damn it looks like a fucking mini xbox or some stupid shit

>>2739667
It does not look shitty. Most shots are shitty. But the look is not bad. How could it? It's a question of comparsion and taste. deal with it.

>>2739667

looks awesome, also it will be the most upgraded vision emulsion aka. ektar, so itll be cool as fuck.

File: hipster.png (258KB, 400x314px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 400x314px

>>2739670
I guess it's ok if you want that vintage look, but people who want that look usually look like pic related

>>2739676
Actually I stand corrected. Vision3 50 does look pretty good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nh9BTMWj9M

That old stuff still looks like hipster trash to me though.

Are there any decent relatively modern super16 cameras that not cost like a fucking spaceship? Arri 416 is fucking perfect but it is cheaper to use full-rigged red epic or alexa now.

fucking retarded, if I wanted to shoot super 8 I'd get a dirt cheep bolex, some pan-x and home develop it.

this gyan tae save film athoot a doot

>>2739687
those tones look sick as fuck

File: jZ2inkj.gif (466KB, 500x254px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 500x254px

>>2738454

It's not aimed at the sort of pixelpeeping gadget fucktards that think photography is making endless gear posts on /p/.

Kodak is finally breaking even after hemorrhaging serious amounts of cash. They're staying afloat because of the motion picture side of the business - a lot of big names have backed Kodak and using film for their movies.

It's obviously to anyone with a single solitary brain cell (hence why you struggled OP) to see that Kodak wants to put film in the hands of amateur film makers. They need to make it more affordable for them and more convenient (hence the dev, scanning, and audio). You may think it's expensive but it's all relative.

Reople can find cheaper cameras elsewhere. I'm sure Kodak would prefer to sell their camera but they're not primarily in the business to make the cameras - they just need to keep churning out enough mp film to keep the production lines profitable and that's independent of the camera it's going into.

NEW KODACHROME WHEN

W
H
E
N

>>2739762

Never. The days of K-14 are gone.

>>2739770

fuck your shit m8. Kodak will engineer some revolutionary, eye popping slide for the new millenium, just wait and see.

>>2739776
I really hope kodak brings back a slide film, but it would almost definitely be e-6.
At least I hope so. I'd rather develop it at home.

>>2739776

It's not impossible, but if they do it'll be E-6 and certainly not K-14.

I think a lot of new photographers who weren't shooting in the 90s and before don't realise that kodachrome is a very different process to E-6. And that for the vast majority negative film is better suited to their needs (slide vs neg was the crop vs FF bullshit circlejerk of the day - pros shoot slide and other such crap).

If you want a kodachrome look then try Kodak Ektar. It's a great film.

>>2739762

this

>>2739790

No I don't think you understand nigga nothing looked like Kodachrome and the absolute closest thing we got was E100VS

Ektar colors are muted where as Kodachrome was more like Velvia oranges and reds were over the top.

>>2739790
>If you want a kodachrome look then try Kodak Ektar
Ektar is very saturated as far as negative films go, but it's not really anything like kodachrome, or any slide film for that matter.

>>2739797

I'm well aware of what it looked like thanks!

Most of the people raving about Kodachrome these days are teens and too young to have even shot kodachrome before it was discontinued never mind be old enough to have shot it a lot when digital wasn't even an option.

A lot of the kodachrome myth is nostalgia. Sure, it's a great film, but plenty of photographers prefer other films. I used to prefer fuji films.

In this digital age you can adjust so much after scanning it's not really an issue. In fact, these days you're better off with a reliable film that develops/scans well and then working with the digital workflow.

>>2739806

Once scanned and with a few adjustments you'd be surprised. (Obviously I'm saying that only assuming a film --> digtial workflow).

>>2739687
I hate that faggot. Could you possibly get a more punchable face?

This is so awesome I almost thought it was a joke. I'm seriously so happy that they are doing this. I hope someone has the balls to make movies with this. I'm honestly quite tired of the ultra HD super clear look of so many movies now, especially watching them on high frame rate TVs that make high budget movies look like a soap opera.

Cinema never needed 3D and 4k. It needed storytelling and good acting.

File: 1137a-0233.jpg (332KB, 1000x497px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1000x497px

>>2739813

>implying I'm one of those people who never shot Kodachrome

I'll admit I was a bit late to the party shooting it as a hobbyist but I shot plenty of it as a kid and would give every piece of equipment to have those slides back.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2739830
>high frame rate TVs that make high budget movies look like a soap opera
this
My mates are super bogans with enormous fucking TVs, when I go around to watch stuff it all looks like trash, just because you see every false move of the camera op, all the bad blending of the makeup, etc.
hate it.

>>2739667
That's probably an old and shitty consumer camera with an old and shitty consumer lens

>>2739687
This video was taken with a newer, higher end, i believe $6000 super 8mm camera

At my college we shoot all our film projects on 16mm Canon Scoopics with old lenses, and the quality is about the same as in the latter video.

So if the new Kodak camera with the stock lens gives as decent enough picture as the current film cameras the school has, I would say it would be a good idea to replace them with these; it would also be more cost-effective for a student to spend $200 getting four cartridges of film with that including development and telecine.

I also work in the lab and DaVinci can work wonders with these scanned films.

File: 17933786110_12ff789cab_b.jpg (239KB, 1024x693px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1024x693px

>>2738454
Get a load of this fucking poorfag

>>2739840
>"would give every piece of equipment to have those slides back"
>all $30 of it

>>2743817
>>all $30 of it

lmao gg anon.

Regardless of how expensive they are isn't 3min/film cartridge hugely impractical?

File: RED-STRIIPE.jpg (79KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1000x667px

liars. post your kodachrome. not the photos of your rolls you autist)

>>2739687
Still looks bad to me, I've shot 50D (Vision2) on Super16 once, was pretty sweet.''

Should stick a anamorphic converter onto it though, might be interesting.

>>2739762
>>2739776
Niggers, Kodak discontinued their E-6 films, they have no slide films at all before even getting to K-14.

A K-14 film is like an E-6 film except it doesn't have the dye couplers built into the film.

Ektachrome was an advancement over Kodachrome. You could have actually had E-6 process "Kodachrome", similar emulsion with the right dye couplers built in would do it.

Or the same emulsion with the right dye couplers built in, using K-14 first developer, and one colour developing bath.

I'd like to bring this thread back for a second and just say that maybe we shouldn't be too sure with Kodak yet considering the fact that they are quite indecisive on whether or not they want a circular or square design for this camera.

File: 1000px.jpg (719KB, 1000x924px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1000x924px

BRING BACK EPP100

E P P 1 0 0
P
P
1
0
0

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	15316
Image Height	7202
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:02:16 22:09:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	924

>>2745202
There is a wide price bracket so potentially two models? There's also rumours of a cheaper version coming later

>>2745233
I thought the cheaper one was the other model. Personally it doesn't make sense to me as to why they'd have two models anyway since the market is niche, aside from wealthy hobbyists and indie filmmakers who is going to buy one of these?

Also oval shaped can is cheaper one, calling it.