Kodak Super 8 Camera - First Reels Developed & Scanned

[@africanpenguin3282]

Neat concept, great shots, price is insane sadly.

[@omargguardado]

The nostalgic feel is all there

[@JayBoyModz]

Thing is so sick I definitely want one! But $5500 for a Super 8 Cam is INSANE! 😅😅

[@I.O.M.]

50D extended gate looks great.

[@ReelFilmGeek]

Glad to hear you all will be stocking some super 8 to purchase, next time i stop by I'll certainly have to pick some up!

[@prakashganesan9855]

I absolutely loved this video!!! Love the team and the super 8 came out really nicely IMO. ❤❤

[@bentonpix]

Thanks for posting your tests! Super 8 is definitely all about the feeling and certainly has its place in today's world. It would be interesting to see a same scene comparison between actual super 8 film VS a film simulation plugin for digital like Dehancer PRO.

[@RicardoRMedina]

You should shoot Tri-X reversal film at 320 at outdoors and at 200 ISO indoors for better results.

[@reformedfilmlab]

Thanks! The Tri-x indoors certainly needed more exposure from this first reel.

[@Filmboy24]

Box speed on Tri-X Super 8 film is 200, I definitely wouldn't ever shoot it at 320. Maybe 100, but never 320.

[@johne.tucats5493]

Now you can make your own Wes Anderson movie.

[@coach_yo]

Man the vibe is cool. Thanks for sharing.

[@DeiwisonOliveiraAlmeida]

Fantástico!

[@SuneEskelinen]

Great work, thanks for sharing.

[@NoosaHeads]

I honestly believe that I get better results with my Canon 1014XL-S, my Nizo and my Braun S651XL. By better, I mean sharper, better focused, more contrast and better colours.

[@gdavisloop]

I KNOW I'd get better results with my $15 Kodak Cine-Royal 16mm magazine camera!

[@Nedski42YT]

Greetings, what frame rate was the camera set for? It seems to my eyeballs that it is more than 18 FPS. Thanks.

[@reformedfilmlab]

24 fps. The camera will shoot 18 and also 36, but we choose 24 as that’s pretty standard these days.

[@aengusmacnaughton1375]

Great results! The registration/jitter is really minimal in this camera -- much better than most vintage Super-8 cameras would be. And the scans were great -- what resolution? The 200T with the 85B definitely had the right 'color' to riff on vintage Kodachrome Super-8. It's just a bit crazy how much that camera costs....

[@reformedfilmlab]

We received 2k scans but 4k is available at Negativeland.

[@M_Fabrizia]

What have you changed between 7:45 and 7:47? Last few seconds of 50D have a definetly better color grading, more natural

[@TinLeadHammer]

Digital bells and whistles aside, the only distinguishing feature of the new Kodak camera is sync sound, and you did not use it.

[@reformedfilmlab]

Coming soon in our full review 😉

[@SilverAndSensor]

I shoot a lot of super 8 and I personally didn’t like the look of this. Aside from the 200T with the warming filter none of this had the ‘character’ of super 8. It looked too clean for me. Also didn’t like the extended gate. Super 8 is much squarer with crappy edges and it jumps and jerks around due to poor registration and 18 frames per second. I could do your footage with an iPhone and a filter. Keeping my Bauer and Canon 1014 which both together came to a 20th of the cost of this.

[@tim31415]

So the color film is negative?? They don't make a positive print. And Kodak didn't use their E-6 film?

[@reformedfilmlab]

Color negative mostly here. They do make a positive, Kodak Ektachrome.

[@thevoiceman6192]

Interesting. Use more light on the tri x. I thought I saw a light with a soft box , Use that or open the Iris more. Does it have a built in exposure meter? It should if it doesn't since it is a hybrid..

[@bondgabebond4907]

Long before digital, long before cellphones, we had this. How many memories are holed up somewhere, in someone's closet that needs to be brought out and digitized. Absolutely amazing seeing actual Super 8 video. In reality, it's pretty crummy, but it has a ton of fun factor built in. If this camera was not so expensive, young kids could have a ball making a real motion picture using film.

[@panmaew]

The image quality (sorry if this means the opposite of "film look"), the hassles, and the costs..... LOL

[@meccanica3754]

is it just me or does the lens look out of focus? the lighting can be fixed but 5500 for this seems like kind of a rip off.

[@SuneEskelinen]

In my opinion, this lens is difficult to focus with Kodak's camera. Objects very close work well. It is sharp when you focus correctly. I prefer a zoom lens that is parfocal where you can zoom in and set the focus.

[@meccanica3754]

@@SuneEskelinen yah i can agree with that.

[@TinLeadHammer]

​@@SuneEskelinenThe lens is not parfocal? Meh.

[@SuneEskelinen]

⁠@@TinLeadHammer What do you mean? It's not a zoom lens? It is a 6mm prime lens.

[@TinLeadHammer]

@@SuneEskelinen I see. Thanks. Yes, a parfocal zoom would be better than a prime.

[@garyc6183]

8mm is supposed to be quirky. This looks too much like digital video. How many vintage 8mm cameras could you by for the price of one of these?

[@HelamanGile]

$800 yeah maybe $5K usd 😅😂 no way

[@lelandfitz1762]

That's definitely the most expensive video you made lol

[@reformedfilmlab]

🤑

[@lyricsronen]

I feel like I've seen better footage shot on a brownie... why the hell does this cost an arm, a leg and a kidney