h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Video cameras often make things look dull in home movies but super-8 and other film cameras give pictures really cool colour(though the examples I have seen probably involve some skill on the part of the photographer). Most people wouldnt buy a film camera because they wouldnt use it much, it would be
complicated, they would need a projector and so on. The idea is to have mass produced basic cameras that take maybe 30mins of footage as simply as possible that people use then return to get processed onto video/DVD etc. They would have to be silent or have some way of re-using the audio equipment, which would start to make it more expensive and complicated like a normal camera. I am not sure about cost but I would guess it should be around £20-30.
$5.60 developing
http://www.digitalf...p&dfdate=06_22_2003
"Super 8 50' (sound or silent)" That's right - sound. Sure I can't find any film with sound for under $45, but at least developing's cheap. [Worldgineer]
Videocore disposable video camera
http://www.cambridg...t_q_Videocore.shtml [Worldgineer, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Videocore disposable video camera
http://www.cambridg...t_q_Videocore.shtml
[waugsqueke, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
At the market level you are proposing to sell in to, with a little care, video can yield results virtually indistinguishable from film especially given the advent of inexpensive 24P MiniDV cameras like the Panasonic AG-DVX100. The look is mostly in the hands of the DP/cinematographer. |
|
| |
Besides, it is nice to be able to record sound. |
|
| |
Despite the drawbacks, I can't help liking this idea. Croissant. |
|
| |
LATER: The sound problem could be solved by one of those cheap dictaphones that uses micro cassettes and clips in the side of the camera. That's the "re-useable" element. |
|
| |
This would be neat to carry in one's car just to prove that the big silver dish you saw was real ...... |
|
| |
Given that all too many amateur movies are ruined by ignorance of how to use the camera, this would only make the problem worse. |
|
| |
Let me be clearer. I am only arguing against the idea as a mass-produced item intended for the casual user. As an artistic medium Super8 has some great things going for it and it is experiencing something of a rebirth in indy-film circles. In the hands of a film-maker Super8 can be a great choice:
--The cameras are cheap (under $1000USD for a decent one compared to $3-4,000USD for a miniDV worth owning).
--There are some great film stocks being made available by some companies which are cutting down 35mm stocks to the Super8 format, including some juicy ones like the new Kodak VISION T stocks.
--Super8 has got about an effective 1200 lines of resolution; considerably more than any affordable video camera.
--The contrast ratio of film is hard (impossible, currently) to match in video. |
|
| |
With the good, though, there's some bad and it is these couple of bad things which makes me think this idea is impractical for the casual film-maker:
--There is no sound stock being made for Super8 today. None. All sync sound would have to be done with an additional recording device and, to be truly sync, an expensive recording device and an expensive crystal-sync modification to the camera are needed.
--Super8 comes in 3.5 minute, 50 foot rolls. A 50 foot roll of something like Kodachrome 40 (a favorite) is about $15 without processing. Processing ("souping") adds roughly $12-15 more. So, 30 minutes of film would cost about $235, processed. If you opt to use any of the more exotic cut-down stocks, it costs more. Unfortunately, most of the exotic stocks cannot ever be projected and the negative must be transferred (telecined) to video at surprisingly costly rates. A 60 minute DV tape, on the other hand, runs about $8. |
|
| |
When I was about 12 I found a super-8 at a garage sale for $3. It was a very simple device that was almost impossible to mess up - I made movies, basic animation, and most of it came out quite good. Since I believe the resolution is much better than a standard video camera I think this idea could work. |
|
| |
This idea sounds very nice, but I think it has too many cons. First, as [bris] said, it's impossible to have 30 min stock in a "disposable" camera. Film is expensive to process and project (since you need a projector) and sync audio is impossible to record with the same device so... why would anybody pick it over a miniDV or a regular tourist-type video camera? |
|
| |
People who might want it for every-day stuff will prefer quality and simplicity over anything. They'll choose any other (more modern) choice. |
|
| |
Film lovers/makers will go for the real thing. I have made movies and it's quite complex, quite stressing and VERY expensive. |
|
| |
I'd suggest: leave the film for the filmmakers and don't worry, video didn't kill the movie star. |
|
| |
I love this idea--exactly what should go next to the disposable cameras on the rack at K-Wal-get. You could record a "wild" soundtrack in thirty-second bursts with a cheapo sound chip. Five to seven minutes of footage sounds about right. The point about resolution is correct--in fact you could market them as disposable HD movie cameras & develop the film on a DVD. You don't get the film back--the store gets a download it burns to a disc. Windup or electric? |
|
| |
I like the burn-to-DVD option. Sound will be your limitation then - maybe go with the sound chip and throw a mic on both sides for basic stereo. |
|
| |