8mm movies on iPhone !!!!!!!!!

[Wade]

It's not a choice between making a blockbuster or a home movie. Or a fan film. There are all sorts of other things one can do. What is it that you love about the app? Or what is it that irritates you. All of these things can be expressed in cinematic terms.
But it takes a bit of effort.

Perfect!! Yes, exactly that.

[S8 Booster]

this much silly noise over very ol´news?

if you want it - use it.
if not, de-choose it.

jeeeezzzz.....


"GodDammit!! A new 8mm camera...;)
by S8 Booster » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:04 am"
http://forum.filmshooting.com/scripts/f ... 59&start=0

The top paid app on appstore here right now:

http://www.nexvio.com/product/8mm.aspx

Not that i am going to buy it but it is still pretty fancy.

Turn you iPhone (4/3GS) or iPod Touch (4th Gen) into an 8mm vintage video camera, and shoot old-fashioned 8mm films in real time!

8mm Vintage Camera brings your iPhone and iPod Touch back in time to capture the beauty and magic of old school vintage movies. By mixing and matching films and lenses, you can recreate the atmosphere of those bygone eras with 25 timeless retro looks. Dust & scratches, retro colors, flickering, light leaks, frame jitters - all can be instantly added with the swapping of a finger.

What's in the camera
Viewfinder

Total live view of the efffects. What you see in the viewfinder is what you record.
Lenses

5 lenses bundled - Clear, Flickering Frame, Spotlight, Light Leak and Color Fringing.
Films

5 grainy, discolored, dusted and aged films from different eras - 1920, 70s, Sakura, XPro, Siena.
Jitter Button

Add random up and down displacement of frames to imitate real 8mm projectors.
Features
Swap lenses and films at any time
Trigger frame jitter during recording
Turn on/off flash on supported devices
Switch between front and back cameras on supported devices
Tap to focus and adjust exposure
Export options: Save to Camera Roll, email, or share on YouTube
Transfer movies quickly to computer via iTunes File Sharing

Shoot..

shoot...eh----film...?

[MovieStuff]

Respectfully, I'm not the one that brought the spectre of professional expectations and disappointment into the discussion. I accept the app for what it is, which is a cheap method of reproducing some -but not all- of the characteristics of 8mm and early 35mm film. To what degree it fails doesn't bother me because I know it wasn't intended to be a viable replacement for all film production. My observation is simply that the creators put more R&D into it than necessary for its target audience, with some of the effects ringing quite true while some are less effective. Like 8mm film it can be used within its original intent with little prospect for disappointment or, also like 8mm film, you can push it outside its original intent and invite potential problems. But, either way, it's just a creative tool and nothing more.

Roger

[Tscan]

Respectfully, I'm not the one that brought the spectre of professional expectations and disappointment into the discussion. I accept the app for what it is, which is a cheap method of reproducing some -but not all- of the characteristics of 8mm and early 35mm film. To what degree it fails doesn't bother me because I know it wasn't intended to be a viable replacement for all film production. My observation is simply that the creators put more R&D into it than necessary for its target audience, with some of the effects ringing quite true while some are less effective. Like 8mm film it can be used within its original intent with little prospect for disappointment or, also like 8mm film, you can push it outside its original intent and invite potential problems. But, either way, it's just a creative tool and nothing more.

Roger

This is true, but if anyone wants to find out for sure then just spend the 2 bucks. There are only 2 out of the 10 settings (one color, one B&W) that have any actual resemblance to one look of Super 8, which are prefabbed and limited to. It is nothing near the quality of Vision3 or even 100D, TriX ect... you can't control your frame rate, shutter speed, apeture, or zoom. Just some limited cheesy effects to pick from and record on a cumbersome device that has no camera controls.

[MovieStuff]

....you can't control your frame rate, shutter speed, apeture, or zoom. Just some limited cheesy effects to pick from and record on a cumbersome device that has no camera controls.

Exactly my point. The app is hardly the weak link in a discussion about shooting movies on a cell phone. ;)

Roger

[Nicholas Kovats]

Roger, it was not my intention to include you in my general statement. You in fact contributed to the ongoing popularity of Super 8 technology with your manufacturing.

I have a history with your machines with Justin L at Frame Discrete. Quite a bit actually. All my earlier Super 8 works were transferred at his facility on your machines, e.g. http://vimeo.com/4584080

[MovieStuff]

Roger, it was not my intention to include you in my general statement. You in fact contributed to the ongoing popularity of Super 8 technology with your manufacturing.

I have a history with your machines with Justin L at Frame Discrete. Quite a bit actually. All my earlier Super 8 works were transferred at his facility on your machines, e.g. http://vimeo.com/4584080

Thanks. I'm not that thin skinned, actually.

But what I was really referring to was in response to your comment about pushing the limitations of the medium. I don't think my telecine units do that as much as my production of "The Jet Benny Show", back in the early 80s. It was the first commercially viable super 8 feature film ever released. It's a pretty lousy film by most any standard but it certainly represented using Super 8 outside the expectations of "Joe Consumer". So the idea of me working only within the limitations of any creative tool, even the app in question, just struck me as funny and ironic, that's all.

Roger

[Wade]

I have to say that it may sound like I don’t agree with Roger, but I do understand the value of the app for the general public’s use inexpensively providing a means to simulate the mechanical underpinnings of early film technology. At the same time I greatly respect people like Carl who are willing to spend time and money innovating the medium. Let’s face it, in a medium which is 99.99% business oriented, and even film schools clone people for work in the industry, that innovative attitude is greatly needed. And, of course, even in Hollywood, often ruled by fear and avarice, innovation takes place, but not usually at a basic foundational level. Some time I should tell the story concerning Orson Wells in my very first job in the industry. It will make everyone grind their teeth because of how Hollywood treats innovation. My apologies in advance, if I'm getting your positions wrong. Hopefully, I'm not being wishy-washy, but each in their own context, I agree with.

[carllooper]

Respectfully, I'm not the one that brought the spectre of professional expectations and disappointment into the discussion.

Respectfully that is exactly what you did. Who else said anything remotely resembling the following:

"On the contrary. What's intellectually dishonest is to complain that a $1.99 app falls short in satisfying the needs of the professional when it was clearly made for the not-so-mythical joe consumer."

So who is complaining that the "app falls short of satisfying the needs of the professional"? Its not you obviously but nor is it, from what I can tell, anyone else. So who introduced the "spectre of professional expectations"?

On the other hand there is a bigger picture here: other posts, other discussions. A history here, so I'm perfectly happy to accept it might be true. But even there I'd suggest it's not a dishonest complaint - just a misguided one.

But what also happens is that the statement becomes an accusation - that anyone with a problem in relation to the app, only has that problem because all they are really expecting it to satisfy some notion of professional use. I find a problem with that. Especially when nobody seems to be suggesting it. Why should anyone wear that? I don't. And I'm saying so.

So I disagree with this accusation. What I'm trying to suggest is that the issue with the app is not the app's ability, or otherwise, to satisfy some "professional expectation" but that the issue can be in terms of what the app represents.

Personally, by way of example, I'm irritated by the way it seems to mock the film medium - having a bit of a joke - as if to say: why shoot film when you get the same effect (in the ideal case) with an app. My answer would be that even in the ideal case it can't ever be the same effect. Indeed, as others have said, the effect isn't necessarily what one is after anyway - but even when it is - even when one wants to expose various side effects in film - the app can only ever be a theoretical image of what is otherwise happens with real film. And from there I'd suggest a solution (if only for my particular take on this) is to make that distinction. The app is then robbed of this power. Of course, it need not have ever had this power in the first place - it is all in one's head so to speak. Be that as it may, one can treat the app as doing something differently from what one does in film. It is based on a theory - and we can assess that theory, ie. in relation to what real film does. We can critique it on a theoretical level - how well does it theorise film? This has nothing to do with us assessing whether we'll use the app as intended, or in relation to some professional expectation. Or in some other capacity. It's about looking behind the curtain, at the developers and what ideas are they using. Why are they getting it wrong? Or right? Certainly we can explain it away as business constraints. The boss has to draw the line somewhere. And the developer needs to get back home and have some time with their kids. And that's all as it should be. But that's a different story. The story I'm putting forward here is that this theoretical work isn't something that happens at the push of a button. It takes work. The app developers could very well have just cut and pasted code out of some research activity - it wouldn't surprise me. But there is work demonstrated. It comes from somewhere. And we can critique it in terms of that work. If I were a developer on the code (the source files) I'd appreciate such a critique. I'd feel someone cared.

I accept the app for what it is, which is a cheap method of reproducing some -but not all- of the characteristics of 8mm and early 35mm film. To what degree it fails doesn't bother me because I know it wasn't intended to be a viable replacement for all film production. My observation is simply that the creators put more R&D into it than necessary for its target audience, with some of the effects ringing quite true while some are less effective. Like 8mm film it can be used within its original intent with little prospect for disappointment or, also like 8mm film, you can push it outside its original intent and invite potential problems. But, either way, it's just a creative tool and nothing more.

[MovieStuff]

Respectfully, I'm not the one that brought the spectre of professional expectations and disappointment into the discussion.

Respectfully that is exactly what you did. Who else said anything remotely resembling the following:

"On the contrary. What's intellectually dishonest is to complain that a $1.99 app falls short in satisfying the needs of the professional when it was clearly made for the not-so-mythical joe consumer."

So who is complaining that the "app falls short of satisfying the needs of the professional"?

Um...you? Not in so many words but, clearly, you feel it leaves much to be desired in the way of being authentic. Since it was designed for those that don't care if it's authentic then who's left complaining about it? Not me!

[carllooper]

Respectfully, I'm not the one that brought the spectre of professional expectations and disappointment into the discussion.

Respectfully that is exactly what you did. Who else said anything remotely resembling the following:

"On the contrary. What's intellectually dishonest is to complain that a $1.99 app falls short in satisfying the needs of the professional when it was clearly made for the not-so-mythical joe consumer."

So who is complaining that the "app falls short of satisfying the needs of the professional"?

Um...you? Not in so many words but, clearly, you feel it leaves much to be desired in the way of being authentic. Since it was designed for those that don't care if it's authentic then who's left complaining about it? Not me!

Not in so many words? Well in so many words I disagree. And if you bother to read them you'll see how mistaken you are.

C

[MovieStuff]

Not in so many words? Well in so many words I disagree. And if you bother to read them you'll see how mistaken you are.

I did read them. You wrote "It doesn't mimic film that well at all."

You are disappointed in the app and I presumed you to be a professional. From your expertise that is so often on display, it was an honest mistake on my part. ;)

Roger

[carllooper]

Not in so many words? Well in so many words I disagree. And if you bother to read them you'll see how mistaken you are.

I did read them. You wrote "It doesn't mimic film that well at all."

You are disappointed in the app and I presumed you to be a professional. From your expertise that is so often on display, it was an honest mistake on my part. ;)

Roger

Ok.

[jpolzfuss]

https://vimeo.com/84584129

[Mana]

I think it's fun for what it is! Just remember to turn off the mic if your going to add music! Who's going to start the topic if one should use this for their next feature film! Ha!

http://vimeo.com/84698887