What the hell is wrong with my NON DIGITAL DEVICE???

[Jamicat]

I was thinking about recording a show my band was doing.

All I have is an 8mm Sony Cam and plenty of tape.

They scoffed at the idea that it wasn't...(cough)...DIGITAL.

WTF???

I can upload to my computer just fine with it.

They even scoff at the actual Film Camera I have.

Why buy something of less pixel quality just for the ability upload it instantly to 'whatever' over the net?

I don't have $1000 for the latest Digital 'I'-whateverabob's, but I do have functional ways to accomplish the same thing for free, because I already have that.

Is this what everyone thinks, or am I just being out of touch?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Jamicat

I was thinking about recording a show my band was doing.

All I have is an 8mm Sony Cam and plenty of tape.

They scoffed at the idea that it wasn't...(cough)...DIGITAL.

WTF???

I can upload to my computer just fine with it.

They even scoff at the actual Film Camera I have.

Why buy something of less pixel quality just for the ability upload it instantly to 'whatever' over the net?

I don't have $1000 for the latest Digital 'I'-whateverabob's, but I do have functional ways to accomplish the same thing for free, because I already have that.

Is this what everyone thinks, or am I just being out of touch?

Were you trying to Telex this message?

[foolsguinea]

I miss my 35mm camera.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

I miss my 35mm camera.

The camera in my phone is smaller than 35mm...



To the OP, I would assume that they are worried about about loss of quality when it's put into digital form for editing and distribution. I don't know how easy it is to get a film transfer, but I can see reflexively not wanting to do it.

And for the tape, I'd be worried of the level of quality you'd get off an old cam. I could be wrong, knowing nothing about non-digital AV stuff, but as a general person who uses imaging technology in my job, I'd be hesitant to use non-digital cameras when good HD digital is getting awfully cheap.

[Jamicat]

[christopher walken]
yea...

I speak...

In...

Double Space.
[/christopher walken]

I also have Headphones that actually cover your ears too.

[Martini Enfield]

Speaking as someone who's fond of both retro and modern tech, my concern at someone showing up with an actual film camera for something like filming a concert or event would be that they were doing to make an artistic or expressive statement rather than necessarily having "the best tools for the job."

Now, as you rightly observe, the older tech may be absolutely suitable for the job, but just as if someone was taking interview or lecture notes with a fountain pen, I'd be alternating between admiring their sense of style and raising my eyebrow at them for such a deliberately anachronistic choice in the setting.

[Thudlow Boink]

What's the point of having all the latest technology if you can't sneer at people who still do things the old-fashioned way?

[johnpost]

they are just making a fuss because they didn't buy quality Sony products.

[digs]

It's getting to the point where they may not even understand the old tech. So may immediately assume "less quality"... I mean, dude, how do you even get a picture onto a cassette tape? That's probably how Mini-8 looks to them.

[buckgully]

Analog 8mm camcorder? Even if it originally cost thousands of dollars, even a professional grade high-band 8mm is still going to produce video that looks like ass by today's standards. It will be easily outperformed in virtually every way by sub-$100 digital gear you can buy just about anywhere. NTSC was not a pretty thing, and nobody should be inflicting it on their friends.

[Jamicat]

Originally Posted by buckgully

Analog 8mm camcorder? Even if it originally cost thousands of dollars, even a professional grade high-band 8mm is still going to produce video that looks like ass by today's standards. It will be easily outperformed in virtually every way by sub-$100 digital gear you can buy just about anywhere. NTSC was not a pretty thing, and nobody should be inflicting it on their friends.

That's the question...BUY MORE SHIT..BUY MORE SHIT...BUY MORE SHIT.

Exactly when do, I SAVE MUNY...after i keep BUYING MORE SHIT, that I already Bought?

Anyway, I'm gonna just cam it all, and whatever anyone thinks...FUCK EM'.

[BubbaDog]

Originally Posted by Jamicat

........

Exactly when do, I SAVE MUNY...after i keep BUYING MORE SHIT, that I already Bought?
.....

If your only goal is to save money, then you shouldn't have bought any shit in the first place.


If your goal was to record something for others to watch then its a good bet that they would expect at least some minimum quality level that met the standards of today's technology

[Tom Tildrum]

How does one upload analog 8mm film?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Jamicat

That's the question...BUY MORE SHIT..BUY MORE SHIT...BUY MORE SHIT.

Exactly when do, I SAVE MUNY...after i keep BUYING MORE SHIT, that I already Bought?

Anyway, I'm gonna just cam it all, and whatever anyone thinks...FUCK EM'.

If you don't care about quality, pay a homeless man to draw pictures of your performance on old newspaper with a China pencil.

Problem solved. And you can hire him with a can of pork and beans that you already have!

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

How does one upload analog 8mm film?

Get it transferred, at $20 a reel, wait a couple weeks, rip it from the DVD, upload.

And you get something that is one generation removed from a bad quality original. Or borrow someone's iPhone, and upload it to Facebook the second the concert ends.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

I miss my 35mm camera.

Me too. Set the film speed, set the shutter speed, set the aperture, and click. No menus, no firmware updates, or operating systems. Mine still work perfectly (except for the film availability and development thing)

Welcome to forced obsolescence, and the never ending treadmill of buyng more shit you don't need or want, simply because the old stuff is "no longer supported".

It's just a way to keep taking our money over and over and over.

What? You thought this" new new new" all the time was for OUR benefit? <smirk>

[Vinyl Turnip]

And do not get me started on these so-called "parking places" with scarcely enough room for my chariot, let alone my steeds!

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Get it transferred, at $20 a reel, wait a couple weeks, rip it from the DVD, upload.

And you get something that is one generation removed from a bad quality original. Or borrow someone's iPhone, and upload it to Facebook the second the concert ends.

Lobohan is correct about 8mm film, but the OP was talking about 8mm video.

To upload that, you plug the video output of the camcorder into the video card of your computer, and then play the tape (in real time) while recording on your computer. Not quite as time-consuming as a film transfer, but not as quick as transferring a digital file, either.

[kaylasdad99]

And just to confuse the issue, the OP mentioned being prepared to record the concert on both videotape and film.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by commasense

Lobohan is correct about 8mm film, but the OP was talking about 8mm video.

To upload that, you plug the video output of the camcorder into the video card of your computer, and then play the tape (in real time) while recording on your computer. Not quite as time-consuming as a film transfer, but not as quick as transferring a digital file, either.

And still looks like videotaped ass, compared to 1080p digital video that a sub-$300 camera can capture.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Me too. Set the film speed, set the shutter speed, set the aperture, and click. No menus, no firmware updates, or operating systems. Mine still work perfectly (except for the film availability and development thing)

Welcome to forced obsolescence, and the never ending treadmill of buyng more shit you don't need or want, simply because the old stuff is "no longer supported".

It's just a way to keep taking our money over and over and over.

What? You thought this" new new new" all the time was for OUR benefit? <smirk>

This might be an issue of geography, but is it really that hard to find a place to develop & print 35mm film? You can certainly still buy it.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

And still looks like videotaped ass, compared to 1080p digital video that a sub-$300 camera can capture.

Amen.

Folks, this isn't change for the sake of change, or change to make money. They are making products that provide better results, and the people buying them *for* those better results.

I know you like your daguerreotypes, but sometimes newer is indeed better.

[Bob Ducca]

Do you play in an 80s cover band?

[postcards]

Originally Posted by saoirse

This might be an issue of geography, but is it really that hard to find a place to develop & print 35mm film? You can certainly still buy it.

Availability of 35mm film is limited; it's easy enough to find 400ISO color print film, but slide film is pretty much limited to specialty outlets, Kodachrome is no longer made, and Kodak even discontinued most of its Ektachrome films.

Getting film processed can be done at most drugstore-type labs, but optical printing is no longer done: negatives are scanned and digitally printed, and not always well.

Traditional B/W film usually needs to be sent out for processing and printing. And there's so little film being processed that even having color negatives done by a local minilab can be hit or miss.

That said, I agree with the above posters who prefer the digital methods. I spent eighteen years printing my own black and white; I don't miss it all. My work is cleaner, faster and far more detailed than I could ever accomplish in the analog world.

[Randy Seltzer]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

What's the point of having all the latest technology if you can't sneer at people who still do things the old-fashioned way?

The point would be to have a better experience, whether it's getting a better recording, building a stronger building, or curing a bacterial infection more efficiently.

Unless you have that backwards: "What's the point of sticking with the old-fashioned way if you can't sneer at the people who eschew tradition?"

[commasense]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

And just to confuse the issue, the OP mentioned being prepared to record the concert on both videotape and film.

He mentioned having a film camera, which I (and others here, I think) assumed was a 35mm still camera.

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

And still looks like videotaped ass, compared to 1080p digital video that a sub-$300 camera can capture.

I wasn't commenting on the quality, only clarifying incipient confusion between the 8mm film and video formats.

However, it is not yet true that all digital systems are better than their analog predecessors. In motion picture photography, 35mm film cameras still have some advantages over the best pro digital cinema cameras. Although few people realize it, Kodak worked hard over the past 20 years to improve the emulsions it made for motion picture stocks, dramatically increasing their resolution, sensitivity, and dynamic range.

And no one is even close to being able to match, much less exceed, the quality of IMAX film cameras, which have a frame that is ten times the area of a 35mm frame. This is why Christopher Nolan shot about an hour of The Dark Knight Rises with IMAX cameras.

[Jenaroph]

I wasn't trying to correct your post, just expand on it. It takes longer to transfer an 8mm tape to the internet than a digital file, AND it looks like ass because it's an 8mm videotape. Even if he's using Digital8 video, that's still a 13-year old format.

As for his film camera, it's of course true that some formats of film give a still higher quality picture than any digital camera out there, but I'd be surprised if what the OP's friends are dissing is his IMAX rig.

[Jamicat]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

Do you play in an 80s cover band?

hehe...no.

Yea, it's a Sony Digital 8 that uses little 8mm tapes and has USB Streaming Live to net if you wanted to.

It was the fact that it wasn't new fangled latest $1000 digital device...So,It must SUCK.

Hell, it even has Infared.

Im not breaking out the giant VCR cam from the 70's the new crews use.

[commasense]

So wait a minute, if it's a Sony Digital8, then IT IS digital. I assumed that your recorder was Video8 or Hi8, both of which are analog recording formats. Digital8 is a digital recording format (duh!) which, as Sony says, "delivers 3X the color bandwidth of VHS with significantly less video noise, providing stunning video performance. Digital8 records digital audio and video comparable to MiniDV on affordable Hi8 tapes."

So apparently your friends were scoffing at the fact that your camcorder records onto tape instead of a memory chip, because they (and you) mistakenly conflated tape with analog.

But your recordings are digital. And since it's DV format, it's 720x480 pixels, slightly better than standard NTSC (640x480), although, as Jenaroph will hasten to point out, not as good as HD. But the fact of recording onto tape does not, in and of itself, make it significantly inferior to a DV-format memory chip recorder, with respect to picture quality.

Of course, tapes have certain disadvantages: Being mechanical, they, or the recorder, can physically jam or break. If a bit of the oxide flakes off the tape, you can get a drop out in the image. And as I originally mentioned, you have to transfer footage off them in real time. So tapes are significantly less robust and convenient than memory-chip recorders.

Now about that film camera you mentioned in the OP: What exactly were you talking about? A still camera or a motion picture camera?