LomoKino Super 35 Movie Maker lets you channel your inner Charlie Chaplin for $80 -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/03/lomokino-super-35-movie-maker-lets-you-channel-your-inner-charli/)
Super 35 Movie Maker FOR $80.00.
Wonder if it is any good.

Watching the video, it has a look. so just the job if you want to use it for music videos, drama scenes etc to create that effect.

Here I was thinking that the Canon Camera Naming Dept for Nov3 were heavily drunk.

Edit #1 I kind of dig this actually, if there was some sort of easy scanning process and it shot 8 or 12 fps, I'd actually shoot my next short on this.

Edit #2 Read the comments. :)

I thought this was a really lame idea when I first read it, but after I watched the sample video I find something aesthetically pleasing about the images. It obviously looks like an old time movie reel and will likely not be a good tool for creating modern high end films, but it could be useful for certain applications. Plus it would be really cool to actually achieve that old film look by shooting on old film rather than digitally mimicking it. A+ for something nostalgic in this day and age of high tech everything.

....If there was an easy way to pull it back into the digital realm

I'd imagine the easiest way would be to point a video camera at image from the LomoKinoScope that they mention. Alternatively, you might be able to rig something up with a film scanner.

Without knowing the shooting format, it's difficult to tell how well a 35mm telecine would handle it, Although it could be 2 perf pull down, which wouldn't be a problem if the facility can handle that .

I gather the spec is approximately 3-5 frames per second, so not a silent movie frame rate and it's a 14mm x 8.5mm frame area, created by utilizing a 35mm 2 perf pull down.

What does it say about me that I'm actually way more stoked about this than the big Canon/Red head 2 head today?

Brian, a super cheapo telecine like this would do the trick to record off of:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ambico-Deluxe-Video-Transfer-Telecine-16mm-Super-8-8mm-Home-Movies-35mm-Slides-/330628676602?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cfb013bfa
We're not talking perfect image quality of course, but I don't think that's an issue for anyone who is using this. :)

I need to see the projector thing in action first. Also, wonder if there's a way to overcrank this thing up to 8fps.

I don't really see the point of this, other than maybe to be the cool guy at the party filming people with your hand-cranked film camera. The end result can be created easily in post from any digital camera source and the audience won't care one way or another how it was shot as long as it's entertaining or moving.

I guess you have to work at a higher level than the audience, although it really depends on what you're trying to achieve and the type of production you're working on.

To be honest, I've rarely seen a convincing old film look on video, most just look fake.

What does it say about me that I'm actually way more stoked about this than the big Canon/Red head 2 head today?

I'm involved with developing a film feature script and this effect could be interesting for shooting a character's memory fragments.

I'm sure there are a number of ways of transferring to video, each of which will have differences in the final look

How high a frame rate that can be achieved could depend on the robustness of the mechanics, I guess it's cheap enough to run tests.

Definitely has the dream/flashback look to it. I was thinking about shooting my next project on a 1Dx at 12fps, but this is even better.

I don't really see the point of this, other than maybe to be the cool guy at the party filming people with your hand-cranked film camera. The end result can be created easily in post from any digital camera source and the audience won't care one way or another how it was shot as long as it's entertaining or moving.

Evan, the point of this (for me) is that easy things aren't worth doing. There is something about shooting on film (even terrible looking film) that can never be captured with a digital video camera.

It needs to go on a robust tripod, then whoever cranks it needs some practice at achieving a constant speed.

Providing this thing does have a genuine pulldown film transport and half-decent registration, it WILL get hacked, firstly a governor for the crank mechanism, then a regulated or governed motor mod as seen in Bolex H16 for faster frame rate, then an extended magazine for acceptable shot duration.

...and then factor in all the processing costs.. I think I'll stay with Film Effects :-)

Evan, the point of this (for me) is that easy things aren't worth doing. There is something about shooting on film (even terrible looking film) that can never be captured with a digital video camera.

The funny thing is that to me that's the same reason not to use this camera. It's not really much harder to shoot something with this camera than it is to shoot it digital and then add 'InstaFilmBulletLooks filmic dream sequence preset #134' and end up with something that looks 'cool'. In either case the final look isn't the result of something you're doing or any creative decisions, it's just automatic. It's much harder to go out and capture a clean image digitally and then blend color correction and various image filters to craft a unique look that specifically enhances the subject matter of your film.

I wouldn't say it's automatic, there are still choices to be made regarding the film stock being used, how you're going to scan it, plus the subtle variation in the frame rate fro the hand cranked camera. Chance is an important part of the creative process, something that's difficult to factor in.

I came across these links to other material.

Princess Ines - LomoKino on Vimeo

Art All Around - LomoKino on Vimeo

Isabel - LomoKino on Vimeo

Oh, I didn't get that the viewer was something you looked into and cranked... wonder if you can shoot into it for telecine.

I need to see the projector thing in action first. Also, wonder if there's a way to overcrank this thing up to 8fps.

I was just reading that someone managed 9 fps without any problem.

It would be totally awesome if they could develop a digital back for this, but I guess it would not fall within the Lomography way of thinking

Damn I just remembered how much I still want this.
I wouldn't want a digital back, after all, the purpose of shooting film is to SHOOT FILM. :)

This camera make it's images on a 35mm film. The resolution you gain from that amount of real estate on film just cannot be ignored. It allows you to shoot moving images on 35mm. Thanks.

I wouldn't say it's automatic, there are still choices to be made regarding the film stock being used, how you're going to scan it, plus the subtle variation in the frame rate fro the hand cranked camera. Chance is an important part of the creative process, something that's difficult to factor in.

I came across these links to other material.

Chance is always present in the creative process - I don't think that's exclusive to using a camera like this. But those examples just further affirm my feelings about this camera. Imagine the exact same videos produced any other way - would you really want to watch them? There's nothing to them, their only mildly interesting quality is the look created by the camera. It's like Instagram for movies. Could somebody make an interesting film with this camera? Sure - but the camera isn't the important part in that equation.

This camera make it's images on a 35mm film. The resolution you gain from that amount of real estate on film just cannot be ignored.

You're right - it can't be ignored, because in the sample videos it's clearly very low. The resolution limits of this camera has nothing to do with the recording medium.

You'd select this camera because of the look. It's the same as selecting a RED over an Alexa or using vintage lenses as against modern glass. They all have different characteristics and you use the tool that's most appropriate to the story or film you're making.

I've always thought that if you want a particular look, it's alwasy best to get the look IN-CAMERA. This totally allows that, cheaply.

It's never the best way. It used to be the only way, before digital post-production.

What if you change your mind or decide you don't like the look, or it doesn't come out exactly right? If it's baked into the footage you are screwed.

Post is always the best way to degrade your footage. If you shoot B&W or a bizarre frame rate there's no adding "quality" back. It's incredibly foolish and short-sighted to deny yourself creative options.

At least IMO.

On the other hand, if you know exactly what you want and you need
a fast turnaround, then there's nothing wrong with doing it in-camera.
There is no one single right way. Fortunately, we have choices, and
we have best options depending on different circumstances.

Post is always the best way to degrade your footage. If you shoot B&W or a bizarre frame rate there's no adding "quality" back. It's incredibly foolish and short-sighted to deny yourself creative options.


People commonly ran tests in advance. Quite a lot of the looks people now use were developed using photochemical processes. The creative options were worked out in advance rather than afterwards.

You don't need to do it now, but it's still an option.