my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » New 16mm test film available (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: New 16mm test film available Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-24-2009 04:00 PM                        Boston Light & Sound would like to introduce our new BL&S 1682 16mm test film. This multipurpose film provides: • Focus charts from 24-80 LPMM • Travel ghost checks • Both English and Metric dimensions for 1.33:1, 1.77:1 and 1.85:1 • Decimal aperture cutting indicators • 50% checkerboard • 400Hz tone (approximate) • Emulsion position indication (A or B wind) • Printed on Kodak Estar base sound negative stock • Produced in accordance with SMPTE RP-82 and standards 7 and 233 • Available in 25 or 50 foot rolls To see an image: BL&S Test Film To place an order e-mail Mark Grundstrom at markg@blsi.com or call 617-787-3131 x107. Boston Light & Sound, Inc. 290 North Beacon St. Boston, MA 02135 Larry Shaw  |  IP: Logged Jarret Chessell Master Film Handler Posts: 288 From: London, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2009 posted 11-24-2009 05:17 PM                     Any idea how much these are?  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 11-24-2009 07:00 PM                       Very good, Larry! Do you have any sound focus film?  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 11-24-2009 08:08 PM                     Hey guys, I have been told that the studios no longer make 16mm copies. True?  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 06:57 AM                     Robert, I wouldn't be surprised if that is true. What venue would even use 16mm anymore? There are some art-house guys that still use it, but usually that is only when a film isn't available in 35mm. For new releases, 1080p or 2K HD would probably be preferred over 16mm given a choice between the two, although the colors and dynamic range of film would still be better.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2009 08:38 AM                        It's mostly for older films, but the artsy crowd seems to like it, and it can look better than HD (but usually doesn't). It is also the standard format for student films (though some are in 35mm). Finally, the equipment is small and light and can be useful for temporary setups (outdoor screenings, etc.). The real weakness is the sound quality, and also the fact that most installations were never done very well and are lacking in some important respects.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 11:36 AM                     Scott, I shoot 16mm almost exclusively myself; I'm talking about 4th generation release prints on 16mm stock. 16mm stock, if used through a direct-output film recorder can resolve, in my opinion, higher than 1080p resolution. Too bad it is never used that way, just as 4K is almost never resolved out to 35mm release prints at +4K. 16mm, with the exception of the high speed, 500T stock, is definitely a 2K-compatible acquisition format.  |  IP: Logged Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-30-2009 05:06 PM                        Jarrett, I believe it works out to 30 something percent over RP-40. Of course the setup costs of RP-40 (35-PA) were paid off long ago and we won't sell the volume that RP-40 does. But contact Mark Grundstrom for the answer. Tim, thanks. We have been thinking of making that too. Maybe PN. Any suggestions? I think Robert meant 16mm prints of major studio releases like us old guys used to load on the airplanes. I haven't seen a 16mm print of a major studio release for a few years. IMHO 16mm will be around in museums, archives, etc for many, many years and some filmmakers continue to use it for releases.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 07:05 PM                     Larry, that was what I was going to mention (Airplane 16mm movies) but didn't do so due to not wanting to give away my age! I had heard that the U.S. Military (mostly navy) had continued to distribute films on 16mm, but that was, of course, prior to HD formats. Good to know 16mm film is still being supported in whatever capacity. In tandem with film recorders straight to print stock, I feel it could definitely provide better resolution than a 2K DLP. At the very least, 16mm reversal films used to provide much better resolution with low-speed stock and proper exposure!  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 11-30-2009 08:01 PM                       Larry: Buzztrack and 7KHz (that way, a person wouldn't need an RTA to adjust the optics).  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 08:06 PM                     Larry: One other Q: Why on estar stock? Or are the "Big Two" (Kodak and Fuji) no longer manufacturing 16mm print stock anymore? While 35mm prints are almost universally estar now, I don't think I've seen a single 16mm print that isn't on some sort of acetate stock. . .  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-30-2009 08:34 PM                        When I was just testing the Eastman 25b at the Museum (before the intermittent rubber coupling gave up the ghost), I happen to run a reel of ANASTASIA (1953 20th Cen Fox version, not the animated thing of late). It was scope and IBTech. It was spectacular. Anyone who thinks a video projector can look as good or surpass (gag) that film richness, even with the anamorphic in place, needs to see what 16mm can really do. It surprised the heck out of me. I forgot how good it could look. Then again it reminded me of a screening of MICROCOSMOS in that same theatre. The 16mm print was an optical reduction off the 35mm negative and I remember walking into the theatre when the picture was running -- I watched it for awhile and was really happy because I thought, "gee, they must have gotten a 35mm print" because the picture looked 35mm good. Originally they said they could only get a 16mm print. But as I stood there watching, it looked "35mm good." Then I looked up at the booth to confirm and, no, it was the Eastman 16mm projector running. Yeah, it sounded like shit, but, hey, that's why they invented DTS to sit nicely in the 16mm soundtrack area. As for Hollywood releases on 16mm, the last I heard, maybe a year ago, SWANK was still making current release available on 16mm (as well as on DVD).  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-30-2009 08:41 PM                     Estar for dimensional stability, for sure. I'm definitely looking for Pink Noise for 16mm. 7KHz is nice for just getting the slit lens right but does nothing about helping one set slit loss. Super-16 would be nice too. Pink noise is at the top of my list. Certainly Buzz-track is also essential. While I appreciate combining 400Hz with picture...the down side is a very pricey "sound" test film. Like most 16mm techs, we hoard the "good stuff." Thus, I would prefer not damaging my good image balancing out a pair of 16mm projectors. Also, do you know if your tone corresponds to P16-SL level which was at or near 100% modulation. If yours is at 50% modulation, that would work too. Steve  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 08:45 PM                     Wow, that is amazing there are still 16mm prints, and in a good way, Frank! BTW, do you know if there actually is a digital sound synch option with new 16mm prints? I was disappointed to learn that they never came up with a cyan or high-magenta sound track solution for 16mm. What does a 16mm print cost to rent these days, assuming it's for private flat-rate exhibition, not a percentage of attendance? I always assumed that the only modern use of 16mm was portability compared to 35mm, or when an older film was only available on 16mm. Also, when you talk about 16mm prints, I assume they are reduction-printed onto the final 16mm IN/DN, not from a 35mm internegative to a 16mm release print stock directly. Doing the latter would, I'd assume be even more expensive for what a lab generally charges, than just making a straight 35mm stirke off the IN. BTW, sorry if I have taken this thread off topic from the subject of test film.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 12-01-2009 07:43 AM                       quote: Steve Guttag 7KHz is nice for just getting the slit lens right but does nothing about helping one set slit loss. If he decides to make a pink noise film that would be great, but the vast majority of 16mm projectors will never see an RTA. That's why I did not also list 1KHz tone... just not that many of those installations out there.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.