|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Super-8 vs 16mm
|
Peter Berrett
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/672.jpg)
Posts: 602
From: Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 08-24-2002 09:08 PM
Brad wrote the following in relation to another topic quote:
While I'm thinking about it, have you ever compared the actual image size of a 16mm frame to a Super 8mm frame? Remember that the 16mm perforations are quite large, as is the mono optical soundtrack. The difference is really not all that much. Plus you can buy brand new prints from Derann films in the UK (as well as other vendors) for around $300 US. Why be stuck paying top dollar for old used library and airline prints of 16mm movies, mostly in 1.33 aspect ratio and all of them in optical mono when you can get brand new prints of recent full length feature films?
I found this to be an interesting line of thinking and worthy of some further discussion in a separate discussion. Perhaps even John Pytlak might wish to chime in with his thoughts on the image quality of the two mediums. The emphasis here is not much so on the theoretical image quality (eg pixels/inch) but on user's practical perceptions of the difference's between the two mediums when used in reality. Is the difference that noticeable? Do readers agree with Brad's comments? Is the difference in picture quality only marginal? Brad's comments were of course framed (no pun intended) in the context of home use. I suppose the acid test is whether if, as a projectionist, someone displayed an image on a wall in a home situation but you couldn't see or hear the projector - could you tell whether it was super-8 or super 16? If Brad's arguments do hold up then it is arguable that super-8 with magnetic stereo sound (and the possibility of recording 6 channel digital stereo on the tape) is a better option for home users than 16mm. I'm sure on the other hand that there will be plenty of detractors who will prefer 16mm. One other point regarding super-8 film - is it still possible to buy super-8 sound film? I read at the following url that Kodak had discontinued manufacturing it? cheers Peter
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
![](http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/paulpics.cgi)
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 08-24-2002 09:56 PM
Brad, what is the image size difference between Super 8 as compared to standard 16mm? I don't know. What would be the image size differences on a screen 30 feet away while using the same size lens if both formats contained a sound track, optical or magnetic? I know little to nothing about either format.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/02a.jpg)
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-25-2002 01:09 AM
Expect to spend between $1000-2000 for a quality Super 8mm projector, such as a Beaulieu 708EL Pro or an Elmo GS-1200. You will want to junk the piece of plastic known as a lens and replace it with a Schneider. The best one on the market was made by Schneider for Elmo and is commonly referred to the f1.0 lens. They run around $300. Past that you will almost certainly want to upgrade the light source (some GS-1200s came from the factory with xenons in them). Don't forget about an anamorphic lens too, so you can play those scope films. (You can use regular 35mm anamorphics.) As for sound, nothing can beat a dbx encoder/decoder for re-recording the prints, but overall nothing special is required. By the way, a 400 foot reel of Super 8mm film = a 2000 foot reel of 35mm film. You will note some features are listed as 4x600, meaning 4 30 minute capacity reels. www.derann.co.uk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-25-2002 07:36 AM
Personally, I'd still take 16mm over Super-8...there is something like a 3X size increase (square inch image area) and I find the picture on 16mm to be more stable (jump/weave). However, I have NOT looked at the "high-end" of Super-8...perhaps there is something there.As for 16mm...NOTHING beats a ISCO Vario-Kiptaron 20-60mm (not to be confused with the low-end Vario-Kiptaron that sells for a 1/3rd of the price 35-65mm). The good Vario-Kiptaron will rival just about anything made today and make 16mm look as good or better than 35mm (Depending on the actual print of each). http://www.iscooptic.de/english/dbl/kiptaronb.php Steve ------------------ "Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God
![](/ubbmembers/1401a.jpg)
Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-26-2002 02:17 AM
Hi Peter, I am sorry I was not able to join in on this discussion until today because I was very busy during the weekend. I hope Brad does not mind if I make a sales pitch on this thread to anyone who is interested in buying super 8 sound films because I have several complete features I do not need anymore. One of the film is "GREASE" but it is not the scope version. It is full screen. I also have the complete "SATURDAY NIGHT FEAVER", "THE WARRIORS" and "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" - all Paramount features. I also have some MGM "TOM & JERRY" original theatrical shorts that has been spliced on long reels. If you or anyone is interested, please send me an EMAIL. I bought all of these films when I worked with high school yearbook staff members taking pictures for the kids when I was the school's contract photographer and I used to host parties at my studio after hours for many of my teenage friends. We would spend hours watching all of the above mentioned films and have a lot of fun. I still have my Elmo projector but I dont know if it works anymore because I have not used it in years. This projector can play movies on these these very large reels that can hold about an hour of film played back at 24fps. The size of the reels is about 12 1/2 inch in diameter. If anyone is interested, this projector is also available. -Claude
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/453.gif)
Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 08-27-2002 07:45 AM
The "Focal Encyclopedia of Film & Television Techniques," ©1969, SBN 8038-2268-5, has a table of "Relative Image Areas" in the entry for "Film Dimensions and Physical Characteristics."RELATIVE IMAGE AREAS (RELATIVE PROJECTED IMAGE AREA) GAUGE AND FORMAT ------ -------------------- (334.9) 65 mm Negative and 70 mm Positive (220.2) Technirama Negative AR 2.35:1 (194.9) VistaVision Negative AR 1.85:1 (124.2) 35 mm Full Aperture Negative (121.2) 35 mm CinemaScope AR 2.35:1 (100.0) 35 mm Academy Standard AR 1.37:1 (95.1) 35 mm TV Transmitted Area (83.0) 35 mm Wide-Screen AR 1.66:1 (74.3) 35 mm Wide-Screen AR 1.85:1 (60.2) Techniscope Negative AR 2.35:1 (21.8) 16 mm Standard (20.5) 16 mm TV Transmitted Area (15.4) 9.5 mm (6.6) Super-8 (4.4) 8 mm
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-27-2002 08:50 AM
As with "Godzilla", "Size DOES Matter". ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/wink.gif) For print formats, larger projectable image area is most important because it allows more light on the screen without causing excessive heating of the print by the radiant energy of projection. For 35mm prints, a 7000 watt xenon lamp is about the practical maximum. For 70mm, you can go much higher. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/fall97.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/winter97.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec98.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march99.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/feb97.shtml ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243 e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Berrett
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/672.jpg)
Posts: 602
From: Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 08-28-2002 05:39 AM
Hi againMy Eiki Sl-1 arrived today and naturally I took it it out of its box and took it for a spin. Unfortunately no intruction manual came with the projector but it did not take long to work out which way the reels ran and which way way the film ran through the projector. I was really impressed with the special effects that came with the projector. After a couple of minutes I was watching the screen and suddently the film just sorted of melted on the screen as I have seen in some movies. [ Just kidding ] No seriously - I had an old black and white film on the subject of making files that Buddy had provided me with. The film ran perfectly and the sound was ok. It wasn't Dolby surround but it was only a training film. Here's some comments I noted. For indoor use I noted that at a throw of about 5 metres I could get a picture of about a metre or slightly less maximum. This is a little annoying because I think that for indoor use a picture width of about 2 metres would be good. However with the scope lens on, the width expands out signficantly and gives more of the cinematic feel. In just plain jane mode (no scope lens) I had expected that one could blow the picture up much larger. I then took my projector outside and projected an image onto the back wall of my house from a similar distance (my house is painted white). It was quite amazing the way that a projector could take an otherwise unassuming wall and animate it with a 3 metre wide image. I have yet to dig out my projector screen and try the projector with that but I assume that the image should improve further. Even though I have only been able to project a black and white image so far I have been impressed with my new toy. The Eiki is well built, easy to use, has a simple film feeding system, stores compactly and gives a good clear picture with good light. The only downside is the limitation in terms of not being able to project a large image over a short distance however this can be compensated somewhat by the use of a scope lens with a scope print. I'd recommend the unit to anyone. It will be interesting now to have a look at a super-8 projector and compare the results. I might get a chance this weekend to do that at my in-laws place. Also today my Roadshow 16mm catalogue arrived. A glance down the listing brought a smile as I noted that 'La Cage Aux Folles' was on the listing. I hope it isn't dubbed. It was pleasing to also see 'Grease' there. No sign, however of 'What's up Doc?'. Anybody know who distributes that film in Australia? A quick (but tricky) technical question for John Pytlak as well. In a darkened room with a good 16mm projector (250 watt bulb) running a scope lens, how small/large an image should be projected to guarantee a 16 footlamberts result? cheers Peter
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|