Regular 8mm Projector Recommendations for Archival Film Screening

[Brian Virostek]

I am looking for advice as to which make and model of regular 8mm projector would be best suited for a public screening of archival 8mm film. The films in question are not only archival, but they are valued works of art and should be presented in their orignal form.

Naturally, I would like a bright image, a simple threading path, and reliability.

For these reasons, I am less interested in Dual 8 projectors that could switch between Regular 8 and Super 8. Similarly, I would rather avoid sound projectors.

One model that I am considering is the Kodak Brownie 300 which has a 300 W lamp and a simple threading pattern. I find the plasic guards on the single drive sprocket a little flimsy, though.



The other model is the Bolex M8. Which is older, but more solid. The bulb is brighter at 500W. You can see it here: Bolex Collector | Projectors | M-8



These projectors will be in the theater, not in the booth. I think that's appropriate. It will more closely approximate the conditions of the original screeenings; they are intimate films.

I would appreciate your feedback on my reasoning as well as opinions and suggestions for these and other regular 8 mm projectors.

[Marcel Birgelen]

What kind of screen size and room size are we looking at? I've done quite some screenings of archival 8mm footage, but we've always digitally scanned and stabilized it, as projecting 8mm on a large screen in front of a large audience is almost impossible.

[Leo Enticknap]

Archival best practice dictates that original (or generationally closest to original as is known to survive) elements should not be used for access, only preservation. This is because the risk of damage in any film transport mechanism, no matter how carefully it is operated and maintained, is significant. As an aside, and for similar reasons, many art historians and curators argue that the transportation of fine art works for temporary exhibitions should not be done - after all, a Turner went down with the Lusitania and a Picasso burned in the Hindenburg...

And with Regular 8, you have a practical problem as well as an ethical one, which is that the frames are so darn tiny that you can't put enough light through them to illuminate a screen bigger than around 6-7 feet across without subjecting them to heat damage. So unless it's a small room and an audience consisting of Mom, Dad, two kids and a kitty (which is what Regular 8 was designed for!), projecting the original format isn't going to work. So you have two conflicting cornerstones of archival ethics: present original format/technology, and don't endanger the original. In your situation, you can do either, but not both.

All of which is a long winded way of agreeing with Marcel, that high quality digitization and then presenting it from digital media of some description is the way to go. DCP is likely not ideal, because of its inability to handle sub-24 frame rates without resorting to post production smoke and mirrors.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

I agree with Marcel and Leo on this, DO NOT RISK these "valued works of art" in public presentations. There is absolutely NO safe way to project an image big enough for any decent sized audience, as one filmmaker guest at the University I used to work at found out...luckily he was smart enough to bring a dvd backup which I was able to project full size and in proper aspect ratio on my big screen. (See UC Irvine HIB 100 pics in the "Warehouse".)

As a creative person myself, and a long time technician and projectionist, while I can understand and sympathize with the idea of projecting in the original format, you MUST be realistic about the end goal, which is how many folks can actually SEE the works in question, for an extended period of time, and without losing the "valued works of art" FOREVER due to ONE bad pass through a projector. (Especially ones in a format not generally known for being gentle and protective of film.)

If these films were mine or in my care, I would NEVER, EVER project them at all. As suggested, have them digitized (and omit the "digital cleaning up" if the film grain, dirt, etc.is important to the aesthetic of presenting the piece) and you can then safely show them as many times as you want.

If the SOUND of a projector running is important to the presentation, that is super easy to achieve in this case. Simply run a reel (or loop) of "junk" film through the projector with the lamp off (aimed at the screen) to provide the illusion of film. If you can place the video projector directly below the film machine, most people will never catch the trick in use.

[Ed Gordon]

Brian, I would recommend that you also post this at https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/ which is a forum which film-tech also hosts which focuses on smaller film formats and related equipment..

[Brian Virostek]

Thank you all for your comments.

To clarify, the films are preserved at another institution. Negatives and intermediates are therefore in safekeeping. They have already been professionally digitized, a process supervised by the artist and/or the estate.

We are not planning to fill a theatrical theater screen. We understand that the audience will be smaller and more intimate.

I will post at 8mm forum. In the meantime, if anyone has a suggestion about a reliable regular 8 projector, feel free to let me know.

[Leo Enticknap]

One of the higher end European models from the late '60s or '70s that uses a 100w dichroic halogen bulb is likely your best bet, assuming that you can find a well maintained one, or are prepared to do some refurbishment yourself (e.g. replace natural rubber belts). The Bolex 18-3 Duo or the Eumig 822 would be examples. Yes, they are dual gauge sound projectors, but the quality of the lenses that came with these European ones is significantly higher (IMHO) than were standard issue with American and Japanese (apart from Elmo) models. If playing release prints rather than trying to project preservation elements, my priority would be to put as much light on the screen as possible.

I believe that Elmo did make a high end, dual gauge (regular and super) silent only model with a 100w bulb and infinitely variable frame rate, but can't remember the model number or find it by Googling.

[Leo Enticknap]

Found it - K110 (or 120). Autothreading, so lots of difficult-to-reach guide surfaces to keep clean, but excellent registration, bright, and came with a really sharp lens. I had one bought at a thrift store once, but had to give it away when I emigrated from England to California - simply couldn't afford to ship all my stuff. I believe that these units were used as the basis of cheap, NTSC or PAL telecine conversions in the '80s and '90s. I see two or three on the US Ebay site at the moment for between $135 and $200, and belts and bulbs appear to be still readily available. I don't believe that the power supplies in them were universal (as in, can accept both 120/60 and 230/50), though, so if you buy an example from Europe, you will also need a converter that can handle 200 watts or so.

[Simon Wyss]

In case you don’t need 24 fps the Eumig P 8 is one of the best projectors. It attains between 18 and 20 fps but is bright. It has a strictly straight pulling double-prong advance claw, spring-loaded. You can clean the gate easily with a brush for narrow neck bottles. Lens throat diameter is 24 mm H9. Younger models take 100 W halogen lamps.

The Paillard-Bolex M 8 is also very good regarding image steadiness and maintenance. Its drawback is that it runs only forward but you can speed up to 25 fps.

There are or were a lot more sturdy and cleverly made projectors such as the Cinéric E, Bell & Howell Filmo Picture Master, Sekonic 8, Bauer T 10 (16 fps only), Siemens & Halske 800 SEPMAG.

If it had to be a Kodak 8-mm. projector, I’d pick the Kodascope Eight Model 71A. That one can be run with a 1000 Watt bulb on AC and it’s got an inching knob.

[Leo Enticknap]

I'd be a bit worried about a model that uses an old tungsten (non-halogen) lamp as big as 1,000w - that's going to throw a tremendous amount of light and heat at the film. We know (from Wilhelm & Brower's research) that the one thing that can cause Kodachrome dyes to fade is prolonged exposure to intense light: given that a lot of surviving regular 8 is Kodachrome, this for me would be another red flag (though admittedly, the exposure won't be prolonged in a movie projector: W & B were more concerned about slides).

[Peter Mork]

If you are deciding between the Bolex and the Brownie, it's the Bolex by a mile. I haven't used that particular one, but my 18-5 Regular 8 has served me well. The Brownies are not bright enough really.
There are also lots of old Reveres of different models that can be found easily. I use one in a modified peep-show machine in my cinema's lobby, has run hundreds of cycles and is reliable.
I agree, don't digitize unless you have to. 8mm was made to be projected, and any clean machine will do it, presumably you will check it out beforehand.

[Stefan Scholz]

Projectors featuring a 300 W or 500 W bulb are likely to use mains voltage bulbs. The filament is pretty large compared to the gate opening, and the gate opening acts as an aperture, stepping the light down.
Also, high voltage bulbs are having a low efficiency.
Best for small gate, a pin point source, smaller than die gate diagonal.
Therefore projectors using halogen low voltage bulbs are brighter. Even then, the bulb with the best efficiency is the 12 V 100 W Halogen, the 150 W is only 30 to 35% brighter, at 50% extra heat.
Incandescant projection itself is super inefficient. So do not expect more than 60 to 110 Lumens from an 8 mm projector. 8mm type S (Super 8) might reach 130 to 140 lumens. Divide it by 14 foot lamberts, and that's your screen area. 10 sq ft, not much. On a matt white screen. 8 mm movies were never intended to be shown upfront an audience of more than a couple of family members.
So when these are digitized, why not use a digital projector as a display?

[Brian Virostek]

If I understand you correctly Stefan, 300W to 500W tungsten and 100W and 150W halogen lamps will fall into the same 60 to 110 Lumen range. Is that correct?

Thanks for the resource about the effects of heat on Kodachrome, Leo.

From the postings in this forum and over in the 8 mm Film forum, most people prefer the efficiency of the halogen bulbs, but the transport of the older silent film machines. This has me thinking of a modification.

In fact, there is a projectionist/mechanic here who put a Xetron lamphouse from a 16 mm Bell and Howell JAN onto a 8 mm Kodak or Keystone.

How do Xenon bulbs compare for heat and efficiency? Would a xenon bulb create the pinpoint of light that you mention, Stefan?

I will have more information about the desired size of the audience and the room soon. There are certainly issues about how to present the work in a way that approaches how the artist presented this work. As they were shot on 8 mm, an intimate format, some of that intimacy will be lost in a larger room, a more distant screen, and with more people. It is true that when this avant-garde filmmaker would screen his films for the classes at NYU in the 60s, he would go into the projection booth (for 16mm) and throw the film out of focus or turn the projector on its side to experiment with the image and to see how his compositions were working an abstract level. That is to say, he was open to experimentation in projection in the context of research. However, he regarded video and digital transfers as something quite different, like looking at reproductions of Jackson Pollack paintings in a book: extremely useful as a reference or to reach a wider audience, but removed from the work itself. It is just one point of view, but the point of view of the maker of the art we are attempting to present.

I appreciate all of your input, the precise information is useful as are the subjective opinions. I am enjoying the discussion.