Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » How popular is 16mm (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: How popular is 16mm
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

- posted 08-04-2004 02:10 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I seem to remember that there's been another 'why don't we revive 16mm?' thread recently - no-one doubts that it's technically possible to achieve very good results with the format on smaller screens and to add digital sound. But the combination of industrial, educational and TV origination going to video and the growth of the multiplexes causing 35mm lab capacity to increase exponentially has skewed the economies of scale. 35mm prints are now a lot cheaper, and for anything approaching a mainstream title there are more of them about after the first run is over (e.g. for arts centre, university and other non-theatrical use), and probably in a better condition.

There might be an environmental argument for trying to revive 16mm but even that could be flawed (e.g. if you have to maintain extra developing machines full of chemicals which are then used to less than full capacity). Meanwhile, apart from very small print runs of experimental films and TV material which was originated on 16mm, I really can't see any point in trying to revive it as a mainstream theatrical format, especially as so many of the venues which once screened it have now invested in 35mm projectors. In Britain, the last non-theatrical distributor which regularly struck new 16mm prints (the British Film Institute) ceased doing so in around 1995.

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 08-04-2004 05:21 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The most telling "sign of the times" is that no less pretigious an industry organization as the AMPAS, the Academy Award people, would release an annual compilation reel of the Student Academy Award Winning entries. This was available free on 16mm to anyone who wanted to book it. We would do a Student Academy Awards night every year. While I was always arguing/nudging the org's director to strike a few 35mm blowups, thus expanding the potential bookings into many more theatres, they were choosing instead to go in a much more sinister direction. In fact, AMPAS made the decision to stop making 16mm compilations prints all together; it is now only available on VIDEO.

I guess with the recent introduction of video hardware for preshow content in a growing number of theatres, AMPAS will actually have a larger number of potential theatrical venues that might opt to have a Student Academy Awards night than when 16mm prints were available.

 |  IP: Logged
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 08-04-2004 06:49 AM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Frank Angel
Many times we would try to initiate a cooperation with the department, offering to book films that its professors would be teaching and incorporate them in our cinema programming. Professors were simply not interested. They were perfectly happy showing titles in their classrooms on VHS with a TV set sitting in the front of the class room and with sound coming from its 4in speaker.
this was the case in the one film class i took in college. i naively assumed we'd be watching actual film, and back then i wasn't nearly the film purist i am now. i'm not sure i stayed awake for the entirety of one "film" in that class. since then i've seen many of those films for real, and damned if i didn't appreciate them a whole lot more.

there were only 8 or so students in that class. but about 5 years ago i sat in on some films in a class at uc berkeley with not many more students, and those films were shown on 16mm. i hope they still do that.

carl

 |  IP: Logged
Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 08-07-2004 10:10 AM      Profile for Edward Jurich   Email Edward Jurich   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Sound was always a limitation, but today, timecode on the print allows full DTS digital capabilities:
I have an old RCA 1600 16mm projector that used (at the time) a newer cell that provided a better high end. Although mono, whenever I run a more recent print with a good track, the sound is quite clean with good range. I don't think people in general are going to care as long as it sounds good. I think it's just a matter of demand, if enough people were making a demand for 16mm prints the prints would come.

 |  IP: Logged
Matthew Jaro
Film Handler

Posts: 74
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 08-07-2004 10:31 PM      Profile for Matthew Jaro   Author's Homepage   Email Matthew Jaro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Long before DTS, magnetic striped 16mm films were available. The quality was quite a bit better than the optical. The speed of 16mm film is slightly over 7 and 1/4 inches per second. Home mag tape at 7.5 inches per second had great quality. The mag medium was never really successful (except in Scopitone machines). I guess the striping and recording process was just too expensive.

Probably with today's technology, classic 1.33:1 films would look quite good with a three chip DLP projector playing a DVD. The quality would probably exceed that of 16mm, since scratching, splices, and perf damage seem endemic on 16mm library prints.

The single perf design of 16mm is really a great flaw and an intermittent (rather than a pull-down claw) machine is almost imperative. Since, duplication is relatively cheap, many films are only available as poor dupes. The DVDs are generally remastered from original elements and are consequently sharper.
Another interesting sidenote. 16mm was always on saftey film since 1923. I believe that safety film was invented in 1907. Nitrate was used for 35mm commercially until 1949. The industry rejected acetate because the cost was 1/2 cent per foot more. (The look of nitrate vs acetate is probably the subject of another thread). Aside from that issue, imagine the number of films that would not have been lost due to nitrate decomposition. Vinegar syndrome of acetate is less certain (I have 16mm prints from the 1920s in great condition -- no VS).

The "History of Kodak" says: [Safety film] produced acceptable images, but it broke very easily and the film cement used for splicing breaks was not effective on the acetate base. Added to these problems was the fact that the new stock cost one-half cent per foot more than nitrate film, a considerable amount of money to the cost-conscious producers of motion-picture entertainment. Eastman had hoped slowly to phase out the production of nitrocellulose stock, but so little acetate film was used that although Kodak continued to offer moviemakers both kinds of film, by 1911 hardly any nonflammable acetate stock was being manufactured."

 |  IP: Logged
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 08-08-2004 07:51 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Kodak introduced 16mm motion pictures in 1923. Kodak has always used safety base for 16mm motion picture film. The history cited refers to the reasons cellulose nitrate base was used for 35mm until Kodak developed modern cellulose triacetate base in the late 1940's.

Caution: Other manufacturers may have used nitrate base for smaller gauges, or may have slit 16mm film from 35mm nitrate, so testing very old small gauge films is still recommended.

 |  IP: Logged
Matthew Jaro
Film Handler

Posts: 74
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 08-08-2004 09:25 AM      Profile for Matthew Jaro   Author's Homepage   Email Matthew Jaro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John --- I releazied that. I was just speculating on what would have changed if the industry had paid the 0.5 cent per foot difference and went to acetate in 1910 for 35mm. We would have many more surviving films (and fewer projectionists killed in nitrate fires). Since 16mm was always on safety film, a number of 16mm films that I have from the 20s and 30s are in great condition without having been placed in cold storage.

 |  IP: Logged
Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 08-08-2004 09:32 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"We would have many more surviving films (and fewer projectionists killed in nitrate fires)"
With proper storage Nitrate has good self life sometimes i wonder with vinegar syndrom if lots of nitrate will not outlast it [Smile]
As for fires they were in fact few and far between in actual booths and I would be interested to actually get a documented case of loss of life in a booth fire
To my knowledge the big loss of life was in an X Ray facility and I know the big fire in Toronto was at the Film Exchange building that went up in the 50's with the loss of 3 people

 |  IP: Logged
Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 08-08-2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Edward Jurich   Email Edward Jurich   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was told of a bad nitrate fire in a theater in Chicago by an operator some years ago. Guy running a cartoon show with many nitrate prints had stacked the reels on the floor, probably didn't have anyplace else to put them. Film breaks on a cartoon, he sees fire in head and opens top magazine to see if reel is burning. With magazine door open fire jumps around fire rollers and sets reel on fire. He then pulls reel out of magazine and tosses across room, right into pile of nitrate cartoons staked on floor.
I know of a collector who had a nitrate fire and only lost a couple feet in the head. The fire rollers stopped the fire from reaching the reels.

quote: Matthew Jaro

Probably with today's technology, classic 1.33:1 films would look quite good with a three chip DLP projector playing a DVD. The quality would probably exceed that of 16mm, since scratching, splices, and perf damage seem endemic on 16mm library prints.
This really goes back to video vs film. Film is an art form and should be presented as film. There are high quality video systems for people to watch a video at home, I sure won't pay to see a video in a theater when I can get the same thing at home.

 |  IP: Logged
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

- posted 08-08-2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Brian Guckian   Email Brian Guckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
16mm reduction printing is almost now a thing of the past...but there seems to be a compelling future for the format in terms of low-budget and student productions.

Many people I know here are cheesed off with having to shoot on Mini-DV, DigiBeta, etc. and want the "film look" for many of their projects. That's not to say that they are film purists - they just want the option.

The debate now seems to be about 16mm origination and projection versus 16mm origination projected digitally. As the installed base of digital projectors grows larger, it may further weaken the desire to have any 16mm printing done at all (I'm talking about new low-budget / student work on 16mm, not reduction printing).

Any comments? What would the argument be for making a 16mm print when increasingly the work can be projected to the same resolution digitally?

 |  IP: Logged
Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 08-08-2004 10:10 AM      Profile for Edward Jurich   Email Edward Jurich   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brian Guckian

Any comments? What would the argument be for making a 16mm print when increasingly the work can be projected to the same resolution digitally
I question if resolution is really better digitally. The newer emulsions are really sharp. An example, although 35mm, is the recent print of "Spiderman II" we ran. The picture was so sharp that I was standing next to the screen and some of the image edges were as sharp as the sound holes in the screen, no grain could be seen. And this was a 50' wide image. Then at the end, the credits with the tiny print had a ripple effect as they scrolled up. Not the larger print, just the tiny print. The credits must have been done digitally and what I was seeing was the lower resolution of the video on the tiny print.
However, I suspect from a practical standpoint, resolution is the same on film as digitally and is not really an issue.

 |  IP: Logged
Matthew Jaro
Film Handler

Posts: 74
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 08-08-2004 10:18 AM      Profile for Matthew Jaro   Author's Homepage   Email Matthew Jaro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In response to Edward Jurich: I agree with you about film. There is something I really like about film. I love the film equipment, handling the film, etc. This is probably true for all of us. I think that even with the best digital projection, there is an "electronic quality" about the image. The edges of objects have an electronic look. However, I must admit, that a film like LOTR really looks good in spite of all the digital work. Placing a DVD in a slot isn't very satisfying. However, the digital medium does seem to be the future whether we like it or not.

 |  IP: Logged
Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

- posted 08-08-2004 02:17 PM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Edward wrote:

quote: Edward Jurich
I was told of a bad nitrate fire in a theater in Chicago by an operator some years ago. Guy running a cartoon show with many nitrate prints had stacked the reels on the floor, probably didn't have anyplace else to put them. Film breaks on a cartoon, he sees fire in head and opens top magazine to see if reel is burning. With magazine door open fire jumps around fire rollers and sets reel on fire. He then pulls reel out of magazine and tosses across room, right into pile of nitrate cartoons staked on floor.
I know of a collector who had a nitrate fire and only lost a couple feet in the head. The fire rollers stopped the fire from reaching the reels.
I had no idea that Basil Fawlty was employed as a projectionist in Chicago!

I have no way of telling if this story is true; there are probably more 'tales' involving nitrate than anything else in the film world. If it is true, then:

quote: Edward Jurich
Guy running a cartoon show with many nitrate prints had stacked the reels on the floor
Well, that should be enough to get him instantly sacked, at least it would have been if it had happened in this country.

quote: Edward Jurich
he sees fire in head and opens top magazine to see if reel is burning
Unwise.

quote: Edward Jurich
With magazine door open fire jumps around fire rollers and sets reel on fire.
There was a good reason for having the spools in spool boxes (magazines), with *closed* doors.

quote: Edward Jurich
He then pulls reel out of magazine and tosses across room, right into pile of nitrate cartoons staked on floor.
[Eek!] Is this serious?

I've handled plenty of nitrate, and projected it a couple of times, though not in a public cinema.

 |  IP: Logged
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

- posted 08-08-2004 03:51 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, the anecdotes get much worse. Some can be found in this book ('This Film is Dangerous').

John - I heard somewhere that Eastman decided on 16mm specifically because it could not be made simply by slitting 35mm down the middle, therefore reducing the risk of 'unauthorised' 16mm nitrate being manufactured by small-scale manufacturers buying unperforated 35mm nitrate base in bulk. As far as I know, the USSR and China were the only countries to have experimented with 16mm nitrate. I once had delivered a 16mm print of The Green River Flows East at the NFT, which had been sitting in the BBC archives, for a routine show. I thought I sniffed the telltale 'mothball' nitrate smell from it, and called in my chief. He thought I must have been off my trolley, because of course no-one made any 16mm nitrate. I persuaded him to put my mind at rest by cutting a foot or so off the head spacing of one of the reels and then igniting it. The resulting flare-up convinced us both! Sadly, the show had to be cancelled, but rather that than being kebabbed in the projection box.

 |  IP: Logged
Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

- posted 08-08-2004 04:37 PM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
An odd format that seems more popular than 16mm scope is 16mm 1.85 where the 1.85:1 ratio is hard matted on the 16mm frame.
Very common here in the '70s. few 16mm machines have either replacable aperture plates, or adjustable apertures, Bell and Howell being the main exception, though the movable blades were a long way back from the emulsion plane. Hard-matting was necessary to get the picture shown at the correct ratio.

I was never very keen on this; the 16mm frame is small enough, without masking off about a third of it. I saw a demonstration of 16mm 1.85 with a 1.5 ratio anamorphic lens, which used almost the full frame, just slight masking being needed at the sides. I think this was a much better way to do it.

16mm scope prints were rare, I doubt if I've ever run more than half a dozen. Most scope films that I've run on 16mm were either hard-matted to 2.35 within the 1.33 frame, or cropped to about 1.66-1.85, and hard-matted to this ratio. Neither option being very satisfactory.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.