Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: non-theatrical 35mm

This is topic non-theatrical 35mm in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005530

Posted by Aileen D'Esposito (Member # 1967) on 11-07-2003, 11:11 PM:

i run a second run theater on campus where i go to school, and have run into the problem this semester that the majority of the films i requested this semester have come in on 16mm instead of 35mm like they have all come in on in the past. This isn't to say that i don't have a 16mm projector, just to say that i have a shitty 16mm projector. So i guess my question is a) did people just all of a sudden decide to replace their 35mm prints with 16mm, b) am i just picking the wrong films, or c) can anybody recommend a decent 16mm projector i should look into buying so that i can cease hearing complaints about the shitty quality of sound and image coming out of my current 16mm projector.?

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-07-2003, 11:28 PM:

most titles are available in 35, but your booker may not have them. ETS and Technicolor have a good selection of used prints to run, try contacting them.

Josh

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-07-2003, 11:50 PM:

Some non-theatrical distributors have only 16mm, or few 35 mm prints. Check before you order. The 16mm is saving a fortune in shipping costs.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-07-2003, 11:55 PM:

Wouldn't that be an issue for the studio to decide? I didn't think ETS or Technicolor had that kind of latitude, assuming Aileen's bookings are actually being shipped from there.

Seems whatever non-theatrical agency's managing the prints is probably where to call. Someone there may have forgotten (or lost the information) that Aileen's school is 35mm equipped.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-08-2003, 12:41 AM:

Aileen, you definitely need to talk to the people with whom you book films (i.e. your representative at Swank and/or Criterion, the non-theatrical agents for the major studios, excluding Univeral). I would hypothesize that a simple error was made, but you'll need to followup with them to find out. Are you the person who handles booking yourself, or is there someone else who manages that relationship?

Jack is correct, Josh is a bit off here. ETS and TES don't handle booking, and they don't handle 16mm either.

It's not rare for booking errors to happen, and to happen persistently. Rigorous followup and verification of confirmations is necessary.

Rest assured non-theatrical availability of major titles in 35mm has not changed. Here at MIT we run a full schedule with two titles/weekend. We don't have problems.

If you have specific titles you'd like to inquire about availability of, etc., feel free to ask.

As for c), we'd need to know something about your venue size and your budget. But quality does not come cheap.

Bill, for the major studios, print availability is simply not an issue in 35mm for current titles. Have you seen differently?

--jhawk

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-08-2003, 01:20 AM:

I stand corrected.

JJ

Posted by Aileen D'Esposito (Member # 1967) on 11-08-2003, 04:23 AM:

this is in reply mainly to John:
No, I am not the person who contacts swank and criterion, i merely run one out of the 5 nights of titles that we show at carnegie mellon. Most of the films we show do come in on 35mm, it's only mostly mine that have had the tendency to be on 16mm this semester. And i stress this semester. For example, last semester i showed clerks, which came in on 35mm, but this semester i showed mallrats and it came in on 16mm (to which i got a response of "why didn't you just show it on video?" but of course the following week when i take the advice and show my choice on video i get, "why didn't you show the film" i can't win)

You did say to ask, so ....this week i have "The Professional" lined up, and my swank contact person just informed me that it was coming in on 16mm (but of course "the Last Unicorn" that's lined up for next sunday is coming in on 35mm...arg). Needless to say, for about the 8th time this semester i was furious at her (so i assume she's done everything she can....and i do stress assume) So, any idea where i can get a 35mm print of it on short notice? I really love this film, but hate subjecting the audience and myself to the horrendous visual and audio quality of the 16mm, or the equally crappy image quality of the video

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-08-2003, 09:19 AM:

Ah, your issue is with older titles (repertory). That's a larger can of worms, I'm afraid.

In these cases, print availability in 35mm is often extremely limitted. Perhaps the best you can do is expect it to be bad, let Swank know that 16mm is not an acceptable substitute. I would also not take "No," for an answer, but push for a very firm clear reason ("the last print was destroyed 1 week after you booked it";"I screwed up, you can show another film for free this month";"The studio made a booking error and now it is unfixable"; etc.).

In this case, their response is just weird. Professional is Columbia/Sony, who has been handling their reportory division very well, and they even have an availability database online (www.sonypicturesrepertory.com).

Is your problem one of changing answers? With this sort of thing, it's critical to have availability discussions with Swank before you book anyhow, since many older titles just aren't available at all. You should stress the 35mm requirement at this stage.

Another strange issue is that with some studios and some particular titles (popular ones, or ones that a customer has paid them to strike), Swank and Criterion do have their own print libraries in 35mm (this is quite limitted; they have extensive 16mm libraries). In general you'll never get one of these for a current release (except maybe Swank/WB). If for some reason this resource is exhausted/unavailable, it may be necessary for Swank to request a studio print, and they may be somehow reluctant (not clear why). All I can advise is to ask hard questions (but politely). Remember that if you don't get good answers, you can escalate within Swank's organization.

Good luck! You should at least be able to get better answers and more advance notice, even if your problem is not 100% solvable.

--jhawk

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-08-2003, 09:22 AM:

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but did you ask if it was available in 35mm? Swank probably has access to a 35mm print. Perhaps it wasn't available. If this is something that is happening consitently, I tend to think it is an issue with the person booking the films through Swank for you. I have had some problems with Swank over the years, but there was only one case in which I received a 16mm instead of a 35mm print, and that was because of a shipping problem with the 35.

If Swank does not have a 35mm print available (often, Swank only has access to a single print of any given title), does your booker just book the 16mm print? If that is the case, perhaps you should inform them that it is a priority to get a 35mm print. Perhaps give them alternate titles, so that if a 35mm print of The Professional is not available, rather than booking a 16mm, they check on the availability of another title in 35mm.

Also, 16mm can look quite nice, especially compared to video. Often, I would rather look at a DVD than a pan and scan 16mm print, but for older academy ratio films, 16mm can be beautiful. As John asked, what is the size of your auditorium and image? What kind of projector do you currently have? A 16mm Xenon, especially a pedestal model, would be an investment, but perhaps worthwhile if you run a fair amount of 16mm.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-08-2003, 09:48 AM:

Let it be known that 16mm on the cheap is fast becoming a thing of the past. ELMO has dropped their 16mm line completely (even their 16 -> Video Telecine projector). Eiki, I believe is to drop their 16mm line completely by the end of this year (any Eiki dealers out there?)

What you will be left with is used (and with the manufacturer's support for those units ticking away) and the best 16mm projector out there...the Kinoton FP 38E. We are putting a fair number of these into University/College situations on new auditoriums but they are quite expensive but boy are they nice (35mm too). They also feature the best 16mm soundhead and preamp I've come across.

Steve

Posted by Vernon Cramer (Member # 1181) on 11-08-2003, 11:06 AM:

We've been running 35mm prints for the last two years in two different auditoriums for non-theatrical showings (community college). Prior to that we had dabbled in an occasional 16mm screening of a foreign film (normally fairly recent titles). Of the 16mm prints we ran, I can't say that we ever received one that wasn't a disappointment (usually color that was more than a little off). Now we only will show 16mm if we absolutely can't get a 35mm print (for example, the recent documentary Bonhoffer is only available on 16mm or video).

Most of the films we book are recent titles (normally first date they are available for non-theatrical), but we have booked a few older reperatory titles. Only once have we really had a print of an older 35mm title that we couldn't run (Lion in Winter with advanced VS) but knew we were taking a chance when we booked it. Generally, our experiences with older titles to date have all been satisfactory (and even a worn 35mm print will still look better than a worn 16mm).

The key is to work very closely with your reps at Swank, Criterion, etc, when it comes to older titles. I have a good relationship with these folks but I also stay in frequent contact. The only real incident we've had was when we got a print of Matrix Reloaded out of the Washington DC ETS depot that arrived without reel #1. A couple of phone calls and I was able to pick up another print from an area theater. But this was not Swank's fault.

Also, if you're looking for a specific title, check here on Film-Tech to see if anyone has played that title and what shape the print was in (and if it was a good print, ask for the print number). While both Swank and Criterion have their own 35mm prints on some older titles, they can book some studio prints when necessary. I have also requested specific print numbers when I knew the print was good. And if there is something that I really want to book, I don't take the first "it's not available" as an answer. I try to be a pleasant pest until I get what I want.

Posted by Aileen D'Esposito (Member # 1967) on 11-08-2003, 12:09 PM:

Ok...to start with, a reply to joe about me and my relationship with the person who actually talks to swank: I went off for a good half an hour on her at the beginning of the semester when she told me about my first 16mm print. In the end, i told her, that if she had merely informed me that under no circumstances could she get a 35mm print of my request, to simply ask me for a replacement, and i would gladly give it to her...i have plenty. She must have drowned me out though, because out of the 10 films i personally have shown this semester, only two (oddly enough one of these 2 films was originally on 16mm, go figure) of them have come in on 35mm, and not once did she ask me for a replacement choice. I thought i was completely clear with her over my 35mm preference (i think i mentioned killing her dog if i ended up with more 16mm prints or some such rantings in voicing my opinion...what can i say, i was not happy.) I will confront her again, this time with a nice sweet smile, and find out exactly what measures she has taken attempting to procure 35mm prints for me.
As for 16mm looking nice, the last 16mm film i showed was so dark the picture was barely seen, and the sound so garbled, words could barely be made out. I wouldn't call that nice...but i guess it could happen. (the projector is a hokushin x-600...i don't know much else about it. seating is max 435, been looking for numbers on image size to no avail)

On to responding to some of vernon's ramblings: yes, most of the stuff we show is recent as soon as we can get it for non-theatrical and of course that comes in on 35mm (and i do get jealous of the people running those nights.) I probably just either got unlucky, or my booker is on swank's shit list, i don't know. She does talk to them enough though...with 5 films a week she definitely keeps up constant contact.
You mentioned older 35mm...which reminded me of the time we got Wild Strawberries....the can opened up smelling like vinegar, and the entire print was so warped that it couldn't stay flat in the gate...the image kept undulating, up and down, in and out of focus. Boy was that fun. Anyway, i'll try to convince my booker to be a "pleasant pest" as you so eloquently put, so thanks.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-2003, 01:14 PM:

You're missing the issue here. REMOVE the 16mm projector! If you can ONLY play 35mm films, then that is all you will be sent. End of story.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-08-2003, 01:26 PM:

I don't know how the non-theatrical side of the biz works but it sure sounds to me like you may have ended up on a shit-list.

There's that old adage -- you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Regardless of how incompetent a person or business entity might be, it usually pays to be nice.

Posted by Aileen D'Esposito (Member # 1967) on 11-08-2003, 09:10 PM:

Brad...i don't think it was so much of a missing the point, as not realizing what my booker was doing in time (aka taking no for an answer?)...as i said before, i did tell my booker that 16mm was unacceptable, i guess she just didn't pass that along. It could also be that, the other person who gets 16mm at times really doesn't care, and will show it anyway. So she goes ahead and keeps it on, and i just end up on here ranting.
On the brightside, she's using my misfortune to try to get money to buy a new 16mm projector. If that is where all this ends up, i suppose taht could be ok, because there are times when things can only come in on 16mm

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-09-2003, 08:13 PM:

There's no reason why 16mm can't look good with the right equipment. When I was at NYU Film School, they did the Film History presentations at the old Art Theater on 8th St in the Village in NYC (it's now the NYU Cantor Film Center.) It was a big house - probably at least 700 seats. The projection looked absolutely great, you would never know it was 16mm. Obviously they got good prints and also had a pro-level projector with a high-intensity lamp that was hot enough to burn a hole in the print if a splice stuck.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-10-2003, 12:46 AM:

Getting titles on 16mm unexpectedly is due to:

1)Folks in management who book the films don't know the difference, & don't know to specify 35mm or at least to find out if it's not in 35mm, it's all video to them

2)Folks (not mentioning names) who have a history of saying they have a title in 35mm, knowlingly holding & shipping only 16mm, & when you get it the day of show & call them they say "I'm sorry, but that title is only available in 16mm".

3)Sometimes those folks don't even KNOW they've got only 16mm, but when they find out ship it anyway.

To remove the 16mm projector is impossible, a lot of titles are available only in 16mm. You'll get bookings for films that are only in 16mm & you'll need to run them. You need a good 16mm theatrical projector, & if you can't find a functional, reliable Eastman or something, Steve's advice to get the Kinoton is the best & the theater needs to start the process for budgeting & acquisition to remain a functional & useful rep house.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2003, 01:31 AM:

Agreed with all on the performance of the Kinoton 16mm mech: I've used FP-18s in a couple of places and with an OK-to-good print the picture and sound quality outstrips VHS by a long way. As well as the models mentioned there are also a lot of theatrical, xenon-powered Fumeos, Prevosts and Bauers in use on this side of the pond. The Fumeo HL-3000 is very film-friendly, IMHO, and will put up with dodgy joins and perf damage which anything apart from a Kinoton would mangle and spit out.

In terms of prints of rep titles, though, 16mm has to all intents and purposes disappeared here. I think this really dates back to the British Film Institute's decision to stop striking new 16mm prints in '95 or '96. By that stage they were just as expensive to make as their 35mm equivalents (the use of video for education/training/promo films had killed a lot of 16mm lab capacity and thereby pushed down the economies of scale): more so if a separate interneg were made rather than just optically reduction printing from 35. By the time I stopped working in (arthouse) cinemas 3 years ago, I was showing one or two 16mm titles a year if that.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-10-2003, 03:48 AM:

Leo,

I am trying to get hold of a film for a private screening for a few people. If possible, I would rather have it on 16mm, but 35mm or video would be acceptable if that is not possible.

The film is 'The Proud Valley', with Paul Robeson, from either 1939 or 1940, I have seen both dates for it.

The film is listed on the BFI web site, in a section headed something like: Films available in 16mm, some are also available in 35mm. It would therefore seem that they still have a 16mm print of it, and as it is not likely to get a great deal of use, it may still be in reasonable condition.

The question is, can I, as an individual, rent a film from the BFI? If so, how do I go about it?

I know that a very good 35mm print exists, but it is very unlikely that I could get my hands on that. The film is available on VHS, but only on NTSC, which my machine doesn't handle. I've also been told that the quality of the transfer isn't that good. Perhaps surprisingly, there never seems to have been a NTSC Laserdisc release of it, which I would be able to play.

Posted by Aileen D'Esposito (Member # 1967) on 11-10-2003, 03:50 AM:

wouldn't you know it. I walk in today and the 35mm print of my film is sitting there. I don't know if she lied to me on purpose, or just cause she didn't know, or if my complaints acutally did something (i doubt that...my bet is on her not knowing any better).
I do still agree that there is no getting around some prints only being able to come in on 16mm, and I thank those that offered suggestions on good projectors. I'm looking into it. Last i heard, she did infact weasel out $9000 for such an endeavor, it's my hope that it's not wasted on more crap.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 11-10-2003, 06:11 AM:

quote:
In terms of prints of rep titles, though, 16mm has to all intents and purposes disappeared here. I think this really dates back to the British Film Institute's decision to stop striking new 16mm prints in '95 or '96.

The quality of the non-theatrical 16mm prints avaliable in the UK are now of poor quality. The last print I received (the killing fields {from Filmbank }) had major scratching and was missing a large part of the end credits. We have found it easier to obtain copies and better quality to show titles from DVD than 16mm. We still use 35mm for our Sunday showings which gives the best image quality (despite our aging equipment)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2003, 06:28 AM:

quote:
The question is, can I, as an individual, rent a film from the BFI? If so, how do I go about it?

To be honest I don't know. If it's a National Film and Television Archive print, you'd need to speak to Bryony Dixon. If it's BFI Films Distribution, the person in charge of print circulation is Andrew Youdell. The 'phone number for both is 020 7255 1444. I can't see any logical reason why a private individual couldn't sign a non-theatrical screening agreement (I guess they might ask for full payment in advance, though), but like all public sector bureaucracies some of the BFI's rules aren't always that logical. Bryony is pretty cagey about letting prints out to venues she isn't familiar with for fear of damage (the archive's print budget is pitifully low), so I suspect you'll stand a better chance if it's a distribution print.

If it's an archive print you will probably need to clear the copyright separately, and provide a clearance letter for the BFI to release the print. If memory serves me correctly The Proud Valley is an Ealing film; if so it would be a case of asking Canal Plus.

If the screening is for a small group you might be able to book a screening in the BFI's own preview theatre, in the Stephen St. basement. That way you'd be guaranteed the 35mm print and if you'd otherwise have to pay for an NTD licence or third-party clearance to get the print yourself, it might not be that much more expensive to do it that way. Private viewings on BFI premises count as research viewings and thus would not attract a clearance/licence fee, though the licence does charge a £10 per hour access charge for research viewing.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-10-2003, 06:55 AM:

Thanks Leo.

The 35mm print I have seen, some yars ago now, is very good, but it is an archieve print, and there's no way I would ever be able to get my hands on that. I don't know if any 35mm distribution prints exist. 16mm would be more convienient if I can get hold of a reasonable print. I could run it on a pair of 666s, which give reasonable picture and sound. Or I might even fish out my 609s, and run it with carbon. The 666s are much easier to move though.

There is a 'New on 16mm/VHS/DVD' section, I thought they gave up 16mm some years ago, unless they have taken over prints and rights from 16mm distributors that have closed down, or something.

Doing a title search for 'The Proud Valley' brings up the following:
---------------------------------------------------------
The Proud Valley
Directed by Penrose Tennyson
UK / 1939 / 16mm / b&w / 77 mins

The second of three films made for Ealing by Tennyson, 'The Proud Valley' is also the last of Paul Robeson's British films. He plays David Goliath, a black collier in South Wales pit, who becomes part of the community by singing in the choir. After a miners march into London singing to raise funds, and shame the owners into reopening it. The film has multiple resonance, including Robeson's subsequent run-in with Mc Carthy's comittee for UnAmerican activities.

See other films in the Black British Film & Black Representation in British Cinema category
---------------------------------------------------------------

It obviously wasn't produced in 16mm, so I assume that 'UK / 1939 / 16mm / b&w / 77 mins', means that they distribute it in that form. I have very little experience of booking films, and what I do have was years ago, I normally leave that side of things to others, and just stick to projecting them, and watching them, myself.

I know Andrew, I'll give him a call and see what he says.

I posted a message asking Darren the times of the November 70mm shows, but he hasn't replied. there were a lot of posts at that time, and it very quickly moved down the list, so he may have missed it. The only way I can afford a ticket to York at the moment is to book in advance, and that means deciding on train times before I book. Do you know the show times yet?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2003, 08:02 AM:

quote:
I thought they gave up 16mm some years ago, unless they have taken over prints and rights from 16mm distributors that have closed down, or something.

Me too: in fact, there was a massive hoo-hah when the BFI announced it would no longer be striking new 16mm prints in the mid '90s. The Federation of Film Societies mieowed and hissed like mad, among others. I remember at the time thinking that a move like it was inevitable, because (as Mark points out) most of the 16mm prints still doing the rounds were pretty well knackered and by that point it was only a matter of time before a better-than-VHS consumer video format reached critical mass.

The Proud Valley sounds interesting, not least because of the censorship regime which prevailed in the 1930s, dictating that left-wing political sentiment (and especially anything to do with industrial disputes) be kept strictly off the screen. As for the print being 'new', I'd guess that either the BFI have taken over a load of 16mm Ealing inventory from Filmbank (perhaps Canal Plus have swapped the NTD licensing contract - I don't know), or that it's just 'new' in the sense that they're only now trying to market it.

Some of the 16mm Filmbank stuff I showed toward the end of my student film society days was quite impressively gruesome...

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-10-2003, 08:47 AM:

I e-mailed the BFI, had confirmation of reading from no less than five people! Then a reply from Andrew. They have a 16mm print, and will let me book it, so I just need to fix a date, and pay for it.

Proved to be easier than I expected. Previous experience with the BFI, some years ago suggested that they were not the easiest of people to deal with.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2003, 09:32 AM:

One reason 35mm prints are quite competitive in price with 16mm prints today is the economies of scale. When only a few 16mm prints are made of a 35mm feature, their cost is increased by the cost of making the reduction duplicate negative and 16mm soundtrack needed to print them. So even though the print film and processing cost for 16mm prints may be less per copy, if only a few dozen prints are being made of a feature, the added cost of making the printing negatives often makes 35mm prints less costly. And if thousands of 35mm prints were made for the theatrical release, many of those are kept in inventory for the educational and institutional after-market.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2003, 10:42 AM:

Agreed entirely. I think what did it was when the multiplexes came along, that vastly increased the number of 35mm release prints being made of mainstream titles. At the same time video was replacing 16mm for applications which were previously the mainstay of 16mm specialist labs - educational films, training films, promos and industrial a/v presentations. So 16mm use was declining (and therefore becoming more expensive), while at the same there were more good quality 35mm copies of mainstream titles getting into circulation. So that encouraged the 16mm-only venues (e.g. student film societies and one-film-a-week arts centres) to upgrade to 35mm, and for arthouse titles to use the existing stock of 35mm prints. While all that was happening DVD started to appear, and by that time the writing was on the wall for 16mm.

In the early '90s the BFI experimented with making 16mm optical reduction prints from a 35mm release print onto CRI stock, but the results were not very nice. To be honest I can't say I'm too sorry to see the back of 16mm. Yes, a good print well-projected looks lovely. But there are hardly any prints left which would qualify as 'good', and if it's just as cheap to strike a 35mm copy, why faff with 16mm for the benefit of the minuscule number of venues remaining which can't show 35? It would make far more sense to offer support (including in the case of public arts venues, financial support) to upgrade to 35, IMHO.

quote:
Proved to be easier than I expected. Previous experience with the BFI, some years ago suggested that they were not the easiest of people to deal with.

They have a largely unfair reputation for restricting access - one urban legend is that of the 'National Film Archive hymn', sung to the tune of Eternal Father, Strong to Save with the chorus 'We have it, well we think we do; but sorry no, you cannot view.' But widening access has been a big priority for the BFI in recent years, and that is starting to bear a lot of fruit. It's good to hear that your booking was totally painless.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-10-2003, 11:50 AM:

16mm was very strong in this country, I get the impression that it was less so in America, to the extent that non-theatrical exhibition was almost entirely 16mm; 35 mm installations wre seldom seen outside cinemas. Schools, colleges, prisons, long stay hospitals, ships etc. even with permanent installations were usually 16mm. 35mm was also very much the exception rather than the rule for television production in Europe, at least since about the time of the conversion to colour.

35mm portable machines were never very popular, 35mm generally meant a proper projection box, carbon arcs, rewind roon, and all the rest of it.

I remember a proposal, sometime in the early '80s I think, from an American company, to use 16mm in smaller cinemas. The idea was not new of course, Pathé promoted their 17.5mm 'Rural' format before the war for public shows in smaller communities. The '80s proposal was to use modified Eastman 25 projectors. At that time it just might have worked. 16mm prints were then considerably cheaper, there were many cinemas with very small screens, transport of prints would have been cheaper, and there would have been no making up and breaking down of prints, most films would have been shipped on a single 6000 foot spool. Dolby A stereo tracks could have been used, and later Dolby SR and even DTS would have been possible.

I saw a demonstration in London at about the same time, using a Philips projector, Dolby Stereo track and a full frame image, with a 1.5x anamorphic compression, a much better idea than masking the tiny frame down to 1.85:1. I think the screen size was about 6-7 metres, as big as many cinemas at that time, and it looked and sounded pretty good. As others have said, the economics have changed totally since that time.

16mm is still often more convienient than video in a portable situation. Print quality was variable, and for many years tended to be rather poor. I have seen BBC material in screen one at the NFT, with stereo sound, and it looked supurb, but I suspect it was printed from the camera neg. I think 16mm probably has a worse reputation than it deserves, considering the tiny frama area, it's amazing what you can squeeze out of it.

Another problem of course, was that 16mm prints were often badly handled, and in poor condition.

I have even seen Super 8 projected on a scope screen of about 30 feet; I wouldn't recommend it, the light output was very low, but the quality of the image was not as bad as you might expect, and it had four channel (matrixed) magnetic sound! There have been some very good quality Super 8 prints made in recent years, 16mm ones of equal quality should have looked very good. Just don't push the screen size too far.

In one of the Documents in the Widescreen Museum from the 1929 ish wide film period, it was suggested that wide film was necessary for screens of over 24 feet wide, far less than we do with 35mm today.

Posted by Peter Hall (Member # 695) on 11-10-2003, 01:56 PM:

A former engineer from Pathe tells me that 16mm was used commercially in the 1970s here (uk) for soft core (OK, I said soft, perhaps totally soft, - they were pretty bad) adult films. ABC tried installing "4th" screens in some of their venues, running 16mm. Never caught on..

In NZ we had a draconian form of cinema licencing, which would not allow new cinemas on the grounds of excessive competition for old sites. The first site I ran had a legal restriction, stating that films must not exceed 16mm in guage and must be over 35 years old. We had to apply for a special licence to show "new" films - it cost us a special licence fee to run "Cat People" 8 weeks off the date to houses of 40 or 50. But we did run 16mm commercially for 10 years, using EIKI 3000s - when the government did finally change and we were allowed to run 35mm, our Pro35 and Speco platter, with the wonders of EPRAD stereo (surely a contradiction in terms ?)we thought the earth had moved..

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 11-10-2003, 05:34 PM:

When I was a trainee projectionist, in 1958, the cinema that I worked at could not get 35mm prints for some of the films they wanted to show as none were available. 'The Private Life of Henry 8th' is one title that I remember. I think that another was about J. Edgar Hoover, so we had to have 16mm copies.
We used a very clever idea from, I think, De Brie.
A 16mm mech was mounted on a special bracket on the wall. The film was laced up, and then the whole mech with the film was fitted onto another bracket on the Kalee 12.
We therefore had use of the 35mm arc lamp, and projection optics. As we were only using the centre of the lens I seem to remember that we had a very good picture up to about 25ft wide.
We got the whole programme on two reels.
Has anybody else come across this idea?
I remember going as relief projectionist sometime in the late 1960s to the ABC Rembrant, Ewell. This had been converted to a twin with 35mm upstairs, and 16mm downstairs running films that were about six months old.
The 16mm was terrible, especially in scope, as we were using a B & H machine with just a 250W halogen lamp. This idea of using 16mm was soon scrapped, mainly I believe to the bad condition of the prints after amateur projectionists had been using them for village hall, and home shows.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-10-2003, 06:15 PM:

Ernamann used to have something similar for the ernamann 8b

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-11-2003, 03:52 PM:

Hugh said, "We therefore had use of the 35mm arc lamp, and projection optics"

Sounds fascinating - how was the 35mm head removed? Did it swing away or was it lifted off?

Getting (way) back to Aileen, if you're reading this, could you raise the money for a Kinoton FP38E? It's a long-term investment. When the outlay is viewed over say, ten to fifteen years (or more) it doesn't look so bad! It'd be the best of all worlds - superb projection in both formats, and not just for legacy reduction prints from 35mm, but also for short films etc. shot on 16mm. Is there filmmaking activity in your college?

(NB 16mm is still desirable at least over here as an alternative shooting / printing format for short films and documentaries. Not everyone wants the look of DVCAM / DVCPro / DV / DigiBeta etc. origination / projection. Also, digital sound developments for 16mm have somewhat stayed its "execution"!)

BTW I also know the Hokushin X-600 very well, always thought highly of it, its sound reproduction is excellent (even better when followed by an audio compressor, noise gate etc. in the signal path). Sounds very like the image size might be way too big given the number of seats.

The only bugbear is the pressure plate framing device, where you also have to adjust the machine tilt! Oh well - you can't have everything.

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 11-11-2003, 05:18 PM:

It was a long time ago Brian, but I seem to remember that the Kalee gate assembly was removed, and the bracket for the 16mm put in it's place.
The 16mm mech was then slotted onto this bracket with the gate in line with the lens/arc centre line. Oh! how I wish I had taken some photos.

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 11-12-2003, 01:10 PM:

A major problem is that some "art" movies are just not available in 35mm. For example, I have an IB print of "The Red Desert". Similarly, some French films like the Marius, Fanny and Cesar trilogy are probeably very difficult to get on 35mm. In these cases, I feel that the 16mm prints are still far superior to video. This may change with the next generation of projectors to be cheap enough to afford (DLP three chip, ultra XGA resolution with a 16x9 matrix).

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-12-2003, 03:58 PM:

If you move outside the area of feature films, there is still a lot of 16mm being shown.

Yesterday I attended one of the regular Huntley Archives shows at the Fairfield Halls in Croydon, on the Southern outskirts of London. These shows used to be monthly, until the illness and recent death of John Huntley the founder of the archive, but are to be continued on a less frequent, but still several shows per year basis, by various other presenters; yesterdays show was presented by Johns son-in-law.

These shows are on various subjects, London cinemas and music halls, railways, famous local musicians, Croydon Airport etc. These shows are relatively inexpensive to put on, and attract good audiences. Last nights show was in the Ashcroft Theatre, the smaller of the two auditoria, and was getting on for full, something over 400 people I would think, at 7 pounds, about $10, per seat. Some shows have been in the larger Concert Hall, which seats just under 2000, and I have seen it almost half full. About 75% of the material shown at these events is on 16mm, many shows, including last nights, are entirely 16mm. The Concert Hall is fully equipped for both gauges, the Ashcroft Theatre has to use a Bell and Howell Marc 300 portable when they need 16mm.

On Monday I am heading up to Sheffield, (Full Monty land), to the Library Theatre, for an evening of transport documentaries. This is a smaller venue, probably seating about 250-300. It used to show film, and last year when I was there, the 35 and 16mm machines were still in the box, but non-operational. The venue is now used normally only as a live theatre, and another Marc 300 portable is brought in for the show. This is an annual event every November, and last year it was just about full. The year before somewhat less so, but the weather was poor. Still well over 75% full. I can't remember the ticket price, somewhere around 5 pounds , $7 ish, I think. A similar event is held in December, but I haven't been to that, so I don't know how well it does.

No venue is going to run these sort of shows every night, but they can be put on several times per year, and make good money. There are plenty of current feature films which do not attract audiences of anything like this size. They couldn't be done without 16mm capability.

If I was going to open a cinema (highly unlikely) I would install, in order of priority:

Two 35mm machines.

Video projector with Beta-SP, DV, U-Matic, DVD and VHS.

One 16mm machine, double band if possible.

Other video formats including Digi-Beta and Laserdisc. All video equipment to be multi-standard.

70mm, nice to have, but little product available.

Digital cinema projector, at the bottom of the list at present due to high cost and limited product availability.

Of course, things can change, a few years ago I would have put 16mm ahead of any video format.

Posted by Aileen D'Esposito (Member # 1967) on 11-12-2003, 04:16 PM:

brian, in your experience with the hokushin x-600, have you had any problems with keeping the image steady? I think over all problems i've had in running 16mm films on it, that has been the biggest. It gets to be almost sickening at times. The worst time was when we showed "Gummo" but i think that was partially in fault of the print. It has been to the point of unbearable though with prints that seem to be perfectly ok.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-12-2003, 07:10 PM:

Hi Aileen

Sounds like the claw mechanism is out of adjustment, or if not, the bottom loop is being set incorrectly by the auto thread mechanism. The projector is very sensitive to incorrect loop sizes, and I recall a situation where the machine I was using was consistently making the lower loop too large. In that instance the sync went noticeably out, since the loop was so big, however it only needs to be a frame or two bigger to start jumping in the gate. Likewise, it's possible the autothread is setting the top loop too large also, or too small.

Try threading up a film, run it as normal for a few seconds, then stop and carefully count the number of frames between the gate and the soundhead. For 16mm optical, there should be 26 frames from the gate to the soundhead. Start counting from the frame that is in the gate and end at the frame that is directly opposite the soundhead. (You will actually get 27, but this OK because the frame that is in the gate and the frame opposite the soundhead are counted as half frames).There are other ways of checking this, but they aren't as accurate.

The top loop should be big enough so that the film is vertical just as it is going into the gate. Try adjusting by one frame larger or smaller and see if that helps.

If none of the above apply, then it's most likely the claw mechanism. You could also check the alignment of the pressure plate, though I haven't had a problem with these before. Nevertheless, since it slots in and out for cleaning, it may have become slightly misaligned.

Hope this helps, it is a very well designed machine and should be very steady and quiet.

Thanks for enlightening me re. the Debrie / Kalee Hugh - and interesting to hear the type of 16mm programming being screened in the UK Stephen. It's also great that John Huntley's wonderful work is being continued.