quote:

---

With 16 mm film, you've got it made.
Creatively, technologically, and economically, our state-of-the-art stocks deliver greater flexibility, and control than ever before. Discover why 16 mm film is the perfect choice for your next project.

---

quote:

---

Kodak introduced 16 mm motion picture film and equipment in 1923 as an inexpensive amateur alternative to the 35 mm film format. Compared with 35 mm film, the 16 mm format offers advantages such as smaller, less-expensive cameras and lower film stock and developing costs. Because of these factors, the 16 mm format was quickly adopted for professional news reporting, corporate, and educational applications.

---

 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-02-2004, 03:01 AM:
 
they're dwindling, but some filmmakers are still shooting and releasing 16mm films, well out of the mainstream of course. i've seen 16mm prints that look a whole lot better than today's run-of-the-mill 35mm prints. seen a lot worse too.

carl
 

---

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 08-02-2004, 05:32 PM:
 
16mm exhibition is still hanging on by a thread in the U.S.

Swank still releases a few new titles on 16mm:
http://www.swank.com/college/16mmrelease.html

Also New Yorker still makes a few of them:
http://www.newyorkerfilms.com

Both companies have radically cut back on their 16mm releases within the past couple of years, though. Relatively few colleges still maintain 16mm projectors, plus the window of opportunity to screen 16mm prints before a video/DVD release has typically shrunk down to only weeks (sometimes even days) instead of months.

Plus it's even getting harder to get classic films on 16mm because as old prints wear out they are generally not being replaced.

16mm does remain popular among private film collectors, however, with all sorts of films being traded daily in Big Reel magazine, on ebay, etc.

I used to operate a 16mm film series of contemporary foreign and indy films but that is not very practical now because so few new titles are being made. Bottom line, I think, is if you want to project film (not digital) and want have a good selection of titles to choose from 35mm is really the only way left to go.

Ed
 

---

Posted by Bob Healey (Member # 1003) on 08-02-2004, 10:43 PM:
 
Speaking as one of the college cinema types, we only screen a single 16mm print a year if we can help it. For all but one title, if we can't get it in 35mm, we don't screen it. The only exception to this is Rocky Horror Picture Show. We aren't allowed to play that in the normal auditorium, only in a heavily tarped gynamsium. We won't show DVD/VHS on principle (plus renting an electronic projector here costs almost as much as the film), so its 16mm.
 

---

Posted by Frank Jerkic (Member # 2446) on 08-03-2004, 04:34 AM:
 
The only exception to this is Rocky Horror Picture Show. We aren't allowed to play that in the normal auditorium, only in a heavily tarped gynamsium.
My mind boggles why do you have to screen the 16mm print in a heavily tarped gym? what goes on in there?
The reason I screen 16mm is that I go to a small town once a month to screen a movie, the guarantee on 16mm is less than half of the $250 guarantee required for 35mm prints which then would make the trip unviable
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-03-2004, 06:30 AM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

The use of 16mm prints is certainly declining, due to the "convenience" of video.

---

"Convenience" is a nice euphemism.

A few years ago, a decade-old twin was shut down & the booth equipment packed up & donated to a university in the area. I was called by the office of the dean of A&S to look at the stuff & see about installing it at the venue (former church) where the media/film department heads had been running foreign film & 'classics' series advertised & open to the public. I was sent over to the doctor who headed the program, who seemed completely disinterested. He rarely even looked at me. "So how much would it cost?" "Is the equipment any good?" "But where will you get movies to run?" Where are you getting them now? Turns out they were running VHS on an OLD consumer video projector. There was an old Swank catalog on his bookshelves; I picked it up. "That's from a long time ago when we ran those old 16mm movies." I showed him there was a section with 35mm as well as video format titles listed. "Isn't this where you get the ones you're running now?"

For one of the few times, he looked directly at me & said "Why should I order from them, when I can just go to Blockbuster & rent them for the weekend cheaper?"

"But what about licensing?"

He looked away, & didn't say anything more. At all. Then he started working on some stuff at his desk. End of the meeting. Program still runs same way.

The "convenience" of video in exhibition is overwhelmingly the facilitation of theft. That's what disemboweled the 16mm market.
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 08-03-2004, 08:49 AM:
 
You'd probably see more 16mm use if 16mm was used more (you can read this forward or backward ) 16mm actually can give an outstanding picture quality and would be perfect for smaller screens. I've been working on 3 new small screens and 16mm would have been perfect for this application. Even though the film runs at a slower feet-per-minute speed, the optical track can sound quite good on a high quality pickup and stereo is possible. And shipping a complete feature on a single reel is no problem.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-03-2004, 09:02 AM:
 

quote: Frank Jerkic

---

My mind boggles why do you have to screen the 16mm print in a heavily tarped gym? what goes on in there?

---

Here in the states, Rocky Horror Picture Show is a very popular cult classic shown around the country at midnight. The film generates heavy audience participation. If they showed the film in there regular auditorium it runs the risk of heavy damage. By showing it in their gym with the heavily tarped floor there is no risk of damage to the floor from all the craziness that goes on.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-03-2004, 11:44 AM:
 
Frank: Some of the items that get thrown around the auditorium during a properly done full audience participation RHPS include:

Rice
Water (from sprayers or squirt guns)
Newspaper
Confetti
Hot dogs
Toast
Toilet Paper (purists use only Scott® brand)
Playing Cards

...among other 'unauthorized' items that get smuggled in there and can cause major damage

You can just imagine what the auditorium is going to look like after the show ends... which is why many venues don't play RHPS anymore.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-03-2004, 12:24 PM:
 

quote: Edward Jurich

---

Even though the film runs at a slower feet-per-minute speed, the optical track can sound quite good on a high quality pickup and stereo is possible

---

quote: Frank Jerkic

---

The only exception to this is Rocky Horror Picture Show. We aren't allowed to play that in the normal auditorium, only in a heavily tarped gynamsium.
My mind boggles why do you have to screen the 16mm print in a heavily tarped gym? what goes on in there?
The reason I screen 16mm is that I go to a small town once a month to screen a movie, the guarantee on 16mm is less than half of the $250 guarantee required for 35mm prints which then would make the trip unviable

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

IF ONLY: 16mm is a terrifically viable projection format for smaller screens (certainly fine for probably more than 50% of the smaller mulitplex screens). If ONLY the sound were better. Recently DTS has been available for 16mm, giving it the potential of the same sound quality as the best digitally equipped 35mm cinemas....if only DTS had been available on 16mm 10 years ago and caught on, it might be a really different scenario today.

---

I agree. The image quality could be very good on 16mm feature prints. After all, they were made from 35mm negatives printed to make a 16mm duplicate negative on pin-registered optical printers.

Sound was always a limitation, but today, timecode on the print allows full DTS digital capabilities:

http://www.dtsonline.com/cinema/specialvenues/

quote:

---

DTS is capable of playing back up to 10 channels of digital sound for 16mm, 35mm, and 70mm prints in 5 perf, 8 perf, and 15 perf

---

quote:

---

Perhaps most significantly for independent filmmakers was the first time screening of two 16mm films – Victor Viyuoh’s Mboutoukou and Marzena Grzegorczyk’s Faithful – with DTS digital soundtracks; a technical feat that was key in Marzena Grzegorczyk’s decision to film on the format. “Like many other independent filmmakers, I was reluctant to shoot my project on 16mm because of the medium’s most notorious limitation; its dramatically poor sound quality. However after learning that it is now possible to make a 16mm film with DTS sound, I changed my mind.

“My experience with DTS has been fantastic. My film, wonderfully mixed by Todd Grace at Warner Bros., has absolutely pristine sound. It has been screened around the world and the DTS teams in Los Angeles, New York, London, Rome and Tokyo handled everything professionally; DTS is a reliable and practical solution to a long standing problem.”

---

IMHO, 16mm anamorphic never really caught on as a release format, with too many widescreen features transferred as pan-and-scan 16mm 4:3 aspect ratio.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-04-2004, 02:02 AM:
 
There was a period when we were not equipping our 16mm installations with scope lenses...and...without exception...a 16mm scope print would show up. We now always have 16mm scope included.

A nice feature of the new Kionton FP-38E projectors is that one is now afforded all of the lenses for 35mm projection since a 70.6mm lens barrel may be used. This includes scope formats as well.

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. Still the standard 1.33 16mm print remains about 95% of all the films I've come across.

In out circles...16mm installations remain steady, if not increasing. I attribute that quite a bit to the Kinoton FP-38E. With this machine...16mm can be thought of as an option rather than having to have an additional projector with its associated footprint on the floor and ports. The FP38E also makes 16mm look and sound much better than anything else I've ever seen.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-04-2004, 02:10 AM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-04-2004, 05:21 AM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-04-2004, 06:49 AM:
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 08-07-2004, 10:31 PM:
 
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."
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2004, 07:51 AM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 08-08-2004, 09:25 AM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-08-2004, 09:32 AM:
 
"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
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
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 08-08-2004, 09:54 AM:
 
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.

---

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

---

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.

---

quote: Edward Jurich

---

Guy running a cartoon show with many nitrate prints had stacked the reels on the floor

---

quote: Edward Jurich

---

he sees fire in head and opens top magazine to see if reel is burning

---

quote: Edward Jurich

---

With magazine door open fire jumps around fire rollers and sets reel on fire.

---

quote: Edward Jurich

---

He then pulls reel out of magazine and tosses across room, right into pile of nitrate cartoons staked on floor.

---

Is this serious?

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

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-08-2004, 03:51 PM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-08-2004, 04:37 PM:
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-08-2004, 07:05 PM:
 
In the early 1970's Trans Lux and some independent operators where showing 16mm in some locations with 1.85/1 masked prints. Bell and Howell had a 1.85 aperture plate available that clipped into the front of the spring gate runners, behind the lens.
 

---

Posted by Frank Jerkic (Member # 2446) on 08-10-2004, 09:11 PM:
 
Now that some 16mm prints come out in the letter box style, would anybody be able to inform me what size lens would one need to fill the sheet, the screen is 12ft high and the throw from the projector is 50ft.
Thanxs in advance
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-10-2004, 10:32 PM:
 
21.7mm Try the ISCO Vario-Kiptaron 20-60mm...it is the best lens ever made.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-11-2004, 03:44 PM:
 
Steve - are these lenses still stock items or do they have to be built to order?

I remember screening a 1.85 masked 16mm short at a film festival about 10 years ago...the screen was about 50ft x 20ft on Scope and our image was about 18ft x 10ft (that's excluding the matte). The DP had shot entirely on 50 ASA Kodak stock and the result was amazing. It was a beautiful picture in every sense.

BUT...the Director is now a HD-freak...again, I doubt he would ever return to 16mm for short or low-budget work. In fairness I think the question I asked previously belongs in another forum, as it is an aesthetic issue, not a technical one.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-11-2004, 08:42 PM:
 
I do not know if ISCO keeps stock on them. Generally when I need one is when I also am selling a Kinoton FP-38E....which takes 3-4 months to receive...so the time-lag on the lens is never an issue. Generally though I can get them in under a month...note they are not stocked in the States. We generally have one at the ready for Kionton/Eiki and one for ELMO.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 08-12-2004, 10:02 AM:
 
Steve, how does the Vario-Kiptaron compare with a fixed focal length lens? I am thinking of the old B&H Film-O-Vara add-ons that seemed to detract from image resolution.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-12-2004, 04:22 PM:
 
The ISCO Vario-Kiptaron (20-60mm ONLY) are better than any lens...fixed or zoom and I am not limiting it to just 16mm format lenses...They beat current Schneider and ISCO super-duper lenses...it just seems to have had some sort of devine intervention in its design or something...it is that incredible. Too bad it is only for 16mm.

For Philips, Kinoton, Bosch and Bauer, it is part number: 481.11

For Eiki (same as above but with grooves for the Eiki focus: 481.30.

For Elmo, part number: 481.01

For Bell and Howell, I think you use the 481.11 and add an adapter number 105.00482.03.21. This has an ID of 42.7 and an OD of 52.5mm.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-13-2004, 10:03 AM:
 
And for Eastman 25B? Which BTW anyone wants to buy cheap? let me know; I've got 2 to sell both in good to excellent working order. Hitch is, you gotta come get 'em. AND they have the original Strong carbon arc lamphouses, but it is universal pedestal and will accept Xetron and many others without modification. For that matter, we've got two B&H 16mm JANS too. We are renovating and the scum administration wants to put in "all new" cause someone whispered in their ear (the one that's connected to their cockroach-sized brain) "new is better."

Sooner or later I will post this stuff appropriately.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-13-2004, 06:57 PM:
 
Thanks for the info Steve, good to know these items are still available.

Mr. Angel - you have not one, but two of the greatest 16mm machines ever built? That's an offer no-one can refuse.

Does your refit spec. include 16mm? Also, what is the parts availability today on the Eastman 25 models?
 

---

Posted by Frank Jerkic (Member # 2446) on 08-13-2004, 09:35 PM:
 
Steve thanxs so much for that valuable info on the ISCO Vario-Kiptaron 20-60mm lens, seems like heaps of people agree with your view, now the easy part is trying to find one for my Eiki hmmmmmm.......
Thanxs n Regards
Frank
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-13-2004, 09:49 PM:
 
Whomever distributes ISCO theatrical lenses into your country should be able to order one for you. For instance, any Strong dealer in the USA can order it through Strong International.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-13-2004, 11:30 PM:
 
Even better than the ISCO 99mm lens (intended for 70mm film)? Whoa.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-14-2004, 02:32 PM:
 
Yes, Brian, the Eastmans are superb machines, over-designed with the Eastman designers and engineers told to make the best 16mm projector they could design with no consideration for cost. Only thing they neglected was changeable aperture plates. I was able to have a machineist fabricate a circular plug that snaps into the existing plate and produces a 1.85 aperture. And yes, we had FOUR of these beauties. Two in both our theatres. When we put in 35mm in the big theatre, a new port was cut in the booth wall and the Eastman was moved over to accommodate the Simplex XLs. Then "extra" 25B from that booth was moved to add 16mm capability in a sister theatre. The two that are at issue now were taken out of our smaller theatre because the college theatre department (academic departments have MUCH more political clout than us) said that film simply takes up too much time out of the production schedule for their gawdawful theatre productions. The Eastmans were removed from that booth and put in storage for 15 years while I patiently lay in wait for my chance to snap pictures of the department chairperson having sex with farm animals, that being my opportunity to have TOTAL polical power over the theatre. Alas, farm animals would have none of it (farm animals' tastes are more refined than we give them credit for), so my plan was thwarted.

We've outfitted one of the Eastmans to play 6000ft long-play reels -- I was quite simple -- just blocked up the existing arms and adding a more powerful motor to the take-up arm.

As for parts, ICESCO in FL has SOME parts. Eastman stopped supplying parts years ago.
 

---