quote: Frank Angel

---

the screen size that will be the issue -- then the correct focal lenght lens to fill it

---

Most portable 16mm projectors come with 2-inch lenses.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-30-2007, 09:22 PM:
 
Long-shot possibility: I have a 350w portable Eiki xenon machine (only one, but should be OK for your 30-minute film) with 1.5" and 2" lenses (and scope lens). It's only good for (at most) a 10' wide screen. I'd rent it to you cheaply, but you'd have to pick it up on the Boston area (shipping would cost more than the rental and wouldn't be worth it; it weighs a ton). For sound, I have had good luck running the speaker output into a direct box and then running that into a mic input in the house sound system.

Most likely, you'd have better luck looking in NYC or DC for something that would be easier for you to pick up and return.
 

---

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 05-31-2007, 06:58 PM:
 
Scott, is that the Eiki you had in Providence couple years ago? I remember it as having terrible sound - muddy and wow-y. Picture was good, but could barely make out the dialogue, and music was even worse.

Sorry, don't mean to trash your axe but 'twas so.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-31-2007, 11:46 PM:
 
Same machine, but I think that the issue was with that print. Good prints sound fine on it. Well, as "fine" as 16mm optical tracks can be made to sound, anyway.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-01-2007, 12:32 AM:
 
Thats the advantage of betacam, much better audio than 16mm, Its mono with limited high frequencies.

A DVD could provide 5.1 sound combined with a progressive scan player a good look. A hard drive HD file straight from a laptop could also be an option. HD Video projectors today can provide a nice image especially if originated on film.

Has the footage been edited on negitive film? or is it going to be digitally converted to film? Is the soundtrack stereo?

Some of the pros and cons of 16mm or Digital options
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-01-2007, 06:26 AM:
 
16mm can actually sound pretty outstanding. When one sees or hears a many generation dupe, 16mm gets a bad name. An equivalent of an EK print (off OCN), 16mm normally looks better than a 35mm release print and sounds rather clean and decent.

With DTS available, 16mm can also have 5.1 (or even 10 channel) audio too. I don't think Beta (digi or otherwise) and definately not DVD has anywhere near the look of 16mm and I've seen the best of each.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-02-2007, 05:53 PM:
 
Apart from Woody Allen, um who makes a mono mix nowdays? With screenings like this, it tends to be either the camera crew or the sound guys who are pleased, not both! I have no idea how this film was produced and what would be best for its presentation.

I have to admit that the Australian pal 576 line system, when played back through a progressive scan deck to a high quality digital projector, looks ok, where as a 16mm print, through a good projector with a prime lens would look better. As for NTSC I assume it would look pretty poor. So perhaps a HD master straight from the hard drive is the only possible other option?

As for DTS, Yes you can, if you have an unlimited budget! but then again if you had that sort of money, wouldnt it be cheaper to blow it up to 35mm? These guys dont seem to have that sort of money, if they are looking to borrow a 16mm projector here!

Steve I have heard some great sounding modern 16mm prints too, unfortunatly over the past few years here in Australia, from what I have heard it appears to me that the labs, now doing so little 16mm have lost the ability to consistantly make a fine 16mm mono soundtrack!

Obviously if the 16mm projector is not of the highest quality, both the camera and sound guys will be unhappy. From my own experience. these aspects should be cheaked at the earliest possible time, as leaving these tests to the last minute usually leads to heartbreak.

Best of luck with the screening.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-02-2007, 10:02 PM:
 
I'm curious...why would DTS invoke an unlimited budget? It it that expensive? I know the players are not...the medium is not...the DTS "Track" is recorded as a regular audio track on the film and, depending on the projector, may or may not need DTS's buffer box to clean the signal to the player. The disc isn't that expensive so what is left is the mastering and the creation of the soundnegative with the DTS track versus the audio track.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-03-2007, 04:50 AM:
 
And payments to DTS for the rights to use the system? I don't know how they charge, but it's possible that the fees are calculated in such a way as to be disproportionately high for a single print, or a small number, of a single film.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-03-2007, 08:17 AM:
 
I know EIKI and possibly ELMO once made 16mm projectors with stereo capability, and although I have never seen a 16mm print with an actual stereo soundtrack, seems like with the addition of some noise reduction, say a Dolby or dbx encoding, you could get some very decent sound, even matrixed out to 4 channels.

I know a projectionist who worked at the Fort Hamilton army base in Brooklyn and he said when the Army used to get prints from the studios for their theatre, they were special stereo prints made just for the armed forces circuit. I was dubious, but he insisted. They were using Eastman 25Bs and he said they were specially retrofitted with stereo cells and run thru a CP50. He said without question they were stereo prints.

And I am with Steve -- I've run what was a 16mm "show print" of MICROCOSMOS and when I walked into the theatre to take over the shift, I watched the film for a little while and I had to look up to the booth to see what port the projection beam was coming from because it looked as good as any run-of-the-mill 35mm high speed print. Sound was perfectly listenable too.

If this print was made from an edited neg in a good lab, there is no reason why the release print shouldn't stand up to a critical viewing even if the camera men and sound guys are in the audience.

Anyone know what DTS would charge to use their system for a DTS track on a single print? I can't imagine they would price themselves out of the market so that a producer would abandon using their system.

Then again, if the stereo sound is really that important, if you have a pristine print -- no splices -- and a DVD or Digbeta copy, you could sync the video to the projector and use the video soundtrack. A projector with a synchronous motor should be able to sync with a DVD player for 30 minutes. In fact, wasn't it mentioned somewhere in one of the threads here that there is a DVD player that can lock to an external pulse signal? Interesting alternatives.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-03-2007, 10:21 AM:
 
I know that one of the principal uses of DTS 16mm is for student films, so I can't imagine the rights are exhorbitant, and would expect they waive them. Maybe the bigger deal is whether you can avoid getting a timecode negative struck, perhaps by using an already-made DTS timecode negative, or SMPTE timecode.

While we're here, Jeffrey, your posts are none-too-clear. Are you looking to rent a projector, "borrow one" (for free), or buy one? Or looking to rent a house that has one already?

I think Steve's company (Cardinal Sound & Motion Picture, in MD) is probably a good one to talk to...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 06-03-2007, 12:09 PM:
 
If the film print ends up eventually being shown in a decent number of venues, is the cost of a transfer to 16mm plus the costs associated with renting, moving, and setting up 16mm projectors on multiple occasions really going to be all that much less than the cost of making a 35mm print?

If you're looking at the 16mm DTS option, that's yet another piece of equipment that's not likely to exist in most venues; for example, MIT has a room which has a 16mm projector, and a DTS player, but the DTS player is only set up for 35mm.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-03-2007, 01:11 PM:
 
Perhaps the strongest selling point of DTS-16mm is that it is approximately no work to set up. Connect analog 16mm output into DTS timecode input. Go home.

(Now, DTS makes a special preamp you can use, but it is not necessary in most cases. Most theatres with DTS-35mm aren't "set up" for DTS-16mm because they've never had the need. But it's just a matter of a cable.)

In re costs, the implication is that Jeffery already has a 16mm print. The 16mm print you have is a a lot cheaper than the 35mm print you don't have. And yes, I think the blow-up costs for feature length 16mm to 35mm are large. I gather five figures.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-05-2007, 03:40 AM:
 
Steve, just my take on 16mm film makers, they tend to have pretty low budgets considering the cost. If they had the money a 35mm dolby sr print would really have been ideal and could run in 100% of cinemas world wide ect.

DTS 16mm deserves a
 

---

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 06-05-2007, 10:37 AM:
 

quote:

---

I know EIKI and possibly ELMO once made 16mm projectors with stereo capability, and although I have never seen a 16mm print with an actual stereo soundtrack,

---