Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New 16mm test film available

This is topic New 16mm test film available 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=010189

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 11-24-2009, 04:00 PM:

Boston Light & Sound would like to introduce our new BL&S 1682 16mm test film. This multipurpose film provides:

• Focus charts from 24-80 LPMM
• Travel ghost checks
• Both English and Metric dimensions for 1.33:1, 1.77:1 and 1.85:1
• Decimal aperture cutting indicators
• 50% checkerboard
• 400Hz tone (approximate)
• Emulsion position indication (A or B wind)
• Printed on Kodak Estar base sound negative stock
• Produced in accordance with SMPTE RP-82 and standards 7 and 233
• Available in 25 or 50 foot rolls

To see an image: BL&S Test Film
To place an order e-mail Mark Grundstrom at markg@blsi.com or call 617-787-3131 x107.
Boston Light & Sound, Inc. 290 North Beacon St. Boston, MA 02135

Larry Shaw

Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 11-24-2009, 05:17 PM:

Any idea how much these are?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-24-2009, 07:00 PM:

Very good, Larry! Do you have any sound focus film?

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 11-24-2009, 08:08 PM:

Hey guys, I have been told that the studios no longer make 16mm copies. True?

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 06:57 AM:

Robert, I wouldn't be surprised if that is true.

What venue would even use 16mm anymore? There are some art-house guys that still use it, but usually that is only when a film isn't available in 35mm.

For new releases, 1080p or 2K HD would probably be preferred over 16mm given a choice between the two, although the colors and dynamic range of film would still be better.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-30-2009, 08:38 AM:

It's mostly for older films, but the artsy crowd seems to like it, and it can look better than HD (but usually doesn't). It is also the standard format for student films (though some are in 35mm). Finally, the equipment is small and light and can be useful for temporary setups (outdoor screenings, etc.).

The real weakness is the sound quality, and also the fact that most installations were never done very well and are lacking in some important respects.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 11:36 AM:

Scott, I shoot 16mm almost exclusively myself; I'm talking about 4th generation release prints on 16mm stock.

16mm stock, if used through a direct-output film recorder can resolve, in my opinion, higher than 1080p resolution.

Too bad it is never used that way, just as 4K is almost never resolved out to 35mm release prints at +4K.

16mm, with the exception of the high speed, 500T stock, is definitely a 2K-compatible acquisition format.

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 11-30-2009, 05:06 PM:

Jarrett, I believe it works out to 30 something percent over RP-40. Of course the setup costs of RP-40 (35-PA) were paid off long ago and we won't sell the volume that RP-40 does. But contact Mark Grundstrom for the answer.

Tim, thanks. We have been thinking of making that too. Maybe PN. Any suggestions?

I think Robert meant 16mm prints of major studio releases like us old guys used to load on the airplanes. I haven't seen a 16mm print of a major studio release for a few years.

IMHO 16mm will be around in museums, archives, etc for many, many years and some filmmakers continue to use it for releases.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 07:05 PM:

Larry, that was what I was going to mention (Airplane 16mm movies) but didn't do so due to not wanting to give away my age!

I had heard that the U.S. Military (mostly navy) had continued to distribute films on 16mm, but that was, of course, prior to HD formats.

Good to know 16mm film is still being supported in whatever capacity. In tandem with film recorders straight to print stock, I feel it could definitely provide better resolution than a 2K DLP.

At the very least, 16mm reversal films used to provide much better resolution with low-speed stock and proper exposure!

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-30-2009, 08:01 PM:

Larry: Buzztrack and 7KHz (that way, a person wouldn't need an RTA to adjust the optics). [thumbsup]

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 08:06 PM:

Larry: One other Q: Why on estar stock?

Or are the "Big Two" (Kodak and Fuji) no longer manufacturing 16mm print stock anymore?

While 35mm prints are almost universally estar now, I don't think I've seen a single 16mm print that isn't on some sort of acetate stock. . .

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-30-2009, 08:34 PM:

When I was just testing the Eastman 25b at the Museum (before the intermittent rubber coupling gave up the ghost), I happen to run a reel of ANASTASIA (1953 20th Cen Fox version, not the animated thing of late). It was scope and IBTech. It was spectacular. Anyone who thinks a video projector can look as good or surpass (gag) that film richness, even with the anamorphic in place, needs to see what 16mm can really do. It surprised the heck out of me. I forgot how good it could look.

Then again it reminded me of a screening of MICROCOSMOS in that same theatre. The 16mm print was an optical reduction off the 35mm negative and I remember walking into the theatre when the picture was running -- I watched it for awhile and was really happy because I thought, "gee, they must have gotten a 35mm print" because the picture looked 35mm good. Originally they said they could only get a 16mm print. But as I stood there watching, it looked "35mm good." Then I looked up at the booth to confirm and, no, it was the Eastman 16mm projector running. Yeah, it sounded like shit, but, hey, that's why they invented DTS to sit nicely in the 16mm soundtrack area. [thumbsup]

As for Hollywood releases on 16mm, the last I heard, maybe a year ago, SWANK was still making current release available on 16mm (as well as on DVD).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2009, 08:41 PM:

Estar for dimensional stability, for sure.

I'm definitely looking for Pink Noise for 16mm. 7KHz is nice for just getting the slit lens right but does nothing about helping one set slit loss.

Super-16 would be nice too.

Pink noise is at the top of my list. Certainly Buzz-track is also essential.

While I appreciate combining 400Hz with picture...the down side is a very pricey "sound" test film. Like most 16mm techs, we hoard the "good stuff." Thus, I would prefer not damaging my good image balancing out a pair of 16mm projectors.

Also, do you know if your tone corresponds to P16-SL level which was at or near 100% modulation. If yours is at 50% modulation, that would work too.

Steve

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 08:45 PM:

Wow, that is amazing there are still 16mm prints, and in a good way, Frank!

BTW, do you know if there actually is a digital sound synch option with new 16mm prints? I was disappointed to learn that they never came up with a cyan or high-magenta sound track solution for 16mm.

What does a 16mm print cost to rent these days, assuming it's for private flat-rate exhibition, not a percentage of attendance?

I always assumed that the only modern use of 16mm was portability compared to 35mm, or when an older film was only available on 16mm.

Also, when you talk about 16mm prints, I assume they are reduction-printed onto the final 16mm IN/DN, not from a 35mm internegative to a 16mm release print stock directly. Doing the latter would, I'd assume be even more expensive for what a lab generally charges, than just making a straight 35mm stirke off the IN.

BTW, sorry if I have taken this thread off topic from the subject of test film.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-01-2009, 07:43 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
7KHz is nice for just getting the slit lens right but does nothing about helping one set slit loss.

If he decides to make a pink noise film that would be great, but the vast majority of 16mm projectors will never see an RTA. That's why I did not also list 1KHz tone... just not that many of those installations out there. [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-01-2009, 08:07 AM:

Karl -- why would you want cyan tracks on 16mm? They sound worse, and few (if any) installations could accommodate them.

There is no problem with 16mm print stock--it is the same as the 35mm version, and is readily available. Kodak (not sure about Fuji) no longer makes color acetate-base print stock. All color prints on 2383, 3383, and 2393 are ESTAR-base. B&W print stock is available on both acetate and ESTAR base. Note, though, that there have been 16mm ESTAR-base prints going back to the 1970s, at least. Airline prints were ESTAR (at least those that I have seen).

Foto-Kem is the largest 16mm lab. in the world; they do very good work, and also do reductions from 35mm. Almost every lab. that does 35mm can handle 16mm processing and printing (most lab. equipment is dual-format). I believe that the ideal reduction method is 35mm IP->16mm IN->16mm print. The ideal blowup method is 16mm camera neg->35mm IP->35mm print, though this requires "zero cut" negative cutting to avoid having the picture bounce at each cut.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2009, 08:36 AM:

Tim...16mm always used 400Hz as the "level" film. It is primarily just for balancing out a changeover system or getting the gain structure close...but primarily balancing the two machines.

As for the majority not seeing an RTA...perhaps the existing portable projectors...however the pedestal and all new installations would see an RTA if pink noise was available. Again, I like 7KHz for getting the slit lens right...but you tell me...how do you set the slit loss on a 16mm preamp without pink noise or a reel of calibrated tones? SMPTE hasn't made the multi-frequency reel in a long time.

The current crop of professional 16mm projectors (Kinoton FP38 series) have phenomenal soundheads. They have great preamps too. It would be nice to not have to rely on the factory calibration or doing things by "ear". Fortunately, we do have one of the SMPTE multi-freq reels with calibration card...but talk about hoarding!

Steve

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-01-2009, 10:37 AM:

What does Kinoton use at the factory?

--jhawk

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 12-01-2009, 01:50 PM:

Some answers:

Film stock: The biggest reason for using Estar base sound negative stock is the hi-con B/W print stock is NLA. Color or B/W release stock is inapropriate for our purposes.

Sound test films: Good reasoning for both PN and 7kHz as well as Buzz. We have pricing to make them. We'll wait to see how much 1682 we sell before making other 16mm films though.

Tone on 1682: This is not intended to be a high quality test tone. Since we were using sound negative stock it was relatively easy to add the tone as a "it's there if you need it" feature. Certianly it's way more useful than clear stock. I don't know the % modulation.

Super 16 test film: As there is no true standard we wouldn't likely make this. Plus I believe demand would be extremely low.

What they do at the factory: Good question. I'll see if I can find out.

-Larry

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-01-2009, 09:35 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
how do you set the slit loss on a 16mm preamp without pink noise

I never said that Larry should make 7KHz film instead of pink noise, as he had already mentioned his desire to produce it; he asked for suggestions and I gave him mine. I merely offered my reasoning for suggesting it. Great if he does pink noise. [Smile]

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 12-05-2009, 02:20 PM:

Great to see this Larry. You may also want to consider offering this in the super 8mm format. The collector data base may be larger then 16mm and its going strong world wide. New print still being struck. Even if you left off the audio portion the video test pattern would be welcomed.

Thank you.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-06-2009, 01:58 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
What does a 16mm print cost to rent these days, assuming it's for private flat-rate exhibition, not a percentage of attendance?

I rented 'The Proud Valley' on 16mm from the BFI at Christmas, I think it was three years ago. It cost me about 50 pounds, but that didn't include delivery charges, which I avoided by collecting the print myself from the BFI offices at Stephen Street in central London.

I don't know what a more recent film from a more conventional distributor would cost.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-06-2009, 02:47 PM:

When I was serving on six month active duty before I launched my photographic career as part of my US Army Reserve obligation, I used to go to the base theatres a lot at Schofield Barracks. The main theatre was a 35mm house but a smaller venue at the training centre where I had undergone basic training was 16mm. I cannot say I was impressed with the picture because I was not. I also remember watching movies on airplanes in 16mm and it least the scope movies were projected in their original aspect ratio.

-Claude

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-06-2009, 03:27 PM:

quote: Larry Shaw
Super 16 test film: As there is no true standard we wouldn't likely make this. Plus I believe demand would be extremely low.

Actually HDTV has cause an increase in Super 16 filming, especially PBS stuff. The demand may still be low but it should be better than it was.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 12-10-2009, 03:06 PM:

FWIW, all of the "Law & Order" variants originate on super 16, and a network source tells me "NCIS" is actually shot on super 8.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-10-2009, 05:36 PM:

Jeff, and you believed him? Super 7....for Hi-Def broadcast?

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-10-2009, 06:24 PM:

Might be Super Duper 8, which films a widescreen image using the soundtrack area as well. But yeah, I doubt they'd be shooting any show, HD or NTSC in Super8.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-10-2009, 07:20 PM:

Wasn't Lenny Lipton at one time trying to make a Super-8 3D process?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-10-2009, 07:50 PM:

Jeff, your information is dated. According to CML (Mark Weingartner and Jendra Jarnagin, compiled by Paul Miller), Law & Order is shot on the Panavision Genesis (1080p).

This change happened as of last fall, I understand.

NCIS is also shot on the Genesis.

--jhawk

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 12-10-2009, 07:50 PM:

Hey guys, complain to CBS not me! Anyhow, remember that these things go straight to video from the negs and never see film from that time on.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-11-2009, 07:39 AM:

After years of saying that the use of Super-16 was future proof for HD, or words to that effect, the BBC now say that Super-16 is not suitable for HD production; only 35mm film or certain HD video formats are now considered acceptable. Most television production on film has been 16mm for many years in this country; I think the BBC changed over at about the time of the conversion to colour, and 16mm was used before that for things like news.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-11-2009, 11:29 AM:

I wonder what the reason is that the BBC doesn't find Super 16 mm HD-friendly. If they're shooting 7207, which I think is rated at about 80 lp/mm, and the width of a Super16 frame is 11.76 mm, that's still higher than 1080 resolution.