Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New releases 16mm?

This is topic New releases 16mm? 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=011457

Posted by James Collins (Member # 7565) on 05-22-2013, 11:56 AM:

Hello,

Just wondered if new hollywood films are ever released in 16mm. Is it possible like lets say to get 'django unchained' as a 16mm print?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-22-2013, 12:32 PM:

I guess that the days that 16mm and even 8mm prints of feature films were made upon release are over [Wink]

.

There used to be a limited market for those formats, for in-flight entertainment systems and military distribution.

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 05-22-2013, 03:42 PM:

Last 16MM prints we did in Toronto were "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" and "Dukes of Hazzard".
in Japanese...

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 05-24-2013, 01:04 PM:

Non-theatrical distributors like www.swank.com rented 16mm prints of new films up until about 2000 (I think Disney titles were available for a few years longer--maybe until around 2005). I don't think you will find any much newer than that but some of the older titles may still be available for rent in 16mm. Doesn't hurt to ask, I suppose.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-24-2013, 01:50 PM:

Does the stock and lab services availability in the US still exist to enable the production of 16mm release prints of features that were shot either on 35mm or digitally?

When new mainstream features were routinely released on 16mm for airlines and the non-theatrical market (universities, film societies etc.), as a general rule they were either optically reduction printed from a 35mm fine grain IP to 16mm reversal (usually if only one or two prints were needed, e.g. of a foreign language title), or a separate 16mm IN was made and the prints struck from that.

Since the discontinuation of Ektachrome, Kodak doesn't make 16mm reversal stock anymore. I'm guessing that they still do 2393 in 16mm (though their website doesn't say). 3274 is still available (reportedly), so I guess it would still be possible to make a 16mm IN, either from a 35mm IP or as a digital filmout, and then make prints from that. Is there any lab left in the US that offers this service? If so, the cost would be eye-watering.

A couple of years ago, the last mainstream lab in Britain stopped 16mm release printing. Prestech still does, according to their website, but at a rough guess, based on the last time I had a 16mm work done by them in 2005, you would not get much change out of $20k if you walked in with a feature film length 35mm IP and asked them to make a 16mm IN, track neg and print.

I simply can't see that being viable for the tiny number of prints that would be needed for the number of venues that might still want to rent them.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-24-2013, 02:53 PM:

Even if 16mm prints were struck for recent release features, the cost alone for for private purchase would be totally unreachable.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-24-2013, 06:12 PM:

I checked with Swank a couple of years ago and they said no 16mm prints have been struck since 2006.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-25-2013, 04:55 AM:

As for 8 mm, Derrann Film Services which used to sell new prints in the UK closed in 2011. They had these made by a lab in the North after Rank ceased printing smaller than 35 mm several years previously. Derrann used to do the striping, recording and slitting themselves.

A couple of weeks ago I downloaded a Kodak Motion Picture catalogue. It does still list a print stock in double Super 8 1-3 format, i.e. a 16 mm stock perforated for two 8 mm prints running in the same direction, but I would guess that it's made to order, and I doubt if anybody is ordering it now. There used to be a 1-4 format, with perforations down both edges like double 8 camera stock, for two prints running in opposite directions, but this seems to be unavailable, as does the 35 mm stock perforated for Super-8 printed four-up, as was used in the days when large volumes of 8 mm printing was done.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-25-2013, 09:58 AM:

The infrastructure to make 16mm prints and optical reductions from 35mm definitely exists here in the US. The "artsy" crowd that makes experimental films likes the format, and student films use it as well. I show a few of these each year.

Pretty much every lab here is capable of processing and printing in both 16mm and 35mm.

The usual weak point with 16mm prints is the quality of the optical soundtrack. Picture can look good or terrible depending on the quality of the lab and optical work.

Not sure what is available as far as major-studio releases, but Swank and Criterion Pictures would be the people to talk to about that. I haven't shown 16mm prints of any major releases after 2003 or so, but I also haven't really dealt with the sort of venues that would show anything in 16mm when 35mm prints are available since then.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-27-2013, 12:42 PM:

There were some experimental 16mm prints made I believe at the Film School at NYU, with DTS tracks to do away with that 16mm weakness. The DTS code was recorded in the normal soundtrack area so the prints were not backward compatible, but the sound was the same quality and multichannel as 35mm DTS digital tracks. No DTS reader was necessary because the code was sent to the DTS player directly off the existing slit reader in the projector.

Using 16mm in commercial theatres with smaller screens had been done on and off over the years (Jerry Lewis Cinemas, Trump Plaza Cinema in NYC using modified Eastman 25Bs). But this was before DTS and so the sound was the limitation, but evidently it was passable. DTS came along too late to revive the 16mm idea with probably would have worked very well in quite a number of smaller multiplex screens -- it certainly would have saved film stock and shipping costs, but digital came along and had those advantages squared so no one was interested in film in any format.