quote:

---

We believe that as we enter the high definition age, the A-Minima is an invaluable tool for those primarily originating for film projection and HD video. Consider these points :

Compressed HD video with low color sampling (3:1:1) seems to be OK for primary tape to tape grading but initial 2k daVinci tests show problems in secondary correction. Film is full resolution, luminance and chroma, with no compression.
Our tests so far reveal that the complete resolution of 1920x1080 is recorded to the Super16 film negative while portable HD cameras are limited to 1440 pixel equivalent resolution.
An HD24p camera is expensive, heavy and power hungry ; the A-Minima can be its mobile and discreet companion for SFX shots and difficult to reach locations. It can as well be used as a primary or second unit on pure film projects.

---

Most labs still offer 16mm prints, made on Kodak VISION Color Print Film 3383.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-13-2006, 05:44 PM:
 
It's still alive as an archival preservation medium, but even here is losing ground. We recently secured project funding to have a 993ft Dufaycolor 9.5mm film from 1944 preserved. Our usual full preservation route for 9.5 originals is to go to a 16mm interneg for preservation. On this occasion the lab we usually use for these jobs told us that there would be a delay of several weeks to get supplies of 7272, but that an optical blowup to 5272 could be done immediately (stock was available off-the-shelf). The cost was only around 15% more once the cost of the projection print was factored in, because they charge a lot more per foot to blow up a 16mm interneg to a 35 print than they do to contact print a 35 neg to a 35 print. By going to a 35 interneg for preservation, the total cost of the job rose from around £7k to around £8, which I decided was worth it for the increased scratch and dirt resistance on the dupe.

If the original had been 16 I'd still have wanted a contact dupe to 16 if the condition of the original allowed, but now the cost differential in printing small gauge to 35 for preservation has reduced so much I'd consider it straight away in other circumstances. As others have noted, it's virtually disappeared as a current release print format - most of the prints still being shown are from archives or a few remaining older commercial rep prints.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 07-13-2006, 06:13 PM:
 
I don't usually post here, but this topic caught my eye.

Though 16mm reduction prints of 35mm features are a thing of the past, there has been some work done to retain the format as an option for low-budget or student filmmakers screening in specialised venues or film theatres.

Digital sound for 16mm is a reality via DTS's system, and there is another system which I helped develop, which is aimed at short filmmakers:

http://www.avcom.co.uk/digital16.htm

16mm isn't dead - there are many filmmakers who dislike digital video and who want to do just that, i.e. make films
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-13-2006, 09:32 PM:
 
A DVD projected by a D-Cinema projector completely blows 16mm away on our screen at 21 feet wide. It has to be that width to fill top to bottom. We made an A/B comparison at the request of a local film maker a couple years ago, it just confirmed what we suspected. The 16 at half size was pretty good but unacceptably small. School systems everywhere dumpstered the 16 projectors 10 years ago. Here, at the surplus sale they couldn't give'em away, nobody would take the for free. About a hundred went to the dump or for scrap metal.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 07-13-2006, 10:07 PM:
 

quote: Bill Enos

---

A DVD projected by a D-Cinema projector completely blows 16mm away on our screen at 21 feet wide

---

What was the ratio of the 16mm print? Was it masked or Super 16?
I refuse to believe that DVD can beat it. I've seen the same comparison on large screens (and not just DVD but Digital Betacam as well) and although the 16mm may be slightly smaller it's far better and the DVD's and other tape formats don't come close. I mean I like DVD as an option and I am not opposed to it but 16mm is 10 steps ahead.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-13-2006, 10:28 PM:
 
The film was a 16 print of some significant film, it came from a commercial distributor, the DVD was an off the shelf purchase. One thing worth noting though is that a DVD in 2.35 projected to full screen (36 feet) does not look good. A DVD of a 1.85 film looks pretty good at the normal flat width and is far superior to 16. The extra magnification for 2.35 kills image quality.
 

---

Posted by Ian Woloschin (Member # 3709) on 07-13-2006, 10:47 PM:
 
I still use 16mm weekly (during the school year). We get cartoons from Swank, one for each week of the semester (so 14 or 15 at once), and show one cartoon before we do our weekly feature presentation (generally a relatively new second run movie on 35mm).

I'd like to consider myself professional .

The cartoons we get are quite old, a few over the past semester were actually in black and white and the film itself looked and felt like it had had a lot of showings.

The coolest 16mm I have is a little movie called "Bridge to the Future", a 20 minute movie from around 1955 that was created by my college (Worcester Polytechinic Institute), and was the basis of the foundation of the club that runs the weekly movies now. We would charge the school money for each showing, and well, we've grown a bit since then. So as long as my club is around and showing movies, we'll keep on using 16mm, even if it's just for cartoons and the occasional trips down memory lane.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-13-2006, 11:31 PM:
 
I too have found that the 16mm print straight from the lab does out perform a DVD or SP beta of the same production, It is important to ad that these are professionally produced films are not commercial productions ie 35mm optically reduced ect, but film school shorts shot and produced in 16mm.
Last year the students only produced 1 x 16mm print out of over 30 films made, most were shot on 16 or super 16 and finished on tape. This year 6 of the films were finished on 16mm!
Now our 16mm projector is a portable xenon type (equiped with a mint prime schneider lens) and the video projector is a new 7 segment color wheel HD W/S DLP projector. The difference to me is subtle but obviously the students agree that 16mm exibition is preferable.
I personally have worked with better 16mm projectors.
Our video projector has no problem filling the 34 ft scope screen with a scope dvd, progressive scan mode in the dvd player helps alot.
 

---

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 07-14-2006, 12:22 AM:
 
I used to set up and run 16mm for the San Diego Latino Film Festival and the San Diego Asian Film Festival, for the handful of 16mm shorts (and the occasional feature) that would show up, but its time has sadly passed.

For the 2005 Latino festival, we ran four (!) features in 16mm (one with PowerPoint subtitles superimposed directly onto the the projected 16mm image, another one the first 'scope 16mm print I ran in more than a decade). That was the last 16mm I would run for a fest...later that year, the Asian folks decided to do without 16mm for their 2005 event. The last nails in the 16mm coffin were hammered in when I lost the use of the observation ports due to the recently-installed digital preshow projectors (the former slide projector ports replaced with bigger ports for the 2K Christie d-cinema beasts that also took up residence in the booth).

I felt seemingly inexplicable twinges of sadness as I handled that relative bounty of 16mm prints for the 2005 Latino event. Now I think I know why...
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-14-2006, 02:04 AM:
 

quote: Tony L. Hernandez

---

I'm starting to have this horrible feeling that 16mm is dead.

---

Yes, and 35mm is next! Start hoarding those prints, now!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-14-2006, 08:13 AM:
 

quote:

---

Yes, and 35mm is next! Start hoarding those prints, now!

---

35mm is far from dead. Still well over 10 BILLION feet of 35mm prints made annually, and still growing volumes. Still over 100,000 35mm screens in the world. Still the most cost effective way of presenting movies on theatre screens.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-14-2006, 02:23 PM:
 
John, I'M JOKING! (Ref to: Digital Cinema)
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-15-2006, 07:45 PM:
 
I'll agree, shooting a DVD thru a home use color wheel DLP machine is definitly inferior to GOOD 16. Project those toons with a 2k cinema machine, not a $600 home machine, no comparison.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-19-2006, 07:30 AM:
 
Bill, How come my $35,000 e cinema projector out performs your more expensive d cinema projector in scope? do you think its the DVD progressive scan mode?
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-20-2006, 01:26 AM:
 
well perhaps its the PAL diference, 576 lines verses 480 for NTSC, that gives me a fantastic DVD scope image
But that does remind me that 16mm has got a resolution well in excess of that, otherwise it would not have been considered the High Definition production medium that kodak have sold it as to the television stations.
Bill what sort of lens did you have on your 16mm & size of xenon bulb when you did that test?
what age is your d projector?

cheers cameron
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-20-2006, 09:16 PM:
 
The D-Cinema machine was using the composit output from the DVD player as due the need for a software upgrade prevents the D-Cinema projector from accepting a Pscan or S-Video input. DVDs seem to run a wide range in image quality. At scope widths the Pscan and S-Video are much better of course than composite.

The 16 used was an Eiki EX6000 with a 1K lamp. The lens was a Kowa Prominar-16 1:1.2/50 with a Sankor Zoom .75-1.25 at the low end of its range, it is used to demagnify somewhat from the output of the prime lens. The projector has less than 500 hours on it.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-21-2006, 08:50 PM:
 
Thanks Bill Sounds like you have a very well equiped bio box.
 

---