Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super-8 vs 16mm

This is topic Super-8 vs 16mm in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001185

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 08-24-2002, 09:08 PM:

Brad wrote the following in relation to another topic

quote:
While I'm thinking about it, have you ever compared the actual image size of a 16mm frame to a Super 8mm frame? Remember that the 16mm perforations are quite large, as is the mono optical soundtrack. The difference is really not all that much. Plus you can buy brand new prints from Derann films in the UK (as well as other vendors) for around $300 US. Why be stuck paying top dollar for old used library and airline prints of 16mm movies, mostly in 1.33 aspect ratio and all of them in optical mono when you can get brand new prints of recent full length feature films?

I found this to be an interesting line of thinking and worthy of some further discussion in a separate discussion. Perhaps even John Pytlak might wish to chime in with his thoughts on the image quality of the two mediums. The emphasis here is not much so on the theoretical image quality (eg pixels/inch) but on user's practical perceptions of the difference's between the two mediums when used in reality. Is the difference that noticeable?

Do readers agree with Brad's comments? Is the difference in picture quality only marginal? Brad's comments were of course framed (no pun intended) in the context of home use.

I suppose the acid test is whether if, as a projectionist, someone displayed an image on a wall in a home situation but you couldn't see or hear the projector - could you tell whether it was super-8 or super 16?

If Brad's arguments do hold up then it is arguable that super-8 with magnetic stereo sound (and the possibility of recording 6 channel digital stereo on the tape) is a better option for home users than 16mm. I'm sure on the other hand that there will be plenty of detractors who will prefer 16mm.

One other point regarding super-8 film - is it still possible to buy super-8 sound film? I read at the following url that Kodak had discontinued manufacturing it?

cheers Peter

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-24-2002, 09:56 PM:

Brad, what is the image size difference between Super 8 as compared to standard 16mm? I don't know. What would be the image size differences on a screen 30 feet away while using the same size lens if both formats contained a sound track, optical or magnetic?

I know little to nothing about either format.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-24-2002, 10:02 PM:

Kodak has stopped production of magnetic strip for Super 8 and 16mm camera film.
The super 8 prints such as made by Derrann the U.K. use Kodak stock which they paste stripe and record after picture development.
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 08-25-2002, 12:34 AM:

What would it cost comparatively to get into a home set-up for 8mm vs. 16mm with quality components, ready to go. Would you want some sort of cinema processor, or will a normal home theatre processor work. All this talk has gotten my mind churning about having a home set-up in a more manageable medium than 35mm.

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-25-2002, 01:09 AM:

Expect to spend between $1000-2000 for a quality Super 8mm projector, such as a Beaulieu 708EL Pro or an Elmo GS-1200. You will want to junk the piece of plastic known as a lens and replace it with a Schneider. The best one on the market was made by Schneider for Elmo and is commonly referred to the f1.0 lens. They run around $300. Past that you will almost certainly want to upgrade the light source (some GS-1200s came from the factory with xenons in them). Don't forget about an anamorphic lens too, so you can play those scope films. (You can use regular 35mm anamorphics.) As for sound, nothing can beat a dbx encoder/decoder for re-recording the prints, but overall nothing special is required.

By the way, a 400 foot reel of Super 8mm film = a 2000 foot reel of 35mm film. You will note some features are listed as 4x600, meaning 4 30 minute capacity reels.
www.derann.co.uk

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 08-25-2002, 01:18 AM:

I think the format choice would be determined by what type of films you wish to collect. If it's the old stuff, 30,s 40,s 50,s plus shorts & cartoons you'll find a whole lot more in 16mm (used). If it's more recent fare your after then I think you can't go wrong with Derann's Super 8 prints. Their quality can border on amazing at times. I don't collect super 8 but, several friends do and after a vist I sometimes get the urge to take the plunge but, 3 formats (35mm, 16mm & video) sure doesn't leave much room in the booth.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-25-2002, 07:36 AM:

Personally, I'd still take 16mm over Super-8...there is something like a 3X size increase (square inch image area) and I find the picture on 16mm to be more stable (jump/weave). However, I have NOT looked at the "high-end" of Super-8...perhaps there is something there.

As for 16mm...NOTHING beats a ISCO Vario-Kiptaron 20-60mm (not to be confused with the low-end Vario-Kiptaron that sells for a 1/3rd of the price 35-65mm). The good Vario-Kiptaron will rival just about anything made today and make 16mm look as good or better than 35mm (Depending on the actual print of each).
http://www.iscooptic.de/english/dbl/kiptaronb.php

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 08-25-2002, 11:54 PM:

Thanks for the info guys, I will add a Super 8 projector to my wishlist. Already have two extra scope attachments sitting around the theatre, so that would not be an added cost. And $1000-2000 doesnt seem bad for a home set up, when a TV, amp, and a couple of speakers cost about the same. After getting set up with sound (speakers, amp) and a screen it would prob end up in the $3000.00 range.

------------------
Adam Fraser www.pinestheatre.com

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-26-2002, 02:17 AM:

Hi Peter,

I am sorry I was not able to join in on this discussion until today because I was very busy during the weekend. I hope Brad does not mind if I make a sales pitch on this thread to anyone who is interested in buying super 8 sound films because I have several complete features I do not need anymore. One of the film is "GREASE" but it is not the scope version. It is full screen. I also have the complete "SATURDAY NIGHT FEAVER", "THE WARRIORS" and "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" - all Paramount features. I also have some MGM "TOM & JERRY" original theatrical shorts that has been spliced on long reels. If you or anyone is interested, please send me an EMAIL.

I bought all of these films when I worked with high school yearbook staff members taking pictures for the kids when I was the school's contract photographer and I used to host parties at my studio after hours for many of my teenage friends. We would spend hours watching all of the above mentioned films and have a lot of fun.
I still have my Elmo projector but I dont know if it works anymore because I have not used it in years. This projector can play movies on these these very large reels that can hold about an hour of film played back at 24fps. The size of the reels is about 12 1/2 inch in diameter. If anyone is interested, this projector is also available.

-Claude

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-26-2002, 10:00 AM:

Sounds like you have either an ST-1200 or a GS-1200. The GS is the preferred choice, as it can record stereo. Also, some GS models can playback optical sound as well.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 08-27-2002, 07:45 AM:

The "Focal Encyclopedia of Film & Television Techniques," ©1969, SBN 8038-2268-5, has a table of "Relative Image Areas" in the entry for "Film Dimensions and Physical Characteristics."

RELATIVE IMAGE AREAS

(RELATIVE PROJECTED IMAGE AREA) GAUGE AND FORMAT
------ --------------------
(334.9) 65 mm Negative and 70 mm Positive
(220.2) Technirama Negative AR 2.35:1
(194.9) VistaVision Negative AR 1.85:1
(124.2) 35 mm Full Aperture Negative
(121.2) 35 mm CinemaScope AR 2.35:1
(100.0) 35 mm Academy Standard AR 1.37:1
(95.1) 35 mm TV Transmitted Area
(83.0) 35 mm Wide-Screen AR 1.66:1
(74.3) 35 mm Wide-Screen AR 1.85:1
(60.2) Techniscope Negative AR 2.35:1
(21.8) 16 mm Standard
(20.5) 16 mm TV Transmitted Area
(15.4) 9.5 mm
(6.6) Super-8
(4.4) 8 mm

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-27-2002, 08:50 AM:

As with "Godzilla", "Size DOES Matter".

For print formats, larger projectable image area is most important because it allows more light on the screen without causing excessive heating of the print by the radiant energy of projection. For 35mm prints, a 7000 watt xenon lamp is about the practical maximum. For 70mm, you can go much higher.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/fall97.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/winter97.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec98.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march99.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/feb97.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 08-28-2002, 05:39 AM:

Hi again

My Eiki Sl-1 arrived today and naturally I took it it out of its box and took it for a spin. Unfortunately no intruction manual came with the projector but it did not take long to work out which way the reels ran and which way way the film ran through the projector.

I was really impressed with the special effects that came with the projector. After a couple of minutes I was watching the screen and suddently the film just sorted of melted on the screen as I have seen in some movies. [ Just kidding ]

No seriously - I had an old black and white film on the subject of making files that Buddy had provided me with. The film ran perfectly and the sound was ok. It wasn't Dolby surround but it was only a training film.

Here's some comments I noted. For indoor use I noted that at a throw of about 5 metres I could get a picture of about a metre or slightly less maximum. This is a little annoying because I think that for indoor use a picture width of about 2 metres would be good. However with the scope lens on, the width expands out signficantly and gives more of the cinematic feel. In just plain jane mode (no scope lens) I had expected that one could blow the picture up much larger.

I then took my projector outside and projected an image onto the back wall of my house from a similar distance (my house is painted white). It was quite amazing the way that a projector could take an otherwise unassuming wall and animate it with a 3 metre wide image. I have yet to dig out my projector screen and try the projector with that but I assume that the image should improve further.

Even though I have only been able to project a black and white image so far I have been impressed with my new toy. The Eiki is well built, easy to use, has a simple film feeding system, stores compactly and gives a good clear picture with good light. The only downside is the limitation in terms of not being able to project a large image over a short distance however this can be compensated somewhat by the use of a scope lens with a scope print. I'd recommend the unit to anyone.

It will be interesting now to have a look at a super-8 projector and compare the results. I might get a chance this weekend to do that at my in-laws place.

Also today my Roadshow 16mm catalogue arrived. A glance down the listing brought a smile as I noted that 'La Cage Aux Folles' was on the listing. I hope it isn't dubbed. It was pleasing to also see 'Grease' there. No sign, however of 'What's up Doc?'. Anybody know who distributes that film in Australia?

A quick (but tricky) technical question for John Pytlak as well. In a darkened room with a good 16mm projector (250 watt bulb) running a scope lens, how small/large an image should be projected to guarantee a 16 footlamberts result?

cheers Peter

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-28-2002, 05:47 AM:

Most 16mm portables seem to come with a 50mm prime lens as standard. It should be possible to get a shorter one, which would give you a larger picture over the same throw distance. Might be worth looking on Ebay or trying to see if there are any 16mm enthusiast groups in your part of the world.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 08-28-2002, 05:54 AM:

Thanks Leo

I just quickly checked my projector and yes it has a 50mm lens. I shall keep an eye out for a shorter lens.

cheers Peter

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-28-2002, 07:46 AM:

Peter asked: "A quick (but tricky) technical question for John Pytlak as well. In a darkened room with a good 16mm projector (250 watt bulb) running a scope lens, how small/large an image should be projected to guarantee a 16 footlamberts result?"

Too many variables to answer:

How efficient is the illumination system of the projector?

What is the gain of the screen?

Most tungsten lamp 16mm projectors should be able to handle a screen up to about 2 metres wide with good illumination.

But it is best to actually measure the screen luminance:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring98.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march2000.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/june2000.shtml

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-28-2002, 07:54 AM:

If 250 watts is regarded as 'good', then I'd imagine we're talking about halogen rather than tungsten. At one of the many fleapits I worked to keep myself alive as a student, we had two Hell & Bowell portables which were identical in every respect apart from the lamphouse - one was tungsten, the other halogen. The tungsten machine (with a separate reflector and condenser lens) had a 1kW bulb. The halogen projector, the lamps for which were a bulb and dichroic reflector in a single, disposable unit, used 250 watt bulbs.

Their light output was to the naked eye virtually identical, though as you'd expect, the colour temperature was radically different. I did once have to run a show with these two machines that included a changeover, and a customer remarked that it was a pity that the colour seemed to have faded so much during the last half of the film!

For what it's worth, I suspect that the reason why 50mm primes are shipped as standard is that 16mm portables were intended to be used in classrooms, training and conference situations rather than in homes. In this kind of environment you would typically want a throw of 5 to 10 metres rather than the 2 to 3 you have in a living room.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-28-2002, 09:29 AM:

When I converted my RCA Hollywood projector to 24 volt 250 watts from 240 volt 2000 watts, both type of light sources as Leo well described, the light output was considerable higher and much whiter. The screen was a Dulux brilliant matt white painted surface.

Peter,

I hope you will able to get a very good quality 25mm lens to double your picture width. With my 25’ throw I upgraded my standard 50mm lens for academy & scope. And purchased a good quality 37.5mm size lens for 1.85 wide.

My first projector was a Bell & Howell 631, had a variable aperture plate, which worked satisfactory on a masked screen. The RCA was much better though with the 1.85 aperture plate machined and fixed into a set of gate runners, I was able to file out the plate to fit precisely. Also a vast improvement with the RCA compared to the B & H was the extremely smooth optical framing adjustment by the claw movement.

Here is a picture of the best type of Tape Film Splicer to look out for, made in Italy by CIR would be ideal for you. The special myler splicing tape you will need is 15mm in width. I didn’t bother doing a photo of my Rewinder as it is duel 16/35 which is geared ideal for 16mm 5000’ long play reels. You should be able to pick up a decent cheap small 16mm Rewinder just for 1600/2000 reels. Do check that the spool security clips are complete and sound though before you buy.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-28-2002, 09:38 AM:

Locking flanges are for wussies! Just wear a suit of chain mail whenever you rewind a film, that'll do fine!

Very hard to get but very useful if you can get one is a variant of the 16mm CIR joiner in Bernard's picture which has a set of retractable pins on both edges of the film path, so you can tape over both sides without having to turn the film around horizontally.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-28-2002, 10:07 AM:

I assumed a more efficient modern tungsten-halogen lamp with integral reflector.

Obviously, a xenon or metal-arc (Marc 300) lamp would be more efficient and a higher color temperature.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-28-2002, 01:32 PM:

Neumade makes an excellent 16mm "wrap around" splicer.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 08-29-2002, 12:58 AM:

Thanks everyone

In terms of splicing at least oen distributor I have spoken to has indicated that they prefer that home users don't do any splicing. They would prefer that the film was returned and they will fix it. However for any films I buy a splicer would be handy.

Thanks John and others for the technical help. One day when everything is set up I'll see if I can find someone with a light meter to come around to my place and measure the light output of my projector and how changing the size of the screen affects teh luminosity.

cheers Peter

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-29-2002, 08:03 AM:

There's a version of that CIR splicer that has adjustable pins on one side of the splice. It's very handy for making good butt splices on a film which has shrunken a bit.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-29-2002, 08:21 AM:

Peter said: "Thanks John and others for the technical help. One day when everything is set up I'll see if I can find someone with a light meter to come around to my place and measure the light output of my projector and how changing the size of the screen affects teh luminosity."

For a given projector and lens, screen luminance is directly related to the image AREA. If you double the AREA, you halve the screen luminance. If you double the width (quadruple the AREA), you need four times more light from the projector.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 08-30-2002, 03:43 AM:

Thanks John

Can someone please explain to me a little about lenses. I have a 50mm lens - doe the 50mm refer to the width of the lens or the focal length? Also why will a 25mm lens give me twice the size picture?

cheers Peter

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-30-2002, 05:56 AM:

Peter,

It is to do with focal length! A shorter focal length, will give the larger size picture. And the longer focal length, the smaller picture! to explain in easiest terms. A 25mm lens needs to be good quality as your picture is twice the size of your standard supplied 50mm lens.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-30-2002, 06:19 AM:

Think of it like camera lenses in reverse. With a 50mm lens on your SLR, you'd need to stand about 6 feet away from the average car to get all of it in the picture. With a 28mm wide angle lens, you'd only need to be about 3 feet away.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 09-03-2002, 03:01 PM:

FWIW: I have a 20' throw for 16mm and use Eiki 350 watt xenons. I found that my best shot was an Eiki 38mm (1.5") prime lens with an Eiki .75-1.25 zoom adapter to take it down to roughly 30mm for flat. For scope I remove the zoom adapter and use the 38mm prime. I get just short of a 10' scope image, which is all my screen can take, and a 6' flat image. I know that zooms are supposedly less than perfect, but the image is terrific, and short of having a custom ground 30mm prime lens there was no way to accomplish what I needed to do. For those who are curious, Eiki charges $350 US for the 38mm lens new. I got my zoom and scope lenses from ebay for around $80 US each. In terms of light output, I find the Eiki "half brightness" switch position fine for flat films (+/- 12 amps), and generally use full brightness (+/-16 amps) only for scope films or really dense IB Tech prints. Overall, I think it's the rare home screening room that can live with the standard 2" lens.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-04-2002, 02:38 AM:

AFAIK the only issue with zooms is that they absorb light like I absorb beer. If you have a slightly overpowered lamp to start with, then no problem.

A student film society I ran many years ago did exactly what you do (this being 35mm): on each projector we used one prime lens plus a Schneider zoom converter for 1.38, 1.66 and 1.85, and the prime plus an anamorph for 'scope. We had 2.6k lamps on a screen that I would guess was 25ft across in 'scope, so all we needed to do was to wind up the amps a bit to compensate for the zoom. Even then the lamp was well within limits and I honestly don't think it made a visible difference to the optical quality of the projection.