From: Highland Mills, NY USA
Registered: Jun 2003
posted October 21, 2017 08:23 PM
Since the image being broadcast was not likely received on a tv larger than 27” I’ve always wondered why tv networks chose 16mm as the format of choice rather than the more economical 8mm guage. It couldn’t have been the need for a longer throw.
From: Charleston, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2005
posted October 22, 2017 01:04 PM
Most likely 16mm was chosen because prints were struck in that format for nontheatrical use and the resolution at the time was higher because the labs were used to printing it.
-------------------- Movie Lovers Do It in the Dark
posted October 22, 2017 04:58 PM
Also the telecine machines in those days weren't anywhere as good as today. On some Dr Who Dvds the home movies on 8mm on a moderrn machine beat 1970 transfers of 16mm hands down. Also they often used much less than the full area of 16mm cropping on all sides, possibly due to stability issues. If you did that on 8mm there would be much less definition.
I won't quote the article in Movie Maker where a contributor did measurement to "prove" 625 line TV had more definition than 16mm.
From: Bothell, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2010
posted October 26, 2017 12:09 AM
Super 8 was used in some television broadcast. It sounds like the ease of sound recording was the biggest restriction until Super-8 sound came about but it was a little late to the game.
posted October 26, 2017 03:41 AM
Yes news reporting is one area it was used in. In some cases in areas where 16mm would be suspicious and Super8 would look like home movie making. I'm thinking of politically sensitive area where the BBC and ITN did this.