8mm Forum: wouldn't it be great.........

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » wouldn't it be great.........

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: wouldn't it be great.........

Mike Peckham
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1461
From: West Sussex, UK.
Registered: Jun 2003

posted August 29, 2004 04:16 AM

.......if this; http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15254&item=3836671712&rd=1 could be adapted for super 8....... [Big Grin]

Mike

--------------------
Auntie Em must have stopped wondering where I am by now...

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted August 29, 2004 11:28 AM

Interesting machine Mike. I am suprised that it has two track optical sound. I did'nt know that 16mm films were ever capable of reproducing stereo sound.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Barry Attwood
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1411
From: Enfield, U.K.
Registered: Aug 2003

posted August 30, 2004 03:10 AM

Derek Simmonds told me a few years back about 16mm twin track machines, he said there were more machines made than films with the double stereo soundtrack, unfortunately for 16mm owners tests on this new system only started in the late 80's, when film sales, and more importantly to 16mm film producers, 16mm film rentals were going down drastically, so the 16mm twin track films never really got of the ground, with just a few test reels ever made ((I believe, that is!) Derek said he had seen one by the way)).

| IP: Logged

Ricky Daniels
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003

posted August 30, 2004 04:36 AM

Yeah, I can verify that stereo optical 16mm did/does exist.

I ran a demo 16mm Stereo Com Opt film at a BKSTS technical conference back in the early 80's on a converted portable ELF 16mm xenon machine and very good it was too.

What a shame for the 16mm collectors that it never took off.

Rick.

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted August 30, 2004 12:14 PM

Hi Ricky,
This is the main reason (lack of stereo) I do not collect 16mm films. Yes the 16mm picture has to be better than super 8mm, but oh what a difference a well recorded stereo track makes to the impact of super 8 film. I can't imagine having to listen to my favourite MGM and FOX musical's with just a mono sound track.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003

posted August 30, 2004 12:50 PM

Paul, I'm not sure 16mm picture quality is necessarily better.

I've never seen anything on 16mm that compares to the best Derann Disney prints of the '90's, or good copies of films like "Predator" or "Terminator".

Of course 8mm is a lot more variable, but all the releases during the late 1980's and 1990's have the advantage of being new prints on new stock, unlike 16mm which, unless you're very lucky, is of course used (often well used). Even super 8 prints made from 35mm release prints, as opposed to negatives, don't suffer from as much visable damage as a well used 16mm and have the advantage of being printed on much finer grain stock than many pre-'90's 16mm prints.

Maybe I've just been a bit unlucky with my (admittedly small) 16mm collection, but even the better ones have what most people who collect 16mm consider acceptable levels of damage, be it light scratching, slight unsteadiness due to sprocket hole wear, splices, etc.

Give me super 8 anyday. Less costly on film cleaner too!

I'm always harking on to everyone about my super 8 copy of "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but despite it's built-in damage from the 35mm original, it rivals anything I've seen on 16mm and the few 'scope copies I've seen in the past cost three to four times as much.

Unless, of course, anyone has an immaculate 'scope 16mm copy to sell at a reasonable price!!! But then again, as you've pointed out, it would be mono wouldn't it as opposed to my magnificent sounding stereo (courtesy of the very generous and patient John Clancy) super 8 version.

I'll stick with 8mm.

| IP: Logged

Steven Sigel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 701
From: Massachusetts
Registered: Jun 2003

posted August 30, 2004 03:55 PM

Hi Rob --

I can't agree with you there -- a good 16mm print has a lot more detail and sharpness than a super 8 print. Even the Derann Disneys (which look really nice) don't hold up to a modern 16mm original. In fact - I believe that the 8mm derann negatives were made from the 16mm negatives that were used to make the 16mm prints - so they could hardly be better.

Remember -- 16mm has 4 times the area that super 8 has.

With that said, I will certainly agree that a nice low-fade super 8 print is better than a beat up faded 16mm print.

When I collected Super 8 - I was always bothered by the lack of sharpness and detail in the picture -- I like to blow up my images very large -- 13ft wide picture, and you really start seeing the difference there.

There's one other interesting difference between super 8 and 16mm -- when you buy an "A" quality 16mm print, you can almost always resell it and get your money back -- or more. I've got stuff that I bought years ago that is worth many times what I paid for it. Super 8 on the other hand seems to depreciate over time -- When I sold off my super 8 collection, I took a loss on almost every print.

| IP: Logged

Chris Quinn
Master Film Handler

Posts: 372
From: England, Bedfordshire.
Registered: Nov 2003

posted August 30, 2004 04:34 PM

Strange reading this thread about stereo tonight as i have just listened again to an experiment i tried on an old 200ft disney reel I Wanna Be Like You. This is of course mono, but after i had just acquired my sync box from Pedro i re-recorded it in stereo, thinking that it would not sound to great it turned out unbelievable amazing, it was almost as good as coming straight from the DVD source and not from the old brown magnetic stripes, and the balance stripe stood up to the recording no problem.
So i suppose another reason for collecting 8mm is you can do stuff like this and change the feel of an old mono film by making it stereo, as long as you can find a stereo source.

Chris.

--------------------
The other half thinks i'm up to something. Shes right of course.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted September 01, 2004 02:47 AM

Steven, I didn't get the same impression of Rob's post. He said his modern Super 8's were generally better than his small collection of 16mm. This is similar to my own experience but I do have a couple of 16mm items that are outstanding. Generally though the stuff produced up until the early 80's is a bit soft. Conversely, most of the moderns Super 8 stuff (from about the last 15 years) is very good and certainly gives the older 16mm prints a run for their money. But please note, I used the word 'generally' here.

Rob cites Predator, The Terminator and Raiders of the Lost Ark as good Super 8 examples. He's not wrong. I think Predator is one of the best Super 8 prints of all time and given good enough light output can fill the biggest Super 8 screen easily. The Terminator and Raiders are not as good but are still excellent.

It's a shame you gave up on 8mm. Perhaps it's because they're isn't a collectors convention to attend where you can get a good idea as to how good Super 8 really can be. It must be difficult only having the opportunity to judge these prints by actually buying them. Quite an expensive risk.

Chris, you're absolutely right - re-recording a print is one of the things that makes the hobby so interesting. Remember you were recording on genuine Kodak pre-stripe with the Disney extract though. All sound stripe varies so check down the leader before ever committing to a re-recording.

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003

posted September 01, 2004 02:39 PM

Steven, yes of course, you're right, a top notch 16mm print has much higher definintion and potential picture steadiness than an equivalent 8mm version.

What I really meant was that a 16mm print is not necessarily a better option than an 8mm version where a brand new 8mm print is available from a mint condition negative and the only 16mm version available is an older one that has been used for hire or professional use, in which case excessive use is common and some print wear is inevitable.

I think I'm right that the 16mm negatives for Derann's 8mm prints of the Disney films came straight from the states. Were these same negatives used to strike 16mm prints? If so, where are they? The quality would certainly be superior if anyone knows how to find them.

I ask, because I tried in the past to find nice 16mm copies of some of the Disney classics and could only trace at best prints made some 20-25 years ago. They were OK, but a bit grainy by modern standards and all had some degree of wear; the odd scratch, etc. whereas the new prints on 8mm by Derann were bleamish free, provided you got in early and bought a first print run. And the 16mm version cost a lot more!!!

This has generally been my experience with 16mm and the type of titles I collect. Perhaps knowing the right source for material is the key.

All that said, I see that Classic Home Cinema here in the U.K. is now releasing a lot of new titles on both 8mmm and 16mm from the same negative source. This has to be a good thing for everyone who collects 16mm and I don't doubt that the 16mm versions are higher definition. For me, 8mm has just proved much more accessable as a medium on which to collect "real" films.

Oh, and there's still the question of stereo sound!

"Horses for courses" as they say over here [Smile]

| IP: Logged

John Hourigan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003

posted September 01, 2004 08:28 PM

While I'm a tried and true Super 8 fan, there's no question that there's a "softness" with Super 8 in terms of sharpness. Maybe I'm a nitpicker, but even new prints that receive an "A+" rating in review columns tend to look soft and washed out to me. Some of my best super 8 prints are cartoons and black and white films -- however, "live action" color films tend to suffer the most when it comes to sharpness.

I know that super 8 is a small gauge intended for smaller screens as compared to 16mm and 35mm projection, and I know that other posters can cite multitudes of super 8 films to the contrary in terms of sharpness -- But this lack of overall sharpness is something I've noticed in over 30 years of film collecting. While I believe the quality is better today, there's no doubt that super 8 prints struck in the late 70s and early 80s were VERY soft!

While I collect super 8 (and not 16mm), there's no doubt in my mind that, taken as a whole, 16mm is definitely sharper.

| IP: Logged

John Clancy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1954
From: Cornwall
Registered: Jun 2003

posted September 02, 2004 02:01 AM

John, you must have been unlucky in your purchases. Super 8 peaked about 15 years ago with a few prints that were worthy of cinema presentations. If you haven't seen one of the excellent prints then you are probably correct as Super 8 was rarely very good before the mid-80's. Even if you have purchased a title we've given an A* rating then you must have received a duff copy of it yourself. I have a print of 'Die Hard' that is crap by comparison to other copies. Plus of course you don't have the benefit of attending open days or conventions in the States in order to judge a print before committing to a purchase.

There is one other possibility (and believe me, this is has been a common cause of Super 8 softness amongst collectors in the past) and that is the lens. Many people clean the front of the lens but completely forget to clean the back aperture. Sometimes the build up of muck and grease makes it surprising that any image passes through at all.

By the way Robb, we have a reel of Classic Home Cinema 16mm for review just now (owing to the Super 8 prints not being ready in time for Film For The Collector's copy date). It's the 'Thunderbirds' trailer reel which also has another excellent film trailer on it (I can't remember the title) and the quality is unbelievably good. Makes me want to re-invest in the 16mm route. The sound too is just wonderful. I'm amazed. And we hope to be able to show it on 23rd October.

--------------------
British Film Collectors Convention home page www.bfcc.biz. The site is for the whole of the film collecting hobby and not just the BFCC.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2