8mm Forum: Super 8mm vs. 16mm?

8mm Forum

my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home

next oldest topic

next newest topic

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Super 8mm vs. 16mm? (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Super 8mm vs. 16mm?

Alan Rik
Film God

Posts: 2211
From: New York City, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 28, 2010 08:14 AM

Email Alan Rik

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I have a question for those of you that collect both formats!
I've noticed that many of you dual collectors will hold onto a Super 8mm print until you find a really nice one on 16mm. I also notice a few collectors that have sold off Super 8 collections to get into 16mm. Does that mean that 16mm is the main collection with Super 8 filling the gaps? Just curious....
And one of the advantages of Super 8 is the ability for a really great Stereo Mag Soundtrack. With 16mm its all mono optical isn't it? So for the 16mm collectors are you playing the sound out of the little speaker in the projector?

| IP: Logged

David Pannell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1072
From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
Registered: Nov 2004

posted June 28, 2010 08:37 AM

Author's Homepage

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Hi Alan,

For me, the answers are simple.

I collect Standard 8, Super 8, and 16mm. The reason for graduating to 16mm is simply the greater definition and resolution (ie. clarity and crispness) of the picture.

However, there are many excellent Super 8 prints which rival 16mm, particularly some of the very good Derann releases.

Most 16mm films are optical sound with a few exceptions such as prints released for airline in-flight entertainment, but these are not that readily available.......and NO, we don't use the projector's own internal speaker - why would we do that? I have a speaker switching arrangement which allows me to change between the different formats, and most 16mm machines have good and powerful amplifiers in them anyway. Some models don't even have built-in speakers, but are supplied with separate speakers in their own enclosures.

Hope that starts the ball rolling!

Cheers,

--------------------
Dave.

Valves and celluloid - a great combination!
Early technology rules OK!

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted June 28, 2010 08:57 AM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

16 is my first love.

I'm collecting 8 at the moment mainly for financial reasons. It's OK but it ain't the business!!!

With regard to soundtrack - surely in this day and age, Super 8 Stereo sound must be pretty underwhelming, no??

| IP: Logged

Gary Crawford
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 979
From: Manassas, VA. USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 28, 2010 09:07 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

There are so many more films available in the 16 format....expecially older films ..b movies...since so many were printed for television use. I have sometimes "guaduated " from a Super 8 print to a 16...but recently it's been the other way..... I have bought those new Derann and German prints of seveal James Bond films....and Hammer horror films....and the super 8's looked better than the 16's.... and of course, the sound is much better on the super 8's . When I got my scope print of Dracula, Prince of Darkness....it looked sharper...with better color and definition that my 16 pan and scan...that I sold the 16. I sold my scope 16 Star Wars after getting hold of the superb Derann scope super 8 print with re-recorded stereo sound. My GS1200 elmo..with a fuji bulb...( very bright), two blade shutter and an f1.0 lens , produces a picture very close to my 16mm machines in terms of brightness...and with the new better film stocks , the prints can be, when done carefully, as sharp or sharper than some of the mass produced 16 prints made years ago for TV. Depends on the print.....but I love my 16 stuff...love the super 8. love the standard 8. love it all.

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted June 28, 2010 09:37 AM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I agree with regard to the Derann Hammer prints. I recently picked up a low fade Super 8 DRACULA in excellent (and I do mean excellent) condition for a fraction of the price of a 16 LPP of the same title. The picture is pin sharp. To be honest I can't imagine any 16mm print bettering it.

But, for the main stuff that I am interested in, ie. classic film from the 30's and 40's - 16 is the only way to go.

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 28, 2010 10:04 AM

Email Steve Klare

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I've always been tempted by 16mm, but the added resolution and brightness wouldn't be that much of an improvement on the largest screen I have, at least not enough to make up for the added storage and portability issues. (...although it might be nice to need that extra resolution and brightness.)

Besides, it's nice to know that other than a few Regular-8s I own that every film I have will work on every projector I have. This means I can keep the maximum number of projectors on the table or in my car down to two, not three or even four. It also means every last projector I own has to die before I lose access to large parts of my film collection.

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007

posted June 28, 2010 10:38 AM

Email Maurice Leakey

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Alan
The question you ask is somewhat like asking the condemned man whether he prefers a firing squad or the gas chamber.
Members have answered and I agree with them.
I collect 16mm and Super 8, about 1000 titles with a ratio of about 25% for the Super 8.
As has been said, there are so many, many, prints only available on 16mm, particularly the titles which are older than the then new Super 8 films of the 60s and 70s.
Having used 16mm for mobile operations and Film Society use it is my first love, but there is still a place for Super 8.

--------------------
Maurice

| IP: Logged

Gian Luca Mario Loncrini
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1948
From: Verona (Italy)
Registered: Jan 2009

posted June 28, 2010 10:59 AM

Author's Homepage

Email Gian Luca Mario Loncrini

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Now collecting 16 for a simple reason: I can add to my collection some titles released on 16mm that don't exist on super 8...
Different quality is not involved at all.
And I love both formats the same way [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

.
Ciao.

--------------------
I remember when I was (super) 8 years old...

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted June 28, 2010 12:57 PM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I've always felt that Super 8 is kinda like "toy" film somewhat, but, it's still better than plastic disc collecting!!
[Wink]

[Wink]

| IP: Logged

Joe Caruso
Film God

Posts: 4105
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 28, 2010 01:10 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

16mm rarely had nice bxes, Shorty

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted June 28, 2010 01:16 PM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

The only boxes with artwork that I've come across in 16mm were from CASTLE.
Were there many others?

| IP: Logged

Jose Artiles
Master Film Handler

Posts: 357
From: Spain
Registered: Oct 2005

posted June 28, 2010 01:55 PM

Email Jose Artiles

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I collect 16mm and super 8 because like Gian Luca i often found titles that dont exists on super 8,anyway i think that any cine format is wonderfull to collect because is cine at last not like that plastic things called dvd´s [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

--------------------
As Steven Spielberg says....
Nothing beats old school projection. Digital is just an imitation.

| IP: Logged

Adrian Winchester
Film God

Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004

posted June 28, 2010 07:55 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I collect both because doing so increases your options. I've sold Super 8 features having found a good 16mm print, but on the other hand I'd never expect to replace titles such as ALIENS or BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

I think collectors tend to have different expectations of each guage. E.g. I had Derann's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and thought it was a sharp print. I then acquired a 16mm print that is a little soft, so I was unsure which I'd keep. But having compared the two, the 16mm copy was significantly better. You sometimes hear people saying that a Super 8 print "beats 35mm" because they were so impressed with it, but I'm always convinced that in such instances that they are stretching the truth!

--------------------
Adrian Winchester

| IP: Logged

Roy Neil
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 203
From: Menlo Park, CA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted June 28, 2010 09:12 PM

Author's Homepage

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I collect three formats - each has its pros and cons

Super 8 has mag sound and often stereo tracks. Can be rerecorded with higher quality source if needed. Has nearly the same image area as 16mm; prints tend to be from collectors. More often than not features are theatrical; scope features are usually printed scope not pan & scan. Print prices are usually very reasonable; new prints are available from several companies for sale directly. Very portable and not difficult to collect. Good equipment tend to rival the cost of 16mm and 35mm and is the most rare.

16mm has more varied subject matter available. Prints tend to be more worn as they come from rental/TV sources. Theatrical features are less common than 'edited' prints; pan & scan is more common than scope. Print prices for this format seem the highest; new prints( features )are not generally available for sale directly. Not too bulky or difficult to collect. Good equipment is readily available and usually priced between Super8 and 35mm.

35mm is great for increased detail; print quality varies greatly but is 'usually' better than 16mm in terms of wear. Prints are always theatrical and the proper aspect except in rare instances. Prices vary wildy; some prints sell for $10; others for $10,000. Very bulky and difficuly format to collect. Good equipment is readily available and swiftly becoming quite cheap - except the audio gear.

I prefer 35mm because of the quality; of all the formats I loathe purchasing 16mm prints due to the fact that most features are non-theatrical and tend to be more worn than other formats .. in my experience. Lastly, it seems 16mm suffered more from 'bad printing' than other formats ( labs skimping bath times to save $ which I believe is the cause of most eastman stock fading )

| IP: Logged

John Hourigan
Master Film Handler

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

posted June 28, 2010 09:22 PM

Email John Hourigan

Edit/Delete Post

While I mainly collect super 8, I believe that 16 beats Super 8 by and large in terms of definition, sharpness, etc. Even new Super 8 prints that claim to be "sharp" always seem overly "grainy" to me. All that being said, I tend to lean towards super 8 because of availability (and it tends to take up less room!).

| IP: Logged

Dan Lail
Film God

Posts: 2110
From: Loganville, Georgia, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 28, 2010 09:32 PM

Author's Homepage

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Alan,

The only time I use the internal projector speaker is when I am using my ST-600 with 6 watts of room filling sound. [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

I too collect 16mm, super 8, and Std. 8mm(silent and sound). There is something nostalgic about super 8 though. The hunt for the rare sharp print and the availability of the digest.

I am wanting to find a bright standard 8 projector with a large reel capacity. I have a copy of the feature "To Be Or Not To Be" with Jack Benny and it is incredibly sharp focus for std. 8.

For sound, I run every gauge through a DirectZ(right and left) box to low impedance out into a mixer, then final amps front and back of my cinema. Low impedance is very clean.

[ June 29, 2010, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Dan Lail ]

| IP: Logged

Douglas Meltzer
Moderator

Posts: 4554
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 29, 2010 09:20 AM

Email Douglas Meltzer

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I collect both formats, but I really love those digests so I have tons more 8mm than 16mm. The Universal 8 digests that I have on 16mm are all faded, but I have many on Super 8mm that still have good color. Storage space is also a big factor.

Doug

--------------------
I think there's room for just one more film.....

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted June 29, 2010 02:29 PM

Email Graham Ritchie

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

16mm is fine but... Super8 is where its at chaps [Wink]

[Wink]

years ago I used to put on away from home film shows and those Super8 digests were ideal, you could put together a continuous reel of Tom and Jerry, some Disney stuff and film digests like Star Wars all on Elmo 1200ft reels. If done right its much more interesting for most folk to watch "something for everyone" than having to sit through a full feature. I still have made up Super8 800/1200ft mix reels that we run from time to time.

Graham. [Smile]

[Smile]

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted June 29, 2010 02:38 PM

Email Steve Klare

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

To me the difference is like a little car Vs. a big car. If you can get away with the capacity of a little car it's a lot easier to live with, on the other hand if you really need the capacity of a big car there is no substitute.

Neither is better than the other: they are just different size tools for different jobs. You don't break concrete with a claw hammer and you don't drive nails with a sledge hammer. (...I guess this makes 35mm the jackhammer and 70mm the piledriver.)

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted June 29, 2010 04:04 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

It began with Std. 8mm family home movies, Then onto collecting Std. 8 cutdown films, Then Blackhawk Laurel & Hardy silent versions of sound titles, later onto Blackhawk sound L&H shorts.
- began to make more money and then collected used Super 8mm sound shorts. Later I filled in the gaps with 16mm L&H and Our Gang sound shorts. Eventually picked up quality 16mm features - but also hit upon some clunker quality prints.

8mm is neat because it's as though you are carrying books, takes less space and in most cases it suffices without major modifications when projecting at home.

Some Std. 8mm Blackhawk has incredible sharp quality and density.
The Stan Laurel short comedies come to mind. However the

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Ted Wilby
Junior
Posts: 6
From: Spring City, Pa USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted July 02, 2010 04:23 PM

Author's Homepage

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I do 16, Super 8 some Standard 8 and just a few 35mm trailors at this point because I don't have 35mm projectors yet, although I can run them at work when no one is around. Reasons? Different tools for different jobs and different titles on different formats. I think with the right projector, I just got a GS 1200, I'm blown away by the quality of some super 8 sound. I plug all my machines into my living room sound system. An Onkyo R605 right now. I also have a 720p DLP video projector. I also have a Standard 8 Mag sound machine, but nothing to test the sound with.

--------------------
Thanks Ted

Ted The Fiddler
www.tfiddler.com

| IP: Logged

Brad Kimball
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1171
From: Highland Mills, NY USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted July 03, 2010 02:31 PM

Email Brad Kimball

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I like Super 8 for the affordability and I do like the artwork on the boxes. I collect many of the titles I have in Super 8 in 16mm strictly for the big picture I can throw if I have alot of people in a large area of the house or outdoors. There is a different assortment of titles available in each format. As someone once said it's different tools for different jobs. I also don't think one is necessarily better than the other - each has it's own functionalities. I have absolutlely no interest in 35mm - too expensive and too space consuming.

| IP: Logged

Joe Caruso
Film God

Posts: 4105
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted July 03, 2010 04:17 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Mike De, you were saying...? Thread was cut short I think

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted July 03, 2010 11:32 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Shorty,

I don't recomember. [Smile]

[Smile]

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Alan Rik
Film God

Posts: 2211
From: New York City, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted July 04, 2010 12:33 AM

Email Alan Rik

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

This is great stuff guys. Many thanks for the insights. I started to wonder how many of us were dual collectors. I have thought about 16mm collecting but as it is I have barely enough room for Super 8!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Move Topic

Delete Topic

next oldest topic

next newest topic

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2