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

This is topic Super 8mm vs. 16mm? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005538

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on June 28, 2010, 08:14 AM:

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?

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on June 28, 2010, 08:37 AM:

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,

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 28, 2010, 08:57 AM:

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??

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on June 28, 2010, 09:07 AM:

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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 28, 2010, 09:37 AM:

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.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 28, 2010, 10:04 AM:

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.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on June 28, 2010, 10:38 AM:

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.

Posted by Gian Luca Mario Loncrini (Member # 1417) on June 28, 2010, 10:59 AM:

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]

.
Ciao.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 28, 2010, 12:57 PM:

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

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on June 28, 2010, 01:10 PM:

16mm rarely had nice bxes, Shorty

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 28, 2010, 01:16 PM:

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

Posted by Jose Artiles (Member # 471) on June 28, 2010, 01:55 PM:

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]

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on June 28, 2010, 07:55 PM:

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!

Posted by Roy Neil (Member # 913) on June 28, 2010, 09:12 PM:

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 )

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on June 28, 2010, 09:22 PM:

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!).

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on June 28, 2010, 09:32 PM:

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]

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 ]

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 29, 2010, 09:20 AM:

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

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on June 29, 2010, 02:29 PM:

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

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 29, 2010, 02:38 PM:

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.)

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 29, 2010, 04:04 PM:

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

Posted by Ted Wilby (Member # 296) on July 02, 2010, 04:23 PM:

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.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 03, 2010, 02:31 PM:

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.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on July 03, 2010, 04:17 PM:

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

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 03, 2010, 11:32 PM:

Shorty,

I don't recomember. [Smile]

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on July 04, 2010, 12:33 AM:

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!

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on July 04, 2010, 02:44 AM:

I am a film collector first, so will collect in whatever format the film comes in. I am foremost a Super 8 collector, but love the resolution of 16mm for my shorts and cartoons. If I can find the title in 35mm, then even better.

As my 70mm film collection has shrunk (literally!) my 9.5mm has grown. It got to the point that all my 70mm was either faded or VS.

There is something special about a Super 8 box.

David

Posted by Paul Spinks (Member # 573) on July 04, 2010, 05:19 AM:

I collect films in Super 8 and 16mm formats. I collect mainly vintage horror films but I now seem to have started getting old British comedies, westerns and American TV horror movies from the 60's and 70's. Obviously there is far more choice of titles on the larger guage, but space is an issue and to be honest as I get older I am finding the weight of the 16mm projectors to be an issue as well. I usually replace a Super 8 print title with a 16mm print of the same title when I find them.

Paul.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 04, 2010, 09:42 AM:

For me, the big thing that super 8 has, that 16mm does not, is magnetic stereo sound. Simply put, super 8 mag stereo sound quality is way ahead of 16mm optical mono fidelity. On musical films, like Grease stereo re-recording makes a huge difference in the enjoyment of the film, and with the vast catalogue of DVD's now available, just about any super 8 print that you have can be re-recorded using the best available digital source material.
I also like the (relative) compactness of super 8mm films and equipment. 16mm seems big, bulky, and noisy in comparison.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on July 04, 2010, 10:41 AM:

I started with 16 really, though I bought my first Castles in Std 8 - Both gauges are sharp, but for ecomomical savings, I shifted to Std 8 then when Super 8 came, went that way and stuck with both gauges - I'll match many of my Super & Std 8mm prints against a 16 anytime - No brag, just fact - Shorty

Posted by John Hermes (Member # 1367) on July 04, 2010, 01:59 PM:

"(Super 8) Has nearly the same image area as 16mm."
Actually, 16mm has 3.23x the frame area of Super 8. I have used 8mm, Super 8, 16mm, and 35mm. All things being equal, a larger guage will have higher quality, and finer grain than a smaller guage. The same goes for image steadiness, since there is less magnification for the same size picture. The larger the image you project, the more the larger guage will have an impact on your quality as well.

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on July 04, 2010, 04:22 PM:

I have 16mm, Super-8 and Standard-8.
If we are talking laws of physics here (and John, you beat me to the frame size [Big Grin]

) 16mm is better looking than 8mm because there is more film, period. For the same reason 35mm beats the pants off 16mm and the two will never look alike.

It makes no sense to me when someone says "A good 8mm will beat a bad 16mm", because what is the point of such a comparison?

If you compare bad 8mm to bad 16mm/good 8mm to good 16mm/fantastic 8mm to fantastic 16mm, then you are at least 'standing on the same ground' when making the comparison, and you will see the differences between the formats, not between the quality differences in the printings.

I just watched a very fine Standard-8 Blackhawk print, a silent film. Amazing for the format, but I wouldn't dream of saying it looked like a 16mm of the same quality would. It doesn't have the same resolution because it can't. Less film surface/lower resolution.
Now, if I watch the Standard-8 on a small screen, yes, it competes better with a 16mm, but if I get it up to where I like it, the difference is there.

(Ok, off the soapbox.... [Roll Eyes]

)

Claus.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on July 04, 2010, 07:55 PM:

Im a tri-gauge collector, super8, 16mm and 35mm!
All have their pros and cons.
[Big Grin]

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 04, 2010, 08:12 PM:

Claus,
Although I broadly agree with your points, I think it's worth factoring in the overall attributes a what you are liable to get hold of. Although I've replaced several Super 8 features with 16mm ones, I doubt if I'll ever so with a film like ALIENS. If I did, it would almost certainly be sharper, despite the Super 8 print being excellent, but if I also take into account that it would probably be full frame (as apposed to widescreen); it would probably have at least a few scratches and splices; and it wouldn't have decent stereo sound, for me it's a situation where overall I'm likely to prefer watching my pristine Super 8 print.

Posted by Michael Scheck (Member # 114) on January 01, 2014, 07:46 AM:

I switched to 16mm for three important reasons:
-Better image and sound qualitiy
-I know that nowadays Super8 releses can be as great as 16mm prints. But I am not interested in horror and Science-Fiction movies at all. Unfortunately nearly all the recent Super8 releases or planned releases are either horror or SciFi.
-There is a much wider range of titles available in 16mm! I love films like Woody Allen's "Purple Rose Of Cairo" which I screened last night. No chance this will ever be printed on Super8!
With 16mm there is a chance to find the films I truly love.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 01, 2014, 08:47 AM:

Michael, thanks for bringing this topic back to the top! I missed it. I collect standard 8, super 8 and 16mm. I just love film and I have projectors set up for each. Everyone has pretty much explained the pros and cons of each. I do also have two 35mm trailers (Snake Eyes & Carlito's Way) of one of my favorite directors (Brian DePalma) but have no way of showing them. But they are nice to have. I also really like the box art.

Bill [Smile]

Posted by Panayotis A. Carayannis (Member # 1220) on January 02, 2014, 03:09 AM:

Michael,"Purple Rose of Cairo" is available in super 8,optical sound.

Posted by Martin Davey (Member # 2841) on January 03, 2014, 03:01 AM:

Just before xmas I did my yearly show at a local railway society in a hall, showing a mixture of s8 and 16mm film. I used the same screen size, amplifier and speakers for both formats but the 16mm material proved its superiority, with a sharper picture and better balanced, clearer sound. S8 has lots of nostalgic memories for me, but having worked in film production in the past I can definitely put S8 in the domestic category, and 16mm in the semi professional one. Thats after all, how the formats were intended to be used.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 03, 2014, 06:10 AM:

quote:
-There is a much wider range of titles available in 16mm!

If you are talking old releases, you may be right. But for later releases, such as Disneys titles or Speed, Fugitive, Ice Age, Chicken Run, Titanic, etc, it is easier to get on super 8mm. I was not sayingthat would be impossible to get those titles on 16mm, but considering none of those titles were released to public on 16mm, there is a very little chance to get it now unless we have a link to the cinema/libarary.

Posted by Paul Spinks (Member # 573) on January 03, 2014, 07:38 AM:

I collect titles in both 16mm and Super 8mm and have found that the later titles released by Derann on Super 8 are greatly superior to 16mm in both sound and picture quality due to the very best master material being used to make the prints. "El Cid" released by Lone Wolf films was stunning . The first run prints of "Predator" from Derann were excellent as was their release of "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines".

Posted by Michael Scheck (Member # 114) on January 03, 2014, 09:14 AM:

Yes, Winbert I am talking of older releases / movies.
I agree with you that the Derann super8 releses are as good or even better than 16mm.
But I am not particularly interested to own "recent blockbusters" (like the ones Winbert refers to) but in films I would call "valuable contributions to film history". And that includes older films as well.
For example: Seeing Murnaus silent masterpiece "Faust" on 8mm is horrible experience, because the picture is cropped on probably all four sides and blurry like mist.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on January 03, 2014, 10:04 AM:

I must agree with Patrick, All the guages have their pros and cons. Here in the U.K. It has only been possible to collect 16mm feature films in any number since film libraries, T.V. companies and Local Authorities disposed of their stocks and the main distribuers started producing them on V.H.S. Prior to the this time we had to hire them and some of the main distributers would only hire to what they called "Bone Fide Organisations" and not individuals! When Pathescope 9.5mm finished. Some enthusiasts in Group 9.5 including myself, approached some of the 16mm distributers suggesting that instead of scrapping prints which they no longer needed, they could be cut and re perforated to 9.5mm by the late Larry Pearce and thus fill a gap in the market. Unfortunately the reponse was negative. So, coming back to the situation today. Technically the 16mm image quality of 16mm should be better than S8, but S8 magnetic sound quality should be better than 16mm Optical because of the limited frequency range of 16mm mono optical sound. Ken Finch.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 04, 2014, 11:07 AM:

Much as I appreciate the great quality of many Super 8 prints, particularly from the 80s and 90s, I wonder if collectors calling them superior to 16mm have watched superb 16mm prints from the same era? In my experience, the quality of colour 16mm prints improved considerably in the 1980s (not simply because of low fade stocks) and prints from the 1990s and 2000s derived from studio negatives really are stunning. If anyone is unconvinced, come round and take a look at my 'Alien Resurrection' (1997) and then see if you can tell me that the best Super 8 prints beat it!

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 04, 2014, 01:12 PM:

The frequency response of super 8 magnetic stripe is way beyond anything achievble with 16mm optical. Plus, of course, super 8mm has stereo sound capability which 16mm does not.
Obviously, all things being equal, a 16mm print has to be superior to super 8mm. But that does not mean that all 16mm prints are superior to all super 8mm prints. Source material and the quality of the lab printing can totally change the equation, and there are a lot of S8 prints that are as good as, and even some better than, 16mm prints of the same title.
For myself, I would much rather watch a top quality super 8 print of a musical film which has been re-recorded in glorious magnetic stereo, than a 16mm mono optical print of the same film.
Stereo just adds so much to the impact of these kinds of films, where sound quality plays such a major role.
And 16mm is simply too bulky to consider for my home collection.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 04, 2014, 01:42 PM:

There's no question that 16mm has the potential of a better picture.

There's also no question that Super-8 magnetic has the potential of better sound.

-then again how many geniuses are there out there making their living pushing a broom around?

In all cases it's a matter of people striving to reach the potential, even more than the potential itself.

It's the joy of collecting films: finding the best examples, and then projecting them to their potential too.

I stay with S8 because doing that is what's most practical given the limits of my lifestyle. If you took those limits completely away I would certainly go into...70mm!

Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on January 04, 2014, 02:59 PM:

For me it's Super 8 -> Reg 8 -> 16 mm, except for old silents in which I prefer Reg 8 (pre-1930s). The reason for this is simple: my Super 8 machine is great and has a good 1.1 lens, while my 16mm machine is shite. Also, Super 8 is a space-saver for me, at least until we finish our house extension [Smile]

Posted by John Yapp (Member # 2873) on January 04, 2014, 05:38 PM:

Shite..is that a Norwegian word?

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on January 04, 2014, 07:14 PM:

Ha, ha ... Here's the definition :-)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shite

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 05, 2014, 09:11 AM:

As Steve has highlighted - "potential" is a key word here. Even if Super 8 sound can potentially be better, I'd still say that a significantly higher proportion of my 16mm prints have sound that I'd grade as good to excellent. Collectors who record their own high quality sountracks are obviously at a significant advantage, especially with regard to stereo. A remarkably high proportion of films sold with stereo tracks had sound problems of one sort of another - which used to drive lots of us nuts!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2