8mm Forum: Starting 16MM as a collection. Advice ...

This is topic Starting 16MM as a collection. Advice ... in forum 16mm 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=5;t=000904

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 16, 2013, 01:15 PM:

OK, I am seriously thinking about making the plunge into 16MM, at least in a limited way, (now I wish I hadn't parted with the "Muppets" hmmm) as, quite frankly, there are quite a few 16MM titles that can be found in scope and even cheaper in some regards, thean super 8 prints of the same. I have an opportunity to get from a neighbor a Kodak 16MM projector, not auto-load, but I have heard that it is a very friendly projector for 16MM.

Besides that, I'm having a hard time passing on some 16MM prints for sale on this forum.

Anybody have any advice?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 16, 2013, 01:33 PM:

Yep, don't bother with auto-load. Manual threading is best for 16mm, IMO.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on May 16, 2013, 01:45 PM:

Love the Elmo 16CL slot load ... Easy starting from mid film or whatever ...

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 16, 2013, 04:00 PM:

Dearest Osi,

I myself made the leap to 16mm not long ago and couldn't be happier with the format. I have a Kodak Pageant AV 126 TR projector and IMHO, it is the most gentle film I have to yet come across for 16mm. This is as there is very minimal contact with film (as is not the case with my B&H autoload that I got rid of). You can see that your precious film doesn't get out of your sight where it could be prone to scratches n what not in the sealed mechanism of the self-threading machines. I have learned quite a lot about anything ranging from picture stability to picture size for the Pageant and am glad to say it would be my pleasure to help out with any questions you may have [Big Grin]

!!!

Best,
ET

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on May 16, 2013, 05:07 PM:

My projectors in 16mm are a non working B&H and now two Elf/EIKI projectors. They are auto thread, but I like to do it manually.

The thing I like about 16mm is the films were complete, unlike most of the UK super 8mm releases. Another reason more titles were in scope, I would not buy a super 8 if it was not in scope, although I may seem to contradict myself the 4x400ft format was OK.

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 16, 2013, 10:06 PM:

I love doing it manually as well as it takes your touch to get it going [Big Grin]

!!!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on May 17, 2013, 02:34 AM:

quote:
The thing I like about 16mm is the films were complete

So says David, but be aware of mainly black & white features which were edited for showing on American television. These were cut for fitting into time "slots".
Unfortunately, the removed sections were rarely replaced. When TV went to colour most of the old b/w features found themselves on the second-hand market.
Wasn't there a gentleman somewhere in Florida who had thousands of such films for sale many years ago?

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on May 17, 2013, 08:07 AM:

Maurice, Yes you are correct that some were edited for time, and of course censored sometimes too. My 16mm copy of "Hopsctoch" was audio censored, they did this with blooping tape stuck over the optical track to silence the swearwords. Luckily it peeled off OK, and comparing it with the DVD seems complete.

I suppose the scope prints are ex-library I have "Ice Station Zebra" that seems complete.

One thing I noticed with 16mm from America proberly all ex TV was the poor splicing on quite a few of the films I bought.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on May 17, 2013, 11:43 AM:

Osi....as you well know....many times the 16 prints are worse than their 8mm counterparts. I've told how I sold my Star Wars and Dracula, Prince of Darkness prints ...when I got the much superior Super 8's . 16 can be a rich fertile field ..but with lots of rocks and holes to fall in, as you know. Yes..you can buy cheap prints of bad movies ...red and censored or chopped up.... and sometimes you can get some good B films...at a good price, too. Lots of TV shows out there for very little money.... but it's always a pig in a poke. If you have a Kodak Pageant in good running condition, you have one of the best. I run all Pageant 250's..... halogen lamps on those. And also the 126's are good machines, except for the incandescent lamps that just don't have the lumens for a big screen.
The elmo and eumig super 8 machines , for the most part, are brighter than the old machines with incandescent bulbs.
If you want to get some decent films at a decent price, you should either come to the Columbus Cinevent next weekend...or , even better, for super 8 AND 16..the Cinesea show...next one is first weekend in Oct. in Wildwood Crest, N.J.
Good luck in your foray into 16mm.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 17, 2013, 12:37 PM:

I've actually noticed that Gary (and believe me, I am in NO WAY discontinuing my Super 8 collection), that sometimes the super 8 is actually better, but there are a myriad of 16MM titles that just aren't available on super 8, Bladerunner, for instance, rare, but out there on 16MM scope! In the past few days, I have noticed a print of "Last Days of Pompeii" right here on this forum and it is tempting me as well!

In fact, somtimes, the 16MM is cheaper than the super 8 print!

... and, if I should chose to acept the mission, "Grizzly Adams" is available in a very nice color 16MM. (However, I will still eternally search for a good color super 8!)

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 17, 2013, 12:38 PM:

I come into 16mm as well, have some I kept since the start - I'd match a prime Super 8 print anytime with a gorgeous 16 - Case in point, THE HECKLER - Stunning on both counts - Go for it, slowly and evenly, don't forget to add shorts - I know - Shorty

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 17, 2013, 01:14 PM:

I won't add shorts as I don't look good in shorts!

(snicker/snort)! [Big Grin]

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on May 18, 2013, 04:10 AM:

Joe is absolutely right, take it slow and carefully or you will probably wind up with a pile of junk. Its very easy to start collecting larger film gauges and be tempted by all manner of things which will swamp you. I should know I do 35mm as well and shortly breaking into 70. EEK!

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on May 18, 2013, 06:17 AM:

70 ... Envy maxed out now :-) I am happy with 35mm when that arrives sometime this summer :-) Only have one feature (in the mail) and 30 trailers and a short Pixar

Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on May 18, 2013, 10:22 AM:

Kodak projectors are very kind on film, but I would not get the older models that have incandescent lamp and tube amps. The older amps will most likely need to be recapped. I also prefer the manual load projectors. I have a Singer (Graflex) 16, 1000G that has a solid state amp and halogen lamp. Very quiet and kind to film. They are very reasonably priced. Look for 800 or 1000 series, avoid 900 series.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 18, 2013, 12:36 PM:

I won't run into that problem. I'm well educated enough to know a piece O crap print and a good one!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 18, 2013, 01:54 PM:

quote:
I'm well educated enough to know a piece O crap print and a good one!

Only experience in 16mm will tell you that, Osi.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on May 18, 2013, 02:22 PM:

I like my Elf/EIKI projectors, they are quieter than my B&H when it was working.

The sad thing is that some of my 16mm have faded. My "Kelly's Heroes" scope as gone 'khaki' still magic though on film.

I wonder if Thornhill Entertainment are still going. I bought loads of TV series from him. Really good stuff too. And Western Cinema, bought "Shout At The Devil" from them in scope, but not all the film was scope. [Frown]

Oh No going nostalgic again.

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 19, 2013, 07:28 PM:

Hi Barry,

I have a KOdak Pageant AV 126 TR, incandescent but wanna know what you mean by the amp and why the type you speak of is bad? Also, can I modify mine to be Halogen? I have never been satisfied with the stock 750 Watt that I have but yet have to try 1000 and 1,200 Watt alternatives. Hoping there will be a noticeable increase in brightness [Smile]

... Thanks again and I eagerly await to hear from ya [Smile]

!!!

Best,
ET

Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on May 19, 2013, 08:03 PM:

Hi Elyas,
I didn't mean to badmouth the older Pageants as they are very good machines. However, like all older tube amps, the capasitors eventually will need to be replaced. Unless you can do that yourself, you are in for a bit of an expense, especially if you have to ship the unit to the repairman (if you can find one). I do not know if it can be converted to halogen. My point was that if a person does not have a projector, get one with modern components.

[ May 20, 2013, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Barry Fritz ]

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 20, 2013, 06:28 PM:

Hi Barry,

so by the amp, I take it you're talking about the speaker system [Smile]

? Sorry if I'm coming across as slow lol... Thanks again and if I ever consider getting a replacement Pageant, I'll get the newer Halogen ones you recommend. Also, do you advise they will be brighter than my incandescent one [Smile]

? I assume they would and thanks once more [Big Grin]

!!!

Best,
ET

Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on May 21, 2013, 08:51 AM:

Hi ET.
By amp I mean amplifier. It is part of the speaker system so to speak. Yes, halogen lamps are much brighter, cooler, generally cheaper, and last longer. Additionally, you don't need condensing lenses.
Best,
Barry

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 21, 2013, 09:12 PM:

Dearest Barry,

you sir are blowing my mind, thanks a ton [Big Grin]

!!! Brightness was kind of a concern for me with these incandescent lamps so will def be looking into getting one of those (or xenons) for my next one when I have some money to spend ;D... Thanks again!!!

Best,
ET

Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on May 22, 2013, 08:59 AM:

ET,
Xenons are great, but the lamps are VERY costly. A xenon projector will be quite expensive also. Unless you are projecting in a very large room,(auditorium), halogen should be fine.

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 22, 2013, 01:57 PM:

Dearest Barry,
thanks for the heads up, yet again [Smile]

... I will be sure to stick with the Halogen then and will ask for more tips when I decide to go for it [Smile]

!!!

Best,
ET

Posted by Oemer Yalinkilic (Member # 86) on May 22, 2013, 04:48 PM:

I think 16mm is always a compromise. For a Super 8 collector well for a 35mm collector.
I like different kind of movies. If I want see a beautiful old Technicolor classic, I prefer it in 35mm. I hate old classics in Super 8.
If I want see old black and white B-movies like Roy Rogers/ Gene Autry features, Tarzan Movies, Serial chapters or 50´s Rock and roll movies, it is enough to own the print in 16mm. The print quality of some b/w original prints are great.
I prefer for more recent movies from the 80´s to present a Super 8 print.

Posted by Elyas Tesfaye (Member # 3356) on May 23, 2013, 08:00 AM:

Servus Oemer,

I agree about 8mm/ super 8 as I myself just used it as a gateway to the big leagues. I'm currently in love with 16mm and think that'll just be it, as 35mm is a little too big for me. Cheers [Smile]

!!!

Best,
ET

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on June 27, 2013, 01:54 PM:

I think I understand what David means about 16mm completeness, sometimes features in Super 8 would have a scene cut that only lasted about 2 minutes, when there was room on the spool for the missing section. Many features that were sold 4x400, should have run to 5 reels. I only bought my first 16mm projector about 5 years ago; what I like about the guage is that I think quality is more likely to be guaranteed (based on my Super 8 experience),the BBCs print The Sea Hawk, starring Errol Flynn, was better than the VHS tape that Warner put out, which included a few jumps due to splices. Also, owing to the fact that I have 4 features with some parts out of sync, I like the optical soundtrack.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2