8mm Forum: Which should be used? 16MM or 9.5MM?

This is topic Which should be used? 16MM or 9.5MM? in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003401

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 07, 2015, 01:30 PM:

The topic on "Metropolis" brought up a question on my part ...

Let's say that there was a complete print of Metropolis on both 16MM and 9.5MM, which print would be the better to do a proper restoration with?

I ask this as I have seen some 9.5MM prints of silent that are a good deal better than the best 16MM prints of the same title. Did the producers of 9.5MM put extra effort into the printing process or what?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 07, 2015, 01:44 PM:

Osi,

When Dino Everette did his amazing 9.5mm presentation at CineSea, he made the point that the negatives used to make 9.5mm prints were in very good condition since it was very close to their original release date.

Doug

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on March 07, 2015, 02:50 PM:

Hi Osi, The 9.5mm prints were very good quality due to the method Pathe/Pathescope used to produce them. You have to remember that back in 1923 when 9.5mm started. Pathe was a world wide film distribution company for many major studios, particularly in Europe and had vast resources. Unfortunately, most of the major U.S.A studios had their own distribution companies and cinemas and few were interested in Pathe 28mm,17.5mm or 9.5mm. Here in the U.K. it is only in recent years that the collector has been able to purchase 16mm films all used prints due to the closure of all the various film libraries. Prior to this most of the big production companies had there own 16mm film hire libraries. Ken Finch. [Smile]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 09, 2015, 12:15 PM:

Very interesting. So, I'm betting that the best prints of "Metropolis", for instance, might well be found on 9.5MM and in some lucky collectors hands in the U.K. and elsewhere abroad, no doubt!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2