|
Author
|
Topic: Super 8mm vs. 16mm?
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
John Hermes
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 139
From: La Mesa, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2008
|
posted 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.
--------------------
John Hermes
| IP: Logged
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted 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]](biggrin.gif) ) 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]](rolleyes.gif) )
Claus.
--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 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.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
--------------------
Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
