8mm Forum: Red Fox/Ken Films Super 8 Vs. 16mm Prints

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Red Fox/Ken Films Super 8 Vs. 16mm Prints

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Red Fox/Ken Films Super 8 Vs. 16mm Prints

Robert Tucker
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 688
From: Essex, UK
Registered: May 2005

posted January 09, 2013 07:25 AM

From observing the various prints some of which can be found on 16mm. Does anyone know if there is a difference between Super 8 and 16mm prints with regards to overall quality.

Some people prefer 16mm over Super 8 for many reasons i.e. the focusing and picture detail especially for shots that are not portrait. Colour variation is another factor which can be down to a number of things i.e. negative, copy, film stock used, printing and developing techniques (labs used).

For example I have found myself on some MGM titles to go for 16mm prints either because of colour or picture detail which can be a problem with Super 8 if making a side by side comparison.

Thou for Red Fox MGM titles I have found them very hard to beat which I can only assume is down to using the best negatives available at the time. Along with these negatives probably being made when film stocks were changing for the better both in fine grain and processing techniques in the early 80s

As we know original Red Fox prints of the Adventures of Robin Hood, Jack The Giant Killer, Shot in the Dark to name just a few are all very good very colourful sharp prints. Compared to many Ken MGM full length prints of the same period.

I can only assume this is down to either the negative ageing along with how the negative was processed developed back then.

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted January 09, 2013 07:54 AM

Hi Robert
The final print quality does vary much largely due to master material and the type of negative used. Perry’s for instance used the double 8 negative system as did Collectors Club probably for maximum economy. Other distributors stuck to 16mm negatives which is why prints such as Derann’s ‘No Limit’ was so good quality all those years ago for instance. On the 16mm print side of things some of the show prints are very average I find, when others are jaw dropping good such as the Jolson Story which I have. The first time I watched this with such vibrant colour and excellent definition you would have easily mistaken it for 35mm without question.
I’m guessing that the German lab which produces prints are using 16mm negs as the quality is high and for new material this is the way to go these days.

As you’ll know various print stocks were and are available and for me it was only a few years back I started to learn about all the different types available which was prompted by many of my own films purchased in the 70’s fading and the pinking problem. It’s a great shame when you have a much loved film then pull it out of the box some months later to see it looking nice and pink on the screen. On the flip side the colour stability of LPP film stock is what most of us tend to look out for these days but we still cling to the old prints as well which hold the memories of screenings 40+ years ago for me anyway.

| IP: Logged

Gary Crawford
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted January 09, 2013 11:17 AM

I'm sure that someone more expert on this..like Rich Burgess or Steven Seigel will say this....but I've come to think that ALL THINGS EQUAL.....A 16mm print will top a super 8 print every time...but that's with the same pre print...the same careful printing and processing...the same print stock...etc. Problem is that things are never equal. I've sold 16mm prints of films after getting superior super 8 prints. Example..a pan and scan low fade Dracula Prince of Darkness (16mm)...didnt come close to the sharpness, the color balance and all of the Derann Super 8 print. I sold the 16. Also...on newer subjects, we Super 8 folks have the advantage of stereo capability. I've found a well recorded Super 8 print to be much better sounding that the average 16. Some 16's have tremendous mono sound...others just average. So all things are rarely equal...and each print from each gauge has to be judged on its own merits...not just on the gauge.
A non expert opinion based on experience.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2