8mm Forum: Mark Sylvesters Bootlace Forum

This is topic Mark Sylvesters Bootlace Forum 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=000611

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 09, 2004, 12:28 PM:

Just popped over to Mark Sylvester's Bootlace Forum -it's all gloom and doom about his forum and the sad future of 8mm over there. I think the mistake Mark has made, on his otherwise excellent forum, is not requiring people to post using their real names. Sorry, but I can't get enthusiastic about responding to names like "Rosebud" and "The Nuts are Loose" - it's so silly and impersonal. Brad has it right to insist on real names, and that's why this forum is so successful.
As for the bashing of 8mm on Mark's forum, I find this very puzzling. If people are not into Super 8 collecting, why are they even bothering to go there. And the last thing I need to hear again, is about the superiority of DVD.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 09, 2004, 12:39 PM:

Too right, proper names should be used, we all have nicknames etc but when we'r talking together on line lets be a wee bit more professional before super 8 becomes the place where sado's hang out, with some of the names ive seen on thier it reminds me of images of places where people wearing anoracks hang out [Big Grin]

, not for me, and whats this about talking super 8 down? i dont call that an entusiats forum so much as a "kill 8mm altegether" forum.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on July 09, 2004, 01:40 PM:

Ah!,

As I see it, he's yielded to the temptation we sometimes encounter here to broaden the appeal of this group by becoming more general interest. The problem with that is that the people in the vast majority drown out the folks in the minority, and the smaller group loses it's place.

Another problem is that the more general interest you make something, the more groups there will be doing exactly the same thing you are trying to do, and you'll wind up being just another ant in the anthill, and not particularly interesting. (Try starting a group called, "folks who breathe air", and just see who cares enough to join!)

By sticking to it's original intent, this forum keeps itself worth being a part of. It's not for everybody, but it's good for us!

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 10, 2004, 06:57 AM:

Well put steve and very true, im staying here. [Wink]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 11, 2004, 06:18 AM:

Well I`d like to say I think Marks forum is great, not least for the amount of work he has put in doing very interesting stuff.
I think the term "Anorak" is more likely apt to people who pursue a very narrow line of interest and get all stuffy and funny should someone dare to suggest its not as they think.
Mark does quite a bit for the hobby as many will know, he`s introduced people at a local collage to super 8 anew and there has been interest from people coming to his forum who would likely never have come accross film and hes helped people to tool up as it were and still himself enjoys watching films.
The reason I really like it there is the broader appeal, the hobby needs to broaden out a bit at least if its going to survive , you may remember a while ago I was all fired up to do an article and place an add in a mainstream mag about super 8 to get it out there and I`d have put up a good % of the cash myself but the interest from other super 8 ers was almost nil so I let it go.
Dealers don`t of course because there is no way film can compete but I liked the idea of showing a few people who hadn`t heard of it what its all about.
I love film and always will but for me it has to become a part of the whole film watching thing with the mainstay probably video projection, plenty of people registered here do both and some mainly or only watch the video as it happens.
I think its a shame to slate Mark and his efforts as he has put not only his time and money in but also some thought and the really great thing is that you can say what you like.
Its only building up slowly and after all this forum was already well established and the numbers interested in super 8 are very small just over 200 members here from all over the world, there was a time you could manage that in a large town itself.
Its a fact that film will continue to down size and any dealer will appreciate that and prices will continue to fall on many films, even 16mm in the US is sliding fast as once people have seen what video can do now and very cheaply many think well why bother, and get away from the projector goings on and the rip offs etc.
There will inevitably always be a band of serious filmies with me included but I can`t put my head in the sand about super 8, deraan still do a great job and Phil and Denise have put one hec of a lot of effort in and cash.And we all know the late Derek`s opinion on the future of 8 !!!!! But don`t worry there will always be films and machines about to mess on with so you can get away with saying the future of super 8 is small and a niche.
So in all I say thank you to Mark and others who put some effort in and give us room to talk and discuss anything and say what we feel and Marks very very good forum is a great place to do it.
best Mark.T.
PS by the way my name on there is Mark, and The nuts are loose becuase mine most definately are and I don`t think for a minute that what I say about anything is nessecarily right or wrong or I know anything better than anybody else but I do like a chat and a laugh amd sometimes a disscusion.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 11, 2004, 12:48 PM:

PS just a thought but on the point of film and new releases maybe a way to approach it with say Derann is like a film bond type thing.
If Derann have a list of films they could maybe do get say 20 of us to pay maybe £200 bond so to speak, not a deposit or a payment towards the film but a support for derann, those people all then buy a copy and derann sell the rest, once they break even they start to pay people back a % or put them in credit for a film in future.
Just a thought that could maybe help to rlease something.
By the way I do love film but I think we need to think laterally if we do want to give it a bit more of a future and open the hobby out a bit.
Best Mark.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 11, 2004, 02:52 PM:

Ooops, i certainly never try to upset anyone and anyone who sets up a forum to do with reel film has my full support, i wasn/t refering to the gent who runs the forum at all, i just gety a little frustrated at anyone who slags off film, 8 or 16mm. After all, if some people believe film is dead or dying and want to move on thats fair enuf but because something better or improved comes along i dont think thats a good excuse to down talk film, after all, film is where it all began, i do agree its going to downsize just as vinyl did after cd's, My little opinion was aimed at the critics not the forum host, as you said, the way its done shows a lot of time and effort but it does have its big share of people who slate film, seems an odd thing to do on a forum put out for film,
love and hugs
Tom [Big Grin]

Posted by David Roberts (Member # 197) on July 11, 2004, 03:33 PM:

Tom,
I liked your point about vinyl records and CD because it could well turn out in a similar way between film and DVD.
When CD was first introduced most peaple thought that vinyl would die,but it hasnt.Its flourished,though on a much smaller scale than before.
A lot of peaple heavily into audio think vinyl records sound much nicer than CD,but would agree that digital is much more convenient to use.
I liken film to the vinyl record,a lot more effort necessary to use but much more satisfying if you can be bothered!
I for one can mosr certainly be bothereb!
Regards

David R.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 11, 2004, 05:16 PM:

Well it's been a wet afternoon here in Orlando, so I have spent a couple of hours on the Home Theatre web pages , reading some user reviews of current video projectors. I had assumed that the problems with video projectors had been resolved by now, judging by the glowing reports on this and other film forums. Apparently this is not entirely the case, many reviews of current projectors speaking of " visible rainbow effects", ' screen door effect was visible even 15 ft away from the screen", " annoying vertical bars visible on bright scenes", " lost pixels", "dust on the LCD requiring the projector to be disassembled and cleaned every month", " color variation across the screen" and so on. And these are all current state of the art projectors. I am not here to knock video, but it certainly sounds like video projectors have a slew of problems which film is mercifully free of, and that the picture quality of home video projectors has been overstated.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 12, 2004, 07:44 AM:

I`m afraid thats clearly not the case at all, my very meagre sony CS2 does awesome pictures up to 7.5 feet and way beyond any film I`ve had, never mind up to that size, over 12 feet or so not even a hint of a pixel and machines now are far beyond that quality wise.I sit at 7 eet or so and its superb, can`t sit that close with my smaller cine picture.
I know someone who has lately bought a bang up to date DLP machine, incredible picture and contrast, no pixellation at all, amazing performance like 35mm at least, £500 brand new.
There are ineviatably problems with any format but on the whole video proction now has to be seen to be belived at the price its now down to, most people get superb and solid problem free viewing and it just getting better. Its no use comparing the picture as such as video will win now hands down, thats not what the fun of cine is about and we don`t need to be scared of video at all. Film will not stand or fall if we say, wow video is really is good now. Cine is more of a hobby in many fun ways but you need to be realistic about it.
I suggest people here go and see a moderate up to date machine and you will be amazed, then come home get out the old elmo and have a good old proper film session as well, great fun and all that but the people who like myself will say how good video proecjtion is now have seem both and believe me can talk from experiance, the two are ideal bedfellows and its just possible cine may attract the odd soul who does video projection but it will be an uphill struggle and I believe that now as I have said I think we collectors and enthusiasts need to back up our love of the hobby with some cash up front.
Best Mark.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 12, 2004, 12:21 PM:

I do see the points and agree that dvd/video projection has definatly come along way, as you rightly say cine is a hobby and in all our views,(i'm sure) an excellent one, there is nothing that can beat true cine projection for the experience, i'm talking about the quality but the actual hobby of cine,(real film) projection. Even now when i show a cartoon to a child or even a normal film to an adult in my little film den they are always silent and amazed at the true film image, but definatly agree that dvd/video projecton is today very good, but back to the original point,, its a bit of a scilly exercise comparing film to digital and visa versa, they are both hobbies in there own right with digital being more convienient and in the case of the films themselves a hell of a lot cheaper with mega amounts more choice, remember cd Vs Vinyl, the showman ship of cine wins hands down for me and one day i will venter into the realms of dvd projection, but i wouldnt sell my collection of 8/16mm to get it. [Wink]

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on July 13, 2004, 03:00 AM:

Mark, come on; like 35mm!!! Not a chance. There isn't a video projector out there that can match 35mm. And that includes the best machines which initially cost millions for places like the Odeon Leicester Square.

I've seen a couple of budget projectors (i.e. sub £10,000) that look very good but still suffer from manufactured imagery. However, that of course primarily comes down to the nature of the discs being used. The best Super 8 prints are still exceptional and give these projectors a run for their money. But as you rightly say, there's more to the cine side of things than just picture quality, it's a real hobby.

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on July 13, 2004, 11:43 AM:

'....Mark, come on; like 35mm!!! Not a chance. There isn't a video projector out there that can match 35mm. And that includes the best machines which initially cost millions for places like the Odeon Leicester Square...'

People are now finding that some parts of a film programme are shown with lights on, other cinemas do not turn lights out, only partialy dim them.
Can these expensive projectors cope with that?

Last 2 films I saw in the cinema just had the sound far too loud, and I'm a person who likes the volume up saying that.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 13, 2004, 11:50 AM:

Yep, good shout John, well put, if film isn't so good why do the BBC and channel 4 still use it today to shhot?
Nuf said ,super 8 is great, its a hobby, and a fine one at that. [Wink]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 13, 2004, 12:29 PM:

Hi No I meant like 35mm in the home really not as such cinema doings but 8 and 16mm have both been surpassed by cheap machines now.
But right its not a hobby like film, most days I even need to just reel out abit of the real stuff and look at the images up to the light for a slight fix, nothing like it but you really need to have caught it bad like we all have.
best Mark.

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on July 14, 2004, 03:16 PM:

I rather like the idea of the UK Forum covering all aspects of projection, I find it very usefull.
As well as this USA 8mm forum I'm in the 16mm forum as well.
I find the 16mm forum in the main covers 16mm topics but on occastions other formats get a mention without folks getting upset.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on July 15, 2004, 02:18 AM:

It doesn't upset me to discuss video projection. What upsets me is mistakenly believing budget video projectors are superior to film projectors. Now 8mm is obviously a tiny gauge but when you see the best prints they still give sub-£10k video projectors a run for their money.

Modern 16mm is exceptional. The previous video projector at the Odeon didn't look like it was quite up to modern 16mm standards. However, if you're basing comparisons on older or poorer releases then of course you will get the impression that budget video projection is superior.

Derann have a very good Sony on sale for £799.99 (or at least they did at the last open day). But it was interesting to see some people looking at it and being instantly convinced it was superior to Super 8 - it wasn't. It was okay for watching the odd disc but you'd soon get tired of it and, assuming your eyes are okay, get sick of the wishy washy qualities just about all these budget machines display. However, I must say for the money it is excellent and better than both my LCD projectors - and those retailed around £7,000 when new a few years back. I got bored with them both very quickly.

Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on July 15, 2004, 09:49 AM:

Hi John,
What you said seems to be the way with all enthusiasts who also have a video projector, i have never herd any one get enthusiastic about video as they do about 8mm.

Chris.

Posted by Keith Wilton (Member # 214) on July 15, 2004, 09:56 AM:

Perhapd Mark Todd could let us into the technical secret of how a budget video projector can be a sgood as 35mm? Most budget machines have a resolution of just 800x600 with some better tuypes reaching just over the 1,000 mark. 35mm film negative resolution, by comparison is, 4096x3112 and even Super 16 outguns Hi-def video with a resoloution of 2048x1152 compared to 1920x1080 (Hi-Def). Please let me kow where I can by one of the fantastic budget machines that out-performs 35mm - I want one! Kwith Wilton

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 15, 2004, 11:58 AM:

Hi Keith,
A very big welcome to the Forum!!! We are honored to have you aboard -hope this is the first of many postings by you. What are the numbers for super 8 resolution?

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 15, 2004, 12:43 PM:

Hi keith its now possible to get a dlp machine now very very cheaply that is " Like" having 35mm in the home, no absolutes but an amazing picture that really does top 16 + 8, thats not affecting one bit how much I love film but it is here now and I`ve seen it.And just make a comparrison space wise.
Its common knowledge that Derek S sold all of his films and collected DVD`s and raved about his video projectors quality and he is one of the people who said to me like 35mm in the home funnily enough.
Its all about what you want and I`m of the mind that they are a great add on to any cine hobbiests ways to enjoy a big picture up there and the magic of the movies, its all about that after all and a video projector opens up doors to allsorts of cracking stuff you could never get or afford on film.
The two companies in the UK who still release film are the only film dealers who push video projectors as far as I know, though other film dealers use video projectors.
Films a hobby and there are times I tire a little of film and times I tire a little of the video depending but I do know that with my sony I`ve had some cracking fun much as I have elmos etc over the years.
I do love film and I`d be happy to actually put my hand in my pocket to support a release but doesn`t seem like any other people would be.
All in all whatever I think and say is open to debate and right or wrong or who cares but I would like to think I never value my own opinion over anyone elses just like to share thoughts.
Best Mark.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on July 15, 2004, 05:19 PM:

Rolling around in a nylon blue anorak howling at the moon is no funany more and it wont make your Elmo Projector work either!!

I thought I saw a puddy cat is it here!!

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on July 15, 2004, 08:45 PM:

Hi, Kieth.
I'm very happy with my PT-AE 500 Panasonic LCD Video projector.
With my digital AV amplifier and several channels of sound, I do seem to get into 'Odeon' quaulity.
In my case money is important and as much as I like cine film in 8 and 16mm I get a DVD for a fraction of the cost of a cine print.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on July 16, 2004, 02:08 AM:

Methinks a few people have missed your point Keith. But as Paul asked, it would be very interesting to know the resolution of Super 8.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on July 16, 2004, 02:58 AM:

But Derek was selling DVD projectors so what better way to convert the s8 die hards?............

I know Iknow stop being a cynic....

Oh, Hi Keith. Nice to see you here

Tony

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 16, 2004, 12:28 PM:

Hello Sir Kieth, i do have to say as good some of these electronic projected images are,i agree there can be no way that the picture can be as good as 35mm. If that was the case why would there be a market for machines costing 10G upward?
I'm not knocking this medium but the cinema trade would do away with film tommorow if they could match the 35mm image and save money and not lose the quality. [Wink]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 16, 2004, 03:19 PM:

They are about to with a very affordable sony on the horizon.
On the 35mm the good DVd projectors now really will give you an experiance like 35mm in the home now, as I mentioned my friends £500 new one is awesome.
And we both have the benifit of doing the two side by said and sadly its no contest, rich lovely almost 3 images, no fade, no warp, vinegar, lines,blue or green bias or excessive grain etc but I can live with that.
Give it a try tom and still enjoy your film, if you see a VP properly set up and run, quite simple to do you will be amazed.
Best Mark.
best Mark.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on July 19, 2004, 03:18 AM:

Some of us do run video and film side by side Mark and there really is no comparison. Film wins hands down all the time. Could there be something wrong with your film setup? Perhaps the back of the lens has a layer of muck or perhaps you're just watching sub-standard prints?

Derann are selling an excellent cheapo LCD Sony for £799 (or at least they were at the open day) but there is no way it can be compared to modern Super 8 prints so the thought of it being in any way comparable to 16mm or even 35mm is just laughable. Others probably think it can compete with film which doesn't make much sense to me. However, I have had this discussion with others in the past and there is generally an explanation - in one case the poor chap hadn't had his eyes tested for years and was using glasses which reduced everything to the same poor level.

The Odeon Leicester Square had a bad experience with their first video projector. I haven't seen the second attempt but when you consider the vast sums of money involved it seems like a major waste of money when the 35mm machines have been in place for decades. All the distributors want to do is pass the costs onto the cinemas rather than having to pay for printing themselves. Smaller cinemas will have to purchase second hand and rejected video projectors from the bigger cinemas which doesn't bode well for image quality. Regular upgrades in machinery will undoubtedly be ongoing unlike with film projectors.

Posted by Tom Mc Kenzie (Member # 241) on July 19, 2004, 05:44 AM:

I know this is a hot subject between forum members from reading previous postings but film does have a special magic about it that new technology can never replace.

Big Elmo lover

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on July 19, 2004, 05:57 AM:

I think the current film vs. video issue is all a bit worrying, because unlike in the past when we were just taking about home set-ups, it's now an issue that threatens main stream cinema.

I've spent a small fortune on DLP, Dolby Digital and literally hundreds of DVDs, simply because I couldn't get the material on 8 or 16mm and wanted above all to experience the films in a "cinema" enviroment, rather than on a TV. But the fact remains that a good 8mm print is so much more involving than DLP projection, with better definition, contrast and colour. True, not all 8mm prints are good. And there's the first problem; comparing an older, dodgy 8mm to a new cleaned-up DVD version is misleading and an unfair comparison of formats. But then there is the delight of finding an old 8mm title at a convention or on a list which holds no promise quality wise and turns out to be a gem, or fixing a problem with a print by re-recording the sound or finding a replacement reel, etc. All part of the fun of collecting real film which, frankly, is much a more enjoyable experience than popping into HMV for a cheap disc.

But then I've popped into HMV for several hundred discs over the last few years! It's convenient to see the latest release at home, or a classic movie with a decent image; but I've always taken comfort from the fact that "real" film is still out there, that a good 8mm copy is the definitive version, or that, when there's time, we can go to the real cinema and see the sparkling quality that only 35mm can manage. And that's the real problem which is starting to worry me; just how much longer is 35mm going to survive?

I've seen several DLP presentations at various cinemas. The first, "Toy Story 2" several years ago looked OK, but then at the same time you couldn't help but be aware that it was a bit of a cheat; there really isn't any contrast challenge in an image like that and the colours are over-emphasised, so the overall impression was alright. The I saw "Mission to Mars". Again, to start with, it looked alright; definition seemed OK with no obvious "video" problems. Maybe the hype was right. Sadly, no. After only a few minutes it became painfully obvious that the contrast was poor; dark scenes held no depth or detail, the kind of image that you go to the real cinema for was not in evidence. Worse, colours looked pale and every now and then the whole image flickered as if from a hand-cranked toy.

Latest examples, such as "Finding Nemo" at the Odeon Leicester Square were the same. "Pirates of the Caribbean" was the almost the last straw for me. In this case, no warning was given that the film was presented using DLP, unlike previous venues which had proudly announced it. I thought I had payed my £11 to see real film. For me, it was awful, no contrast, poor colour and no life to it. But worryingly, the people I was with didn't seem to mind. And that really bothered me. That problem was it did look OK. But just OK and nothing more. Had everyone been treated to a comparison with film, film would have won hands down. Such is the march of technology.

As we all know, many technological advances are commercially driven and there has never been a better example. Staff at the cinema told me of the nightmare day spent downloading "Pirates" from satellite. It made me shudder; the reality of distributors downloading movies into cinemas is here. The fact the it took all day and was frought with problems made me chuckle, but the sad fact is that it works and any problems will soon be iron out.

When I go to the cinema now, I pay my £11 for the best seats in the house and I don't know whether or not I'm paying for a real film show or for video projection. The future is here and it is not an improvement.

Of course, technology will improve and I'd be the first to welcome a commercial electronic medium which really is better than film, certainly the single-handed projectionist who runs 12 screens at my local multiplex would! But that improvement in quality isn't yet. So thank goodness I've still got my reels of film to play with.

Sorry for going on; end of essay. But I do feel strongly about this change and I think that us 8mm film addicts should resist it as long as possible. Sure, enjoy video projection. It's here and it would be foolish not to, but please don't let us convince ourselves that it's better. Infact, on the contrary, complain and insist that it isn't or we may find ourselves with a film-free future all too soon.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 19, 2004, 09:07 AM:

I could not agree more, Rob. Yes, many collectors have now got onto the video projection banwagon and, in fact, many immediately sell off their old cine equipment and films ( or sell their cine equipment and films to fund the video projector purchase), which seems to me a big mistake. I would think that most collectors would later regret doing that, after the novelty of the new video projector wears off a little bit. I am just about to get my first video projector, to supplement some of my S8 shows, and I don't care how wonderful the picture is, I will never sell my 8mm projectors, or any of my film collection. Last night I treated the family to a repeat showing of "Grease", and was struck yet again how fantastic top notch S8 film prints, in genuine CinemaScope and belting Dolby Stereo sound, can be. On my 8ft wide scope screen, it was truly a theatrical experience, it literally left nothing to be desired in terms of visual and sound impact. You are pulled into the picture and sound, and forget it's just little old super 8. Similarly, even the older 4:3 films, the silent Chaplins and L&H'S, somehow have more atmosphere when projected as film, with the chatter of the projector. Children particulary love this, as they have grown up on the video cassette which they now take for granted, and are enthralled when they first encounter the magic of the opto-mechanical projector. If you don't believe me, turn a child loose with a little Pathe Ace, and watch their eyes light up as they crank the handle. Add to that the shear beauty and pride of ownership which is bestowed by the posession and display of superb cine projectors like the GS1200, Bolex 18-5, Eumig 938, B+H Filmo's etc. These are all genuine pieces of design art, engineering excellence and beauty, the likes of which will never be seen again. As for the films themselves, they should be purchase, treasured, and shown for as long as they can be maintained.
I am going to follow Mark Sylvester's advice and enjoy the best of both worlds, film and video, for what qualities they both uniquely have to offer.
Abandon Super 8 cine? No way! It's way too much fun!

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 19, 2004, 10:40 AM:

I have to aggree on the modern derann prints that are if anything better than most 16mm too when they get the colour blance right at the labs.
I really do appreciate the great fun( albeit with many pit falls, ) film can give you, there is a certain quality and feel really good film can get you VP will not.You can`t really put your finger on it.
As I say I think I/ we need both, VP more with a view to keeping an audience entertained with up to date stuff.
For me personally its more about VP taking the uncertainties out of film collecting and watching and I aggree with davids point its a price thing too.
But I don`t think we need to be afraid of VP either, film will always be around and I`m the first to accept my VP does at times sit there idle while I`m in the throes of filmie doings and I doubt I could ever loose the film bug, hec I`ve tried at the good womans behest many times, it just didn`t work as Derrans or Perry`s list etc hit the door mat.
She always knew I`d ordered a film as I unknowingly( maybe guiltily) used to hum the theme tune, a big givaway.
Anyway lets all enjoy watching that great big screen film up there anywhich way we all enjoy.
Best Mark.

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on July 19, 2004, 02:38 PM:

Please not lets fall out over formats.
For a DVD I pay £10 to 15 for a film, also get trailer, edited out scenes and maybe production documentary film etc. and 5 track digital sound.
For one of your Deran S8 films in stereo analogue Prologic sound, what is the cost please?
I did not know the commercial cinemas used video projectors for films in place of 35mm film. ( I knew of course they can have video projectors for closed circuit TV of concerts etc.)
When in use at home my video projector gives a picture of 7 ft approx wide. It's big for my small room.
On the occasions I've visited my local multiplex's I find the screen is too large for the cinema size and the print is not of sufficient quaulity to give quaulity pictures. Indeed these screens are as large as the ones used in the 60's for 70mm prints.
Thus my at home with my DVD I get as good a picture as at the cinema.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 19, 2004, 02:49 PM:

Hi David I still have a bulb here for you, its a johnny come lately and bad memory situation I`m afraid, and I don`t like Post offices.Anyway your still more than welcome to it as a spare so I`ll try to get it off this week as got a couple of ebay bits and another to get off too..
best Mark.

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on July 19, 2004, 05:00 PM:

No problem Mark.
Thankyou.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on August 05, 2004, 01:40 AM:

Keith Wilton's PC is still kaput so he asked me to post the following in response to Paul's question much earlier in this thread:-

Standard 8mm = 380 lines resolution
Super 8 = 600 lines resolution

However, these figures are for Kodachrome which is a very fine grain definition camera stock. Super 8 printing stock will be of a lower definition. With film, the information which stores the information is a random position with each frame. This of course, is not the case with video formats.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2