Comparing 16mm and 35mm images and sound

[Xander van der Merwe]

I thoroughly enjoyed this video, comparing a number of Star Wars films projected in both 35mm and 16mm side by side: https://youtu.be/Z7u_WjdHoUY

[Osi Osgood]

In some cases, the 16mm benefited from the process of duplication. In that the blacks are deeper. The 35mm might have the slightest fade. Although a super 8 is never as wonderful as a 35mm, I am fascinated as to how good the best of super 8 can appear. In some cases, as good as a good 16mm. Thanks for putting up the video.

[Graham Ritchie]

Interesting I thought the blacks looked better on the 35mm print, plus the big one for me, is that you are seeing much more top and bottom image than the 16mm print due to the aperture plate being the right size on the 35mm. As for sound, the 35mm print would be light years ahead of any 16mm print.

My guess is the 35mm examples shown here are from the 90s remaster as all the original 70s prints of the 1977 release of Star Wars would have faded to red long ago.

PS....you cant get this with 16mm

[Brian Fretwell]

I thought mainly the 16mm prints showed too high contrast with slightly unexposed (lighter) highlights. I suspect that's why the blacks looked darker.

The 35mm print I saw on original release was rather pale, though not at all red, even then. I had to up go to see it again from a 70mm print in the centre of London to see it in its full glory.

[Osi Osgood]

I think you are right about that, Brian. The audio is definitely light years ahead on the 35mm! The super 8 copies of Star Wars would or could have audio miles ahead of the 16mm inaudio quality, what, with the capability of great stereo rerecords.

[Ed Gordon]

It's an interesting video, but I don't think any conclusions can be made, other than 35mm is superior in all ways to 16mm (well, Duh!). We have two random prints being compared. It would be a better comparison if two prints had be made from the same negative.

[Osi Osgood]

I thought of that, Ed, as there is no way to know exactly how many generations down those 16mm duped were from the first generation negatives.

[Mike Newell]

It’s a pretty obvious answer. 35mm is/was a professional gauge used in commercial ciinema so we’ll cared for it’s bound to look good. 16mm was similarly also released for professional use such as rentals. It was not a home gauge or package movie format All 16mm prints are STOLEN BOOTLEGs that have fallen through the cracks in the official system. Legally they belong to whoever has the rights or released them not any individual collector.

Super 8 was a home gauge released commercially. Most prints with rare exceptions prior to early 1980s are basically crap between colour fade, softness or hacked off digests.

Derann fair credit to them raised with quality in terms of print and sound of features to a level matching 16mm . You will not get stereo on 16mm . On Super 8 you could also buy film titles that were released after 1985 which is roughly the cut off point for 16mm prints. Sound was also superior with these prints as most 16mm prints are well really old.

In terms of mobility apart from bigger Elmos and Sankyos an 8mm projector is a hell of a lot easier to move than any 16mm projector. As I think Dave Baker said you moved 16mm projectors round on trolleys at school for a reason. Another point to consider with the age and health of collectors. Look at the photos of recent collector fairs for evidence.

In the end it’s comes down to presentation. If you have a proper cinema environment you can do a proper comparison for print or sound.

However most collectors don’t have this and are projecting close to where they are sitting onto a blank wall, bed sheet or the old faithfuls back of a door or fridge. Everything looks good at that concentration Least you can always get a cold drink 🍺 handy.

[Brian Fretwell]

Yes it was the move, mainly by Derann, to using (except for cut-downs) inter-negative masters without projection print intermediates and the change from 8mm contact printing to continuous reduction from 16mm negatives, often the ones used for the 16mm prints, that cause the great increase in quality.

The development of LPP print and increased quality internegative stocks ensured that they didn't fade. Mind you the Agfa stock used for some Standard 8 releases seems just as good today so I have good hopes for later prints on Agfa and later varieties of Fuji.