David Cunningham

Sad...

That's horrible. I would complain.

I have a Kodak Pageant Super16 modified projector... Gate widened and lens re-centered. Works great. Cinelab in MA does Super16 contact prints from Super16 negatives.

Ok... so, definitely looking for a Beaulieu 709 or Elmo ST-1200 (avoiding the unnecessary GS line). Now, however, I am curious if there is a manual feed/setup/looping forming Super 8 projector of high quality. I figure unlikely due to the amateur nature of the format. But, I'm hoping there is a good quality projector out there, not unlike my Kodak Pageant 250 series.

Having only seen the 35mm print thus far, I have to say I was very happy with it. (Unfortunately, one of the projectors in my theater appeared to have a small shutter issue so there was occasional highlight flicker... I eventually learned to ignore it). I have to agree about the early dimly lighted scenes... it did almost look E100D like. It was beautiful. My theater too was full of college students and the like... rowdy and obnoxious. By the end of the film, it was a solid 2 minutes into the credits before anyone even moved.... silently out the door. They knew they had just watched a brilliant work of art. I'm having a hard time getting past some of the very large scientific assumptions and leaps of faith in the film. But I do get it. A bit too sappy to me. But I get it.

Ditto... USPS Priority Mail all the time without issue.

That's awesome! Thanks for that link. I wonder how easy that would be to covert to Super16 projection.

Thanks everyone. I found the previous post asking the same question and the Elmo ST-1200 definitely nicely sounds like the favorite and a good projector. I was almost hoping for something more like the pageant 250 I have... More manual feed and loop forming than these plastic auto looping units. Also. Very interested in a 3 or even 5 blade shutter for optimum flicker reduction. Are there any Super 8 projectors with a 3 or 5 blade shutter?

That did it! No more flicker! Thanks again Jean-Louis!

Nevermind... answered my own question when I started reading the link you sent... apparently my pageant is a 3 blade or 2 blade setup.

Hi All, I am looking to replace my cheap plastic Super 8 projector and was looking for opinions on the best ones. I'm not even sure if such a thing is made, but I would love to get my hands on a 3-blade shutter (triple flash) Super 8 projector if such a thing exists. Dave

Thanks Jean-Louis... investigating. Is there such a thing as a triple flash/shutter 16mm projector? i know there is in 35mm. Dave

Hello, I am looking for suggestions about my 16mm projector and what/if I should buy another one. It is a Kodak Pageant 250 series projector. I ask because it has a small amount of noticeable flicker to it. I'm wondering if this is because it's cheap in the first place and has a single opening shutter and if there is a better option out there... and... if it should not have this flicker what the likely problem is that's causing it. Thanks for any advise you can offer! Dave

I need you to help me with the following survey (and also I'm waiting for your questions!): 1. Is this an affordable price? he he 2. Which film speed you use most ? 3. How many cans you will buy as the first order? 4. How many cans (800' of film) you think you'll buy/ month at this price? 5. Are you interested in buying the processing chemicals for it? Please replay to this post as in the bellow example: 1. yes 2. 100 3. 1 4. 1 times/month 5. NO

... from agfa

I didn't suggest it was 35mm still film being cut down to 16mm... Wittner is able to get unperffed 35mm film in 1000ft+ lengths that they cut down to 16mm... so...

Do I assume correctly that this is either Kentemere or Fomapan film cut down to 16mm?

I find it most interesting that the colors are completely different in the two examples. You would think those doing the color grading would have talked to each other and created a more uniform look. The 65mm looks more natural and correct to me. The 35mm looks over saturated and contrasty... weird.

That should have been 140 lpmm... not 240. Still a high number... but not what I meant.

I'll have to break out my 2K scans of an "HD" test target shot on Vision3 50D Super 8. I am almost positive I was able to make out the lines equivalent to HD. I would have to do the math all over again, but I believe it was 240 lpmm. Now, that doesn't mean that it's truly usable or worthwhile because at that scan rate the grain is huge and distracting. But, for over sampling purposes, I believe most would agree that (give or take a K) 2K is good for Super 8, 4K for Super16, 8K for Super35 and 16K for 5-perf 70mm. IMAX 15-perf then becomes a whole new ball game. Even if you drop that down to 720P HD for Super 8, 2K for Super16, 4K for Super35 and 8K for 5-perf 70mm it still leaves 15-perf IMAX looking for 24K, not the 11K max that I am aware of and the 8K used for Interstellar. But, all that said, even if the resolution is not there, per my expectation, the best point appears to be from David Mullen. Surely scanning Super35 at 6K and then very lightly sharpening and de-grain/noising will help it blend better with the IMAX negative. So, there may be a major advantage to scanning in that case rather than optical.

I really wish I had a source for the 70mm version. This version is all photochemical (except for CGI of course). The 65mm IMAX was optically squeezed down to 5 perf 70mm and the 35mm anamorphic optically enlarged to 5 perf 70mm. Only the CGI (presumably done only in IMAX at 8K) was digitally printed back to negative. What I find odd is a 6K scan of the original 35mm negative was used to produce the 70mm 15-perf IMAX negative/print. That seems counter-intuitive to me. Why would you take a "lousy" 6K scan and print it to 15-perf IMAX? Why not just optically enlarge? The only thing I can think of is because no one else had ever done that before so the option just wasn't available. Still seems silly.

Unfortunately, I do not have a 70mm (5 perf or IMAX) showing in my area. I know for a fact that there are 5/70 theaters in my area (including the Somerville Theater where I will be viewing the 35mm version). But, it must not have been deemed worth the extra cost by those theaters or they were not selected. I dunno. So, I will have to settle for 35mm. The one thing I will give the 35mm showing is that all original 35mm camera negatives were used to create a photochemical workflow for the 35mm print. Only the 65mm IMAX was scanned, DI'd and printed back to 35mm negative. The original scan of the IMAX 65mm was 8K and was printed back to 35mm IN at 4K. Then someone cut it all together into a single negative that could be used to create 35mm prints. What is interesting about that to me is I may ultimately be viewing more resolution in the original 35mm portions than the IMAX original portions. 35mm should be pushing the envelope at or even past 6K. So, printing to it in only 4K is not taking full advantage of the potential. The "generation loss" of internegatives, etc in the photochemical workflow is probably ending up with about a 4K result, so it probably doesn't matter. But, still an interesting thought.

This basically answers all my questions: https://interstellar.withgoogle.com/transmissions#/viewing-experience/detail

As a follow-up... from what I have heard Interstellar did use a combination of photochemical and CGI where shots without computer aid are 100% photochemical, blown up or down to the appropriate size print. I'm sure the projection we are seeing in theaters is 4th or 5th generation since the original camera negative... but, especially in 70mm, I bet it looks great. I hope that their solution was to blow up the original 35mm camera negatives to 70mm before cutting and editing and that all print internegatives were created from the same 70mm source be it IMAX, 5/70 or 35mm final print.

My understanding is that there is yet to be a 70mm scanner truly capable of resolving the information on the film... so, I'm not saying can they scan the 70mm IMAX film... I'm saying is the trade off for loss due to scanning and then loss due to printing better or worse than the loss due to copy after copy process involved in a true photochemical release print. I never realized the beauty of film projection until I shot my own 16mm Vision3 50D footage and had it time printed immediately after processing. The result was stunning! And this was on an old Kodak Pageant 16mm projector. I love E100D reversal for it's colors and look, but the Vision3 series printed to Vision print film is amazingly sharp, detailed and accurate.... Just a beautiful thing to watch.