Jump to content

16mm dying...


Adam Frisch FSF

Recommended Posts

I really hate to see a thread like this because i'm really excited with my Bolex setup and doing 16mm photography with it. I'm really hoping to shoot, make workprints, and have the occasional nice transfer for as long as I can... regardless of the industry. If the format were to die, shooting HD would not be at all the same for me... I am not working with emulsions, it is not photography :(

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I really hate to see a thread like this because i'm really excited with my Bolex setup and doing 16mm photography with it.

 

Just don't forget that a thread like this is nothing more than one mans opinion and not based on any facts. That's the problem with the internet, people believe it too easily. I find it's more like the game phone tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't necessarily think 16mm is dying. It's going out of fashion but remember "what goes around comes around". Remember that film has/is the only proven track record for long term archiving.

 

How many video formats have we seen come and go in the last 3 decades? and how many more shall we see in the next 3 decades?

 

I don't think we should write off 16mm just yet. Ask me the same question in 20 years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the arguments that film has been talked down before hold any water when you are talking about the present.

 

I could say in '06 that gas would be up to $5/U.S. gal. in 2009, or that we won't ever have a black president in the U.S. because we never have before, or that the U.S. won't have a recession because we haven't had one in 28 years, and all of those would be equally wrong assertions. Hell I could've said that Ireland would never go fully Metric, because they'd had miles and feet since about 1066, but they did in '05.

 

As they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee of future success. . .

 

 

 

As far as film goes, I hope it continues to stick around in the future, because the day that this industry can no longer offer work (either independent work or work for someone else) for someone who chooses to work primarily with film is the day I quit and start doing something else :blink:

 

I want to work with the best, and until digital becomes noticeably better than film in all respects, I will not embrace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Andy

 

Got the impression of somebody experienced badly with small gauge film projection. I am a professional projectionist since twenty years. Fumeo is by far not the best 16-mm film projector. If you want to know about some makes: Bell & Howell Filmosound line (yes, Fifties), Siemens & Halske 2000, Bolex-Paillard 311/321 with a few restrictions, Diksi TFP and Dixi-720 line.

 

We have polyester film. I spoke about reduction prints (from 35). CinemaScope out of 16 does not deal with a smaller image area; it's standard 3 to 4 and anamorphics.

 

You are perfectly right about two-format machinery. One of the worst apparatus we have in Europe is that Ernemann combination crap. Unbelievably, the 16 section is connected to the 35 one by gears. Horrible and noisy

 

Arnold & Richter are selling the 416 like fresh rolls. 16 is still to stay for years. Besides, it needn't always be EKC and Fuji to deliver raw stock. In black and white EKC has lost some ground to other manufacturers. Wait and see whether not one day some chinese 16 color stock will appear on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

After half a year absence from this forum, it's good to see that some topics never die ;) .

 

From a European perspective, I am always astonished how much is actually still shot in 16mm in the US. As was noted previously, 16mm is still a regular format for tv series & dramatic productions, certainly in Germany, and also in France (and even in the UK, at least more in 2008 than in previous years). Meanwhile in the US, that has always (or to be more precise: more than not) been filmed on 35mm.

 

So while the drop of 70% that David shared ealier here is dramatic indeed, from a European viewpoint, the fact that things get shot on 16 at all is quite surprising.

 

If I go to the RED forum now (my first time since August), will I find a thread saying "RED finally killed off 16mm obsolete format?"

 

 

Good to be back here,

 

-Michael :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got the impression of somebody experienced badly with small gauge film projection. I am a professional projectionist since twenty years. Fumeo is by far not the best 16-mm film projector. If you want to know about some makes: Bell & Howell Filmosound line (yes, Fifties), Siemens & Halske 2000, Bolex-Paillard 311/321 with a few restrictions, Diksi TFP and Dixi-720 line.

 

Simon,

In fairness its been a few years since i've been involved in art-house cinemas and film societies so my memory is hazy - and I was never based on the technical side unfortunately. From what I remember the Fumeo was always the solution to some embarrassing incidents when a dual-gauge projector decided to punch a new set of perfs down the middle of a print for 20'. In the twenty or so projection box's i've been in, i've only ever seen Fumeo's for 16, the rest of the time its been the notorious dual gauge projector.

 

In fact on a job (I occasionally do AV events work to supplement my camera-trainee work) at the Barbican cinema I asked what they used when they had to show 16mm, he pointed to the two 35mm projectors and said it was dual-gauge (though admittedly it could be a very reliable machine)!

 

We have polyester film. I spoke about reduction prints (from 35). CinemaScope out of 16 does not deal with a smaller image area; it's standard 3 to 4 and anamorphics.

 

Sorry, was muddled there, I was thinking 1.85 but also thinking of a few years ago of seeing a scope 16mm presentation on a literally ENORMOUS (only when 2.35:1) screen, and it just didn't look good compared to the 35mm scope prints I'd seen on it so often.

 

Though from my personal experiences 16mm prints can look great, at uni i remember seeing some gorgeous prints of Its a Wonderful Life, Voyage to Italy and they looked great, showing the beautiful richness of black and white photography, far better than seeing them off DVD. When at film-school I had the fortune and embarrassment of seeing myself projected on it from our camera exercises, and the opacity and detail is tremendous, it even shamed me to become a gym member.

 

However even back in back in 2002 when I was involved in film societies, the BFI and Filmbank the two non-theatrical distributors told me that they had categorically stopped buying in 16mm prints, this was incredibly annoying at the time, and Filmbank was still pushing VHS for new-releases. I can only imagine how bad it is today - plus now you have film festival not offering 16mm as a possible presentation format.

 

Of course, Super 16 as a shooting format is still extremely common, labs are making a lot of money from it, and both Aaton and Arri have got relatively new Super 16mm cameras, so the source format is healthy, but I think the distribution format is very much dead.

 

Its a shame, that at the end of a decade where we have seen some of the most beautifully shot Super 16 films (partial or exclusive), Vera Drake, The Last King of Scotland, Motorcycle Diaries, The Squid and the Whale that we're so readily talking about its demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the plus side, if film is going out of style with industry productions, it will give you the opportunity to set yourself apart from the pack when you do shoot on film.

 

HD looks great for some things, film looks great for some things. The only thing I really fear about HD taking over is that film processing labs might go out of business. From what I can tell at my local lab, though, they are still extremely busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi Adam, I'm wondering if this trend in the last year is largely due to the specific nature of music video production - it tends to be more focused on experimenting with new technology, using the newest, coolest gear etc....

 

Do you think there is any truth in that?

 

Cheers,

Andy

 

No, not really. It's driven by cold, hard cash, I'm afraid. MV producers are probably even more anxious than other producers to come in on budget as everything is so tight (an all MV directors have ideas that are too big for their budget). It used to be that we couldn't shoot on Red because the post was to expensive for them. Now they've crossed that hurdle and all of a sudden everything has to be shot on the Red. The reasons are clear - it costs £300 to rent and it's hard to compete with that. Personally, I always try to get the D21, as it's a much better camera, but I rarely get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now they've crossed that hurdle and all of a sudden everything has to be shot on the Red. The reasons are clear - it costs £300 to rent and it's hard to compete with that. Personally, I always try to get the D21, as it's a much better camera, but I rarely get it.

 

Does the £300 for a RED include the lenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As more and more films are shot on digital, more and more people will get accustomed to that look and film will eventually become a thing of the past.

Sad but true.

All we can do is adapt the best we can. I still have trouble with the word "videographer" - sounds cheap and digital cinematographer sounds like I am a hologram.

I'm glad that I started professionally in the 80's when it was "experimental" to shoot a music video on video and shot super8 in the late 70's when it was all over the place.

Definitely not the time to open a film lab...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes Walter, I agree that we're all (background noise of drilling and grinding machinery) two-cent chainlinks. However, (whrrrr, thrruump) in adding my two cents to the mix, I would say that (tap-tap-tap) Regular 16 may be dead. Super 16 is very much ( wooossshhh....kerrchuunk ) alive and kicking. I've never had as many conversions (file-file polish-polish) in my life. Can't move for bloody cases. Cheers (Slam), Bernie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Walter, I agree that we're all (background noise of drilling and grinding machinery) two-cent chainlinks. However, (whrrrr, thrruump) in adding my two cents to the mix, I would say that (tap-tap-tap) Regular 16 may be dead. Super 16 is very much ( wooossshhh....kerrchuunk ) alive and kicking. I've never had as many conversions (file-file polish-polish) in my life. Can't move for bloody cases. Cheers (Slam), Bernie

 

Ha ha, very interesting, I can only imagine all those CP16s and Eclairs piled up. But what do they all use for lenses to cover the Super 16 gate?

 

Of course rental houses are all very keen to give major discounts on Super 16 rents, after all its like money for old rope for them.

 

Forget about getting a deal on 35mm lenses, the're like hot cakes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

I'm curious about how people did low light back in the paleolithic era. I want to shoot a science drama pilot set in the 1960s.

 

Here's a shot from S01E02 Roswell listed as being from 1999 done with Arri S16.

 

A fairly lit street but I'm wondering: How to get this with S16? Is that street lit up with trucks all over the place?

 

Or is it a fast prime? Or both? I'm assuming this is probably 500T but welcome advice on how I can lose money on my own science drama and have the cool look of film doing it.

 

What I'm hoping is it's NOT "gen trucks and big lights and 500T and a 1.2....."

 

 

 

 

post-34466-0-45543500-1474112641_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

They used genies and big lights, maybe even 200T stock though today the 500T stock would work. This shot has at least two big HMIs being used, maybe both on condors, but definitely the one backlighting the street. Probably a fast prime as well.

 

It's just lighting. You can shoot in fairly low light levels with 500T film and a fast prime but at some point, if things get any lower, you either need to add some light or underexpose and push the film and get more grain. Night exteriors in a suburban or rural setting often need lighting because the natural sources are too dim or too few to provide enough exposure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I remember reading a French magazine interview with John Bartley, fresh off his success with The X-Files and Roswell. He mentioned they shot with ARRI Arriflex 16SR 3 and Zeiss, and using 7245 and 7274, so Kodak EXR 50 D and Vision 200 T . This was part of him expressing being very content with the transition from EXR to Vision (which I was sceptical about back then until 7217 became available, even on Super 8). There was also a brief section about the new 800 ft magazine and equally new 7289, the Vision 800 T and that he would consider going full 800 to check it out but being generally hesistant on using high-speed film stock for its on sake, to eschew good lighting. Back then, greater magazine diversity was en vogue, with Aaton and Beaulieu joining ARRI in offering more choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

They did shots like that ALL THE TIME in X-Files, they really loved doing low light especially in the early seasons shot in Canada (I've always wondered if the production in Canada had somewhat more "freedom" to do more risky, dark shots than is usually common in american drama/sci-fi programs). It's usually the same concept as in the pic you posted with some big light backlighting the whole scene. I think X-Files must have some of the most amazing TV photography from the 1990's. Btw X-Files was always 35mm, it's Roswell that was shot on 16mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the cinematographer decide on which format he wants to shot a TV-series? Or is that given by the studio ("all our series are now filmed on...")?

 

Ha! Like that will ever happen.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just been reading the early posts in this thread, when 16mm was "beginning to die", and it's kind of amazing how much things have changed in just 7 years. In this very thread there's still talk of 35mm blow-ups, does anyone even do that anymore? AFAIK here in Spain as well as most of Europe 16mm blow-ups aren't being done anymore, nor neg-cutting in any format. I think Andec might still offer these services, but they're not commonly used. In any case, 35mm projection certainly is dead, at least commercially speaking. However, 16mm has nevertheless survived all of this, as if sitting in the eye of the hurricane. The despised middle brother, not as dirt cheap and hipster-y as Super8, not as gorgeous and of highest-end quality as 35mm (certainly not as 65mm), it's probably the most pointless and unloved of all formats, and yet here we are a bunch of strange persons still keeping this anachronism alive. And despite all the crap I'm throwing at this middle brother of film formats, keep in mind that I'll openly admit it to be my favourite format, of much higher quality than Super8, but much cheaper and accessible than 35.

 

Interestingly, I think now that the storm from the early 2010's is blowing over, 16mm can again find its niche, just like Super8 did before, and just like 35mm is doing. In fact, it's probably thanks to all the digital advances that 16mm is easier to use than ever. Not only because cameras have become cheaper than ever, but precisely because you don't have to worry about neg cutting nor blowups anymore. I think most of us "progressive" film aficionados won't deny that the main point of shooting film is capturing the image in the camera, not the lab processes and getting a "100% optical" print at the end (which is still really cool and I'm sad I'll probably never get to do it). In less than 10 years the 16mm workflow has radically changed and is now pretty standardized as

 

Shooting on 16mm/S16 > Lab > Transfer > Standard digital workflow

 

There's no doubt that 16mm usage now is a fraction of what it was just 10 years ago. But I think 16mm is now in much better health than 10 years ago. By now, 16mm needs very little use to be kept alive. Kodak as well as labs don't need highly specific equipment for 16mm, materials are the same, chemistry is the same. Just a different gauge. No more blow-up printing which in some early post someone said was troublesome because labs weren't maintaining their machines properly. No more 16mm neg cutting. No more maintaining expensive Steenbecks.

 

I never would have been able to afford neg cutting and blow-up for my 16mm short. However, I could afford camera rental and film stock with processing and transfer. Yeah, film stock is a bit more expensive than 10 years ago, but it's still adds up to much less than neg cutting and blow up. I find 16mm now to be incredibly accesible for even the most simple productions, since you don't have to deal with the lab except for developing and transfer.

 

I honestly believe that film has the best chance of surviving in the long term if digital is seen as an ally rather than an enemy. We'll never go back in time to when it was the cheapest "serious" format and video was TV territory, just like it doesn't matter if HD came by as an evil conspiracy to sell more TVs (who'd have thought manufacturers would want to sell more TVs, go figure). One can't stop new things from being invented, and there's little point in seeing big evil conspiracies planning for many years to kill film. Of course video/digital manufacturers were eventually going to come after film, it's only logical that they'd want to improve their medium to compete with the next step. Competition drives innovation, and I love film just as much as the next person, but one can't just pretend to live in a fairyland where everyone desists of improving technology in respect of the romance of film. In any case it would be the fault of Kodak, Fuji and camera manufacturers that they allowed video to catch up with them. And also of us film users for not being able to promote it enough. I think it's important that we let people around us know that film is alive and well, and that shooting film has never been easier, because once past the camera stage it all works exactly the same as digital does. Many people around me are pretty amazed that I shot on 16mm (then again, spaniards are extremely close-minded towards trying anything "outside the norm" and are always more eager to tell you why you shouldn't do anything rather than why you should). I think many people just aren't aware of the possibilities of film, and still have this idea that it's so much more expensive and complicated than just using a digital camera, and won't even look into it, while it could actually be a real possibility.

 

Just my two cents on the whole state of 16mm.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

We are currently working on four feature length 16mm films, and many many more smaller 16mm projects.

 

One thing I will say about the film to digital workflow is that the quality and cost of scanning film is much more favorable now and scanners with 2K and 4K 16mm scan capability are widely available and fast.

 

"I'm not dead yet" -16mm

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Currently I’m working on my special duplicating apparatus for heavily shrunk 16-mm film.

The idea, the solution in it of the geometric problem, can be applied to any film format but

I want to start in 16 because it’s the most touchy of all formats.

 

While nobody knows what the future will bring I do know that archival techniques mustn’t

be limited to scanning. The most important step of preservation is the making of the best

possible contact reproduction. We have fantastic raw stocks at our hands, it is plain

stupid to not employ them, silver-salt emulsions with a resolving power up to 1000 line pairs

per millimeter and silverless emulsions that have a resolving power of 5000 line pairs per

millimeter and more.

 

If there is anybody interested in this, I am open for partnership. My prototype is half-finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It is very interesting to read how much has changed since I started this thread. D21's? :blink:

 

But I don't agree that 16mm has much of a future in professional broadcast. Today with 4K, it just can't really provide broadcast resolution or standards. It will of course survive in the same way as Super 8 has, used for it's look to enhance a creative look, maybe as a flashback sequence etc, but as part of mainstream, no.

 

Sorry, I wish I could be more positive about the format, but I don't think it has a great future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...