The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons
http://www.scifimarathon.com/phpBB2/

The Rant
http://www.scifimarathon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=808		 Page 3 of 3
Author:  AEinhorn [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:56 am ]
Post subject: 
I hate to say it, but then you haven't been listening too closely. While I personally don't mind video projection - or 16MM - to say that there are no complaints isn't true. I've heard lots of very vocal complaining from people about both of those things.

Actually, I hear it a lot more about video projection.

I agree that the event is about showing the films, and that the format doesn't matter - to a point. One thing to be cognizant of is the fact that every time we change format, it involves more set-up time in the booth.
Author:  Jaws3dfan [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:01 am ]
Post subject: 
AEinhorn wrote:
I hate to say it, but then you haven't been listening too closely. While I personally don't mind video projection - or 16MM - to say that there are no complaints isn't true. I've heard lots of very vocal complaining from people about both of those things.

Actually, I hear it a lot more about video projection.

I agree that the event is about showing the films, and that the format doesn't matter - to a point. One thing to be cognizant of is the fact that every time we change format, it involves more set-up time in the booth.


I think it depends on the title. For example when Dawn of the Dead showed in 16mm everyone cheered!
Author:  VitruvianZeke [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 
(Concerning the 16mm situation)

There have been several events (at more than one theater) where 16mm was not even an option (or was a very limited option at best.) I'm don't believe the Bexley can currently run 16mm. The Grandview's 16mm projector needs some repair-work (or replacement) before it's serviceable, and I know some of the other theater choices in the past have only had rudimentary options for 16mm.

Hardware availability is as big a reason that 16mm has not been run in the past as anything. It's the primary reason why "Gravity" and the "Bread" films haven't been shown at several of the Marathons (except on video.) Plus, as people have pointed out, a 16mm pan-and-scan print is a TERRIBLE way to present a film, and if that's the only option I'd rather see something else that was "rare and hard to acquire."

I for one was 1000x happier to see "Logan's Run" last year than I would ever have been to see a 16mm pan-and-scan print of "The Green Slime." So for my money the Powers That Be are doing just fine.

(And no, I don't get paid to say that.) :)
Author:  Jaws3dfan [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 am ]
Post subject: 
VitruvianZeke wrote:
So for my money the Powers That Be are doing just fine.


I agree they are doing fine, I think Bruce has always made the best possible choices and I would ALWAYS rather see a 35mm print over projection or 16mm, my point was that it has been done in the past and for certain films the audience appreciated being able to see the movie regardless of the format.
Author:  willcail [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
The theater screens are design to display 35MM (various aspect ratio) and video projection. 16MM doesn't work on modern theater screen.

It looks small, it is possible to see the magnetic soundtrack if the projector did feed the film correctly. To me 16mm looks cheap. HD Video have a higher resolution, it can run at 24 frames per second and certain video projection systems can support anamorphic and certain cameras can support anamorphic lenses.

True 16mm supports anamorphic but it is hard to track down a anamorphic lenses for 16mm anamorphic prints.

Most 16mm cameras these days shoot flat. I still see 16mm does have it purpose for TV series and to blown up to 35MM prints.
Author:  Jaws3dfan [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
willcail wrote:
It looks small, it is possible to see the magnetic soundtrack if the projector did feed the film correctly.


If the projector feeds the film correctly you should not be able to see the magnetic soundtrack.
Author:  KidneyPi [ Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:32 am ]
Post subject: 
willcail wrote:
Most 16mm cameras these days shoot flat.


If you mean what I think you mean, this isn't an issue if the film has a decent gaffer or the colorist did his job correctly in the transfer. There is nothing inherently "flat" about the format. The same emulsions are used in 16mm as in other formats. Cheap crap lenses can contribute to the film looking flat, but these days, if someone can afford to shoot film, they can usually afford decent lenses too.
Author:  L.A. Connection [ Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 
There is a GIGANTIC difference between making a movie today in 16MM and showing an old 16mm print from 1968! THE HURT LOCKER was filmed in high quality 16MM and was Oscar nominated for it's camerawork.

But, a 16mm print from the 60s or 70s is a whole other matter. They were often cheaply produced. The prints have been through the ringer as they were rented out to schools, libraries, youth groups and any schmo willing to fork over $50 to show it in his basement. Needless to say, often times the projector, not to mention the Projectionist, were often not the best. Further, many widescreen films (which includes GREEN SLIME) were panned and scanned to be able to be shown on TV - and to save renters from having to invest in an anamorphic lens for their projectors.

Having said all that, I still don't mind 16mm as much as the powers that be in Ohio and Boston. But, it does cost $$ if the theater doesn't come equipted with the format. It's been 14 years since 16MM was done in Boston, and it required renting and installing a projector just for that one showing (a Premiere of one of the legendarily bad films of the Marathon era - NIAGRAVATION).

The print of GREEN SLIME that the private collector I spoke to owns is not only in 16MM - but pan and scan.
Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/