16mm movies

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by xaero

Sorry for double post but I really want to find out.


I wrote before: "If the TV show (90's) was shot in 16mm, how much possible to see it in HD/Blu-Ray with better quality than DVD?"
And now I have more info about it.
TV show was shot in super 16mm with Arriflex 16SR3 camera.
So how about Blu-Ray release now?

Anything could happen, but for now I would say it's extremely unlikely. There are loads of popular TV shows shot on 35mm or native HD, with existing HD masters, that haven't made it to Blu-ray, so going back and re-transferring an old 16mm show would not be a priority for many distributors. For example it was announced that The Shield would not get a Blu-ray release, as the producers said 16mm wasn't good enough for HD (which is completely bogus, it's all about money of course, but there are attitudes like that, BBC for example refuses to do anything shot on 16mm in HD.)

Not to mention that even if they re-transferred the show in HD, it might take a long while before they released it on Blu-ray. I believe Twin Peaks, Seinfeld and Friends have had completed HD masters for years and there are still no Blu-rays.

However if it was released on Blu-ray properly, it would likely be a huge improvement over the DVDs. Not only because of the higher resolution, but a completely new scan of the film would certainly blow any old transfers made in the '90s out of the water.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by xaero

Hello. I'm new here.
I don't want to create a new thread so I ask here.

If the TV show (90's) was shot in 16mm, how much possible to see it in HD/Blu-Ray with better quality than DVD?

I know of two British TV shows from the 90's that were filmed in 16mm and remastered in HD for BD release: Pride & Prejudice (1995), and Sharpe's War. They are both enormous improvements over the DVD release, but not as sharp as the average blu-ray.

Very, very few American TV shows from the 90's (and comparatively few ever) were filmed in 16mm* Did you have a specific TV show in mind?

*Now that I think about it there are more currently running, or recently canceled, US TV shows in 16mm than there were in the 90's. Chuck, The Shield, and Burn Notice come to mind. I rented Burn Notice season 2 on BD and it was hardly any improvement at all from DVD. I wonder if they film in 16mm because they're cheap or going for a certain look?

[worth]

The problem with most shows made between the mid-80s to about the late-90s is that all post production work was done on standard-def video, regardless of what format the series was photographed on.

In order to transfer everything to HD, they'd have to go back to the camera negatives, re-cut everything based on the original editing notes (if they still exist) and redo all optical work and special effects. That's a very time consuming and expensive process, which is why you probably won't see it for all but the most popular shows.

Shows shot on film made prior to about 1985 were edited and finished on film, so it's much simpler and cheaper to have them retransfered to HD.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by worth

The problem with most shows made between the mid-80s to about the late-90s is that all post production work was done on standard-def video, regardless of what format the series was photographed on.

In order to transfer everything to HD, they'd have to go back to the camera negatives, re-cut everything based on the original editing notes (if they still exist) and redo all optical work and special effects. That's a very time consuming and expensive process, which is why you probably won't see it for all but the most popular shows.

Shows shot on film made prior to about 1985 were edited and finished on film, so it's much simpler and cheaper to have them retransfered to HD.

Which is why we have Star Trek:TOS on Blu, but no sign of Star Trek:TNG, which is a damn shame.

What about shows that had no optical or special effects work from that time period?

[singhcr]

The new show "The Walking Dead" was shot on 16mm film.

[-Sandro-]

Originally Posted by singhcr

The new show "The Walking Dead" was shot on 16mm film.

and it looked very bad to me

[xaero]

Originally Posted by -Sandro-

and it looked very bad to me

Hmm, strange.
It looked very good to me.

[ranma]

Black swan was mainly shoot on ARRI super 16mm, I believe it will has blu-ray release soon.

[-Sandro-]

Originally Posted by xaero

Hmm, strange.
It looked very good to me.

It did?
For me it was all about distracting grain, low res and chromatic aberration everywhere

[xaero]

I read somewhere that some TV shows were filmed in 16mm and edited on video?
What is the point of doing this?
I thought only tapes were edited on video...

[Tetsuo27]

Tigerland was shot on either 16mm or Super16. I'm very curious to how this will look on blyray

[TeresofBlood]

Most of Black Swan was shot on 16mm. The rest was shot digital.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by xaero

I read somewhere that some TV shows were filmed in 16mm and edited on video?
What is the point of doing this?
I thought only tapes were edited on video...

It's much faster to edit on video. So what they did was stripe the negative (or a workprint) with identifying frame numbers and then transfer to video. Then they edit on video because it was easier. Then the video editor (the machine) generated a cut list (an "edit decision list") that tells you on what frames to cut the negative for the "A" and "B" rolls, which could be done by a lab tech - it didn't require a full-fledged Editor. Then you print the cut negative.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by -Sandro-

and it looked very bad to me

I thought it looked astounding- one of the most detailed images that I've seen on TV, movie or otherwise. It's nice to see a film-like look for TV shows for once instead of the same super-clean, high-contrast cookie-cutter video look that every other show seems to employ.

On the same note, "Breaking Bad" also looks incredible and was also shot on 16mm film.

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

It's much faster to edit on video. So what they did was stripe the negative (or a workprint) with identifying frame numbers and then transfer to video. Then they edit on video because it was easier. Then the video editor (the machine) generated a cut list (an "edit decision list") that tells you on what frames to cut the negative for the "A" and "B" rolls, which could be done by a lab tech - it didn't require a full-fledged Editor. Then you print the cut negative.

Cool. Thanks for the info. It's my understanding that alot of shows that incorporated this process actually stay in the video domain. Now of course we are talking broadcast masters not VHS tape but video all the same. For example if you watch the DVD releases of the 80's Twilight Zone the quality is atrocious and you can actually see video lines in the image from time to time. So I would imagine apart from reconstruction those shows will never go any further in quality. I think Buffy The Vampire Slayer was finished on video as well because of the digital effects which I guess will always be SD uprezzed no matter what you do. I think Twin Peaks got a new HD transfer but some of the effects had to be uprezzed from video masters, you can really tell the difference in quality when they cut back and forth. However we could get those HD masters of Twin peaks on BD.

[GhibliFan]

Originally Posted by -Sandro-

... Anyway 16mm is definitely not a material for bluray to me

Seeing as someone else already committed the grave sin of thread necromancy on this debate, I thought I'd do it again. If only to serve the archives when this question pops up again, as there seems to be a bit of misinformation as regards the quality of 16mm sourced Blu-ray discs.

16mm (and Super 16mm) have easily enough resolution for BD. In fact it far out runs BD's 1080p limit. I have Sharpe on Blu-ray that was shot on Super 16mm, and even though noise and grain is problem, the detail is extremely impressive in comparison to the DVD's. I also have a couple of other Super 16mm sourced BD's, and in every case they kick DVD in the pants. There are articles on the web that discuss the resolution of Super 16mm and one puts it at 1400x2490 lines, if I read the table/graph correctly?

http://cinematechnic.com/super_16mm/...uper_16mm.html

Even if I've not read it correctly, it is clear on viewing that Super 16mm should always be considered for HD transfers. I have to admit though, they never look as good as 35mm sourced stuff, mainly due to the aforementioned noise (in general that is... I've seen a few 35mm sourced BD's that are far worse than Sharpe), but I'd suggest you never shy away from buying a BD sourced from 16mm prints or negs.

[singhcr]

If you want an example of how great 16mm based material can look like, check out the following:

Sharpe Classic Collection (as mentioned)
Evil Dead
Pride and Prejudice (BBC)
Breaking Bad Seasons 1 and 2 (not sure if 3 is 16mm)
The Walking Dead (one of the most detailed BDs that I have ever seen, bar none)

The great thing about BD is that it has essentially the same effective resolution as a 16mm negative. With these movies, you are getting to see 100% of the detail of the source.

[-Sandro-]

I have no doubt that 16mm is enough but it has to be a good transfer, basically the studios have to do their part of the work too

(I wrote that more than 2 years ago! )

[thatkid]

OK, here's how 16mm film was used in TV, from an old-timer. Until the early 1980's, every TV station used 16mm for feature films, reruns, cartoons, non-live commercials, and news coverage; and maintained a film lab (usually Ektachrome after color came in,) editing room, projection room, and library. Feature films were generally shipped back-and-forth to the distributors or (if time was short) the next station in line to run the movie. Series, cartoons, and things like Laurel and Hardy or the Little Rascals, were usually kept on hand as "house prints" for the duration of their contract. News film was shot (if silent) on spring-driven Bell & Howell cameras (almost indestructible!) and (if sound) on Auricon Cine-Voice cameras. "Topical" shows like the Mike Douglas, Merv Griffin, or Virginia Graham talk shows were run from video tape copies.

Until the late 60's, ABC in particular had fewer affiliates than the other networks, and in non-ABC cities, ABC shows would be carried on a delayed basis and at "off" hours over NBC or CBS stations under "secondary" affiliate contracts. The shows, either reduction prints from 35mm or 16mm kinescopes, would be mailed on 16mm film to these stations. Even after ABC adopted color broadcasting, these prints were always black and white.

In the pre-satellite era, stations in remote locations (Alaska or Hawaii, for example) might be serviced with 16mm film, "kinnies," or later, tape; as connection by telephone lines was impossible or impractical.

Except for news film again, which was 16mm, the networks ran virtually all film programs directly from 35mm prints. However, in the event of a technical problem, a 16mm print was run simultaneously from a separate facility, so if there was a breakdown, the network would be switched to the backup film in order to assure uninterrupted service to its affiliates.

So, 16mm prints of TV shows were made for secondary stations, syndicated reruns, and sometimes as in the case of a show like "Rudolph," for sale or lease to film rental libraries and school systems.

Hope this helps resolve some of the "mysteries!"

[img eL]

Originally Posted by thatkid

OK, here's how 16mm film was used in TV, from an old-timer,

It's a whole different world now isn't it, very interesting thanks