Talk:16 mm film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 

Untitles[edit]

More complete explanation of revert:

I have reverted the tech specs back to my original due to the fact that the primary info (before the aperture stuff) is the standard way the industry discusses lengths of film. Motion picture film has always been sold in quantities measured by the foot, and 40 frames per foot is a standard constant for motion picture films (in fact, all the major gauges have a exact number of frames per foot with the exception of 70mm, which even then is standard to a multiple number of feet). The standards are not just in America, they are used all over the world.

While the aperture information is probably less important as to how it is displayed, I sourced my information from SMPTE standards as written in the American Cinematographer Handbook which is also perhaps the foremost international reference book for cinematography.

In conclusion, while the format may be written in metric, that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the international industry conventions are at all aligned towards a metric preference in many of these matters. Even for film crews in countries that don't use feet and inches.

--Girolamo Savonarola 22:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

Film stocks[edit]

I added the Film tin and infomation about fuji 16mm stocks ill ad the kodak film after i shot some of it. --Kylehamilton 07:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I really don't think there is a need for it. Remember - this is an encyclopedia, not a manual for cinematographers... --Janke | Talk 10:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I belive that we should add film stocks because differnt types of film give a differnt look, for example the movie Three Kings (film) was shot on slide film, when I tell this to a person who has taken any sort of photo student that has seen the movie they make a connection and look up motion picture film, I belive that a simple list of film stocks and what they look like could help expand any persons knowlege of movies in general --Kylehamilton 12:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you ask me, then there should be a separate article, Film stocks, since otherwise the list would have to be duplicated on 35mm, 70mm and other pages... --Janke | Talk 15:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats a great idea Janke that might be a better idea. --Kylehamilton 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
There's already a film stock article, which basically describes the general characteristics and defining categories. I'm not certain that we need individual pages for each and every film stock, since generically speaking it's very difficult to differentiate the "feel" of stocks aside from showing differences on scientific tests. That kind of information already exists online as technical data sheets for each emulsion and can be downloaded for free. I do think that it is important to differentiate between what negative vs. reversal is, how they react differently, and so on. Comparing 5205 to 5201...not so certain...
In any case, the Three Kings example you cite above is problematic to begin with, since that is only the case for selected scenes in the film. You can't just tell someone what the stock does by citing a film because any given scene may be shot with several different stocks or processing. For example, Three Kings uses cross processing (both directions, IIRC), bleach bypass, and pushing and pulling. AND then the film is given color timing and whatnot. Again, it's a reason why still photography is often a better way to illustrate principles. Most films simply have too many factors going into the image both at any given moment and over the course of the whole work to simply cite one as an example of a process. Heck, it's hard enough for many films to be adequately described in 15 pages in American Cinematographer sometimes! Girolamo Savonarola 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Footage and Super 16[edit]

"Motion picture film has always been sold in quantities measured by the foot" This is not true. In France we measur film lengths in meters. The films labels show the length in meters. Here's a documentation for instance. You can see a can at the last page. The length is in both feet and meters :http://wwwfr.kodak.com/FR/plugins/acrobat/fr/motion/vision2_5229.pdf

Kodak's got a length calculating on-line tool, that gives both feet and meters :

(javascript: window.open( "/US/en/motion/filmCalculator.html" ,"FilmCalculator","width=680,height=428,scrollbars=no"); window.stop();

Same for fuji : (enlarge the can's label, it's written 122m(400ft)) :

http://www.fujifilm-cinema.com/produits_negatif_accueil.php

Even the posted picture : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Fuji16mm64d.jpg, if you enlarge it says : 30.5 m (100 ft)!

In conclusion I think you should give both meters and feet.

Second point :

One could remind that Super 16 was invented by Jean-Pierre Beauviala, Aaton, but I'd like to be sure of that before inserting this info..

third point : about your illustration documents :

- I don't like the first drawing http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/16mmfilm.gif

There must be a way of founding pictures instead...

- The image : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/S16.jpg is actually a one ridge negative. Ok, it's a Super 16 image that's on it, but I'm afraid people would think 1 ridge means Super 16, tha not being true, since most of regular 16 mm camera can run 1 ridge stock... See what I mean ?

We'd better legend this picture : 16 mm negative film (shot super 16) or something like that


Regards,

laurent andrieux Camera operator

The cans always have both measurements on them, I am aware. But let's face it, they're being manufactured by foot-lengths! Why else are they always multiples of 100 feet? I'm not saying that the cans don't display meters on them, and obviously a length is a length - you could also label them with their distance in astronomical units or cubits, but surely there's no doubt that the length of film cut for each roll is based on a footage measurement system.
That all being said, I agree that there's no problem including both units where possible, and I've added it to the 400 ft stat towards the bottom of the article.
Super 16 was Rune Ericson's baby. Google search I believe the first film was called Blushing Charlie in English (the original title being Swedish).
I'm guessing by 1 ridge you mean single perf? Girolamo Savonarola 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Ok for the stock length measurements, I see your point. Yes, by 1 ridge I mean single perf

Regards,

laurent andrieux

Did some organizing...[edit]

Well, I adding some sections, hope it makes it more interesting, and I was wondering, there really is no information on 16 mm film with sound. The article also doesn't refer to projection of 16 mm or super 16 mm. This is some good info that maybe someone could add at a later date. Rhetth 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that projection issues are mostly covered in movie projector, although certainly some recapitulation probably is appropriate. As for Super 16 projection, it's not really a very common projection format because it's not meant for contact prints (except as a workprint). Girolamo Savonarola 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PRICES[edit]

Can someone include some prices for these type of cameras. New and used. Thanks.

There's no constant fixed prices for most of the models in current circulation. As an encyclopedia, it is not our duty to provide pricing on these. Pricing is variable based on model, condition, new/used, location, accessories, etc. So any attempt to nail down a price is probably either not citable or original research. Girolamo Savonarola 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to thank Girolamo Savonarola for the work he has done here so far ! Regards

laurent andrieux 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

picture moved to commons and disappeared![edit]

One of the pictures I stuck in this article was moved to the commons, but the thumbnail has now disappeared in the article, the Picture does show up if you click on it.

I don't know if their is special markup for the commons? The link currently points to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/16mmBWrevDP.png/180px-16mmBWrevDP.png

How to fix? cmacd 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Credit[edit]

This is the kind of article that justifies Wikipedia. You want a clear introduction to a technical subject and you get it here. A model. Well done! 88888 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The title - 16 mm or 16mm?[edit]

Although the title is located at 16 mm, nearly every other part of the article says 16mm. Which is correct? (I note 8mm and 35mm have the space). Bob talk 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)