8MM-16MM FORUM WORLDWIDE

I do, however, have a beautiful Derann print of DRACULA(58), which is comparable to many 16mm prints I've come across. It's the only print I've ever seen that, if projected, I might mistake for a 16.

_________________
www.mickoregan.com

That happens Mike. I have had much better luck as far as price in getting super 8 prints. Yes you have less density in them because you are using half the films size. But shorts are so much fun. I prefer super 8 but the expense of the films and modifying 16mm to do the same job just isn't worth it when you consider how much room it takes up. Besides, I'd rather have the option of watching a film in stereo sound than mono.

Please don't flame me fellas - but I've only recently started adding 16mm to my collection and so far I haven't had any moments where I've thought "this is so much better". Maybe it's the projector, lens, prints etc - so far the reason I've added the format is the expanded choice of titles. Got to say the Super 8's I have of The Mummy, Dracula and The Jolson Story are gorgeous - as are some 16mm prints I recently bought of the George Reeves Superman TV series - however all of them are still lovely to watch on celluloid.

Cheers -GT

Hi Guy,

Put a nice original 16mm print of DRACULA (31) up against ANY 8mm version and you'll appreciate the superiority of 16mm.

_________________
www.mickoregan.com

And that's why I collect both sizes. 16mm for me is very convient to run because of slot loading over auto thread but so many films were released in the late 70's and 80's on super 8 and take up way less space that I use them both. I do have one autothread 16mm B&H but you'd be better off trusting a wood-chipper to show a film on. Otherwise I have 4 super 8 projectors that I showed a film last night on and one 16mm that I use privatly. Very happy with both formats. Super 8 takes up less space though and offers stereo and surround sound.