Movie Makers (Jan-Dec 1948)

102 EIGHT or \3. THERE is probably no question of more fundamental interest to the amateur filmer than the choice between the 8mm. and the 16mm. systems of filming. To bring our readers sound guidance on this subject, Movie Makers went directly into the field, to able and experienced amateurs, and asked them for their opinions. All of these amateurs began their filming in Eight. Four of them still work solely in that medium, while seven of them have either added Sixteen to their equipment or switched wholly to that width — for reasons which they explain. Further, to get both sides of the picture, Movie Makers asked similar questions of equipment manufacturers offering both 8 and 16mm. instruments. Their opinions follow. Save for some shortening of the longer replies and an occasional rearrangement of paragraphs, these letters are unedited by Movie Makers. Courtesy Idaho State Board of Publicity SCENIC long shots, with maximum crispness of detail, are better in the larger image of Sixteen, experts agree. FOR HOME USE ONLY ... I originally decided in favor of 8mm. because 1 reasoned that my home movies would be for home consumption only and a projection throw of about 20 feet to a 30 by 40 inch screen seemed adequate for our needs. Film cost was also an item to be considered, as 16mm. Kodachrome costs over twice as much for the same amount of screen time as 8mm. During the eight years that I have been using 8mm. film, 1 have learned that 8mm. is at its best when it is shot in closeups. Crowding too many details into the scene will naturally cause definition to suffer. This condition prevails also in the 16mm. and the 35mm. theatrical films. If my original plans had called for exhibiting my films to larger than living room groups, I would have decided on 16mm. film and equipment. Also, had I thought in terms of possible future commercial returns, 16mm. would have been the logical answer. As. it is, I like 8mm. film and equipment because of its compactness. My first impression of the diminutive 8 was that it offered a challenge. I have been having fun ever since squeezing the best out of it. Fred Evans, FACL Sherman Oaks, Calif. SERVES VERY WELL . . . My opinion is that the 8mm. film serves very well for all kinds of filming for at least 75 to 90 percent of amateurs. It is especially suitable for family filming (children, vacations, etc. ) . Moreover, I have seen 8mm. film shown before 150 to 200 people with satisfactory results. However, 16mm. filming is superior, in my opinion, to 8mm. when it comes to filming scenic pictures including considerable detail. Also, it is superior in showing to large groups. After five years with the 8mm. camera and projector (which I still use almost exclusively for family filming), I have added 16mm. for the following reasons : ( 1 ) I was a little interested in commercial sound films; (2) I was also interested in a projector on which the speed was controlled by a governor, as I have been matching my films with musical background, recorded on wire. However, I understand that this can now be done with 8mm., as per the numerous articles in the magazines. Frank W. Dibble, ACL Chicago USED BOTH SIZES ... As an active movie maker and one who has used both sizes, I am glad to get a chance to air my views on the age old question which confronts the beginning filmed — that of choosing between 8 or 16. If given half a chance, I believe the 8mm. system will enable the user to produce movies which will satisfy the most ardent hobbyist. Providing he recognizes the limitations of 8mm. and stays within them (i.e. films largely in closeup and under lighting conditions that will enhance rather than detract from the picture's sharpness), he can project to surprisingly large audiences. If, on the other hand, he has any intention of selling any of his footage or wishes to screen to theatre size audiences, the filmer should choose the 16mm. system. However, theatre size does not necessarily mean theatre quality, and, unless he intends to justify it by his film offerings, no point is gained by its use. Also, there is the matter of cost. Not only does everything connected with 16mm. cost more than 8, but it requires twice as much film footage to equal the same screen time. Better an 8mm. that one can afford to operate than a 16mm. that proves so expensive it is seldom used. Even where cost is no object, I hesitate to recommend the use of 16mm. to start with. Personally, I give full credit for what advancement I may have attained to the forced use of 8mm. I often envied the guys who could afford to use 16mm.; now I realize that, instead of being a handicap, the forced use of 8mm. was my biggest blessing. For, in order to hold my own with the 16mm. boys, I was forced to take advantage of every little trick of filming known — and even invent a few of my own.