Just out of interest and ref the new releases topic ,why do some collectors not like digital sourced prints? It's been mentioned on here and on the other channel that it's an absolute no no for some, if you end up with a top quality image on celluloid then surely that's what we're all after? Finding a decent 35mm/16mm print and cutting it up isn't really an option surely, it eventually gets the end product we all want, having missing footage done is acceptable so why not a cutdown? Mark.

Not too sure myself, i have read elsewhere that with a digital source you will only get a digital image, nothing else. These days there is nothing wrong with that, the shinny discs of today have come a very long way. I suppose if your going to pay $300 for half a half hour film then you would want film quality. It goes back to the thread Stuart started of, "why dont the new releases jump out the screen at you like the old ones did".
Some of the repair sections i had made came from DVD/BR, if you check some of my 16mm reviews no one will be able to tell whats original and whats new, its that good. The 8mm items being made from digital is another argument all together, if it's sourced only from digital it may as be left on the disc and then project the disc.
Personally, i think when there were downside to the image it was caused by lack of quality control on behalf of Andec, that was a big mistake on their behalf.
If it's done properly, and Andec or whoever produces the prints properly, a digitally sourced print should look great when projected. I know the repair sections look every bit as good as the original.

I've had repair sections done on 16mm and have had films made too and they look stunning, some of the best images on film for sure, I don't really have a problem with it, I do understand the whole film source thing but you do get a superb image with digital sourced prints, if nothing else is out there then do you never buy something new? The cinema experience these days isn't film so do you not go? Mark

Thats very true mate. Many many 16mm prints have been saved via the digital source.

Before I go on leave no problem with real film or digital film, I will take what ever I can get depending on circumstances,cost and availability.
I think you will find there are those who say that digital production is just too “pure”,it’s faultless created by “0” and “+” whatever it’s just not physical film,you can’t touch it,you can’t see the film.Back in 2017 I did post about me showing a 35mm scope copy of Dunkirk on its release ,running alongside a digital print of the same film,showing on alternative nights.To be fair I got more enjoyment out of showing the 35mm print ,my colleague preferred the digital source. I was quite happy to watch either ,but don’t ask why but I physically enjoyed the 35mm.Maybe it’s an age thing,if you have had dealings with rel film for a long time it’s something you find hard to let go of.
Going onto the source for a new 600ft release then personally I think you need the best source available and if it’s dvd/BR then that should be used especially at the price.You won’t please everyone,so I know have a digital copy and a film copy ,you pay you choose 😁
My copy of Serpico would not be the excellent complete copy without the help of Marco,and as I think Tom would confirm unless you knew which was Marco then you would think you were watching 16mm all the way.
There is something about real film and I don’t think you will ever get everyone agreeing on the best source,let alone what the next new release title should be.

I agree with all the comments so far, some good points raised.

The too pure look comment I have heard but I'd rather have that look on the film I've bought as personally I think it's the best of both worlds, surely people saying "wow that looks nice " is something we all want to hear when showing our films, my Zulu promo reel is like watching a Blu Ray ,on the big screen it's amazing quality,I get the buzz of running film with an image that I never tire of, Mark

For me some of the magic is the expression of real film. With marks and scratches from the 35mm master etc. So a full copy from a digital source, I am not so sure about. But I think it is fantastic that we can add missing parts from digital sources.

Except green scratches

There is no need to make the choice so binary really

In an ideal world a 35mm master would be great and give it all a more holistic feel for both the person creating the release and the end buyer, but when push comes to shove I'll take what I can get as it's mainly the projecting and viewing of the analogue end product I enjoy

By way of comparisson, I still buy most of my music on vinyl but I would be naive if I thought the the latest relase by The Chats was pressed exclusively from analogue tapes with absolutely no sign of a digital source.

So yes, if I was given the choice I would prefer a Super 8 release from an analogue source but I really shouldn't be that sniffy if it was digital so I'll take both thanks.