I am NOT looking to start any big debate on the old and the new here, it's nothing to do, in any way shape or form, with ANY of the new/recent super 8 releases, lets leave those alone here, they look good, they are fine.
But what I am tired of reading is crap like this quote, I will not engage where it came from, but I think it is obvious, one of many,

"there are also plenty of prints, made straight from 35mm or 16mm, that look absolutely fine. The one thing I will say concerning these new prints is that, perhaps, with digital files directly going to a film source, our beloved super 8, we are finally getting to see super 8 at it's absolute best".

Honestly, what utter bollocks!!

Films in our own collections that are 30 years old or more include,
Deranns Lion King/ Beauty and the beat/ Reflection's / precious images / all trailers / Capricorn one scope / Commando / predator/ Grease scope / The Matrix, Freeway Frenzy scope / Master & commander scope / Poltergeist / Police Academy 2 / Terminator 2 Scope / to name only a very few. These films jump out of the screen at you, they are pin sharpe and are colour correct and the sound is absolutely fine, even made better by those who enjoy re-recording.
Most are reviewed on here, take a look, screenshots taken with a cheap old camera during projection so you know how good these actually look on screen.

The vast majority of films in circulation now are from the pre digital age and are more than standing the test of time. No one knows how long the new sound stripes will last, or the film stocks colour for that matter and I will include Deranns oxide paste stripe in this which we all know was a problem, so in defence of real pre 2020 super 8 films which are on low fade stock from the mid 80s these are the real deal, low fade Fuji / Agfa and LPP polyester with pin sharp image and vivid colours with a bright contrast where the whites are white and NOT light grey,

So while i DO support all new releases, it's time to accept that these are the tiny minority of what is out there on offer, but it is great to see new titles on offer.
One thing I agree with is that the sound recordings on the new prints are first rate. But with the digital age upon us, there would be something seriously wrong if they couldn't get that right.
Collectors of many decades putting down the films made on 8mm which have kept us all going and still continue to do so pre 2020 seem to be on a bit of mission at the moment, how odd!

I think any new releases are a plus point today,the negative sourced prints of the titles you mention Tom are all superb and if Derann were still trading today then would they move over to digital sourced prints? I'm pretty sure they would have on certain releases such as trailers and possibly shorts as they were always trying to get the best image possible on screen. I also think that costs would obviously have risen on new releases but not to the extent they are now but not making a negative would be a plus point running a business.

I do think that digital sources would look better these days they would have too, it's at its highest quality from the start and it cuts out a process or two which I guess would minimise any flaws,saying all that the heyday of film and beyond produced some great films that all collectors would want, those now legendary titles mentioned above will be sought after far more than any new releases, Mark

I know it wasn't from a digital source, but I remember a company that used a video source to release a few 400's from the "Electric Blue" nudey series, quality wasn't very good, but that was done in the late 1970's, so nothing new in using a different master source than pure film.

I don't think quality was an issue on those types of films Barry,HA Ha!!! Mark

Is the digital source a higher resolution than what is available for the home user? Then maybe, and only maybe, a Super 8 print of it would look better than your own digital projection.

My point is: if the source is digital, why not just buy the digital source and a digital projector?

I must admit that I have never seen a Super 8 print made from a digital source. I'm only just trying to apply logic here.

Anyway, my understanding is that a 35mm release print was, way back when, made as follows:
camera neg->fine grain print (which is then edited to final film)->dupe neg->release print

So at best, what you saw in the theaters was 4th generation.

Digital stacks the deck, in the sense that you can scan the camera neg (which I assume was edited to match the final fine grain) if it exists. So depending on the elements that are available, a digital copy can be from an earlier generation source. How good that source is depends on wear, fade, etc.

With scans now being 4K or higher, in theory (I really do not know) a digital representation of a movie can look better than a 35mm print in terms of clarity and detail. Whether you can get a "film look", and which really is better, is a matter of personal opinion.

What I don't like is what I call "digital trickery", which is an attempt (IMO) to make it look better. Everything from removing scratches and dirt (don't they clean the film physically first?), to removal of grain.

So, if I were to make a Super 8 print from a digital source (which I have no intention of doing, nor do I have the means), I would use at least a 4K scan of the earliest generation film elements that looked the best (meaning not a beat-up neg or print). Whether or not said Super 8 print would look better than projecting an available digital source on reasonably priced equipment available to the general public, I do not know.

In reality, I'd bet that these Super 8 prints use whatever is available retail to the general public, so what you would be getting (in theory, since I do not know) is a Super 8 copy of a Blu-ray (maybe ultra, 4K, or whatever they call it). I have never been interested in digital projection, so I have no idea what the prices are for the best ones, nor do I have a Blu-ray player. I have watched HD on cable and streaming, and my TV supports up to 1080p.

Will a Super 8 copy, projected on my Elmo ST-1200HD, look better than watching that same digital source on my HDTV, which has a smaller screen than what I usually project with Super 8 in my basement? I do not know.

Now, if said Super 8 copy looks like it is made from a film source, I can see that it can take you back to the "old days", but I'm not sure at the price if it is worth it, especially considering the large collection of films I already have that were made before the digital era.

Anyway, I have more questions than answers, but I am just trying to apply logic to why a Super 8 copy of a digital source might, or might not, be worthwhile.

Just to pop back in on this, I dont wish to knock the new releases, or turn them into a debate, indeed, my main point was just reminding those champions of the new that there is still a huge mountain of first class colour super 8 releases out there, features, digests and trailers alike. I was just becoming baffled by a minority more or less stating that prints prior to 2020 were inferior, It's a nonsense. Perhaps some the problem is the equipment they use to project?
Having more titles added and more to come from what I understand is to be celebrated, not an excuse to knock whats kept the hobby going for decades.

Definitely not knocking the new prints Tom, as I said it's a plus point nowadays, anything new is a huge bonus and effort from those that get involved in producing them, the image quality is superb on most, I also get where you coming from too on the older negative sourced splenders from those that released them, I agree they produced some stunning prints so now putting them down doesn't really make sense,we're all happy watching them too. It's probably a sales tactic, I guess if your producing something so visual and trying to get your money back then you'll say most things to achieve it?? Mark

Thats very true Mark.

I really like the look of film as a famous Baron once said "It's Alive". I have a number of both dvd and blu-ray, some films just look like they have never seen real film and were shot on video. OK they look quite good, but too clinical for me. Once rented The Devil Rides Out that was one they had messed with the special effects. Glad I didn't buy.

Thanks David, and I think thats what most people think, but again, as a reminder, all the new titles look very good and are very welcome, no mistaking this.
I just wanted to highlight that the older films are more than alive and kicking, what we are seeing for sales value, (as Mark mentioned) is a very small amount of criticism of pre 2020 releases.
We know as time has gone by that many are now past their sell by date with fade, damage and scratches, but there is still tons and tons of titles out there with decades ahead of them on good low fade stock.

I'm not knocking new prints either; I honestly want to know the point of making a print from a digital source.

I'd say material source and cost Thomas, Mark

I agree with that, even if you could find a real film source on 35 or 16mm, the costs involved would almost certainly prohibit any new releases. Aside that, who would loan a print to be hacked up to make a cut down.

Right, but I'm asking what's the point of having a Super 8 print made from a digital source as opposed to just having the digital source and projecting that?

To me, making a print from a digital source is bass-ackwards.

It's like digitally scanning the Mona Lisa, then printing it back to a canvas.

I think it's just a way of producing new releases Thomas, the source material and cost, yes its from a digital source but ends up on film and its this format we hold dear to our hearts, you end up with a great image and the bonus of decent releases you would never have been offered otherwise,Mark

Right, but if you don't like digital (and people who buy them probably do not), you are getting that same digital picture, probably with less resolution, but on film. Plus, only about 30 minutes of the movie, and for $300+.

But, as I understand it, back in 1993/1994, Disney scanned SNOW WHITE, fixed it digitally, and printed it back to 35mm film for a theatrical release. Whether or not the results were satisfactory is a matter or personal taste.

To each his own.

Yes not every collector likes the digital look,many won't buy as it's not from a negative, I understand that, but if you want a new release then that's how it is it seems,Mark

Thomas,

It is a legitimate question--what is the benefit of transferring digital to actual film? Initially the goal of digital-to-film was to provide replacement footage for damaged or TV-edits to restore an original negative produced print to it's full original glory. It has since evolved to make movie trailer prints from digital which provided a fun, modern addition to an old-school evening film show. In some ways this has helped to keep film projection moving forward (even as our equipment ages). For me, using digital as a source for a film print is a necessary "evil" as high-quality negatives cannot be found for many older titles, and of course, negatives are not even being used for most new releases which may be completely "shot" digitally.

Take a look at this short snippet from filmmaker Peter Flynn's upcoming documentary...perhaps it captures the magic of film projection as well as the modern challenges the hobby faces...
https://filmfreeway.com/FILMISDEADLONGLI...chemical%20film

Quote: Greg Perry wrote in post #18

---

Thomas,

It is a legitimate question--what is the benefit of transferring digital to actual film? Initially the goal of digital-to-film was to provide replacement footage for damaged or TV-edits to restore an original negative produced print to it's full original glory. It has since evolved to make movie trailer prints from digital which provided a fun, modern addition to an old-school evening film show. In some ways this has helped to keep film projection moving forward (even as our equipment ages). For me, using digital as a source for a film print is a necessary "evil" as high-quality negatives cannot be found for many older titles, and of course, negatives are not even being used for most new releases which may be completely "shot" digitally.

Take a look at this short snippet from filmmaker Peter Flynn's upcoming documentary...perhaps it captures the magic of film projection as well as the modern challenges the hobby faces...
https://filmfreeway.com/FILMISDEADLONGLI...chemical%20film

---

Greg, Peter Flynn's upcoming documentary looks a good one, is this going to be a TV documentary or for the internet? It's one I would like to see for sure.
You are correct about any new prints having to come from digital sources, they do look good and from what we now know, there was a blip in the labs producing some of the titles last year which let the sellers down a bit as a lot of collectors thought this was going to be the norm, however, thankfully, it did all get sorted, and you said, the only hold back today is the cost, it is difficult to actually justify the amount of dosh for a short film as much as I would love a copy of home alone.

What Greg also mentioned regarding the making of repair sections for 16mm films for repair/restoration being the original use of copying from digital sources hits the nail bang on the head. Anyone who has read through my 16mm reviews here will know how this process has allowed me to bring a few of my 16mm prints back to their former glory, and in one case, has allowed me to add extra deleted scenes that were never in any of the theatrical releases, namely, The Blues Brothers.
Here is three links to three such titles, aside Waterloo, can you spot the newly made inserts.

A Fish Called Wanda 3 x 1600ft spools Agfa
High Plains Drifter, my restoration.
New insert for Waterloo in scope

This is the best use of new from digital as it preserves the films we have.

I I have read elsewhere that a negative view is taken when questioned about the cost of new releases, well, let me put the record straight right here. CHC have released a few new trailers on super 8 themselves as mentioned on their last newsletter, and the first small batch sold out, they were all gone when I enquired

Each is colour sound (excellent quality) and are 50ft each, the price? £25 each or £30 for a cartoon. I make that £100 per 200ft reel and as CHC is a business they will make a small profit.

I am not sure about the details on the release of the complete version of “Film is Dead…Long live Film”. Peter Flynn screened the complete ‘rough draft’ at last Fall’s CineSea event in Wildwood NJ. It was fascinating and did capture the dilemma facing film collectors as time goes on.

The cost of most hobbies can be expensive and needs to be managed—whether it is LP records, playing golf, restoring old cars or collecting films and projectors. If we used a strict least cost basis for purchase decisions most of us wouldn’t have any hobbies…so we trade dosh (funds) for enjoyment of film as one form of media. I know this is certainly obvious, but the question of why we collect films when we can get the DVD a lot cheaper does come up often.

Out of those Greg I don't play golf ha ha,Mark

Quote: Greg Perry wrote in post #21

---

I know this is certainly obvious, but the question of why we collect films when we can get the DVD a lot cheaper does come up often.

---

Just to remind us all of the thread, In defence of super 8 gone by, a friend did remind me today of something I think the makers of the 21st century releases do forget, (as I did until i was reminded today),
"With the Super 8 releases from Derann and others we had 'scope and stereo back then (and on LPP stock) but now have just mono single striped flat and letterbox prints at higher unaffordable prices. Letterbox prints are such a waste of the already tiny Super 8 frame size".
A good observation.
I understand that new scope prints would very much limit the market, but as the thread suggests, I'm just reminding everyone, the pre 2020 prints are what the majority still enjoy today. It's great to be able to add new titles today for those who are able to pay the price, but those who continue to say the new prints are far superior either have very bad eye site, poor equipment or S*** prints in their collection's, it's as simple as that.

I doesn't have to be so binary. Just appreciate things for what they are

Pre 2020
There are millions of prints out there
- On all manner of subjects
- Mute/Mono/Stereo
- B&W/Colour(Vibrant/Faded/Pink)
- Sharp/Soft
- Flat/Scope
- Full Features/Edited Features/Digests/Compilations
- 8mm/16mm/35mm/70mm sources
- Mint/Worn/Scratched
The choice is almost endless and the only real limitation is how deep your pockets are.

Post 2020
There are, erm, a hundreds of prints out here
- Limited subjects (mostly feature film related I think)
- Mute/Mono/Stereo
- B&W/Colour(Vibrant)
- Sharp
- Flat
- Digests/Compilations
- 16mm/35mm/digital sources
- Mint/Seconds/Soon to be scratched
The choice is limited and you definitely need deep pockets

So let's face it they have more in common than not
One is not better than the other
Digital is not my preferred format but it is not the route of all evil - I'm pretty sure most of the vinyl I buy nowadays is from a digital source and I'll still take the free mp3 download/listen to Spotify on my laptop while I'm working.

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one and they all stink.

Personally I have films from both groups and I enjoy them all, but hey that' just my opinion and you know what I think about them!