Can someone who uses both, please explain to us all why perforation damage or sprocket hole damage to film appears to be far more prevalent an issue for 16mm film than it ever is for 8mm film?

It's something I have hardly ever come across I have to say, being solely a 8mm collector.
It's a very very rare occurrence indeed for anything I have ever handled and that would include even some quite unrefined projectors from the early years like Cinerex etc.
They would mark films something terrible but I didn't witness any actual sprocket hole damage to the perforations.

Even when I have been sent a very odd film which appears to have sprocket hole strain or damage to it, it often appears to have been threaded into a dual gauge projector set in the wrong setting.
I think this is probably the most likely cause for 8mm films with this defect.

Another topic started on another forum,more cross threading going on,Mark

Not quite the same topic Mark but perhaps as you yourself are a user of both gauges Mark, a more positive and helpful answer may perhaps be forthcoming rather than this reply.

If you were to trail through the thousands of posts that have been loosely by association, duplicated here and elsewhere, before then highlighting them all, you could make it a full time job Mark.

I've got nothing else to do so suits me, the topic was started elsewhere on another forum and you've again posted on here questions relating to that post,start an original post and maybe I could add a more positive and helpful reply,I've been asked to police cross threading on here and I feel it's a justified reply from me,Mark

Andrew, as far as I understand, it's because 16mm film was originally engineered as a double-sprocket format like 35mm (as you'll see on silent 16mm films), distributing the load across both sides of the film when running through a projector. But when the optical soundtrack was added, and the second sprocket dumped, wear was much more common. One of my test films, which has probably been played 100s of times now, is just starting to tear at various points.

Thanks Martin, that all makes sense to me and would go a long way to explaining this common occurrence by the sounds of things.

Mark, I have no idea who has asked you to "police" cross threads but if it were myself being asked by anyone, I'd be well and truly backheeling that one!

If you look into this one historically, it's a mammoth task and then it raises the question of why only now does it suddenly matter to you and your chums?

When this has happened time and again here and everywhere else, no one so much batted an eyelid.

Does this then mean that nigh on all silent 16mm films remain undamaged by and large regarding their double perforations Martin?

Ah,that was before you were banned from the other forum,all I have to do to police it is read your threads and guess what cross threading galore for your own needs, quite a few chums as you call them have agreed on this and how annoying it is having answers posted out of nowhere and then guess what a thread has started elsewhere, I don't need to go backheeling as it has come to light fairly recently and others did comment that it shouldn't continue so as from now any cross threads will be highlighted and I've been asked to do that,Mark

Good luck with that little project then Mark.

As you make clear, it is clearly only a recent passion of yours and your pals based entirely on my own " lack of privileges" circumstances with film tech. (Remember, nobody is ever banned as you put it, there!)😁😁

Point out what you like Mark, if anyone else or I feel there are some relevant points to be discussed here as a result of anything anyone has read elsewhere either on paper or electronically, there isn't anyone here who ought to object strongly against such discussions or anyone who should feel pressured against posting such topics here.

As I've said already, we don't live in communist China here!

Our small community here can post whatever they like within the boundary of common decency.

The way you have started this post shows you have thought about how you can try and word it to seem like a new thread so obviously you've thought about that, It's not a passion of mine as you put it but more a necessary measure to accommodate other members on here who objected too,that seems to have totally gone over your head so I've been asked to put a gentle reminder of any further cross postings on here, I really don't mind doing it as I feel you have to think of others too,Mark

Everyone's wishes are attempted to be accommodated here Mark, however if among those wishes some are ridiculously unreasonable, then of course they cannot be listened to.

I didn't try to re word anything, I posted a question I was interested in learning the answers to which was very very loosely associated to a different topic elsewhere.
There is nothing to answer to here by myself nor anyone else posting similar.

Ok guys my work here is done,for now at least, any questions just pm as usual,Mark

IMO this is a tread of common interest and as far as I know, it's not copyrighted. The single perforation is probably a reason to perf damage, but there are more to think about. Most Super 8 films were sold to the private market. Many of them were screned 1 - 10 times. If they weredamaged, they were probably binned. 16 mm prints were mostly distributed by libraries to schools, churches, clubs and organizations. Many"projectionists" were not skilled professionals, but teachers, pupils, priests etc. They had no idea how to properly load a projektor. As the prints were very expensive, the libraries tried to repair them if possible. I have many 16 mm prints, screened multiple times, in excellent condition. Properly loaded in a good projektor, they can be screened hundreds of times

Or simply just air your views publicly here.

We are all ears.

Thanks for that thorough explanation Mats, most helpful!

And yes you're quite correct Mats, no topic from a public place is ever subject to copyright rules!

Only other thing i can come up with is perhaps a lot of the 16mm films appearing for sale, (with exception of the later ones on polyester), have been through dozens, if not, hundruds of projectors and generally mis treated by a lot of people. Our super 8 are usually only one or two previous owners. As yet, aside a few splices i havnt come across any perforation damage.

Cheers Tom! 😊😊

Your cable has arrived with me btw if you could still use a spare?
I didn't have time to test it yet with the ST / SH / Mixer though.
I'm sure it'll be fine though 😊

Regarding the damage to film,I have to agree with Mats.
Having handled all types of film over the years I am sure it is down to the manner in which the projectionist handles the film.Now I appreciate that the thread was aimed at 8/16mm but even 35mm can turn up for projection in a mess,with bad joins “V”cuts,torn sprocket holes to name but a few problems,and this can also transfer to 16mm prints that have been badly looked after.
Ex library prints can be both good and bad it’s all down to the handler of the film.I’msure some people have no idea how to rewind a film,even down to placing the reels in the cans when you open the can the film is bent over on the reel twisted and loose as hell.
For my money the automatic loading of films onto a projector is also one of the ways film can be damaged.
I personally manually thread up both my 8/16mm but to be fair my machines are fumeo etc,because i wish to make sure the film is correctly loaded before showing.I know others disagree and may be constrained by their type of machine.
“Bandsaw” prints are another story but even those can be rescued if you have the patience and time,but at the end of the day it’s down I ’m sure to the way the film is handled.

Thanks for your sharing your vast experience Gwyn by giving us all a very full and honest answer regarding this topic.

Got a bit carried away Andrew,my pet hate is automatic loaders,I guess it comes from working with 35mm.I must say though super 8 never seems to be as badley damaged as 16/35.I suspect Tom is right with 8 mm more for the home market and therefore it’s a personal thing whereas 16/35mm gets much more commercial use in times gone by.📽📽

When I worked for a Film Lab in my previous life we had to make sure the 16mm prints were going to run fine before they were transferred to another medium. I saw many, many torn sprocket holes. So many in fact that they even had sprocket hole tape that they sell at Christies Editorial Supplies.
I have only seem damaged perfs on Super 8 when a film was inserted incorrectly into a projector.
But it makes sense that our prints haven't been run as much as the standard 16mm prints had as many were used for public exhibition.

One of the objections to super 8 when first introduced was that the tiny perforations were more likely to be damaged ,than st. 8.I seem to remember film libraries complaining about the amount of damage they were getting with the super 8 prints.

Dave, can you imagine those days of the super 8 library? Just think of those awful cheap projectors that were out there, the films going out to so many varied machines over a period of a couple of years, not to mention houses that were filled with smoke, people who didn't care how they handled the films, dozens of crap machines like the lower end Chinnons, Royal, boots own to mention a few, i bet these chewed and scratched films to buggery, just like the 16mm prints that went out to all sorts of places. We bought a few ex library super 8 prints, although we got therm dirt cheap we stopped after four, the damage to a couple of them made even the give-away price simply not worth it. Thats why buying 16mm has to be chosen with care, but, there is some mighty fine stuff out there.

My guess would be auto-thread machines. I only use manual thread now, but when I started used b&h auto-shred, can't tell you how many times the start of a film got "accordioned"! For a while I added extra leader, then got wise and made the switch to manual!

I have only one ex Super 8mm library print and that is The Way We Were.
It has some frequent feint black lines throughout and does now contain a degree of fade however even on this print I have seen no actual damage to any of the perforations.

Michael, I've never had a problem with B&H projectors. They load perfectly 100% of the time for me. I have heard that it's better to use thick leader, rather than the thin papery leader that can sometimes appear on a library film head.

However, there are some distinct advantages to the B&H mechanism over its competitors' models, which they kept the same for many years with good reason, in my opinion. It includes a three-pronged claw, it runs the base side of the film over the sound drum (and not the enamel), and it has the advantage of effectively a third sprocket, using the second to both feed and then steadily draw the film through the sound apparatus. They might be a little noisier than Eikis or Bauers, but I think the design is solid, and produces a beautifully bright steady image on screen every time, with robust sound too. There are still many spares available, including an amazing range of lenses. I'm also happy to say that neither of my B&H's has ever scratched a frame of film.

Maybe I've just been lucky with my machines, but I think B&H gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and perhaps unfairly so.