Here is an interesting read from about 1999. https://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s84collect.html

Thanks, Robert — interesting article. Copyright is not something to take lightly and, unlike other forums that condone and promote ersatz “releases” that are of extremely dubious origins from a copyright perspective, I appreciate this forum’s leadership in not allowing that here.

My job involves working with and abiding by copyright laws. The film collecting hobby is no exception, regardless of any “excuses.” Pretty much anything today that’s touted as a “new release” on Super 8 appears to be anything but legal. Amazing those people involved openly flout copyright law.

Hi John,
I'm amazed that no one has ever mentioned the legality of the offer by someone to make 16mm copies from Blu-Ray discs. Obviously, if it's on Blu-Ray it's not in the Public Domain. Some collectors will only think about themselves on issues like this, rather than thinking about a possible out of work actor who relies on royalties for a decent standard of living. They would take a different view if it affected them.

Absolutely, Robert — all excellent points, and I couldn’t agree with you more!

Also, it’s my understanding the MPAA has been made aware of the striking-and-selling-prints-from-DVDs situation you referenced. It’s amazing to me that not only someone would engage in such an illegal activity, but that collectors would be so desperate for “new prints” as to go to illegal means to do so — and another forum would actually condone and promote this activity. Sad.

I wouldn´t by a film print, made from a digital source, even if it was a legal one. What is the point? Let film be film.

Agree, Mats. Even if copyright permission had been obtained, why downconvert from a digital source to film?? The resulting film image would be soft, etc.

Just don’t understand it — if someone wants a movie bad enough, and it’s not available on film, just purchase the (legal) digital version. Agree — what’s the point otherwise?? Any downconversion will result in reduced picture quality.

It’s kind of like downconverting a CD to an 8-track tape. Why?? 😲 Otherwise it’s just collecting the format regardless of title/content —

Everything aside, this part of the article that states,

"Add to that the inferior picture and sound of 16mm, and it's no wonder that it isn't the hot ticket it used to be."

is nonsense as far as im concerned. The image of all the 16s i have seen are excellent. Not too sure what prints they were looking at or referring to. Tonight on TV is Robin Prince of thieves, i watched the first ten minutes to compare it on HD TV to my 16mm LPP print and mine wins hands down.

I think they are just fans of DVDs Tom; I don't agree with that statement either. If it's not available on film, then buy the DVD. I don't see the point of having a 16mm print made from it.

yes i think so and the cost of it would be very high.

Agree, Robert — outside of its illegality, having a print made from a DVD strikes me as beyond ridiculous, and indicates a “format-simply-for-the-sake-of-the-format” mentality. If one is engaging in that mentality in which the format itself is more important than the image quality or content itself, then one might as well also “collect” blank leader! 🙄

Just buy the dang DVD/download instead!

Agree totally John.

Glenn Erickson's 1999 article about past collecting of 16mm and 35mm film prints in the USA makes a very informative read. Glen Erickson is writing about preservation and recovery of lost cinema history from cineast film collectors. He relates that different issues of films were made includig roadshow versions that contain scenes now missing from modern cuts.

Ian

I came across a post in a film/DVD forum, that I think maybe a few years old. The writer said he had some missing BBC programmes and the BBC want them back. Over the years the BBC deliberately destroyed film/video, and now I think they have realised that they made a mistake, and want the missing programmes returned. The writer said they had threatened legal action, but so far had heard nothing.

I'm not sure about the BBC destroying films but they certainly wiped programmes made on tape. At one time tape was very expensive and there often was no need for a repeat so it was cheaper to erase and use the tape again.
Many overseas countries (colonies?) didn't have tape facilities so they were sent 16mm copies. This is why, nowadays, often 16mm prints of wiped BBC programmes turn up at the back of cupboards and other almost long forgotten storage places in faraway lands.

Back in the 60s, Dusty Springfield made a series for the BBC: copies were sent overseas with the instructions that they were to be destroyed after transmission. Those copies sent to New Zealand had survived, and were put on a DVD by the BBC. I know the BBC wiped a lot of tapes and re-used them. Only 6 episodes of the Peter Cushing 'Sherlock Holmes' series has survived.
http://www.warpedfactor.com/2015/05/the-...pisodes-of.html

Here in the U.S., wiping was a common practice during the 1960s amongst the TV networks due to the cost, etc., of two-inch videotape.