Thanks so much for watching everyone! Thought I should mention a few film types I did NOT mention. 35mm at one point had a magnetic version, much like 70mm. This was short lived but before Dolby SR was the best way to get 4 tracks of audio! This did, however, mean there was no optical track and thus no backwards compatibility! Also, of course the big one missing is 70mm IMAX. I have a new video about this format and I hope to make an updated version of this video with IMAX included! Quite the size difference :)
Thanks for your video but just one point. You say 35mm magnetic had no optical track. This I is not so. The 20th Century Fox film ‘The Enemy Below’ was CinemaScope with four track magnetic, left, right and centre speakers behind the screen and the fourth track an ‘ambient’ track for speakers around the auditorium. This film also carried an optical track for theatres not equipped with a magnetic sound head. I know this because I projected this film way back in the early sixties. All mag audio films we had at that theatre all carried an optical track, and incidentally were all Fox movies. Best wishes.
You did forget super8 and 9.5mm. Super 8 could carry a stereo magnetic sound track. Some prints had optical mono. 9.5mm could carry optical sound and very rarely magnetic. The (standard) 8mm was also available with magnetic sound. Two other formats not shown are 17.5mm and 28mm, but exampies of these are very rare and expensive on the collectors market. One omission regarding 35mm was the horizontal 'Vistavision' format that Hitchcock used on two films.
"Alien" from 1979 also had 70mm Magnetic audio prints. Back in 1997 there was a Laserdisc release, where it was used for the Dolby Digital AC3 encoded digital audio on one of the analog audio channels where you needed a Demodulator to turn that signal into a usable Digital Audio signal for your AV Receiver. That was he first time to have THAT mix at home as a 5.1 mix.
Awesome! Thank you! Never seen them all compared side by side. They really did use every available space on that 35mm film strip. Subscribing for more!
You are right! It is amazing (and in my opinion the perfect balance of size, as IMAX although amazing resolution and quality takes some much space, film, and light to properly project, while 70mm needs about 1/3rd the resources and still looks incredible)
@@thorstenjaspert9394 Yes and no. A lot of movies have been mastered in 2K and only now are movies slowly being mastered at 4K. It is true that film is the only proven storage medium, so I do agree with backing up movies on film is an option, although quite costly
I still have some 1-minute rolls of 35mm film discarded when a theater around the corner went into bankruptcy. A Corona beer ad, an advance of "SpongeBob Squarepants movie", and another that I cannot identify, the head of the roll is missing but some frames show Jennifer Connely.
At 4:37, scope has had several different aspect ratios which annoyingly are rounded variously up and down. So it’s not just 2.39:1, it’s been 2.35:1, 2.40:1. See the “Aspect ratio (image)” article on English Wikipedia.
Hi Kyle, I like the 8/16/33 mm look. But is there cheap alternative? Getting the footage developed and digitized is hardly affordable if you want to shoot a full length analog film (and dont want to use pseudo-analog digital filter.)
Hi please guide…if I digitise 8 mm film footage and then try to screen it in a regular cinema hall…would it work…was thinking of making a short film for film festivals….
That is a good question! So yes they cannot see the actual film till it’s developed, but if I understand correctly they have tools and even the camera can see exactly what the camera will see. That is how all films used to be filmed before digital cameras!
I remember in the 1990 going to the movies and having the sound cut between sdds and dolby sr a lot it would pop and get lower and then if u got up and told the people that were working they could fix it sometimes this allso happend on dts on 35mm too but not as much we didn't get dolby digital untill 2000 something but it was not as good as dts or sdds the sound was always so much lower on dobly digital I would avoid the 2 rooms that got switched over to that we mostly had dts witch was so much better then the dolby digital rooms
Super-8 sound film has in most cases a magnetic sound track which is superior to the 16mm optical sound in quality. Filming at home would be silent in most cases but there were the magnetic sound version as already mentoned and in very less cases there were also optical sound on Super-8 but again magnetic was superior to 16mm optical sound and so it is of course superior to Super-8 mm optical. I have an Eumig S820 High Quality Sound Super-8 magnetic sound projector at home and some Looney Tunes cartoons in that format in German olanguage as I'm German :D
@@KyleMiko Yeah but most again was silent cause recording with sound was very expensive and in the beginning of Super-8 sound it was recorded seperately on tape there were no camera that could record the sound directly meaning that the tape got a cut out to a ver thin line that was glued along the Films Edge and you can imagine that at home the devices for gluing this onto the Film were again expensive and hard to use sometime it came to miss alignment so the sound gets muffled at that part. Later in the 70s Kodak developed a Super-8 cassette that has already a soun track and then cameras came across that of course can record the sound directly to the film no seperate recording was needed anymore but even after this came out most Super-8 film was still silent cause even the new system was hard to acquire so it was still very expensive.
@@KyleMiko Super rare is Super-8 stereo Film those used two magnetic stripes on each edge of the film so one at the perforation and one at the other side. The main soundtrack is the one on the side without the perforation that will also be played by mono projectors. Mine is mono only and that is enough for me the old Bugs Bunny cartoons were also never stereo so it doesn't matter. Here is a short video of my Eumig S820 sound projector the speaker is built internally into it sou the sound you are hearing is coming from the projector not from an amplifier or external speaker: th-cam.com/video/C2Pg5NdSFFc/w-d-xo.html
@@KyleMiko It's cool how good the speakers were that they used for their projectors, you can go very loud without distortion. Eumig was or is, I don't know, an Austrian manufactor my one, the S820, is from 1977 it works without any belts so it is super easy to maintain.
Hey dude, I have some old film rolls called bobs Hollywood out takes ,opening last week 1st time in 15 years in an old garage, would love to see if there worth anything, been used for a computer stand for years 😆
That’s a good question. The size is the reason here, the bigger the size the better the resolution. 35mm is the great middle ground of plenty of resolution that most viewers would be happy with. Anything less starts to get grainy or “pixelated” as you would associate it these days. > 35mm looks much better but costs significantly more to film and produce so it has almost always been reserved for big budget movies
That’s a really good question. I am honestly not sure, it’s possible that initially they just recorded the projected image with a TV camera (telecine) and if they had a modified shutter to reduce flicker, it might have just worked.
Thanks for responding for me! And yes, both of you are correct! I believe I briefly mention Super 8mm but I could be mistaken. I don't know anyone who had a sample! There is also Super 16mm which is actually used today by some videographers. They use the single perf 16mm film stock but they also shoot on the frame where the audio track would be, getting an aspect ratio closer to 16:9
35mm is much closer to 8.5 Than 4k. 16mm is closer to 4k. 8mm is closer to. 1.5k. 65mm is closer 12.5k and IMAX 70MM Is closer to 22k (found this out from an interview I did in school with the head of IMAX technology back in 2014.)
That is correct. There is a huge difference between a 2K and 4K scan regarding 16mm film. It's hard to pinpoint, but I'd say that 16mm should be scanned least at 4K and 35mm at least at 8K, to get all image infirmation. That goes especially for the camera originais, which are used for the finest 4K Blu-Ray transfers.
@@truefilm6991 yeah this is why when people say we can't go 8k because there's no Conte t I laugh. We have film to go back as far as the 1940s that can be rescamned for 6 to 8.5k and some 65mm like Ben her and samsara that can be scanned up to 12k. There's plenty of content thanks to film. Also for anyone that says you can't see a difference it isn't true as well. For 1 once your eyes adjust to 8k it will become soft and 12k or high with have mor perceivable detail to you because the human eye does not actually have a detail resolution limit especially if close enough. Also when HDR is added into the mix and we are able to hit alhifher and higher brightness thresholds, more colors that are only perceivable at those bigness levels will be able to been seen thus increase color depth and detail. But until the TV brightness equals a sunny day evenly there will always be a lack of light and missing detail that our eyes and brain will always be able to interpret.
@@mtvisionary just to clear the confusion: of course 65mm is the camera format. 70mm is the corresponding print format. Samsara is s wonderful film by Ron Fricke. I wish there was a full frame 4K version of Koyaanisqatsi. It has some stock footage and 16mm blow ups, but the main footage was shot on Academy 35mm on an Arriflex 35IIC.
Our theater now quit using masking when they went digital and you can see the gray bars on the top and bottom. I quit going because it looks like a old tv now. Film was a lot better for movies then digital is now they should have never gotten rid of it. plus the digital sound seemed louder and more full then the uncompressed sound of today I know it make no since but its like today they dont even try at all with digital projection
Thanks so much for watching everyone! Thought I should mention a few film types I did NOT mention. 35mm at one point had a magnetic version, much like 70mm. This was short lived but before Dolby SR was the best way to get 4 tracks of audio! This did, however, mean there was no optical track and thus no backwards compatibility! Also, of course the big one missing is 70mm IMAX. I have a new video about this format and I hope to make an updated version of this video with IMAX included! Quite the size difference :)
Thanks for your video but just one point. You say 35mm magnetic had no optical track. This I is not so. The 20th Century Fox film ‘The Enemy Below’ was CinemaScope with four track magnetic, left, right and centre speakers behind the screen and the fourth track an ‘ambient’ track for speakers around the auditorium. This film also carried an optical track for theatres not equipped with a magnetic sound head. I know this because I projected this film way back in the early sixties. All mag audio films we had at that theatre all carried an optical track, and incidentally were all Fox movies. Best wishes.
JOKER is digitally shot on Alexa 65 camera. TENET is a true 70MM and IMAX 70MM filmed movie.
I never understood the CinemaScope format until I watched this video. Great job explaining the formats.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed
You did forget super8 and 9.5mm. Super 8 could carry a stereo magnetic sound track. Some prints had optical mono. 9.5mm could carry optical sound and very rarely magnetic. The (standard) 8mm was also available with magnetic sound. Two other formats not shown are 17.5mm and 28mm, but exampies of these are very rare and expensive on the collectors market. One omission regarding 35mm was the horizontal 'Vistavision' format that Hitchcock used on two films.
Really
"Alien" from 1979 also had 70mm Magnetic audio prints. Back in 1997 there was a Laserdisc release, where it was used for the Dolby Digital AC3 encoded digital audio on one of the analog audio channels where you needed a Demodulator to turn that signal into a usable Digital Audio signal for your AV Receiver. That was he first time to have THAT mix at home as a 5.1 mix.
Awesome! Thank you! Never seen them all compared side by side. They really did use every available space on that 35mm film strip. Subscribing for more!
Amazing! Thank you very much. I finally understood it
The 3-5 different types of audio was fascinating to see.
Thank you for the clear and informative video. Good work!
Incredible how wide 70mm film is. It's like the medium format in photography.
You are right! It is amazing (and in my opinion the perfect balance of size, as IMAX although amazing resolution and quality takes some much space, film, and light to properly project, while 70mm needs about 1/3rd the resources and still looks incredible)
@@KyleMiko Most actual Blockbusters are shooted digital in 4k or more. It would be a perfect medium for an analogue backup of digital movies.
@@thorstenjaspert9394 Yes and no. A lot of movies have been mastered in 2K and only now are movies slowly being mastered at 4K. It is true that film is the only proven storage medium, so I do agree with backing up movies on film is an option, although quite costly
Question: the film quality? Why do certain old films have grain and new ones don't?
I still have some 1-minute rolls of 35mm film discarded when a theater around the corner went into bankruptcy. A Corona beer ad, an advance of "SpongeBob Squarepants movie", and another that I cannot identify, the head of the roll is missing but some frames show Jennifer Connely.
Cool! You should try to find a way to project them or scan them! Bet they looks great
awesome- thank you for acknowledging double 8mm. Hoping someday I can make my own movies on 35mm and 70mm.
At 4:37, scope has had several different aspect ratios which annoyingly are rounded variously up and down. So it’s not just 2.39:1, it’s been 2.35:1, 2.40:1.
See the “Aspect ratio (image)” article on English Wikipedia.
Hi Kyle, I like the 8/16/33 mm look. But is there cheap alternative? Getting the footage developed and digitized is hardly affordable if you want to shoot a full length analog film (and dont want to use pseudo-analog digital filter.)
Also missing 9.5 & Super8.
Super 8 is very similar to 16mm magnetic, but you are right! As for 9.5mm, I have never seen it in the US! But good catches!
Really clear, thank you Kyle!!
Why is it when I go to B&H and look at the Kodak film for sale they have 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and 65mm not 70mm?
I believe (and I could be mistaken) That it is shot on 65mm film, and then the final product is on 70mm film with the added audio track(s)
Yes, 65mm is what goes in the camera. The prints are 70mm to allow for sound tracks. At this scale the cost of those 5mm adds up.
Thank you. I am your 668th sub.
Thanks!!!
Hi please guide…if I digitise 8 mm film footage and then try to screen it in a regular cinema hall…would it work…was thinking of making a short film for film festivals….
Yes it would
@@KyleMiko thanks
let's hope analog film will be around for a long time
So if these mega movies are being filmed in this. Am i right in thinking they cannot see if the footage is good until developing the film?😱
That is a good question! So yes they cannot see the actual film till it’s developed, but if I understand correctly they have tools and even the camera can see exactly what the camera will see. That is how all films used to be filmed before digital cameras!
Beautiful thanks! Why didn't you add Supers to the list though : D
I didn’t have any! But it is very similar, with a small mag stripe for sound
I have these projectors 8mm,16mm,35mm my dad is to have this road show movie business in india Mumbai now a days this have become vintage items
Great. Would like to see them someday
I wonder what 140mm digitized would look like at 16k resolution
Thank you
No problem!
Good video! but where is 9,5mm film?
Good question. I have never seen 9.5mm in the US! I have always wanted to see if however, as it seems like a super cool format.
@@KyleMiko I like the 20th Anniversary of THX Trailer
I remember in the 1990 going to the movies and having the sound cut between sdds and dolby sr a lot it would pop and get lower and then if u got up and told the people that were working they could fix it sometimes this allso happend on dts on 35mm too but not as much we didn't get dolby digital untill 2000 something but it was not as good as dts or sdds the sound was always so much lower on dobly digital I would avoid the 2 rooms that got switched over to that we mostly had dts witch was so much better then the dolby digital rooms
Thanks 🙏🏻
Super-8 sound film has in most cases a magnetic sound track which is superior to the 16mm optical sound in quality. Filming at home would be silent in most cases but there were the magnetic sound version as already mentoned and in very less cases there were also optical sound on Super-8 but again magnetic was superior to 16mm optical sound and so it is of course superior to Super-8 mm optical. I have an Eumig S820 High Quality Sound Super-8 magnetic sound projector at home and some Looney Tunes cartoons in that format in German olanguage as I'm German :D
Awesome to know! I have never seen any of this myself (or the rare 9.5mm) but thanks for the info
@@KyleMiko Yeah but most again was silent cause recording with sound was very expensive and in the beginning of Super-8 sound it was recorded seperately on tape there were no camera that could record the sound directly meaning that the tape got a cut out to a ver thin line that was glued along the Films Edge and you can imagine that at home the devices for gluing this onto the Film were again expensive and hard to use sometime it came to miss alignment so the sound gets muffled at that part. Later in the 70s Kodak developed a Super-8 cassette that has already a soun track and then cameras came across that of course can record the sound directly to the film no seperate recording was needed anymore but even after this came out most Super-8 film was still silent cause even the new system was hard to acquire so it was still very expensive.
@@KyleMiko Super rare is Super-8 stereo Film those used two magnetic stripes on each edge of the film so one at the perforation and one at the other side. The main soundtrack is the one on the side without the perforation that will also be played by mono projectors. Mine is mono only and that is enough for me the old Bugs Bunny cartoons were also never stereo so it doesn't matter. Here is a short video of my Eumig S820 sound projector the speaker is built internally into it sou the sound you are hearing is coming from the projector not from an amplifier or external speaker:
th-cam.com/video/C2Pg5NdSFFc/w-d-xo.html
@@lukassteinbrink322 wow that does sound good!
@@KyleMiko It's cool how good the speakers were that they used for their projectors, you can go very loud without distortion. Eumig was or is, I don't know, an Austrian manufactor my one, the S820, is from 1977 it works without any belts so it is super easy to maintain.
Anybody recognize the movie on the 35mm strip?
Hey dude, I have some old film rolls called bobs Hollywood out takes ,opening last week 1st time in 15 years in an old garage, would love to see if there worth anything, been used for a computer stand for years 😆
Very cool! Maybe you have some very rare stuff
@@KyleMiko God I hope so ,I'm trying to bid on a projector lol thanks for replying
Okay but what is the difference between them? Why would you want to shoot on a 70mm and not 35? Why is 35 the modt popular and not the 8mm?
That’s a good question. The size is the reason here, the bigger the size the better the resolution. 35mm is the great middle ground of plenty of resolution that most viewers would be happy with. Anything less starts to get grainy or “pixelated” as you would associate it these days. > 35mm looks much better but costs significantly more to film and produce so it has almost always been reserved for big budget movies
@@KyleMiko thank you!
Of course, there are many other film sizes: super 16, super 35, 9mm, etc.
How did they project movie film on TV when the projector film is 24 frames per second and the TV broadcast is 30 frames per second?
That’s a really good question. I am honestly not sure, it’s possible that initially they just recorded the projected image with a TV camera (telecine) and if they had a modified shutter to reduce flicker, it might have just worked.
@@KyleMiko On the other hand, maybe it didn't matter?
Very interesting, but I think you are missing the "super 8mm" one.... aren't you?
super 8 and 8mm and the same film format however one utilizes more space on the film by removing one side of perforations
Thanks for responding for me! And yes, both of you are correct! I believe I briefly mention Super 8mm but I could be mistaken. I don't know anyone who had a sample! There is also Super 16mm which is actually used today by some videographers. They use the single perf 16mm film stock but they also shoot on the frame where the audio track would be, getting an aspect ratio closer to 16:9
Nice
35mm is much closer to 8.5
Than 4k. 16mm is closer to 4k. 8mm is closer to. 1.5k. 65mm is closer 12.5k and IMAX 70MM Is closer to 22k (found this out from an interview I did in school with the head of IMAX technology back in 2014.)
WOW I had no idea! Thank you for the info
That is correct. There is a huge difference between a 2K and 4K scan regarding 16mm film. It's hard to pinpoint, but I'd say that 16mm should be scanned least at 4K and 35mm at least at 8K, to get all image infirmation. That goes especially for the camera originais, which are used for the finest 4K Blu-Ray transfers.
@@truefilm6991 yeah this is why when people say we can't go 8k because there's no Conte t I laugh. We have film to go back as far as the 1940s that can be rescamned for 6 to 8.5k and some 65mm like Ben her and samsara that can be scanned up to 12k. There's plenty of content thanks to film. Also for anyone that says you can't see a difference it isn't true as well. For 1 once your eyes adjust to 8k it will become soft and 12k or high with have mor perceivable detail to you because the human eye does not actually have a detail resolution limit especially if close enough. Also when HDR is added into the mix and we are able to hit alhifher and higher brightness thresholds, more colors that are only perceivable at those bigness levels will be able to been seen thus increase color depth and detail. But until the TV brightness equals a sunny day evenly there will always be a lack of light and missing detail that our eyes and brain will always be able to interpret.
@@mtvisionary just to clear the confusion: of course 65mm is the camera format. 70mm is the corresponding print format. Samsara is s wonderful film by Ron Fricke. I wish there was a full frame 4K version of Koyaanisqatsi. It has some stock footage and 16mm blow ups, but the main footage was shot on Academy 35mm on an Arriflex 35IIC.
@@truefilm6991 Samsara was created on a custom built camera and was all shot on those locations just as the qatsi series was.
Our theater now quit using masking when they went digital and you can see the gray bars on the top and bottom. I quit going because it looks like a old tv now. Film was a lot better for movies then digital is now they should have never gotten rid of it. plus the digital sound seemed louder and more full then the uncompressed sound of today I know it make no since but its like today they dont even try at all with digital projection
35mm film is best
Shtrip and shtrech.