STAR WARS 16mm Film vs 35mm Film Comparison

[@truefilm6991]

Just my humble nerdy input: This is awsome! These 16mm prints are worth a lot! I owned quite a few 16mm prints over time, many years ago. Not that big of a deal, but still: unfortunately the 16mm prints here are all printed full frame 2x anamorphic, so you have top and bottom quite a bit cropped. This was the standard, with just a few laudable exceptions: there are pillar boxed 16mm prints with the correct aspect ratio (2.39:1 instead of 2.66:1). I am unable to say if these 16mm prints are dupes or not. Here is what that means: Some 16mm are just dupes (a 16mm negative was made optically from the 35mm print and from that the 16mm prints were struck as contact prints, these are the lowest quality), while others are of the exact same generation as 35mm prints: a 16mm interneg was made optically from the 35mm intermediate, from which the 16mm prints were struck as contact prints. In the latter example color and contrast should be the same, just less resolution due to the smaller format. So any color difference is not due to the different format, but due to the process, or the scan. The 16mm scans have blown highlights which clearly came from the scanning and are very likely not in the prints, or at least not that pronounced.

[@mdeange3]

Indeed. So may I ask if you can define a reduction print? Is a reduction a 35mm neg to 16mm positive?

[@jetuber]

The 35mm has faded red? Perhaps a bit, but by comparison, the 16mm looks too greeenish or yellowish and needs some magenta or blue or something to bring the colours back to true.

[@thesmilingman7576]

3:15 for some reasson the grind house version of this shot makes me think of a documentary

[@ollyhills]

That’s the idea

[@1987VCRProductions]

I think part of the timing on the 16mm in the opening crawl is because the bottom of the frame is partially cut off, probably during the process of making the 16mm print from the 35mm original.

[@asia911]

16mm color and lighting look pretty realistic almost documentary like.

[@thesmilingman7576]

0:29 the grind house version hasn't aged well

[@_Mark41]

Literally

[@zippymufo9765]

Those prints were run so often that they'd damaged within a couple of weeks.

[@ceebee23]

I saw the originals in 70mm ...blown up from the original 35mm anamorphic originals but with 6 track mag soundtracks.... shown on a Cinerama curved screen ... amazing stuff. A long time ago in an analogue era.... Of course being 1:2.21 aspect ratio vs 1:2.4 it meant a nominal loss of frame at the sides

[@zippymufo9765]

True, but to my eyes the 2:20 aspect ratio of 70mm is more balanced and visually symmetrical. 2:40 is often too vertically compressed and many filmmakers don't use the far peripheries of the frame, so you wind up with empty compositional space on both sides.

[@helendearden6267]

Hi do you have 70 mm

[@saemikneu]

Video description is a bit US default based. Most central European cinemas showed only 35mm prints from 1975 onwards. 16mm was used in Arthouse cinemas.

[@thesmilingman7576]

1:05 it says that the timing in these prints are different this was the first red flag the first edit to a star wars film

[@SG10FilmArchive]

The timing was different because I believe the 16mm version had a few missing frames due to damage and it also ran a little bit faster than normal. It was a bootleg print, so it probably wasn’t an official decision by Lucasfilm.

[@thesmilingman7576]

@@SG10FilmArchive ok

[@CloveCoast]

I’d love to see a compilation of the two per scene, depending on the color balance of each scene. Grind house looks better in some scenes (parts of Hoth scene) it has deeper red and magenta. But the black is not there. The other one has deeper greens, whites, blacks, and blues. just a first impression.

[@zippymufo9765]

It's too red because the other color layers have faded. A common problem for film prints of that era.

[@johnsonapioras8697]

Although the 35mm look darker, i prefer them to the 16mm. Seem to have better detail and more realistic imo.

[@JAKECOT_CENTER]

Do you think you could do the differences between the sound mixes? Like with Aunt Beru’s voice and Threepios Tractor Beam line and “you’re lucky to get out of there/you don’t taste very good”

[@SG10FilmArchive]

I’d love to do a video on that at some point, but I’m currently working on an Editorial on “Why Modern Remasters are Awful”, but I might be able to do that one afterwards. Thanks for the suggestion! :)

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

@@SG10FilmArchive I so dislike the obsession with DNR, changing the aspect ratio from original, and tinting everything blue.

[@SG10FilmArchive]

@@jeffkardosjr.3825 "I heartily agree with you, sir" - C-3PO

[@peterfreeman8211]

First off I love your videos and thanks for letting me see my youth again cuz I was 7 when Star Wars came out and when u showed the audience laughing and talking I was remembered those days when I was a kid seeing this film and again thanks. Also no offense but I love the old 20th Century Fox Logo compared to todays cuz it sounds too fake and the old one when I remembered as a kid sound more crisp and I love seeing the logo just stand there instead of the 3d one today. Well anyway love your videos and please show more of them cuz it does bring great memories and thanks again.

[@richardmattocks]

Genuinely surprised at how well the 16mm holds up. Great comparison.

[@JonahNelson7]

To be fair it is considerably downsized in the video. I'm sure at full screen it looks terrible

[@matthewgaudet4064]

the wobble and camera shake is correct on the Puggo, that is how the 77 crawl was.

[@jimgarrison7340]

I've got thousands of 16mm films in storage. 1930's thru 1970s. Once had 6000 prints. There's a lot of history knowledge and visuals in that collection of the way America was in the past. The past is prologue.

[@KOJ23]

do u have halloween (1978) ? 🤔

[@3cheaptrick]

Were these 16 Mm versions of Star Wars have they ever made it available to the public before Home Video release in 1982 ? I seen one sold for $1600.00 on Ebay two weeks ago and it was the pan scam version Episode lV A New Hope that we saw in the 1982 Home Video release .the only ones I have are the 1977 and 1981 Ken Films prints .

[@jokotri2186]

Recently downloaded the 4K77 it's pretty good, looking to find 4K80 next

[@matthewpaul6904]

For me that's the only one I haven't chased down yet. For my money that is the only one where the Special Edition actually added and didn't take anything away. But I don't discourage the desire to have the untouched version.

[@MP197742]

I really wish Disney would put out some form of the original release. Maybe with some of the basic cleanup of film grain and whatnot, but a pre-special edition version of the original trilogy. Let people choose if they want to watch the original or special edition.

[@matthewgaudet4064]

The negative wouldn't have all the additional layers the prints have. All that needs to be done is a faithful restoration. Of course Disney thinks the digital video noise reduced Maclunky edition is archival. The Special Edition itself from 1997 is a missed opportunity, the prints had good color and they finally had created a new multi track digital mix. But they had to add a bunch of cartoon cgi that has aged horribly and even change the story in places. Imagine if they only removed the garbage mattes and fixed a few wonky optical effects, instead of having Han shoot second.

[@uqbar42]

Long live the Puggo Grande! I remember the legends about that one.

[@jabezriosdesabato1657]

is it just me or does 16mm feel more familiar

[@user-yi7zj3lv5t]

So are missing frames in film mean the runtime is shorter?

[@manmeetworld]

Nice! Great comparison.

[@luckykennedy7364]

Do you have a Google Drive link to the Grindhouse 35mm scan. I’ve been trying to find it and I have had no luck so far.

[@SG10FilmArchive]

Join theStarWarsTrilogy.com forums. They have everything you need there.

[@luckykennedy7364]

@@SG10FilmArchive ty

[@jadyphan5892]

That volume icon though.

[@leandar]

That tells you which film we're hearing the audio of.

[@dongeraci8599]

This channel should have parsecs of subscribers. (Yeah, i know, that's the joke)

[@kuunami]

It will but you've gotta give Han more time!!!!

[@KOJ23]

is there a 35mm version of any of the films that isnt mkv/blu ray. I just want an mp4 version (under 1000 mb) 35mm of the OT.

[@dhilandhruvpatel2705]

Hi, please could you send the source for the 35mm thanks

[@SG10FilmArchive]

Unfortunately, the people who made the 35mm scan have asked that there be no direct download links. If you’d like to watch this version for yourself, I’d recommend registering an account on TheStarWarsTrilogy.com forums. Email me if you need any help :)

[@dhilandhruvpatel2705]

@@SG10FilmArchive Thanks, will do👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

[@guilhermelopes5156]

How do I find 35mm print from a new hope to dowload?????? 16mm of the 3 films I found but the 35mm i can't find. How do I find 35mm print from a new hope to dowload?????

[@pcmason]

First "Comaparison" typo. Sorry for pointing it out.

[@SG10FilmArchive]

Dang! Even I never noticed that! Nice catch!

[@Ballowax]

Was puggo grande scaned at HD resoultion? I can't find any HD version of puggo grande at all

[@SG10FilmArchive]

As far as I know, it wasn’t scanned in at HD resolution. There’s are other 16mm and 35mm scans as well which were, however.

[@Ballowax]

@@SG10FilmArchive could someone pleasd do a 2K scan of Puggo Grande's 16MM prints?

[@SG10FilmArchive]

Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy. It takes a lot of time, money, and logistics in order to get a print scanned. These projects are close to 10 years old, and took Puggo quite a long time, so I doubt he’ll return to these projects at all.

[@Ballowax]

@@SG10FilmArchive how long did it take to get one movie scaned for puggo grande?

[@SG10FilmArchive]

If you’d like to learn more about the Puggo Projects, I uploaded some documentaries the creator made on my channel. Another reason it’s likely that Puggo Grande won’t get scanned again is because our time and efforts are much better spent on more high quality prints we have like the ones used in Project 4K77.

[@nope5657]

Both are beautiful. But the color of the 16mm is more natural.

[@thatblenderguy7566]

Do You Know Space Battleship Yamato (1974)

[@vladimirvelazquez5219]

Great job

[@EB3Rplus]

Why do I prefer the 16mm prints of The Original Trilogy instead of the 35mm prints?

[@MillerNj41]

Seems like dvd vs vhs 16mm is vhs n dvd is 35mm

[@matthewgaudet4064]

Puggo's colors look more accurate here. The Silver Screen edition looks too much corrected to look like the home video releases. 4K77 is so much better.

[@enigmareach1129]

I'm confused. How did this even end up on 16mm?

[@SG10FilmArchive]

I believe this specific print was a dupe of a 35mm print used in theaters. Either it was a bootleg or one of the prints distributed to schools, prisons, etc.

[@enigmareach1129]

@@SG10FilmArchive Ah I see. Very interesting thank you.

[@fremendar9659]

Film grain is natural with FILM.

[@rmn070]

I like Puggo Grande’s version the best.

[@afriend9428]

*Wii love STAR WARS!* ❤

[@fatcat7msk7ru]

16 colors more familiar, looks like they made vhs and dvd's from 16 🧐

[@godstomper]

I prefer the grind house

[@matthewrease2376]

If the 16mm is the original, why does the 35mm look so much better quality wise?

[@Rlotpir1972]

Aren't 16mm films suppose to be in TV format 4:3? 16mm was always in mono. 16mm at 24fps and 35/70mm at 30 fps.

[@bennyhillconsideredfunnier3356]

Hmm.

[@mark000725]

16mm sieht fast besser aus

[@misterartist1603]

This was alright until you added religion into this

[@masterandservant8021]

♪♫"Jaws" was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars...!♫♪