16mm vintage 1939 film found, what to do?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I have been given access to two 7" diameter cans of double-perf, B&W, 16mm silent film from 1939. It supposedly (I haven’t viewed it completely) shows local high school activities. I hope to preserve it as much as possible, and would welcome advice.

Can anyone estimate the total length of the film from the reel size? Digital conversion houses price their services on length in feet or minutes, so I need that to get a cost estimate.

I have a 16mm Bell & Howell projector that works, and I have been able to view a few minutes of the film. But it appears to be multiple short lengths, possibly due to broken splices, so I haven’t been able to look past the 2 minute mark. Other than the breaks, the substrate is in good, undamaged condition.

It looks like I might have to splice a lot of film into more reasonable lengths before proceeding, so my next question is: what is the best technique for this? I am familiar with vintage splicing methods for film and mag tape, but I will have to purchase some new/old equipment and supplies to do this right. Should I use sticky tape or chemical cement? Diagonal or straight cuts? Is there a splicing block that’s best?

I’m willing to invest a few dollars to get the equipment, but there is a sub-sky limit.

After making a continuous film, any opinions as to digital transfer? Prices seem to be all over the map. I think investing in a high-quality transfer will be worth it, as the resolution available from 16mm film is potentially equivalent to HD video.

AFAIK, all the film is B&W, so there would be no color correction, and there is no soundtrack. This might change as I get deeper into the reels, as I don’t know how this film was made originally.

Any advice, opinions, or personal experience would be welcome.

2

If it is double perf, it could well be the camera original. Seven inch reels hold up to 400 feet of film, which means a full reel will run around 16 minutes at silent speed, 12 at sound.

You should be able to find a used cement splicer online for not too much money. Tape splicers usually cost more. A film viewer/winder is useful but not necessary if this is the only project you’re doing.

3

Thanks for the length estimate. Looks like about 800 ft total. But which splicing method is considered the best nowadays? Cement dries up, and tape loses it’s stickum and can get jammed in the projector.

I also noticed some creases on the film that might be splices (but I don’t know why there are so many). All are diagonal. So is a diagonal cut better than a straight cut or vice-versa? A straight cut would look better when projected (no overlap).

I don’t need a viewer, as the projector should suffice. A movieola-type gadget would be nice, but I can’t justify the cost for this single project.

4

Cement splices are generally permanent, but if the splice was badly made in the first place, it can fail. (Film cement is not glue, it works by dissolving the base - once it evaporates, the overlap is bonded.)

Tape splices have been known to ooze and separate after years, depending on the tape.

I’ve never heard of a diagonal cut film splice. If there are diagonal creases in the film, they shouldn’t affect running it; if they are some kind of homemade attempt to splice the film together, it’s up to you to decide whether or not you need to replace them. They may run through your projector okay, but any lab trying to scan the film might freak out, because they definitely are not a standard thing.

5

I’m puzzled by the diagonal artifacts. They appear to be creases rather than splices, but I will have to look at them closer with a magnifying glass. They pass thru the projector without a problem, so I’m not going to break them myself.

It’s possible the 400’ on each reel is a combination of original camera film, explaining the splices, but I won’t know until I can play a longer segment.

6

The OP might be interested in this film from 1945 which was bought at an estate sale seven years ago.

7

Diagonal creases could indicate that the film was twisted during takeup at some point - or perhaps that it was manually respooled after having come loose from the reel, and that someone rewound it quickly without worrying about keeping it flat as it wound on.

8

I ran a movie projector in college. Diagonal creases usually happened because someone didn’t tape down the ends, and the film unspooled in the canister, and filpped onto the reel, then someone set another reel onto the top of the unspooled film.

9

I think it’s probably in pieces because it has shattered. What does it smell like?

Tape or ultrasound splicers are required for modern film substrate, which doesn’t dissolve or bond with ‘glue’. A 1939 film won’t have a modern substrate, but it may not be acetate, either – it may be nitrate. I think acetate was used for home movies in 1939, but not for professional, because it wasn’t strong enough? Nitrate dissolves in lots of things but I don’t know if acetate glue will be appropriate or if you need something special.

We used diagonal splices for our films at high school, because they were easier, but everyone knew that butt splices were better – and required more skill and better equipment. Diagonal splices are used for (sound) tapes.

Be careful with the film. If you think it’s nitrate don’t take it to work - nitrate film stock is classified as a dangerous substance.

10

I don’t think this is nitrate. That wasn’t used in 16mm by the late 1930’s.

There are several diagonal creases in the first 2 minutes. I was reluctant to unspool it further, as it came apart in 3 pieces by then and I didn’t want to get them out of sequence. You can see what appears to be sections with leaders further in the reel.

No sound, at least so far.

No unusual smell. It looks, smells, and feels exactly like the film I handled daily in 1957-1962. The breaks are all straight, not jagged or diagonal.

People watching it with me recognized the front of a local school, and said it might be of a fashion show. It shows one girl parading past the entrance.

11

RE: diagonal creases

The ones I saw were uniform in shape, not random. I don’t think they were caused by poor handling. We should learn more once I unspool more of the reel, which I don’t want to do until I get some splicing equipment, and permission to work on it, as I don’t own the film.

12

Might also be odd lengths of film someone wound onto reels, without bothering to splice. You remember “Cinema Paradiso”, where the old projectionist saved all the naughty bits that the town priest ordered him to remove?

13

Could be. But given the age of the film, there are many possibilities. I don’t know if it has been sealed in a can for 60-80 years (my first guess), or what.

14

Depending on where you’re located, your local or state historical society may be interested in helping you with the film, and some of them already have quite a bit of equipment and expertise. You might try asking around before investing cash.

15

Thanks for the suggestion, but since I am on the board of the local historical society and responsible for most of the tech, we have a very limited budget, and due to the pandemic, no activity at the moment, that isn’t going to be very rewarding. I doubt if the state level cares much about our small local schools, so it’s pretty much up to me right now. It’s a crapshoot, as we don’t yet know what is on this film. For 60-80 years, no one cared about it, so anything I can do would be an improvement.

16

Nah, public institutions like libraries all went digital years ago. The Boston Public Library had a wonderful 16mm collection which they reportedly donated to Harvard, where it’s accessible to pretty much no one. At least they didn’t trash it, which I’m afraid was the fate of a lot of film libraries.

17

This depends on state, and you know yours. Here in Kansas, for example, the state historical society would be very much interested in what happened in a small local school in the 1930s (evidence, six minutes of random footage of Canton, Kansas, in 1929), but other places, not so much.

Nah, not really. Some did, some didn’t. Several big libraries in my area have active programs to digitize film- and paper-based collections to make them more widely available online. Harvard Film Archive also has an active digitization program, although I don’t think they’ve gotten to the Boston Public Library collection yet.

18

The BPL collection is not a prime candidate for digitization since it’s lots of educational shorts and old features under copyright. A great many you won’t find anywhere else, so if you can’t borrow the film from Harvard, you won’t be seeing it.

But this is getting off track. Of course I encourage Musicat to seek out help wherever it can be found.

19

That’s classic “someone set a heavy reel down on unspooled film.”

21

If that’s indeed how it happened, someone took great care to set the heavy reel down at exactly the same angle and pressure repeatedly. We’ll have to see how frequent this is further in the reel.

I found a splicing block on eBay that might work.