Interesting!  Black Swan was filmed on 16mm and it does have an old fashioned look to it.  The new Rob Zombie movie is very vibrant...like it was shot using Technicolor.  It reminded me of Suspiria at times because of that.

I am pretty sure one of the films I reviewed this past year was shot on 16mm also.  At least it had that look to it...

http://www.horror-movies.ca/if-a-tree-falls-review/

Damn DirtyGirl, just about every post I have read of yours is right on! I've met many talented people here so far and people with great tastes but just about every post of yours is right in line with what I'm talking about and thinking. The film If A Tree Falls is exactly the type of film quality, mood and feel I'm talkin about! Thank you for understanding and sharing!

As I look at horror films these days, I must admit how dissapointed (in most cases) I am in the over all "look" the directors are creating today. Maybe because I'm a product of the 70's and my fears are triggered in some way by memories of watching 70's horror films as a child. When I watch (especially a low budget 70's flick) something unusual happens. My mood turns grainy, almost dilapidated and I actually get "The Fear" at times. Unfortunately new digital CGI infused blu-ray films with beautiful bright red, bloody explosions and monochrome atmospheres visually don't frighten me. Well, atleast not like the older films do. The horror flicks of the 70's make me feel kinda dirty (in a good way) if you know what I mean.

Why aren't more directors (if any) filming in that "old school" style? I looked up a few of my favorite low budget horror films from that time and it seems that directors I love and admire used the same camera and format.

Camera
Panaflex Camera and Lenses by Panavision

Laboratory
Technicolor, USA (processing by)
MGM Laboratories Inc., USA (color by)

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Spherical

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1

Does anyone know why more directors don't revert to this style?

That's ironic you mention this. It's Exactly what I'm going for next time.

Super 8 brought in the era of cartridge loading.  It also had a wider aspect ratio, and could used better film stock.  It also had a magnetic strip that could record audio.

16mm uses double-perf film (sprocket holes on both sides), and has a 1.37:1 aspect ration.

Super 16 is single-perf, has a 1.67:1 aspect ration, and has a magnetic strip that can record sound.

35mm is the current standard, and can come in various aspect ratios, and has a section for sound recording.  Developing 80 minutes of 35mm will cost around $1500 to $2500.

As the films can more sophisticated, so did the film stock.  You're not going to be able to find the quality of film in Super 16 as you can in 35mm.  But as DG pointed out, several recent(ish) films have been made on Super 16 and look fine.

If you want to spend a day or 4 reading up some more-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M … lm_formats

16mm/Super-16 are just larger versions of 8mm/Super 8mm, and their differences are similar to the differences between normal and super 8mm.

35mm is what's most commonly used in theatrical film production.  Much larger film stock, shot at 24 fps.  In terms of image quality, the more mm, the better the image quality.  8mm looks like mud if blown up to 35, but 16mm fares quite a bit better if blown up.

If you want to direct a short horror movie, just invest in a digital home camera.  Most of them are advanced enough these days that whatever you film you can simply upload onto your home computer and edit it with a simple program, as well as insert music cues, FX, etc.  Plus you don't have to pay to have any film developed; you can just save the video file onto a disk and make copies.

So whats goin on I just cruised in here cause I saw 70s flashing in my eyes/

What suprised me is that Oliver Stone, for example, has used it several times in his more recent films, such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, U Turn, and JFK where his director of photography Robert Richardson employed it to evoke a period or to give a different look to scene.

edit- the LA Times article also brought up something I totally ignored, since it's 2nd nature to me.  Preservation of digital data.  If you don't have your originals RAID'd in at least 2 different "clouds," (man, I hate that term) your asking for trouble.  Cappy probably has some better ideas than that, too.

Tobe Hooper's THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (original)
Wes Craven's LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
Wes Craven's THE HILLS HAVE EYES (original)
William Lustig's MANIAC
George A. Romero's MARTIN
Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD
John McNaughton's HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER
Rob Zombie's THE DEVIL'S REJECTS
Jim VanBebber's DEADBEAT AT DAWN
Jim VanBebber's MANSON FAMILY
Roger Watkin's LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET
Jörg Buttgereit's NEKROMANTIK 2
Jörg Buttgereit's SCHRAMM
Some of THE BLAIRWITCH PROJECT
EQUINOX (although the footage added by Jack Harris was 35mm)
THE DORM THAT DRIPPED BLOOD
HORROR HIGH
WARLOCK MOON
George Romero's The Crazies
Peter Jackson's Bad Taste

Found this article talking about trying to save 35mm film as well.  Just like Azz mentioned, it comes down to dollar and cents to the studios instead of artistic integrity. 

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film … Hollywood/

I am pretty sure one of the films I reviewed this past year was shot on 16mm also.  At least it had that look to it...

http://www.horror-movies.ca/if-a-tree-falls-review/

@Dan-
They were probably using B-grade film stock.  It's not an official term or has any official definition.  Just a term referring to film that is not top tier, i.e. using cheaper materials to make the stock cheaper, but with less visual quality.