16 mm V.S. 35
Posted 01 October 2006 - 04:09 PM
Posted 01 October 2006 - 04:12 PM
Posted 01 October 2006 - 04:32 PM
Posted 01 October 2006 - 04:47 PM
This has been discussed quite a bit in past--it might be good to search the archives.
Basically, the camera is bigger and heavier (and all the complications that come with it). The film is a lot more expensive per foot and you need quite a bit more per minute. As a result, lab costs go up, but telecine costs usually stay exactly the same as 16mm. The film stocks are exactly the same (just larger)--so the lighting approach for a high-end look will likely be similar. On a low budget, 35mm can be a bit more forgiving because you are gathering more information. Also, when the low budget is low, it is a lot easier to "just grab the camera and go shoot" with 16mm where as with 35mm there is more complexity, more cases, heavier lenses, etc.
I'd say figure out your post production path and final output (35mm print? Video only? DI?) and do a side by side comparison. If you are finishing strictly on video, for example, there are many instances where people say that super16 looks very close to 35mm or "close enough".