Jump to content


Photo

16mm vs super16mm vs 4 perf 35mm vs 3perf 35mm vs 65mm


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 05 February 2007 - 10:30 PM

I saw a chart comparing pixel equivalents of all of these somewhere but I cant find it now.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Like all of these stocks side by side or something like that.
  • 0

#2 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 February 2007 - 08:03 AM

There should be no difference between 4-perf and 3-perf unless you're talking anamorphic vs. Super 2.39.

In any case, there is no common agreement as to the equivalent pixel resolution of film; even if there were, it's simply one of many factors involved in the quality of the image.

Edited by Jon Kukla, 06 February 2007 - 08:04 AM.

  • 0

#3 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 06 February 2007 - 09:57 PM

It was like a brochure I think Kodak made, it wasn't pixel i dont think. It was just examples and comparisons. Grain coefficients, etc.


HIGHLY informal and resourceful.

Edited by Kenny N Suleimanagich, 06 February 2007 - 09:58 PM.

  • 0

#4 Frank Barrera

Frank Barrera
  • Sustaining Members
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 February 2007 - 10:22 PM

In the 8th edition of the American Cinematographer Manual there are comparisons of negative sizes of all these formats in the first chapter entitled 'Cinematographic Systems'. Pixels usually refer to electronic data and not film resolution.
  • 0

#5 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 06 February 2007 - 10:25 PM

After consulting with Physicists to determine the physical width of light and the physical amount of space an individual Light Ray would occupy, I calculated the maximum potential number of Rays which could fit into a Square Millimetre. You can find this info (S16 v R35 v S35 v 65) in my Cinematography Article available off my Website. Just click the Web Link below in my Signature.
  • 0

#6 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 06 February 2007 - 10:45 PM

After consulting with Physicists to determine the physical width of light and the physical amount of space an individual Light Ray would occupy, I calculated the maximum potential number of Rays which could fit into a Square Millimetre. You can find this info (S16 v R35 v S35 v 65) in my Cinematography Article available off my Website. Just click the Web Link below in my Signature.

thank you! very helpful.
  • 0


CineTape

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineLab

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment