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
  • 900 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
  • 900 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
  • 464 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
  • 900 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


Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Glidecam

Technodolly

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineTape

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks