Jump to content


Photo

Regular 16 1.85 vs. Super 16 2.35


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Jerry Pesta

Jerry Pesta

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 May 2011 - 04:01 PM

First post. Be gentle. :)

I've searched the forums but was unable to find an answer. A few months ago I saw Black Swan in a theater and was very impressed with the cinematography. I understand that the film was shot largely on Super 16, and cropped to 2.35:1 for exhibition. I am curious to know how Regular 16 cropped to 1.85:1 would compare. Have there been any recent films that have been shot on Regular 16 and cropped to 1.85:1 for exhibition? Could Regular 16 cropped to 1.85:1 look as good as Black Swan? I realize that "good" is incredibly subjective. Would Regular 16 cropped to 1.85:1 be about as grainy as Super 16 cropped to 2.35:1 if one were to use the same lenses and stocks that were used on Black Swan? Thank you.
  • 0

#2 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3059 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 May 2011 - 05:08 PM

R16 cropped to 1.85:1 has around 40% less negative area than s16 in the same AR. That is a considerable difference. Using the latest slow stocks will help to mitigate the increased grain, but you will still see a difference.
  • 0

#3 Boyd Hobbs

Boyd Hobbs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 May 2011 - 05:38 PM

I don't think the difference would be that dramatic. You might not see grain in every circumstance. You would definitely want to make sure you have a thick negative.

Super 16 cropped to 2.35 is 5.3mm x 12.5mm giving you a diagonal of 13.6mm and an area of 66.25 square mm's
Regular 16 cropped to 1.85 is 5.5mm x 10.26mm giving you a diagonal of 11.6mm and an area of 56.43 square mm's
And for reference Super 16 is 7.41mm x 12.5mm giving you a diagonal of 14.53mm and an area of 92.6 square mm's

The difference isn't incredibly great. They are almost exactly the same height on the negative.

You're stock choice and post process would probably have a greater effect on the resulting image.
  • 0

#4 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 02 May 2011 - 12:39 AM

The 1.85/1 image height of 16R is around 0.202", while the height of 2,35/1 is around 0.202".

Hmm?
  • 0

#5 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:41 PM

The question here is why would you bother shooting R16 at all? For a feature, you'd want to use a modern, practical, reliable 16mm camera so just rent a Prod or SR3 and go for it on S16. The prices now are extremely good.
  • 0

#6 Jerry Pesta

Jerry Pesta

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 May 2011 - 12:19 PM

Thank you to all who replied.
  • 0

#7 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3059 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:29 PM

The difference isn't incredibly great. They are almost exactly the same height on the negative.


It's still a 20% difference, and in 16mm, it all counts.
  • 0


CineTape

Technodolly

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Opal

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Abel Cine

The Slider

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery