Jump to content


Photo

Ultra16 vs. Super16


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Rob McCray

Rob McCray
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Student

Posted 30 June 2012 - 02:59 PM

Is there that big of a visible difference between these two formats when telecined for 16x9?
  • 0

#2 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2070 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 30 June 2012 - 11:56 PM

Slight, but if you knew what to look for it might be possible with the same stock, camera and lens; one ultra and one super. Even regular 16 cropped in can look great if it is shot well and telecined/colored well.

However, it doesn't really matter, it comes down to a financial decision usually. If you can afford Super 16 it is better because of size and compatibility of telecine/scan. Ultra will make more sense on cameras like a Scoopic where it is very expensive to try and covert to Super 16.
  • 0

#3 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:16 AM

I don't think the difference would be noticable when used same stock same lighting and same lens. I am waiting to get my NPR back from Bernie this week, so I will see ultra 16 first hand.
  • 0

#4 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:19 AM

Also, with super 16 camera prices or cheaper, you can get a nice bl3 set from Visual Products.
  • 0

#5 Rob McCray

Rob McCray
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:06 PM

Thanks guys! But looking at your sample clips, Will, you make me want to go 35mm! The easter clip is gorgeous.
  • 0

#6 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2070 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:03 PM

Thanks guys! But looking at your sample clips, Will, you make me want to go 35mm! The easter clip is gorgeous.

When you take into consideration that the costs of processing 16mm are only slightly less and transfer is the same cost, 35mm starts to become appealing. Also, short-ends and re-cans are much more available with 35mm which also keeps costs down. In fact, 35mm has never been cheaper to own and shoot. Just go with a PL camera so your lens investments will transfer to pro digital cameras as well.

16mm is still a great option due to its compact nature and longer running times.
  • 0

#7 Rob McCray

Rob McCray
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:07 PM

Yes, I was just looking at some old posts about 35mm costing less than 16mm (if you do it right). What I wish is that the price of converting a Konvas 2M to 3-perf was much lower. That to me would be ideal and I'd make the move to 35mm without hesitation. But then again, maybe the 25% savings in film isn't all that much when you're already saving due to short-ends/re-cans.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

The Slider

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies