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
  • 2030 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
  • 395 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
  • 395 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
  • 2030 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


Opal

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider