Jump to content


Photo

S16mm looking like 35mm


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 francoisdop

francoisdop

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 September 2005 - 11:33 AM

HI,

Does anyone have some tricks to make S16mm looking like shot on 35mm ?
(Appart from shooting wide open to achieve a narrow depth of field,
and properly exposing the neg : having a black and a white reference in each frame + overexposed slightly and print down)
thanks a lot (in advance)
  • 0

#2 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 29 September 2005 - 12:11 PM

HI,

Does anyone have some tricks to make S16mm looking like shot on 35mm ?
(Appart from shooting wide open to achieve a narrow depth of field,
and properly exposing the neg : having a black and a white reference in each frame + overexposed slightly and print down)
thanks a lot (in advance)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


As in previous topics discussed, go for the lowest film stock you can.50 ASA or so.
This will cost you more lights but the result is far more better.
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#3 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 29 September 2005 - 12:32 PM

having a black and a white reference in each frame

:blink: :huh: :unsure:
  • 0

#4 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 29 September 2005 - 01:11 PM

:blink:  :huh:  :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Be nice
:)
Dim
  • 0

#5 Robert Glenn

Robert Glenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 September 2005 - 01:41 PM

buying a good lens might help. Film stocks seem to be formulated for 35mm blowup and HD transfers today, so good equipment should maximize the results
  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 29 September 2005 - 02:05 PM

HI,

Does anyone have some tricks to make S16mm looking like shot on 35mm ?
(Appart from shooting wide open to achieve a narrow depth of field,
and properly exposing the neg : having a black and a white reference in each frame + overexposed slightly and print down)
thanks a lot (in advance)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Some resources:

http://www.duart.com/pdf/16mm-35mm.pdf

http://www.colorlab....s/blowupsf.html

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

http://www.cameragui...f=1&i=339&t=339
  • 0

#7 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 29 September 2005 - 02:28 PM

Be nice
:)
Dim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What's not nice ? :D
  • 0

#8 Wendell_Greene

Wendell_Greene
  • Sustaining Members
  • 545 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 September 2005 - 04:23 PM

Well if this is for TK and not for print, have your transfer done on a Spirit with Da Vinci cc by a top of the line colorist. A growing number of music videos today are shot on S16 using high quality lenses, Kodak Vision2 stocks. When lit and exposed well and with a great transfer and viewed on TV, you really can't tell the difference from 35mm.
  • 0

#9 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 29 September 2005 - 04:35 PM

Some recent Super-16 productions for HD or the big screen:

http://www.kodak.com...0.1.4.3.6&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...0.1.4.3.8&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...nkenstein.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com...earnhardt.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com...rDieAlone.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com.../mcAlpine.jhtml
  • 0

#10 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:01 AM

If you want S16 to look like 35mm never use a focal length lens wider then 25mm. That is the secret!
  • 0

#11 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 October 2005 - 10:24 AM

I can think of many many 35mm films with considerable depth of field.

This is as much a question of fashion as physics as far as I'm concerned.

-Sam
  • 0

#12 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 03 October 2005 - 04:47 PM

16mm has come a long way but when you slap a wideangle lens on the camera, the optical design of a wide angle lens delivers a wider view by making everything in the picture smaller including fine detail. If you stay away from the WA's and alway use the longest lens possible you magnify detail and deliver more of a 35mm look.

Works great if you can back up!
My lens package is in two cases the wides and the tights . Always leave the wides in the production vehicle.
  • 0

#13 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 06:01 PM

Well, there's two ways of looking at that .
I love the look of wide angle lenses, and in my opinion, it "looks like" there is more detail in the frame, exactly because it's making things in the background smaller (and it's not as important to see the detail of).


But anyway, my advice is;
1. Use the lowest ISO speed film you can (as mentioned above)
2. Use the sharpest lenses you can get.
3. Err on the side of closeups for your compositions.
  • 0

#14 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 03 October 2005 - 06:32 PM

I can think of many many 35mm films with considerable depth of field.

This is as much a question of fashion as physics as far as I'm concerned.

-Sam


It may be a question of fashion in Hollywood studio films of today, but in the past a shallower depth of field in 35mm indicated a lower budget film as the colour stocks were so slow that they required major lighting. As an example -- and it's just because I was looking for examples of early 1960's colour films and their palette -- I looked at REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN and then at a Doris Day/Rock Hudson movie of the same time period. Now Revenge is photographed by the great Jack Asher who achieved cinematography god status with BRIDES OF DRACULA, but one can see, in spite of the terrific colour design and photography, that even in a well-lit scene like the meeting of the medical council, there is very short depth of field as the lighting equipment was distinctly limited and a much larger f-stop obviously had to be used than in the big budget Hollywood studio Doris Day/Hudson movie. In the latter movie everything is in focus except in extreme close-up situations. In Revenge's medical council scene certainly nothing would be gained from having certain characters not in focus and others in focus, especially when they have dialogue and are making important plot points, but it is is obvious ther was little choice but to strike a compromise.
  • 0

#15 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:52 PM

What's not nice ? :D


Just joking here,
I didn't got the white and black reference cards either, I would suggest a colour patch or a grey card instead.
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#16 Joseph White

Joseph White
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 04 October 2005 - 02:48 AM

i shot some 7217 with cooke s4's on super 16mm - only used the 25mm and the 75mm really - and it looked damn close to 35mm. it was for tape, so there was no blowup, but you had to get real close to the screen to really tell the difference between it and 35mm. and that was on a 200t stock too so i didn't even need massive lights. more than anything just be really super careful about your exposures and your ratios and it'll look grand.
  • 0

#17 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 04 October 2005 - 02:56 AM

i shot some 7217 with cooke s4's on super 16mm - only used the 25mm and the 75mm really - and it looked damn close to 35mm. it was for tape, so there was no blowup, but you had to get real close to the screen to really tell the difference between it and 35mm. and that was on a 200t stock too so i didn't even need massive lights. more than anything just be really super careful about your exposures and your ratios and it'll look grand.


Hi,

In effect all you did was zoom in on a 35mm film frame. Why other than grain should there big difference?

Stephen
  • 0

#18 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:43 AM

16mm has come a long way but when you slap a wideangle lens on the camera, the optical design of a wide angle lens delivers a wider view by making everything in the picture smaller including fine detail. My lens package is in two cases the wides and the tights . Always leave the wides in the production vehicle.


You could say this about any format.

Size of things in the frame depend also on how close you are and how big they are !

I would suggest that a 75mm lens in S16 could easily look softer than a 10mm if you had atmospheric haze for instance.

-Sam
  • 0

#19 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 04 October 2005 - 10:58 AM

You could say this about any format.

Size of things in the frame depend also on how close you are and how big they are !

I would suggest that a 75mm lens in S16 could easily look softer than a 10mm if you had atmospheric haze for instance.

-Sam



I would like to try and stay on this list with out engaging in a heated discussion. I could get into the psychological and optical reasons why shooting longer then normal lenses mimic the look of 35mm on Super 16, but then we could argue the merits of those comments. I would rather simply state this.
First the orginal question: how do you make S16 look like 35

1) SlowGrainless Film
2)Proper exposure -This may refer to the grey card comment
3)Sharp lenses
4) A Good Tripod

We agree on this yes?


My humble comment - Use 25mm or longer focal lengths and back up


If there is enough interest I will set up my camera create a sample scene and capture jpeg frames thru the Jurgens video assist.

I can preview 9.5/12/16/25/35/50/65/85mm focal lengths sorry the 18 is on vaction and my longer lenses will take to much time to mount. . Everyone can decide for themselves. Seeing is after all believing right?
  • 0

#20 Joseph White

Joseph White
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 04 October 2005 - 02:11 PM

just saying that the combination of the fine grain stock and high quality lenses gave us a look comparable to 35mm on super 16mm. basically reiterating what most have been stating - about exposure, lens quality and fine grain stock. cooke also now makes wide angle s4's for super 16mm which are supposed to look fantastic too.



Hi,

In effect all you did was zoom in on a 35mm film frame. Why other than grain should there big difference?

Stephen


  • 0


Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

The Slider

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Opal

Glidecam

CineTape

CineLab

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC