How do 35mm and 16mm REALLY differ from each other visually?

[Owen A. Davies]

When we talk about Super16's resolving power being lesser than Super35, what precisely are we referring to? The negative's resolution? Its dynamic range? Its color gamut? And if we are in fact referring to those three factors, then WHY exactly is Super16 so different than Super35mm in these ways?

Super16 is 12.52mm x 7.41mm, whilst 4-perf Super35 is 24.89mm x 18.67mm. If it's a question of the grain being perceivably larger when shooting on a smaller format medium then why wouldn't simply shooting a slower speed film on Super 16 more closely resemble Super 35 on a faster speed of film? Because I will tell you, it certainly does not from what I have seen. Is part of the answer due to the fact that one would have to shoot in a wider focal length to get the same field of view on a smaller format medium?

What are ways that one could manipulate a Super 35 negative in the exposure stage, development stage, or both, to get the resulting negative to hold properties which closer resemble a Super16 image? The obvious answer would be to push the negative, but another interesting idea I have heard would be to have the negative either pre or post-flashed. This would reduce the resolution and dynamic range by the corresponding stop of exposure you decide the have the film flashed at. All and all, I have a lot of questions on this matter, and I would love to hear some feedback from a filmmaker with more experience working with celluloid than I.

[Robin Phillips]

super 16 is primarily different from super 35 in that you have drastically less surface area of the raw material to image on. or thought of another way, you are cropped in on the same material. this means your view of the grains makes them appear larger vs a scan of 35mm. But it is the same raw material just cut down. resolution comes down to line pair resolving power as seen on an appropriate chart. color gamut isnt even a thing that factors into it, its an analogue format.

Though what scanner you use and what mode said scanner is in can affect various factors including stability of the scanned image and image saturation. A true RGB scanner will get you a better color representaion off the neg than a single flash bayer pattern scanner (though the 2 flash HDR scan on the ScanStation gets damn close to the results of something like a Scanity).

its relatively common to shoot super 16 over exposed some to expose the slower, smaller grains and effectively (or perhaps the right word is apparently) get a resolution bump and a cleaner image. you can also do digital grain reduction, though if you take it too far you loose the contrast provided by the grains and it can kinda make the image a little softer. I usually shoot at least 1/3rd stop over. Some swear by 2/3rds over. some shoot a full stop over.

Using less standard lenses on super 16 can help some, as the usual zeiss super speed set kinda has a look associated with super 16. so using a 35mm as your close up lens vs a 50, or an 8mm vs a 9.5, puts you more into the field of view world of other super 35 lenses that we're more accustom to seeing. super 16 will always have a 2 stop increase in depth of field vs s35 though. 

Flashing is probably not going to do much for you other than wash out the image. 

You can push super 35 to get a grainier image, but it has some additional color and contrast consequences. 

[Brian Drysdale]

The main difference is the grain size, which is due to the smaller negative size on the Super16.

The negative stocks are much the same for Super 35 and Super 16.

The option for slower stocks for Super 16 is limited to Vision 3 50D 7203 daylight. So limited in uses. As previously mentioned, over exposing will improve the situation.

The lenses can affect the look, especially if using older ones on the Super 16,

Today, so much can be done in post during the digital grading, so it's pretty pointless flashing the neg.

Depth of field is different for the same stop, less on Super 35 when using the same angle of view.

Unless you're getting 35mm stock for free (or at a reduced price) with cut-price cameras, it's easier and cheaper to shoot on the Super 16, since everything is smaller, if that's the look you're after.

 

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

I like to shoot 50D on 16mm (both N16 and S16) and on 35mm usually shooting 250D and 500T stocks. rarely can shoot some 50D or ST9 (about 12ISO) on 35mm.

The really-low-grain 16mm look is a kind of intermediate look,  different than the "classic 16mm look" people are used to which would be lot higher grain, often 200T, 250D or 500T stock. some viewers could mistake it for 2-perf 35mm as it is not common to aim for very low grain in 16mm.

Film handles contrast a bit differently than for example digital, the film image contrast "fades quicker" on low details and the effect is more pronounced if the format is small. whereas on large film formats the optics and viewing conditions may affect more which small details are visible in good contrast rather than the film stock itself. So video draws sharp until it cannot anymore (from 100% to 0% contrast) but film draws large objects with good contrast and then it starts to lose contrast more and more the smaller details it tries to draw. I think film resolving power was often measured at something like 35% contrast or so? it can draw smaller details but they "disappear into the mist" so to speak.

Larger film format would draw the same image's small details with higher contrast, thus making it feel sharper even if the smaller format would technically be able to still draw the same details too. on the smaller format the same details would be "more misty", lower contrast, thus making it look softer even with "same resolving power"

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

with video you would get pretty flat MTF response whereas with film it first resolves great and then starts to fall quick in contrast the smaller details you try to capture. If having larger film format you will fit larger amount of the image's smallest details to that flat-ish part of the curve, thus having them higher in contrast, thus appearing sharper.

screenshot from V350D technical paper

[Tyler Purcell]

The main differences people really discuss between formats are more down to "Field of View" and "depth of field". The physical film itself, as you pointed out, doesn't really matter. Don't want grain on 16mm, shoot 50D right? It's otherwise the same stock as every other film format. In fact you can even use S35mm or FF lenses on a 16mm camera, so it's not the lenses either. 

Field of View is the first major difference. It relates to the maximum image sample, a camera can take an image of. A smaller imager, will have a narrower field of view. Thus, to get a wider frame, you need to use wider lenses. Wider lenses inherently have all sorts of distortion issues due to how many physical elements there are in the lens. They are also generally very tricky to make fast. Plus, wider lenses have a very flat depth of field. 

Depth of field is how much of your image is in focus. With larger formats like Full Frame and S35mm (specifically 4 perf), to get a wide shot, you don't need to resort to specialized wide angle lenses. In fact, to get the same field of view between S16mm and S35mm, it's 2x the focal length. Thus, a specialized wide angle 9.5mm for S16mm, would be equivalent to 19mm on S35mm and 24mm on Full Frame. A 24mm lens is a non-specialized lens, in fact 24mm, 32-35mm, 50mm and even 85mm, can have very few optics in the design , thus allowing for a more distortion free look, with greater accuracy (sharpness) as well. 

A lot of people call this "object compression". S16mm has a "flatter" look because of these issues. Where it's true, you can help create depth through the use of longer lenses, placing objects closer to the camera and running at a wider stop, the field of view will always be compromised on S16mm compared to larger imager formats. You can't ever fix the field of view issues inherent in the small imager. Thus you can't really create a more compressed image with a larger imager. Sure, you can stop down a lot, like find a lens that can go to F22 and sure, you can use long lenses. But the longer the lens, the more depth you add to the frame, no matter what! 

To me, these issues and of course the added sharpness of a larger negative, are the reasons people shoot with S35mm and Full Frame formats like VistaVision, 5 perf 65mm and 15p 65mm. Longer lenses, to achieve wider shots, delivering a shallow depth of field, wider field of view, with less object compression AND of course, sharper image. There really is no contest if you want that cinematic look people attribute to these factors. With the 4:3 4 perf 35mm look in vogue due to its massive height, IMAX releases like Oppenheimer and digital delivery not really caring what aspect ratio you use, people have been experimenting with different looks using modern tech, in ways we couldn't really do prior; faster film stocks, focusing aids, faster lenses, better video taps, etc. I think the S16mm format in general is more "locked" to its base look, but the other formats, seemingly can bridge the gap between digital and film in a way that S16mm can't. 

So to get S35mm to look like 16mm, is kind of impossible. Even if you pushed 500T several stops, you'd still have the field of view associated with 35mm. That will never change. 

Edited August 18, 2024 by Tyler Purcell

[Karim D. Ghantous]

To sum it all up, 'more' is different than 'less'. LOL Not always 'better', just different.

35mm has more stops in the shadows than 16mm for the same stock, because surface area increases shadow detail, assuming the FOV is the same. That doesn't necessarily apply if you're comparing 7203 vs 5219.

[Dom Jaeger]

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

With larger formats like Full Frame and S35mm (specifically 4 perf), to get a wide shot, you don't need to resort to specialized wide angle lenses. In fact, to get the same field of view between S16mm and S35mm, it's 2x the focal length. Thus, a specialized wide angle 9.5mm for S16mm, would be equivalent to 19mm on S35mm and 24mm on Full Frame. A 24mm lens is a non-specialized lens, in fact 24mm, 32-35mm, 50mm and even 85mm, can have very few optics in the design , thus allowing for a more distortion free look, with greater accuracy (sharpness) as well. 

This is a common misconception, that you need to use "wider" lenses to get the same angle of view on a smaller format. You need to use a shorter focal length, but that doesn't automatically make it wider. 

While focal length definitely has a relationship to depth of field, by itself it does not actually relate to the angle of view. That is determined by the focal length combined with the image circle coverage (or the format used). In other words, a 25mm lens made for S16 is not a wide angle lens, but a 25mm lens made for medium format sure is. And they would need completely different designs, because of that difference in image circle coverage and angle of view. The design difference, not the focal length, is what causes issues like distortion or chromatic aberration or field curvature. 

Lens design begins with the intended angle of view for the required format. The easiest lenses to make are always the "normal" ones, neither wide nor long. As a general guide, it's technically around the diagonal of the format frame, though in practice most people prefer something a little longer. For 16mm format, the diagonal is around 15mm, though traditionally 25mm was often chosen. For full frame the diagonal is 43mm, but 50mm is usually the practical choice. In every format, the normal lenses are generally able to be the fastest and smallest. It purely depends on the angle of view, the actual focal length number isn't important. 

So to return to the claim that for larger formats  "you don't need to resort to specialised wide angle lenses", this is demonstrably false. You always need a wide angle design to get a wide angle of view. The 18mm Zeiss Super Speed for example is the largest lens in a Super Speed kit, because it needed a special wide angle design.  It has pretty similar distortion to the 9.5mm made for S16. The newest S16 lenses made by Zeiss or Cooke went down to 6mm with barely any artifacts, less than you'd find in many 18mm full frame lenses with a similar angle of view. 

A lot of this comes down to the individual lens, many modern designs have well corrected wide angle focal lengths, and zooms can have more distortion that primes. 

But essentially S16 does not look different to S35 because of the field of view, since that can be re-created easily. It looks different mainly because of the depth of field and the lower resolution when you scale it up, and even those things can be variable.

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

You always need a wide angle design to get a wide angle of view. The 18mm Zeiss Super Speed for example is the largest lens in a Super Speed kit, because it needed a special wide angle design.  It has pretty similar distortion to the 9.5mm made for S16. The newest S16 lenses made by Zeiss or Cooke went down to 6mm with barely any artifacts, less than you'd find in many 18mm full frame lenses with a similar angle of view. 

Yes, you're right,  I was attempting to suggest using a 24mm because it's a non-specialized lens, on both S35mm and full frame. Sure, not as wide of a field of view, but a compromise due to the higher quality lens. 

 

[Albion Hockney]

If you want to know the difference just look at tests. 16 and 35 each have different size grain and dof characteristics.

they can look similar if you for example shoot at a deeper stop and use grainier film like 500t or push the film...it wont be the same. but similar.

 

 

[Owen A. Davies]

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The main differences people really discuss between formats are more down to "Field of View" and "depth of field". The physical film itself, as you pointed out, doesn't really matter. Don't want grain on 16mm, shoot 50D right? It's otherwise the same stock as every other film format. In fact you can even use S35mm or FF lenses on a 16mm camera, so it's not the lenses either. 

Field of View is the first major difference. It relates to the maximum image sample, a camera can take an image of. A smaller imager, will have a narrower field of view. Thus, to get a wider frame, you need to use wider lenses. Wider lenses inherently have all sorts of distortion issues due to how many physical elements there are in the lens. They are also generally very tricky to make fast. Plus, wider lenses have a very flat depth of field. 

Depth of field is how much of your image is in focus. With larger formats like Full Frame and S35mm (specifically 4 perf), to get a wide shot, you don't need to resort to specialized wide angle lenses. In fact, to get the same field of view between S16mm and S35mm, it's 2x the focal length. Thus, a specialized wide angle 9.5mm for S16mm, would be equivalent to 19mm on S35mm and 24mm on Full Frame. A 24mm lens is a non-specialized lens, in fact 24mm, 32-35mm, 50mm and even 85mm, can have very few optics in the design , thus allowing for a more distortion free look, with greater accuracy (sharpness) as well. 

A lot of people call this "object compression". S16mm has a "flatter" look because of these issues. Where it's true, you can help create depth through the use of longer lenses, placing objects closer to the camera and running at a wider stop, the field of view will always be compromised on S16mm compared to larger imager formats. You can't ever fix the field of view issues inherent in the small imager. Thus you can't really create a more compressed image with a larger imager. Sure, you can stop down a lot, like find a lens that can go to F22 and sure, you can use long lenses. But the longer the lens, the more depth you add to the frame, no matter what! 

To me, these issues and of course the added sharpness of a larger negative, are the reasons people shoot with S35mm and Full Frame formats like VistaVision, 5 perf 65mm and 15p 65mm. Longer lenses, to achieve wider shots, delivering a shallow depth of field, wider field of view, with less object compression AND of course, sharper image. There really is no contest if you want that cinematic look people attribute to these factors. With the 4:3 4 perf 35mm look in vogue due to its massive height, IMAX releases like Oppenheimer and digital delivery not really caring what aspect ratio you use, people have been experimenting with different looks using modern tech, in ways we couldn't really do prior; faster film stocks, focusing aids, faster lenses, better video taps, etc. I think the S16mm format in general is more "locked" to its base look, but the other formats, seemingly can bridge the gap between digital and film in a way that S16mm can't. 

So to get S35mm to look like 16mm, is kind of impossible. Even if you pushed 500T several stops, you'd still have the field of view associated with 35mm. That will never change. 

I read all of that loud and clear, but lets talk about the two formats strictly at a photochemical level as opposed to an optical one. If I wanted to try and emulate the texture, latitude, contrast, dynamic range, and color gamut of the typical Super16 frame on the Super35 format, how would you go about doing this from the method of manipulating the film stock. Shoot fastest speed possible, check (5219 500T). But after that, would you suggest pushing the film to get it looking more like Super16? This would increase the grain, change the color gamut, lower the resolution, and lower the dynamic range, but also increase the contrast. Is the smaller format inertly higher contrast than larger format film? I have also heard of another method of going about this would be to pre/post flash the film and combine that with having it pushed. That way you would really be taking away from the negative's overall usable latitude, resolution, and dynamic range whilst having some of the higher contrast effects from pushing counterbalanced. 

[Robin Phillips]

Aapo covered the contrast issue as best as one can. But no the smaller format is not more contrasty at all. its the same film, but a smaller extract of it. its the exact same formulation. s16 is just a narrower cut of the film than 35mm or 65mm.

the negative has pretty insane latitude honestly. and being a negative image means that its kinda insane what you can actually recover in an hdr scan. so while pushing will have consequences, Im not sure how big of a deal they'll be. 

But I think ultimately it might help to know what you are trying to achieve, as the solution to what appears to be your goal, make s35 look like s16, is to just shoot on 16. its cheaper and eliminates this theory gaming. 

But it is not unheard of for some shows that are super 16 to shoot things like wide establishing shots on s35 for more resolution and less distortion, but just push a stop to up the grain some. Some TV shows that were on 16 shot their VFX on 35 with no push. But if you did push you could then dial back the saturation in the DI if it got a little high. Or you could not push at all, degrain the 35, and then regrain with s16 grain. The degrain/denoise then re-grain/re-noise procedure is the norm in VFX for decades on film and digital in order to integrate elements (critical when different elements have different noise profiles due to being shot on different formats), so its not like a wheel would need to be re-invented. Heck, de-hancer can even effectively reduce the resolution of an image if you want to.

Ultimately flashing was more a technique to desaturate your image in camera in an era before the DI. Yes you can still flash your neg if you really want to, but the only reason to do it today is to bake in that aspect of the look so that it cant be as easily manipulated in post. If its just the look you are after, it can be done in post without the added labor costs of having to flash 35mm negative.

[Owen A. Davies]

2 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

Aapo covered the contrast issue as best as one can. But no the smaller format is not more contrasty at all. its the same film, but a smaller extract of it. its the exact same formulation. s16 is just a narrower cut of the film than 35mm or 65mm.

the negative has pretty insane latitude honestly. and being a negative image means that its kinda insane what you can actually recover in an hdr scan. so while pushing will have consequences, Im not sure how big of a deal they'll be. 

But I think ultimately it might help to know what you are trying to achieve, as the solution to what appears to be your goal, make s35 look like s16, is to just shoot on 16. its cheaper and eliminates this theory gaming. 

But it is not unheard of for some shows that are super 16 to shoot things like wide establishing shots on s35 for more resolution and less distortion, but just push a stop to up the grain some. Some TV shows that were on 16 shot their VFX on 35 with no push. But if you did push you could then dial back the saturation in the DI if it got a little high. Or you could not push at all, degrain the 35, and then regrain with s16 grain. The degrain/denoise then re-grain/re-noise procedure is the norm in VFX for decades on film and digital in order to integrate elements (critical when different elements have different noise profiles due to being shot on different formats), so its not like a wheel would need to be re-invented. Heck, de-hancer can even effectively reduce the resolution of an image if you want to.

Ultimately flashing was more a technique to desaturate your image in camera in an era before the DI. Yes you can still flash your neg if you really want to, but the only reason to do it today is to bake in that aspect of the look so that it cant be as easily manipulated in post. If its just the look you are after, it can be done in post without the added labor costs of having to flash 35mm negative.

Ultimately, what I am trying to do is be able to get modern VISION3 on 4-perf Super35 to better resemble older Kodak stocks from the 1960s in respect to latitude, detail, dynamic range, resolution, and other aspects. I was exploring this question further by trying to come up with some concrete answers as to what separates Super16 and Super35 visually, as I believe that modern 16mm still possesses many of those visual qualities that I associate with 1960s Super35. This can come down to the black detail, the thinner highlights, the lower resolution image, the smaller color gamut, and many more. I am looking for ways to give specifically Kodak VISION3 5219 500T certain qualities to make it appear lower fidelity. 

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Owen A. Davies said:

Is the smaller format inertly higher contrast than larger format film? I have also heard of another method of going about this would be to pre/post flash the film and combine that with having it pushed. That way you would really be taking away from the negative's overall usable latitude, resolution, and dynamic range whilst having some of the higher contrast effects from pushing counterbalanced. 

Again, film is film, there no special stock. For some weird reason that I can't seem to explain, people tend to not grade 16mm off the scanner for some sort of "unique raw" look or something. Film will grade the same from super 8 through 65mm. So when you see people posting odd stuff, that has no validity on the source what so ever. Nothing is different between the stocks. 

Pre-flashing doesn't effect resolution much at all. Obviously, pushing and pulling doesn't either. I also disagree that grain has much of an impact, as in the footage below, 16mm can be shot and distributed without the intense grain so many associate with the format. 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2024 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

29 minutes ago, Owen A. Davies said:

Ultimately, what I am trying to do is be able to get modern VISION3 on 4-perf Super35 to better resemble older Kodak stocks from the 1960s in respect to latitude, detail, dynamic range, resolution, and other aspects.

You do know many people have tried this before right? People with pretty decent budgets too. 

You can make anything look like anything using modern software, as long as you light and lens the way they did back then. Just watch Love Witch, it looks like it was shot in the 1960's because David used the classic lensing, lighting and camera techniques which mimicked the way older films were made. It's pretty incredible how good the 35mm print of that film looks. For sure sampling if you have the chance, they do play it every once in a while. I bet him with a vistavision camera and some good set design, could re-create vertigo exactly the way it was shot, with exactly the same look. 

Again, lighting, lensing, camera techniques, those are what define those films, not the stock at all. 

[Owen A. Davies]

14 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You do know many people have tried this before right? People with pretty decent budgets too. 

You can make anything look like anything using modern software, as long as you light and lens the way they did back then. Just watch Love Witch, it looks like it was shot in the 1960's because David used the classic lensing, lighting and camera techniques which mimicked the way older films were made. It's pretty incredible how good the 35mm print of that film looks. For sure sampling if you have the chance, they do play it every once in a while. I bet him with a vistavision camera and some good set design, could re-create vertigo exactly the way it was shot, with exactly the same look. 

Again, lighting, lensing, camera techniques, those are what define those films, not the stock at all. 

I would say that you're right on many fronts here, but I still disagree quite strongly that the majority of what gives these older films their look (in my eyes at least) is due to the mise en scen as much as it is due to the older photochemical finish. Whether is be the old dye-coupling method of color in the late fifties and early sixties or other physical methods of finishing, there were aspects to the color and visual rendition of these older films that undeniably came down to the stocks they were shot on and how they were finished in post. 

If you have the time, take a look at 2:52 - 3:24 from the opening of West Side Story.

I think you will be tempted to attribute such an older look to set design, wardrobe coloring, or other factors in play with the mise en scen. And do doubt all those things are integral in creating this final look. But so much of that sequence strikes me as such a unique photochemical finish which portrays a very different tonal rendition of the sidewalk, the highlights in the hair, the deep and shiny blacks, the blue sky, and the overall look of the image. 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

7 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

But it is not unheard of for some shows that are super 16 to shoot things like wide establishing shots on s35 for more resolution and less distortion,

Less distortion? As in pincushion and barrel? As in volume deformation? Not sure what you mean.

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Owen A. Davies said:

I would say that you're right on many fronts here, but I still disagree quite strongly that the majority of what gives these older films their look (in my eyes at least) is due to the mise en scen as much as it is due to the older photochemical finish. Whether is be the old dye-coupling method of color in the late fifties and early sixties or other physical methods of finishing, there were aspects to the color and visual rendition of these older films that undeniably came down to the stocks they were shot on and how they were finished in post. 

Go drag some arc lights out of storage. Setup a system to run them. Point them directly at the actors and create a few scenes. All of those exteriors of West Side Story were all lit with arc lights. Not 1k, not 2k, like 12k. Have you ever lit a scene with 12k lights before? Their makeup would melt under the light, they'd have to be patted down between takes there was so much light. So when you see a contrasty scene with a lot of color, it's because they're being hit with a lot of color, the reflection is what you're seeing. The old stocks do have a different dye coupler but it's not the end of the world to re-create that look. Any real colorist should be able to do it. 

I have seen some amazing re-prints of old movies and I have not once felt once the physical film itself had much of a roll in the look. 

[Antoine Pret]

You can try to shoot 2 perf 35mm and crop it to 1:66:1. The negative size gets closer to S16, yet you can use S35 lenses.
That's what was done one Sick of Myself by DP Benjamin Loeb.

https://www.afcinema.com/Benjamin-Loeb-FNF-discusses-the-making-of-Sick-of-Myself-by-Kristoffer-Borgli.html?lang=en

Look for images of the film,  It might be closer to what you are looking for.

[Simon Wyss]

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

there was so much light

I have not felt once the physical film itself had much of a roll in the look

Right you are. Slower camera stocks, diaphragm closed to f/5.6 at least for enough depth of field. New Hollywood dumped screens into murkiness, the unimaginative Europeans followed suit.

It’s about labour. Few understand work as something afforded by themselves, not out of machines. Most everything is too complicated now and must be brought by pushing buttons. The working human keeps life simple and the cooperative bring cinema alive.

[Geffen Avraham]

You'd be surprised how little difference there is between well-shot 16mm 50D and not only 35mm, but 65mm!

Here is some footage shot on an Arri 16ST by @Uli Meyer, it looks incredibly sharp. And below it is 65mm footage shot on a Logmar Magellan. Is there a difference? Yes, but on a computer monitor, not a huge one. You could intercut those shots with no problem.

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Geffen Avraham

[Brian Drysdale]

Although, you'd notice the difference when projected on a cinema screen.

[Mark Dunn]

On 8/20/2024 at 1:11 AM, Owen A. Davies said:

I think you will be tempted to attribute such an older look to set design, wardrobe coloring, or other factors in play with the mise en scen. And do doubt all those things are integral in creating this final look. But so much of that sequence strikes me as such a unique photochemical finish which portrays a very different tonal rendition of the sidewalk, the highlights in the hair, the deep and shiny blacks, the blue sky, and the overall look of the image. 

Do remember that when you see a DCP, particularly from OCN or an IP close to it, that you're seeing far more- detail, colour, brightness range- than most people did at the time, with the possible exception of the rushes and the 70mm. prints (even these probably weren't made from the OCN). Scanning extracts so much more than was ever projected on a possibly 4th or 5th-generation 35mm. release print.

65mm. OCN- 35mm. optical blowdown IP- IN- release print. One less generation for 70mm.

So you're probably not comparing like with like.

Edited August 22, 2024 by Mark Dunn

[Aapo Lettinen]

one of the biggest misconceptions is that 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm negative films would be inherently "different" in contrast, dynamic range, colour rendition, etc. "because they are different films". 

Well they are not different film. they are exactly the same film... not just similar but exactly the same.

Film is manufactured in master rolls which are as wide as possible, this makes the process more efficient as the coating speed cannot be sped up too much so width added instead to get good production amounts. And the very sides of the coated film roll will always have inconstant coating quality so one would want to lower the waste which needs to be cut off, thus making wide film which has tons of good quality surface area compared to the small edge portions which are waste.

So film is always manufactured very wide, somewhere around couple of feets wide or more. All film stock is made this way. The is no coating machines "making 16mm film" or "making 35mm film". there is large machines making very wide film and one slits everything down from that very wide stock.

When making film rolls for sale, one takes the very wide master roll and slits it longitudinally to get smaller gauges. If shooting with a camera using a meter wide film frame one could just use the master roll as is, but everything smaller is slit down from the master roll to get multiple rolls of narower film. So if needing 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm Vision3 50D stock for example, one takes the couple of feet wide large master roll of V3 50D stock and slits all the 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm material from that same stuff.

After slitting they perforate the stock and spool it down to proper lenght smaller rolls to be used in the camera. But it is still exactly the same stock: not only similar, exactly the same. Only slit to different width and perforated differently.

So the dynamic range, contrast, colour reproduction, highlight and shadow latitude is the same on different gauges. Grain levels will differ because the image is magnified different amount but that is pretty much the only difference. In addition to how close the apparent "resolving power" is to the "maximum resolving power" of the whole system.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

6 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

So the dynamic range,... shadow latitude is the same on different gauges. 

Per square mm,  yes, But not when you are comparing the same scene across different gauges.