Anyone thinking of going digital and giving up on 16mm film...or vice versa?

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So it's just another camera test then? 

No.

Please accept that there isn't one way to approach things in life. I have established my rationale well beyond what projects I am engaged in general and specifically - I will be posting updates.

 

Edited February 27 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Giray Izcan]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Not sure which "30 second limit" you are talking about, the camera has a crystal sync motor and can shoot the whole roll at once

Sorry, when I had one of these cameras  years ago, I used it as is since it's not a worthwhile investment to sink any money in this "toy" camera... I would much rather get an Arri  st or sb or something more precise and professional with the possibility of putting a 400ft roll - if I were set on getting an MOS camera. Especially these days, I see ludicrous prices for these K3 cameras, literally the same price or a couple of hundred short from getting an Arri ST, SB with their pin registration etc.. the quality difference between these cameras will be night and day too.. all to save a few hundred, which is really a roll of film. It's not cute to put all the time and effort in shooting something with a substandard camera only to find out it's unusable due to camera issues.. of course, because it was shot on film, people pat themselves on their backs to justify their money wasting by saying stuff like " it's organic, it's good enough, erc..." after spending thousands, it better be perfect or near it.. 

Edited February 27 by Giray Izcan

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You yourself admitted earlier that you've been shooting video for years, so clearly a "substandard" format was ok for you and then suddenly not ok? I'm sure it was a minimum of 1080P as well, nothing like the standard definition 400 line Hi-8 and DV formats we were stuck with for seemingly decades, long before HD was commonplace around 15 years ago. 

I have shot from a variety of different equipment scenarios (and experience levels) beginning with Hi8 basically. I did what I could with the tools I had in front of me and could be afforded, but as explained earlier there wasn't a single time over the years that I did not yearn for shooting on film minus some work that was conceived to look a certain way.

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Back then story was king, but apparently you think in today's world, it takes a back seat to the craft? So a "artistic" image on 16mm will somehow trump that of a decent digital cinema camera? Poor cinematography, lighting, blocking, sound and acting, can bring down any production, including something shot on IMAX. 

I super-hard disagree with your blanket  "story was king" statement. Yes it was/is a guiding principle, for a large (the majority?) number of movies but far, far from all. Mainstream Hollywood is not the only place that produced movies and even through that, there were excellent artists that operated differently. I appreciate a host to different approaches to film making. The rest are projections of your mind that have never been stated, implied or alluded to with a healthy dose of loaded questioning that makes zero sense.

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Film doesn't magically save anything, especially today when everyone seemingly shoots film and so much of it is total trash. 

I truly feel bad for the people who just assume anything shot on film is a win. 

Nobody reasonable thinks that any specific methodology "saves" anything on literally anything in life, not just cinema.

I really don't understand the "automatic" filing system about people's intentions and possible outcomes.

You're free to disagree on the approach, feel free to use the one(s) that work for you.

Edited February 27 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Karim D. Ghantous]

6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I think 16mm has such a defining look, I doubt anyone will be able to replicate it digitally. We have gotten close, I have a great little DCTL that works wonders on the drone stuff, but I haven't had much success even with the URSA 12k in S16 mode, it just doesn't have the DR and the URSA Cine 12k doesn't work in S16mm mode, so the DOF/FOV is all wrong for 16mm. 

What I mean is, can we replace silver halide with another, cheaper chemical? Aniline dye, perhaps?

[Simon Wyss]

Aniline dyes aren’t sensitive to light. A leap over the fundament of photography

[Mark Dunn]

10 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

What I mean is, can we replace silver halide with another, cheaper chemical? Aniline dye, perhaps?

By my reckoning the silver content accounts for between 5 and 25% of the cost of film at Kodak's prices for colour MP stock. So not a lot of room for improvement.

Edited February 28 by Mark Dunn

[Tyler Purcell]

17 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

What I mean is, can we replace silver halide with another, cheaper chemical? Aniline dye, perhaps?

AH got ya, I don't think the silver halide is any real consequence. Silver will eventually go back down again. 

Film is unfortunately a luxury item today, so it's going to trend up no matter what. Kodak has no competition and the only other people making anything, have already raised their prices to near or identical to Kodak. Even if there were some breakthrough in technology, it will continue to rise simply due to the labor costs skyrocketing in the United States. 

If the tariffs went away and Kodak started making film in China again, we could see prices stagnate for a while, but they got out of China not long ago, so I doubt that'll happen. 

[charles pappas]

Saw Sirat (awesome) which is said to be shot on 16mm. While watching thought 35mm. Can't imagine that film having been shot on video.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, charles pappas said:

Saw Sirat (awesome)

Nice! Yea the trailer looks great. There is a definite look with 16mm that, for better or worse, is nothing like typical digital. For narrative it's challenging of course, but if your story fits nicely with the look of 16mm, which Sirat seems to, then it works well. To this day, I feel if you're going hand held documentary style, 16mm is by far the way to roll. If you're looking for a more fine tuned professional look, just shoot 35mm or digital, money depending. 

[Jon O'Brien]

3 hours ago, charles pappas said:

Saw Sirat (awesome) which is said to be shot on 16mm. While watching thought 35mm. Can't imagine that film having been shot on video.

If you're doing film capture, then scanning, doing digital post, and exhibiting digitally (either digital projector, or streaming etc), in my opinion Super 16 is the new 35mm.

These days I'd only contemplate shooting 35mm for narrative if 1) I needed a higher definition shot here or there (E.g. something like the warrior tribesmen coming up over the crest of the hill, wide angle shot, in 'Zulu' (1964)). Or 2) if doing a full photochemical workflow, exhibiting with film prints.

Don't worry about the depth of field of 16mm by the way, if anyone is thinking about that. You just learn how to make it look great.

[Tyler Purcell]

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

If you're doing film capture, then scanning, doing digital post, and exhibiting digitally (either digital projector, or streaming etc), in my opinion Super 16 is the new 35mm.

If you're shooting 50D exclusively with Ultra Primes and a very well setup/tuned 416, then yes I would agree. However, very few people do that, once you start integrating 250D or 500T, it kinda immediately looks like 16mm, especially if you're using 12mm or under lenses. I find the longer the lens you use, the finer the grain, the tricker it is to determine what format it is. The funny thing is, if you were to shoot 50D exteriors on 16mm and 500T 3 perf 35mm interiors, the 35mm would look WAY better still. I experimented with this on a shoot a few years ago, mixing 16mm 500T and 35mm 500T on the same shoot and there was no comparison. Where the 16mm looked like a documentary, the 35mm looked like a movie. I even put the 16mm camera on a steadicam to make it even more cinematic, didn't help. The 35mm blew it out of the water in every way. 

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Don't worry about the depth of field of 16mm by the way, if anyone is thinking about that. You just learn how to make it look great.

Field of view, lens distortion, depth of field and graininess/softness are basically what separates the formats from one another. 35mm has a very distinctive look, it looks nothing like 16mm if you shoot it properly. 

You can make 16mm look great, but at a cost of perhaps losing the cinematic qualities that automatically make something look like a "movie". If you're ok with longer lenses and lighting well, 16mm can look fantastic, but those are two things you don't NEED to do with 35mm to make it look outstanding. There is a much smaller acceptable working window with 16mm, you either hit the target or it looks like 16mm. With 500T on 3 perf or 4 perf 35mm, it just doesn't struggle at all. You can feed 5219 into any scene, daylight with 81E filter or a completely dark night scene and push it a stop or two, it just flat out works. This is just not possible with the same stock on 16mm, even with fast lenses. The amount of detail in the blacks is muddied by grain rather than sharpness and clarity. 

This is why it's easy for people to pickup a full frame cinema camera and use fast lenses to achieve that "cinematic" look. Its simply less work to make things look cinematic AND more realistic, because you don't have to worry about lost details in the blacks, because the detail IS THERE one you get to the grade. 

I will make a video about this someday, I think it's worth the discussion. 

Edited March 1 by Tyler Purcell

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

19 hours ago, charles pappas said:

Saw Sirat (awesome) which is said to be shot on 16mm. While watching thought 35mm. Can't imagine that film having been shot on video.

Sirat was incredible, and I believe should get extra credits for how the sound was designed and executed on that movie. That's maybe a 416.

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You can make 16mm look great, but at a cost of perhaps losing the cinematic qualities that automatically make something look like a "movie"

No, that's just your perspective, a movie is comprised on a myriad of tangible and intangible qualities with field of view, resolution, depth of field etc. being just one and not always necessarily defining. That movie is not any less or more "cinematic" than any other ever made in the history of cinema.

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I even put the 16mm camera on a steadicam to make it even more cinematic

So If I put an FX3 - with technically shallower DOF than an Alexa on same focal length - on a Steadicam, slap some good primes on there, find some talent, get a production designer, DP,  a script about "something" all the crews and bells. Boom! I got "cinematic"?

I don't disagree, or dispute 35mm having obviously more capabilities and resolution as you said, with significantly more wiggle room but that's a function of its properties, it's not necessarily correlated with whether something looks like a movie, because history has proved that that word is much more nuanced.

Conversely, there's nothing necessarily preventing someone shooting on 35mm and approaching it and actually making it look as a documentary.

There's much more fluidity if you don't see everything as a capability comparison.

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

For some features, shown in a theatre on the big screen, shooting 35mm for 500T scenes is probably a good idea. I would use 2-perf if I could because it costs less. More bang for your buck. Only trouble is that 2-perf cameras are often MOS. But, on the whole, depends on what look you want. If you wanted an 'Evil Dead' 16mm look for your cinema release feature, then just film your movie entirely on 16mm. Embrace the grainy look for the 500T.

[Jon O'Brien]

Also, I was talking about scanned, digitised 16mm compared to traditional film print-projected 35mm as I remember it from the 70s and 80s, which was noticeably grainy. Yes, 16mm and 35mm have a different look. I prefer the look of 16mm capture for a digitally presented movie in the cinema compared to digitally projected 35mm. 35mm when scanned and projected digitally these days tends to look too clean. Maybe it depends on who does the post work.

[Robin Phillips]

22 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

For some features, shown in a theatre on the big screen, shooting 35mm for 500T scenes is probably a good idea. I would use 2-perf if I could because it costs less. More bang for your buck. Only trouble is that 2-perf cameras are often MOS. But, on the whole, depends on what look you want. If you wanted an 'Evil Dead' 16mm look for your cinema release feature, then just film your movie entirely on 16mm. Embrace the grainy look for the 500T.

I do wish there were more sync sound 2 perf bodies out there. their limited supply means the rentals can make 2 perf more expensive than you'd think going by the film related costs. by the time the aaton penelope had shown up and arri started doing 2 perf movements for the arricams the digital grim reaper was already knocking.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Field of view, lens distortion, depth of field and graininess/softness are basically what separates the formats from one another. 35mm has a very distinctive look, it looks nothing like 16mm if you shoot it properly. 

You can make 16mm look great, but at a cost of perhaps losing the cinematic qualities that automatically make something look like a "movie".

Lens distortion depends on the lens, not the format. There are rectilinear lenses for every format (and I wish all lenses were!).

There is only one main ingredient in what makes an image 'cinematic', and that is deliberation. Everything else is negotiable: T stop, lighting, capture medium, location, aspect ratio, editing, etc.

Deliberate:

Deliberate:

Deliberate:

Deliberate:

Deliberate:

Deliberate:

Deliberate:

https://film-grab.com/2014/04/07/raiders-of-the-lost-ark/#bwg1326/82365

And on and on and on...

More surface area is ideal, up to a point, all other things being equal. There is no debate about that. I wish some of my favourite movies were filmed in bigger formats. I wish Jurassic Park was filmed in 65mm (but cropped to 1.85:1 obviously). Oh, well...

[Jon O'Brien]

I agree. The cinematic look is a deliberate move. You have to be in that vibe when filming the scenes and figuring out how to film them. It doesn't happen just because of gear, film stock etc. 35mm can certainly have a non-cinematic look.

It's like a talented musician performing. To get a certain feel of a genre you have to be in that vibe, or whatever you want to call it.

Shooting an entire 35mm movie on 500T gets around the too-clean look. Use ND filters where necessary to maintain the DoF you want. Plus you can accentuate the film look in other ways.

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Lens distortion depends on the lens, not the format. There are rectilinear lenses for every format (and I wish all lenses were!).

It's kind of impossible to get a distortion free wide shot on S16mm. That's what I'm referring to. 

When you use longer lenses, you can achieve FAR less distortion in the image and WAY more depth. 

This is challenging with 16mm because to achieve a distortion-free image, you're stuck to a more constrained field of view. 

2 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

There is only one main ingredient in what makes an image 'cinematic', and that is deliberation. Everything else is negotiable: T stop, lighting, capture medium, location, aspect ratio, editing, etc.

Do you mean intention? 

[Uli Meyer]

"The Wrestler', shot on S16, is 'cinematic: It's how you make it. https://film-grab.com/2010/08/24/the-wrestler/#bwg1700/106038

[Tyler Purcell]

37 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

"The Wrestler', shot on S16, is 'cinematic: It's how you make it. https://film-grab.com/2010/08/24/the-wrestler/#bwg1700/106038

It's a great movie, kinda up there with Black Swan. 

However, the style of production is more documentary, it looked more like a low budget 70's movie than anything else. With very simple lighting setups and real locations. The fact it was shot on 16mm was probably less of a choice and more of a necessity. At the time there wasn't another camera system that really could deliver that look and feel outside of film. Today we have lots of choices, which is kind of my point.

[Tyler Purcell]

18 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

I do wish there were more sync sound 2 perf bodies out there. their limited supply means the rentals can make 2 perf more expensive than you'd think going by the film related costs. by the time the aaton penelope had shown up and arri started doing 2 perf movements for the arricams the digital grim reaper was already knocking.

Arri made quite a few 2 perf movements for the Arricam system, which are backwards compatible to the Moviecam Compact II. So you see 3 perf and 2 perf Moviecam's floating around as well. There was also a fleet of Arri BL's made in 2 perf at Clairmont. Where they are mostly in private peoples hands, there are quite a few out there, I know where 15 of them are personally. 

Of course the Penelope is king because it's the only sync sound quiet camera made from the ground up for 2 perf, but with only 47 bodies in the wild, buying one is kinda not possible. But they are easy to rent and great cameras to use. 

The 235, 435 and Aaton 35-III were also converted and made 2 perf, the ladder of which recently by Charnwood Cine, who can do the mod if you send them a camera. It kinda makes the camera have more value due to the longer run times with 400ft loads. It's also a lot quieter, around 28db at 3 feet. 

Of course Panavion has both Gold II and XL's in 2 perf. 

I don't think 2 perf actually saves much in the long run. It doesn't use the full S35mm frame width to create the 2.40:1, so you're losing around 2mm of actual width. Plus, camera rental companies generally charge more for 2 perf cameras and several labs charge more for 2 perf scans. So in the end, that savings on stock over 3 perf, just doesn't add up to much over-all savings. Plus, with 2 perf you are using the aperture plate for your top and bottom of the frame lines. So if there is a hair or any dirt buildup on the gate, you are going to need to crop in. With 3 perf, cropped to even 1.85:1, you're not actually using those frame lines, thus you don't have to be as meticulous about them on set. When you have that larger frame size, you can use longer lenses to achieve wider shots, which helps greatly in the subject above about DOF. 

There are also WAY more 3 perf camera bodies out there, especially with MOS cameras. I have seen lot of Arri 35-3's, Aaton 35-3's, 235/435 and even Moviecam SL's (great camera) converted to 3 perf. Forget about all the BL's, Compact's and Arricam's, they seem to be everywhere. Mostly because the format was widely used in TV.

I honestly prefer 2:1 as a "widescreen" format anyway, more and more shows are going that way these days. 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 2/27/2026 at 12:10 PM, Giray Izcan said:

Sorry, when I had one of these cameras  years ago, I used it as is since it's not a worthwhile investment to sink any money in this "toy" camera... I would much rather get an Arri  st or sb or something more precise and professional with the possibility of putting a 400ft roll - if I were set on getting an MOS camera. Especially these days, I see ludicrous prices for these K3 cameras, literally the same price or a couple of hundred short from getting an Arri ST, SB with their pin registration etc.. the quality difference between these cameras will be night and day too.. all to save a few hundred, which is really a roll of film. It's not cute to put all the time and effort in shooting something with a substandard camera only to find out it's unusable due to camera issues.. of course, because it was shot on film, people pat themselves on their backs to justify their money wasting by saying stuff like " it's organic, it's good enough, erc..." after spending thousands, it better be perfect or near it.. 

The electronic K3's still have all the same problems with the improperly cut gate, horrible pressure plate, poor sprocket film holders, lots of light leak issues due to falling gaskets and bent tops. If someone were to make an all new housing for the K3, taking the movement in shoving it into something entirely different, with a properly cut gate using a spring loaded side rail, direct drive motor driven movement and separate motor for the takeup without any of the original mechanical drive used. Designed a new pressure plate system and sprocket drive that works. Then cut the pulldown claw properly, more similar to the duckbill design from Aaton. With all of that work, you could make the K3 shutter/movement actually work well. However, nobody has done this due to cost. It's way simpler to simply electronically power the movement AS IS, then it is to build an all-new body. 

The K3 movement is fine, but that's really the only part that would be retained in a new camera. Once we have a CNC machine, we will probably attempt to build a new camera out of it, just for shitz and giggles. To kinda prove it CAN be done and it CAN work great. The Russians just didn't care and wanted to save a few pennies on their cheap cameras. 

[Dom Jaeger]

19 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's kind of impossible to get a distortion free wide shot on S16mm. That's what I'm referring to. 

When you use longer lenses, you can achieve FAR less distortion in the image and WAY more depth. 

This is challenging with 16mm because to achieve a distortion-free image, you're stuck to a more constrained field of view. 

Nope. Distortion is a function of angle af view and lens design, not focal length or format. You get more distortion with zooms and anamorphics and older lenses, regardless of format. While you might sometimes see distorted wide angle shots in S16 footage because people are using older lenses, it's not inherent to the format. Look at all the wide angle distortion in 35mm movies by Gilliam, Anderson, Lanthimos etc. 

An 18mm (wide angle) lens made for full frame will have more distortion than a 16mm (normal) lens made for S16. Because angle of view is what matters, not focal length. 

Depending how wide, you'll always get some sort of distortion with wide angle lenses for any format, simply because of the angle of view and the physics of optics. Some lenses are better corrected and more rectilinear, but there is almost always stretching at the edges. 

There are good quality wide angle lenses for S16 like Ultra 16s, Cooke SK4s and others from the 90s and 00s that have less distortion than many similar angle of view lenses made for larger formats. Even a S16 zoom like the Canon 7-63 at the wide end compares favourably with the wide end of something like an Angenieux 15-40 made for S35.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

On 3/2/2026 at 2:52 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

It's kind of impossible to get a distortion free wide shot on S16mm. That's what I'm referring to. 

[...]

Do you mean intention? 

I think intention works, too. 😉

As for distortion on wide-angles, have a look at this, shot on a 10mm Samyang (modern) lens. Just watch for a few seconds and you'll see how rectilinear it is:

 

[Tyler Purcell]

31 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

As for distortion on wide-angles, have a look at this, shot on a 10mm Samyang (modern) lens. Just watch for a few seconds and you'll see how rectilinear it is:

Yep, because the lens was made for full frame applications, so you're pulling from the center of the lens.

Also, when you shoot wide shots, you really can't see the distortion. If there was a subject close to the lens, you'd see it immediately. I have the same lens, it 100% distorts on 16mm with close subjects.