Looking for a forum post here with some tests of 35mm vs 16mm

[Gautam Valluri]

A while ago here some university student did some really interesting tests comparing 35mm stocks to 16mm, and concluded that 50D in 16mm is comparable to 500T in 35mm.

I cannot for the life of me find that post again. Does anyone remember it and can link me to it please?

Thanks,

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

2 hours ago, Gautam Valluri said:

50D in 16mm is comparable to 500T in 35mm

You mean in daylight with ND on the 500T? What are the equivalents? I am bit perplexed and piqued at the same time.

[Gautam Valluri]

45 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

You mean in daylight with ND on the 500T? What are the equivalents? I am bit perplexed and piqued at the same time.

That is why I want to revisit this test done by some young student and it was posted here about a year ago or so? I forgot the details and I forgot to bookmark it.

[Tyler Purcell]

The sample must have been horrible quality. I've shot quite a bit of 5219, 4 perf, 3 perf, 2 perf, it's WAY sharper than 50D on 16mm. Even in 2 perf, you're still dealing with a 2mm shorter negative on 16mm. Plus with 35mm for the most part, you're dealing with pin registered cameras with a lot more control over the flange distance and registration. To get the sharpest image out of 16mm, you also kinda need a SR3 or 416 with Ultra Primes. You'll also need a high res scan, something that over samples quite a bit actually. Where it's true 50D on 16mm can be pretty good, it's also very noticeably 16mm especially when using shorter lenses.