Gary Lemson Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Hello, I realize this may be somewhat subjective, but can you folks explain the resolution differences between Super 8 and 16mm running at their respective standard frame rates? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Cooke Posted March 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 2, 2006 Hello, I realize this may be somewhat subjective, but can you folks explain the resolution differences between Super 8 and 16mm running at their respective standard frame rates? Thanks. You could fit roughly 4 super 8 frames in one 16mm frame. Therefore (all things being equal) 16mm has roughly 4 times the resolution. Frame rates don't have anything to do with resolution. Although, there are many factors that can affect the appearance of resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lemson Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 You could fit roughly 4 super 8 frames in one 16mm frame. Therefore 16mm has roughly 4 times the resolution. Frame rates don't have anything to do with resolution. Although, there are many factors that can affect the appearance of resolution. Okay. I'm trying to understand the visual or asthetic differences (Maybe this isn't easily quantified). Basically, I'm trying to decide whether to go Super 8 or 16mm, or both?? There's a lot of really cool S8 hardware out there. I've been producing television documentaries, and would like to work film into my future projects. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 You could fit roughly 4 super 8 frames in one 16mm frame. i know you said roughly and i know how you got that number, but it's only true for regular 8. for super it's almost exactly 3 times? /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot McPhie Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I once worked some of this out - see this thread 've been doing a bit of maths lately on frame sizes - based mainly on the figures herehttp://www.jtkdev.com/projection.html this is what I found: 8mm frame size width: 4.87 mm height: 3.68 mm total: 17.92mm sq Super 8 frame size width: 5.68 mm height: 4.23 mm total: 24.02 mm sq Super-dooper 8 frame size width: 6.41 mm height: 4.23 mm total: 27.11 mm sq (based on extra 13% width - quoted here ) 16mm cropped to 16:9 frame size width: 10.26 mm height: 5.77 mm total: 59.20 mm sq Ultra 16mm frame size width: 11.8 mm height: 6.23mm total: 73.5 mm sq (based on this comparison of 16mm formats ) 16mm frame size width: 10.26 mm height: 7.49 mm total: 76.84 mm sq Super 16 frame size width: 12.39 mm height: 7.49 mm total: 92.80 mm sq there seems to be some conflicting figures on frame sizes from various sources on the net - so any comments/corrections appreciated - and if there are any mathematical errors - but anyway what does all this mean? Well for me in no budget land (which is why I started looking at this) I think the cropped 16mm is the best option as it gives you a decent frame size but in a really easy way to get it. * the cameras are cheaper to buy than Super 16 * no modifications necessary (as in super-dooper 8, or ultra 16 ) * no centreing issues (as in super-dooper 8, or ultra 16 ) * no anamorphic lenses necessary * steady registration - no Super 8 carts! * great selection of film stocks * little or no grain (the sessions I've seen of this in a telecine suite with some of my footage showed no grain using V2 250D) * the option of a regular print if necessary (though the framing might look funny!) so anyway there you go - food for thought Scot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I once worked some of this out - see Super-dooper 8 frame size width: 6.41 mm height: 4.23 mm total: 27.11 mm sq (based on extra 13% width - quoted here ) ---I followed through the thread on the sooper-dooper 8 frame size. Your source claims the aspect ratio is nearly 1.66/1. Do the math. It's 1.515/1. Pro8 does the same with their extended frame, claiming an aspect ratio of 1.78/1! Would you buy a used car from any of these people? ---LV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Fernando Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Hello, I realize this may be somewhat subjective, but can you folks explain the resolution differences between Super 8 and 16mm running at their respective standard frame rates? Thanks. Watch something shot in Super 8 then, all things being equal, watch something (ideally the same subject matter) shot in 16. You should then be able to qualify; which may, arguably, be more important then "quantifying" (whatever that means). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 3, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 3, 2006 For film formats, "Size DOES Matter". The film is the same, but four times the image area has four times the information, and requires four times less area magnification (less graininess). It's simple math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maulubekotofa Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 steadyfilm, depth of field issues and truer film look will be decideing factorsfor going 16mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now