16 mm V.S. 35

[daniel zepeda]

Hello, I am a student of film and have worked on 16 mm film (kodak stock) for a couple of months now, I now have the opportunity to work with 35 mm film and i was wondering as far as me being the DP, what kind of adversities will I encounter now that I am making the transistion from 16 to 35? I have worked with the Arri 16 SRII and the Arri S. Are there any books or websites I could refer to that would be of any help?

[Kevin Masuda]

Bigger neg, shallower DOF, and now you really need a crew.

 

 

Kev

[daniel zepeda]

The shallower depth of field and larger image, alright! Bigger crew? Will that be because the camera and camera pieces will be bigger, image will be bigger so putting lights farther away from subjects?

[Frank DiBugnara]

Daniel,

 

This has been discussed quite a bit in past--it might be good to search the archives.

 

Basically, the camera is bigger and heavier (and all the complications that come with it). The film is a lot more expensive per foot and you need quite a bit more per minute. As a result, lab costs go up, but telecine costs usually stay exactly the same as 16mm. The film stocks are exactly the same (just larger)--so the lighting approach for a high-end look will likely be similar. On a low budget, 35mm can be a bit more forgiving because you are gathering more information. Also, when the low budget is low, it is a lot easier to "just grab the camera and go shoot" with 16mm where as with 35mm there is more complexity, more cases, heavier lenses, etc.

 

I'd say figure out your post production path and final output (35mm print? Video only? DI?) and do a side by side comparison. If you are finishing strictly on video, for example, there are many instances where people say that super16 looks very close to 35mm or "close enough".