Can 16mm be used to film test 35mm stock

[James Steven Beverly]

Can you use say 7218 as a cheaper way to shoot tests for 5218 or will the results be useless in making a decision for the larger format? Just curious, there was a computer program that suposidly allows you the "test" various filmstcks and processes on the computer without actually having to shoot tests. (I guess to get you in the ballpark and save the production money but I only saw the 16mm version availible) This program may be worthless but it wasn't very expensive and might be worth playing aroung with, but barring this and because I'm always looking for viable ways to cut production costs I thought why not shoot and cheaper process som 16mm filmstock in lew of more expensive 35mm for screen tests, Will it work or is it an outlandish notion? B)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Can you use say 7218 as a cheaper way to shoot tests for 5218 or will the results be useless in making a decision for the larger format? Just curious, there was a computer program that suposidly allows you the "test" various filmstcks and processes on the computer without actually having to shoot tests. (I guess to get you in the ballpark and save the production money but I only saw the 16mm version availible) This program may be worthless but it wasn't very expensive and might be worth playing aroung with, but barring this and because I'm always looking for viable ways to cut production costs I thought why not shoot and cheaper process som 16mm filmstock in lew of more expensive 35mm for screen tests, Will it work or is it an outlandish notion? B)

 

Since the Kodak 16mm and 35mm stocks are essentially "cut from the same cloth", their tone scale (contrast) and color reproduction should be similar. Of course the greater magnification required for 16mm will enhance the difference in sharpness and graininess among the various speed stocks. The difference in flare and sharpness among different lenses could affect the testing --- always best to test with the equipment you will actually be using.

[James Steven Beverly]

I completely understand that, John would definatly not argue that point. However, could using 16, even with the difference in lens quality, get us close enough to start eleminating some stocks and narrowing things down ot say the 2 best that we would of course then have to test with the actual equipment to be used or would we be thrown off even on that broad a level by the difference in 16 and 35mm lenses and could 16 be used for testing costuming and that sort of thing where lighting is not the primary element being tested?

[David Mullen ASC]

I completely understand that, John would definatly not argue that point. However, could using 16, even with the difference in lens quality, get us close enough to start eleminating some stocks and narrowing things down ot say the 2 best that we would of course then have to test with the actual equipment to be used or would we be thrown off even on that broad a level by the difference in 16 and 35mm lenses and could 16 be used for testing costuming and that sort of thing where lighting is not the primary element being tested?

 

Depends on what you are testing -- if only color & contrast, you can see that in the 16mm versions of a 35mm stock, but if you also want to know more about the grain and sharpness, or latitude for push-processing, you need to shoot 35mm if you want to know what the 35mm version looks like.

 

So I'm not sure how much you could narrow a choice down by testing 16mm for a 35mm project.

 

However, you could see relative differences between stocks, for example, if you wanted to know if 200T was finer-grained than 500T, or the difference in look between Fuji 500T versus Kodak 500T relative to each other.

 

Trouble is that ultimately you'd still need to test the final stock in 35mm, and assuming you were going to shoot a test in 35mm anyway, it wouldn't be hard to shoot some simple comparison to another stock.

 

Personally, it would drive me nuts if I was curious to know how a 35mm stock looked to test a 16mm version instead and just find myself wondering ultimately what the 35mm version looks like afterall... I wouldn't be satisfied.

 

The simplest thing is to make a close guess based on research, shoot a short test, and view it in the format / display system you plan on using for the final product.

 

And besides, most of the 35mm stocks look pretty good these days, so if I were on a budget, I'd probably just assume that even the fastest stocks, 500 ASA, were pretty decent-looking, and pick one for the price, shoot a short test, and proceed.

 

As far as testing costumes, you'd see the color / tonal reproduction but not as much texture in the fabric if using 16mm instead of 35mm. So you may not be able to judget the quality of the work and how it would hold up in 35mm if you tested it in 16mm.

[James Steven Beverly]

Well, I guess that pretty much answers my question. They do not cross over which is probably why no one does it. AUH, it was worth a shot. Thanks for the info, guys. I really appreciate it. B)