16mm vs super16mm vs 4 perf 35mm vs 3perf 35mm vs 65mm

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I saw a chart comparing pixel equivalents of all of these somewhere but I cant find it now.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

Like all of these stocks side by side or something like that.

[Jon Kukla]

There should be no difference between 4-perf and 3-perf unless you're talking anamorphic vs. Super 2.39.

 

In any case, there is no common agreement as to the equivalent pixel resolution of film; even if there were, it's simply one of many factors involved in the quality of the image.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Jon Kukla

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

It was like a brochure I think Kodak made, it wasn't pixel i dont think. It was just examples and comparisons. Grain coefficients, etc.

 

 

HIGHLY informal and resourceful.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Frank Barrera]

In the 8th edition of the American Cinematographer Manual there are comparisons of negative sizes of all these formats in the first chapter entitled 'Cinematographic Systems'. Pixels usually refer to electronic data and not film resolution.

[Terry Mester]

After consulting with Physicists to determine the physical width of light and the physical amount of space an individual Light Ray would occupy, I calculated the maximum potential number of Rays which could fit into a Square Millimetre. You can find this info (S16 v R35 v S35 v 65) in my Cinematography Article available off my Website. Just click the Web Link below in my Signature.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

After consulting with Physicists to determine the physical width of light and the physical amount of space an individual Light Ray would occupy, I calculated the maximum potential number of Rays which could fit into a Square Millimetre. You can find this info (S16 v R35 v S35 v 65) in my Cinematography Article available off my Website. Just click the Web Link below in my Signature.

thank you! very helpful.