Matt Read Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) I am wondering if there are ways of making 16mm film look more like 35mm. Obviously 16mm won't be able to match the resolution of 35mm. The depth of field in 16mm is larger than 35mm, so shooting wide open and using longer lenses would help shorten that up. Is there anything else that could be done? Is there a specific film stock that looks more like 35mm than others? Is there something that can be done during processing? Would regular 16mm or Super-16mm be better? Edited March 5, 2007 by Matt Read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Rupe Whiteman Posted March 5, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2007 It's obvious, but shoot on good prime 'glass & use the slowest speed stock you can get away with and definitely shoot on s16! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Shooting on Super 16 with the slowest speed film stock, the best prime lenses and if transferring to video, the best telecine eg a Spirit. The slow daylight stocks are about the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Mulder Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'd like to try anamorphic 16mm one day - although most punters dont go 'oh, its anamorphic' when they see the horizontal flares, tall bokeh etc... But still I'd like to think of it as a subliminal thing as those effects are usually associated with 35mm Scope. But yes, slow film on S16, shoot open on longer lenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck colburn Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I am wondering if there are ways of making 16mm film look more like 35mm. Obviously 16mm won't be able to match the resolution of 35mm. The depth of field in 16mm is larger than 35mm, so shooting wide open and using longer lenses would help shorten that up. Is there anything else that could be done? Is there a specific film stock that looks more like 35mm than others? Is there something that can be done during processing? Would regular 16mm or Super-16mm be better? Ah... depth of field is an optical function not a format one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted March 5, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2007 Actually - a simple trompe-l'oeil and fool-the-brain thing is to simply alter the aspect ratio - shoot 4x3 on 16mm. I kid you not - the 16mm stuff I've done framed for 4x3 have been the stuff people have thought were shot on 35mm. Why? Because 4x3 signals 35mm, and 16mm signals letterbox and almost nobody shoots 4x3 on 16mm because they're afraid to waste any of that precious neg. Another trick is to use swing shift lenses so as to force a bit more selective out of focus into the frame (subtly - not in that late 90's Marilyn Manson way or the gag will end up looking like what it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Read Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 Ah... depth of field is an optical function not a format one. That's actually not true. Because 16 has a smaller negative, it actually has a larger depth of field than 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Mulder Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 That's actually not true. Because 16 has a smaller negative, it actually has a larger depth of field than 35. <_< That actually is 'kinda' true... but there is a bit more reading involved to get the full story - do a search here as this debate pops up almost weekly somewhere here at cinematography.com (and every other photo forum that deals with different neg formats/sizes) Its a relative thing - a 50mm lens will always have the same DOF no matter what size the film is you put it in front of - the longer the focal length the smaller the DOF ... It depends on in which direction your thought path has arrived at the statement "depth of field is an optical function not a format one" to whether this is 'true' or not But basically don't mistake field of view with focal lengths ... as DOF gets tangled in-between, once you understand that then the problem is just one of semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Erd Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 <_< But basically don't mistake field of view with focal lengths ... as DOF gets tangled in-between, once you understand that then the problem is just one of semantics. I always preface any statement regarding DOF with "for a given field of view" but this usually doesn't reduce the circle of confusion to the extent that I'd hoped for :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's the same rules for making a good optical printer blow-up: Slowest film possible or practical, overexposed (at least by 2/3's of a stop), sharpest lenses possible shot at their optimal stop, contrasty lighting, visually sharp edges in the image to enhance illusion of sharpness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Mulder Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's the same rules for making a good optical printer blow-up:Slowest film possible or practical, overexposed (at least by 2/3's of a stop), sharpest lenses possible shot at their optimal stop, contrasty lighting, visually sharp edges in the image to enhance illusion of sharpness over-exposed - as in a pull ? or just over-exposed ? - lenses at their 'optimal' stop ? as in as open as possible without loosing contrast ? I've noticed my 16mm Switars come alive around f 4 - 5.6 - they are a little soft when fully open... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryant Jansen Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's the same rules for making a good optical printer blow-up:Slowest film possible or practical, overexposed (at least by 2/3's of a stop)... Why does overexposing help, David? Is it just to get the aperture open a little bit more and thereby getting a shorter depth of field? And if I do overexpose, should I do anything differently when processing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Armstrong Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Typically, overexposing your film slightly allows for a "denser" neg. this means theres "more" information there to work with. this is done quite alot in the optical-post process when the OCN has been underexposed to prep for the opctial blowup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I've seen some great student films shot on slow 50D film in studio environments, and I could have sworn they were shot on 35 they were so sharp. If I had a budget for large sources such as that ALL THE TIME, I'd probably roll more of the slower stocks than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Rupe Whiteman Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 over-exposed - as in a pull ? or just over-exposed ? - lenses at their 'optimal' stop ? as in as open as possible without loosing contrast ? I've noticed my 16mm Switars come alive around f 4 - 5.6 - they are a little soft when fully open... ... Pulling is underexposing. Optimal stop means in the middle of the range around 5.6 but subject to testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Mulder Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 ... Pulling is underexposing. eh ? I would say its underdeveloping, and hence (all things being 'equal') the required overexposure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jonathan Benny Posted March 6, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2007 ... Pulling is underexposing. Not the same thing. Pulling is a process that takes place in the lab. Underexposing usually takes place in the camera. Pulling will result in underexposure if no compensation has been made for the process and there are no other factors that could naturally compensate (ie: combining with bleach bypass). AJB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted March 7, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2007 Have you considered 2-perf 35mm? Probably not very practical due to lack of telecine options & hard to find the cameras, but film costs would be only a little more than Super 16 and a much larger negative. There's a company in Austrailia that's promoting the idea, maybe you could pick up a camera from them... http://www.multivision235.com.au/ And another in Sweden... www.solidentertainment.se 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