Super 16mm to 35mm

[william koon]

Hi all,

Am planning to shoot on super 16mm negatives then blow up to 35mm as a final product. Someone has suggested to shoot straight on 35mm negatives instead as, mentioned by him, the cost is the same. May I confirm with you all? Thanks.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Hi all,

Am planning to shoot on super 16mm negatives then blow up to 35mm as a final product. Someone has suggested to shoot straight on 35mm negatives instead as, mentioned by him, the cost is the same. May I confirm with you all? Thanks.

 

When doing the blow-up optically that tends to be common misconception that it will end up costing the same, yes the blow-up will cost money, but you are still likely to make quite a significant saving on stock, developing and equipment rental by shooting super 16, rather than 35.

 

If you choose to perform the blow-up digitally, then yes shooting super 16 may turn out to be a false-economy.

 

Of course all this is dependent on location, personal specifics, the favors you can pull etc. So you will probably benefit calling around around and getting some rough figures and working it out for your self.

 

Best of Luck,

Andy

[Dirk DeJonghe]

A lot depends on the shooting ratio and the number of prints required.

 

For shorts where only one or two prints are needed for festivals, a direct blow up is most economical, if more than 8 prints will be required an interpositive/duplicate negative blow up is required. In that case, in some labs, the price delta with digital intermediate is small if you take into account the fact that a fully graded video version will also be required sooner or later.

 

Doing direct 35 print from 35 negative is also economical if your shooting ratio is low.