16mm to 35mm

Phillip George · December 3, 2004

Hi,

Can somebody explain to me how transferring from 16mm to 35mm works? In the process does a bit of the top and bottom of the frame get cropped?

So if you were shooting 16mm and you know you are going to transfer it, are there any things that one should take into consideration when shooting the film? For example - framing? Do you think one should frame it slightly differently so as to compensate for the transfer cropping or just shoot normal compositions?

Basically, are there any tips and guides for shooting with the transfer to 35mm in mind?

Thanks,

Phillip George

Chance Shirley · December 3, 2004

I can't explain the whole process of transferring 16mm to 35mm. As for the framing issues, 16mm has a "native" aspect ratio of 1.33:1. 35mm is usually projected at either 1.85:1 (American) or 1.66:1 (European). So, if you blow up 16mm to 35mm, you will be losing some of the top and bottom of your frame.

Ways to make shooting 16mm for blow-up easier would include finding a ground glass with 1.85:1 markings or shooting Super 16mm. Super 16mm, with its native aspect ratio of 1.66:1 is perfect for blow up to 35mm for European projection, and you'll only lose a little bit for 1.85:1 exhibition (just don't frame your shots too tightly).

Hope that helps.

- - - - -

Chance Shirley

Birmingham, Alabama

Phil Rhodes · December 4, 2004

Hi,

What's this about European projection? I'm not aware that projection is any different.

Phil

John Pytlak RIP · December 4, 2004

In the past, 1.66:1 was used for many European or "art" films. It is still a recognized aspect ratio for 35mm release prints, per standard SMPTE 195. Modern US "flat" films are normally projected with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, also recognized by the SMPTE standard.

Here are some films intended for 1.66:1 aspect ratio:

http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.66%20:%201

Edited December 4, 2004 by John_P_Pytlak

Phillip George · December 5, 2004

thanks guys,

I can't explain the whole process of transferring 16mm to 35mm. As for the framing issues, 16mm has a "native" aspect ratio of 1.33:1. 35mm is usually projected at either 1.85:1 (American) or 1.66:1 (European). So, if you blow up 16mm to 35mm, you will be losing some of the top and bottom of your frame.

Ways to make shooting 16mm for blow-up easier would include finding a ground glass with 1.85:1 markings or shooting Super 16mm. Super 16mm, with its native aspect ratio of 1.66:1 is perfect for blow up to 35mm for European projection, and you'll only lose a little bit for 1.85:1 exhibition (just don't frame your shots too tightly).

Hope that helps.

- - - - -

Chance Shirley

Birmingham, Alabama

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

chance, your post helped me a lot. but, i have one probably silly question: what is a ground glass? i'm guessing it's a sort of mask thingy you put in front of lens or viewfinder maybe? are they expensive things to get?

also, does anyone know how much it [approx] costs to blow-up 1 minute of 16mm to 35mm?

thanks.

Phil Rhodes · December 5, 2004

Hi,

Anywhere that still projected mainly 1.66 would be considered hopelessly archaic, at least here. We have some ability to project odd ratios at the place where I sometimes work - we can do 1.33, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.whatever, and regularly do - but then we do get a lot of rather older films programmed and the first-run houses would probably have absolutely no reason to retain the ability to do it.

Phil

Dominic Case · December 5, 2004

I don't think there was ever an official "European standard" of 1.66:1 (or 1:1.66 as it's officially termed). If anything, the introduction of super 16 in the early 1970s in Europe, (the US is only just discovering the format) might have given rise to the idea that European widescreen was different.

At that time (probably now, too) there is a broad scattering of widescreen apertures, mostly somewhere between 1.66 abd 1.85. Cinemas get away with it because most 35mm films are exposed full aprture, so there is image avaialble to filll any screen height beyond 1.85:1, (even though the cinematographer didn't want it), and super-16 blow-up is 1.66:1, ensuring that the whole range of screens from 1.66:1 onwards get full coverage.

As John says, SMPTE provides standards for both 1.66 and 1.85 ratios.

David Mullen ASC · December 5, 2004

1.85 came to dominate over time by default more than by design.

In 1953, after the introduction of CinemaScope, the studios proposed a standard for masking Academy projection to widescreen. Universal proposed 1.85 and Paramount proposed 1.66 (that's interesting because next year Paramount introduced VistaVision, the least widescreen of the new widescreen formats). Columbia and MGM backed Universal more or less. Disney proposed 1.75. No consensus was achieved and the studios basically did whatever they wanted, ensuring years of confusion. I read a British Cinematographer magazine from that period that more or less agreed with Disney and proposed that British theaters adopt 1.75 masking for flat prints.

F Bulgarelli · December 5, 2004

Hello everyone,

Can anyone comment on an estimated cost (average) of a super 16mm blowup versus 35mm all the way to a release print.

Thanks

Francisco

Dominic Case · December 5, 2004

Can anyone comment on an estimated cost (average) of a super 16mm blowup versus 35mm all the way to a release print.

Impossible to do in the abstract. You need specific lab quotes and also you need to look at production costs which obviously vary according to the production.

For the lab, there are several alternative methods that you need to get quotes on . . .

a) direct optical blow-up from the s16 neg to 35mm print (cheapest for one print, but extra risk to the neg, and rapidly gets out of control for more prints.)

b) 16mm IP, blow up to 35mm DN.

c) 35mm blow-up IP, contact DN. This is dearer than b) but gives better image quality. The duplication costs for b) and c) may seem a lot but remember that you have to have IP and DNs even for 35mm work if you are going for more than a few prints, and you have to have at least an IP if you want to protect your original neg. Neg cutting methods are different for this method.

d) DI process, scanning the original s16 neg and outputting to 35mm neg. If done well, is generally better than c) [but can be worse if you cut corners or the post house/lab doesn't do it well.] Dearer than the others (though there are great deals to be done) and you get all the benefit of th DI process - digital grading, easier drop-in of effects, titles etc, clean-ups, wire removals and so on.

Against these costs you must offset the savings in

a) equipment hire (camera, lights etc)

b) stock and processing

c) set-up times (with lighter gear you can often get in and shoot quicker than for 35mm)

F Bulgarelli · December 5, 2004

Thanks Dominic, that's really useful.

So, are you saying that there could be considerable savings going with 16mm for a 35mm blowup as suppose to staying on 35mm?

I'm sure this is an old dilemma.

Dominic Case · December 6, 2004

So, are you saying that there could be considerable savings going with 16mm for a 35mm blowup as suppose to staying on 35mm?

Most definitely.

Image quality, especially graininess, used to be a disincentive in some people's minds: but the latest V2 neg stocks, improved duplication stocks and the possibility of a digital blow-up have all but eliminated that as an objection. Still best to use stock one notch slower than you would prefer in 35mm, and also to stay on the overexposure side, just to keep grain in check. (Which might bump up your lighting costs a little - but S16 is always gong to save you money.)