film formats

[Jim Nelson]

Hi,

 

I'm quite new at filmmaking. I have a question. it might sound a bit silly but I want to be absolutely sure.

 

Does digital, 16mm, super 16mm and 35mm have a different look to them? I know that they have different resolutions and therefore 35mm, for example, can hold more detail than digital. But just concernng the look of the image, is there any difference?

 

I apologize if this question seems a bit silly. I just don't want to have any doubts about it.

 

 

Thanks.

[Brian Drysdale]

Film has grain, which could be regarded as random pixels compared to the fixed pixel pattern found on digital sensors. The digital image tends to be cleaner looking, perhaps clinical at times. Currently, film is better at handling highlights. Yes they do look different, but how different can depend on the post work flow and the film stock being used. Quite a few regard Fuji as being more film looking than Kodak, who have gone more to embrace the digital. With film, you have the option of doing a traditional photo chemical workflow as used on Christopher Nolan's films or the digital one using a DI. Here, the choices made can affect the look of the film. Film also has a larger colour space than many of the digital/video cameras.

 

The 16mm formats are more grainy than the 35mm formats, plus have a deeper depth of field.

[Jim Nelson]

Thank you very much for your help. It cleared a lot of things.

May I just know one more thing.

 

Isn't grain got to do with the resolution? In other words, doesn't higher resolution mean less grain?

 

And does all film have grain?

 

 

Thanks again for your help :)

[Rob Vogt]

Grain doesn't equal resolution. The resolution depends more on how the film is scanned, 2k, 4k ect. Grain is a byproduct of the film and is dependent on the structure and speed of the film. 5279 was a 500T film made by Kodak, 5219 is one of the current 500T stocks made by kodak. If you do a 2k scan to both they will have the same resolution, but 5279 is grainier.

[Brian Drysdale]

Slower film stocks will usually have less grain and have more resolution than the faster stocks. How you scan the negative will have an effect on the resolution of the final product, although a slower film stock will have more going in and 4k should make more use of this extra resolution than 2k. Shooting Super 16 I always use the slowest stock I can get away with. Although, modern fast stocks are much better than they used to be.

 

All film stocks have grain, just some have finer grain than others.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Brian Drysdale

[Jim Nelson]

Thank you so much. Everything is now clear :)