Super16 vs. 35mm

February 19, 2005

For some some months on and off again I have been looking into

buying a film camera...an inexpensive one like the k-3, or a konvas.

i'm getting confused though by the transferring of film to a format that can

be edited on a Mac, with FCP.

the telecine rates seem to be reasonable enough for s16, and even 35, i guess, but

what is the point of transferring, film, a high resolution format, to mini-dv, or another video

format?

i would like to have my project in HD. and distribute on DVD, in SD, and HD.

is that possible?

a k-3 apparently can be bought for 1k or so, and a konvas 1m seems to be a bit more.

an MOS camera is fine for me.

thank you,

jake r.

DavidSloan · February 19, 2005

Wow, you consider telecine rates of $350 per hour as reasonable? hmm...you must be loaded, buddy. ;)

You would only go to miniDV, or DVCAM, or one of the low res formats with the intention of going back to the lab with your EDL to do a conform (another $350 per hour). No one shoots S16mm, or 35mm, goes to miniDV, and stays on mini DV! Unless you're a 1st semester film student. :ph34r:

February 19, 2005

you can get the K3 for a lot less than $1000.i would suggest shooting some test shorts in standard 16 before modifying it in any way.if you decide you like it then maybe its worth putting some money into.Thats where im at.

As for the konvas ...you can probably get one for around $1000 maybe more if you want a really nice one, sometimes you can even find a package with anamorphic lenses.contact Olexandr K at http://www.geocities.com/russiancamera/

or got to commiecam.com ,theres a lot of info on there.

Mini dv is fine for DVD. if you shoot or crop for widescreen ..have them "squeeze" the image instead of letterboxing it ...you get more resolution that way.

As for HD....If you're looking at a K3 ,I highly doubt you have the kind of financial backing behind you that you'd need to get your work displayed publicly on hd...unless you have a brother that programs for VOOM's "filmfest "channel.there isnt a lot of programming in hd yet and blue ray dvd's are a ways away ,so most likely you'll be going to dvd...mini dv is fine for that...it just has to look good at 480 p to rock on an hd set.

If you're project turns out to be film festival material ..the next logical step would be an optical print....If you think thats a possibility then you gotta school yourself in "shoot on film,post on video,conform original for film end product" .

Remember 35mm is cheaper by the foot than 16 but you need 3 times the film to get the same amount of time.And remember you always need probably at least 10 times the film you will end up with.90 minute feature ...get 900minutes of film.

David Mullen ASC · February 19, 2005

You'd probably transfer your Super-16 footage to an HD tape format in 24P or 23.98P (HDCAM, HD-D5, etc.) then make downconversions to whatever SD tape format you want to work with in the editing room (probably DV), edit the movie, generate an EDL, take your EDL and your original HD tapes somewhere and do an HD tape-to-tape online, create an edited master, then do an HD tape-to-tape color-correction session to create a color-corrected master.

Or you could digitize the HD footage directly into an editing system capable of handling HD at full resolution and output an edited master to HD tape.

Other option is to transfer your Super-16 footage to SD (like DV), create an EDL, get the negative cut into A-B rolls, make an answer print, strike a color-corrected IP, then transfer that to an HD tape format.

Adam Frisch FSF · February 19, 2005

Final Cut Pro can edit DVCProHD over firewire, so I'd transfer to that. It's a good, solid HD format with 4:2:2 sampling and the whole lot. Sony's lesser HDV format (very compressed) will also be editable by firewire whn FCP 5.0 comes along (and can be edited on iMovie today already). DVCProHD is a much higher bandwith format, though. So I'd go for that.

Or why not bypass the whole crappy lay-off-to-tape bit by doing it this way?:

Bonolabs tapeless

February 19, 2005

Wow, you consider telecine rates of $350 per hour as reasonable? hmm...you must be loaded, buddy. ;)

i didn't mean to imply that i have big $. i don't.

but i would only need to transfer about 60 min. of footage.

February 19, 2005

thanks the tapeless option looks like a good one.

Or why not bypass the whole crappy lay-off-to-tape bit by doing it this way?:

Bonolabs tapeless

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

February 19, 2005

it looks like the tapeless option noted by adam might be a decent way to go, if i could

afford a dual processor g5 that is.

have you guys had any experience with comparing the image quality of

35mm to super16, specifically nature, and landscape images?

my project would be something like a baraka, artistic (hopefully) nature, and landscape shots with a naturalistic soundtrack...wind, birds, etc.

it seems like the old konvas camera, 1m can be converted to a nikon mount, and nikon

certainly has some fine 35mm still lenses, plus they are more modern than the old

movie lenses.

the k-3 can use pentax 35mm still lenses, which probably are not quite the quality

of nikon, but respectable.

if the final output is to SD DVD, does it really matter for image quality if it is shot

on super16 or 35?

since HD is coming up in the next couple of years it might be nice to go ahead and

shoot on a film format that is HD compatible.

mini-dv is not HD compatible is it?

i don't the specs, but isn't super16 much higher resolution than mini-dv?

and footage from the dvx-100, and xl-2 has to be upresed to HD...which adds additional cost?

thank you,

jake r.

February 22, 2005

>it looks like the tapeless option noted by adam might be a decent way to go, if i could

>afford a dual processor g5 that is.

well, you can always downsample and edit with standard-def proxies.

>have you guys had any experience with comparing the image quality of

>35mm to super16, specifically nature, and landscape images?

35mm has about 4x the picture area.. so figure the comparison is similar to SD vs. HD. Although, the extra detail you gain with 35mm may be lost in an HD transfer, you gain more depth-of-field over S16. Of course, if you are shooting landscapes primarily, this is probably a non-issue.

>my project would be something like a baraka, artistic (hopefully) nature, and landscape shots >with a naturalistic soundtrack...wind, birds, etc.

FYI, baraka was shot on 70mm, so they took the S16 vs 35 argument to the next level :)

>if the final output is to SD DVD, does it really matter for image quality if it is shot

>on super16 or 35?

S16 and 35 can use the exact same film stocks, however you may find it easier to find more wide-angle lenses for the larger format. And of course, the depth-of-field argument is probably quite moot considering your subject matter. You will be using 3x the amount of film though, keep that in mind.

>since HD is coming up in the next couple of years it might be nice to go ahead and

>shoot on a film format that is HD compatible.

>mini-dv is not HD compatible is it?

S16 or 35mm will both get you similar results if you are going to HD. Of course, if you opt for a standard-def transfer NOW, you can defer the costs of a HD transfer until some point in the future when it is more feasible. You can't do that if you shoot in HD now. Shooting S16 now is fairly future proof.. shooting 35mm will future proof it further. MiniDV is not particularly HD-friendly. In fact, I think you'll be a bit horrified if you blow it up (especially with lots of colourful material. remember... 180-pixel horizontal chroma resolution!!!)

>i don't the specs, but isn't super16 much higher resolution than mini-dv?

probably about 5x or so.. S16 is about on par with HD, resolution-wise.

>and footage from the dvx-100, and xl-2 has to be upresed to HD...which adds additional cost?

nope, just processing time on your computer.

Michael Nash · February 22, 2005

the k-3 can use pentax 35mm still lenses, which probably are not quite the quality
of nikon, but respectable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep in mind that 35mm still lenses give you approximately 1/2 the horizontal field of view they do with 35mm, when used with a 16mm camera. A nice "wide" 28mm still lens on the K3 will give you the field of view equivalent to a 55mm on 35 camera. So if you want nice wide landscape shots on 16 with Pentax lenses, you'd have to use something like a 14mm still lens. :(

Adam Frisch FSF · February 23, 2005

If you're doung mainly landscapes and nature - go 35mm. Big, wide vistas with lots of detail kills 16mm.

February 23, 2005

If you're doung mainly landscapes and nature - go 35mm. Big, wide vistas with lots of detail kills 16mm.

ah, yes, whatever is the more expensive option, right?

there is something appealing about trying 35mm though.

plus i already have 2 good 35mm still camera lenses from canon.

if i could find a way to get a konvas with a canon mount.

thanks for the info.

Landon D. Parks · May 30, 2005

Or you could digitize the HD footage directly into an editing system capable of handling HD at full resolution and output an edited master to HD tape.

I'd hate to see the price tag on a system like that! How much are we talking for a system capabale of handling full-rez HD in real time?

I don't know if this is true, I just heard it someone where and never checke into it. An Avid can run up to $150,000 or more? :o

Edited May 30, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

timHealy · May 30, 2005

I'd hate to see the price tag on a system like that! How much are we talking for a system capabale of handling full-rez HD in real time?

I don't know if this is true, I just heard it someone where and never checke into it. An Avid can run up to $150,000 or more? :o

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recently went to an Apple seminar where thery explained that you can use a Mac with Final Cut Pro, which is not hardware dependant, with SD and HD systems. The HD deck may be more expensive than the software and hardware.

http://seminars.apple.com/go/hdtour/

may be worth a look. cheaper than an avid system.