16mm vs 35mm

Andrew Greenan · March 7, 2004

i've read that 16mm equivalents of 35mm differ. How slight/big is this difference? Is it possible to accurately say, because they are different formats.

Production costs aside, could i effectively get the same picture [quality] from shooting super16 and 35? The film will be going straight to Beta from telecine. i will be going super16, but would like to know nonetheless.

Is the grain size on the neg the same, for example,

And grain aside, how similar/different would the contrast and colour rendition be between a 35mm pos, and 16-to-35mm-blow up pos?

I presume the lattitude of the negs is the same.

How close are the print films of the formats?

andrew

GeorgeSelinsky · March 7, 2004

i've read that 16mm equivalents of 35mm differ. How slight/big is this difference? Is it possible to accurately say, because they are different formats.

One of the most discussed topics of all time in the cinematography internet message boards.

There is no 16mm "equivalent" of 35mm, they are two separate formats. The same film stocks are available for each format in most cases.

Production costs aside, could i effectively get the same picture [quality] from shooting super16 and 35? The film will be going straight to Beta from telecine. i will be going super16, but would like to know nonetheless.

35mm is always going to look sharper and more fine grained than Super 16, even on a video transfer. But the difference is less noticeable than it is when you project the image onto a screen.

Is the grain size on the neg the same, for example,

The grain is the same on the neg of a Super 8, 16mm, 35mm, and 65mm film. What matters is the amount of magnification you give the image, which makes the grains look larger or smaller. A Super 8 frame is very small so the grains have to be magnified all the more to fill the same screen size as a 16mm frame, for example.

And grain aside, how similar/different would the contrast and colour rendition be between a 35mm pos, and 16-to-35mm-blow up pos?

That has to do with the quality of the optical work. Any time you have an "intermediate stage" - that is, anything other than a direct negative to positive printing stage - you're going to have somewhat more contrast and a loss of resolution. This is true with 16mm to 35mm, or 16mm to 16mm, or 35mm to 35mm.

I presume the lattitude of the negs is the same.

How close are the print films of the formats?

Print films are identical in 16mm and 35mm. The latitude is also the same, since the negative stock is the same.

Jarin Blaschke · March 8, 2004

The latitude is technically the same between the two formats, but one could argue that 35 sees more into the shadows since there is more resolution there.

Andrew Greenan · March 8, 2004

Thanks guys.

nice to get little nagging back-of-the mind questions cleared up.

i know the need for blow-up, and resulting grain magnification makes the two difficult to compare.

what i'm really talking about is contrast, colour hold, latitude etc. would i be able to compare 5217 (200T) and 5212(100T) in the same way as 7217 and 7212?

The latitude is technically the same between the two formats, but one could argue that 35 sees more into the shadows since there is more resolution there.

i think i know what you mean. but maybe i'm thinking noise in shadows on a blow-up print.

Filip Plesha · March 8, 2004

would i be able to compare 5217 (200T) and 5212(100T) in the same way as 7217 and 7212?

Definitivley

the only difference between 5217 and 7217 is how they

cut the base material,the emulsion is the same.

think of it this way,take a knife and cut out a 16mm wide

tape out of 5217 negative and if it had perforations and code on the side it would

be 7217. that is basicly what they do at Eastman kodak.

first they have a very wide tape and then cut it to different widths.

both 16mm and 35mm and 65mm are cut from the same stuff.

But that wasn't always like that,in the old days before 5247

there was a different emulsion for 35mm and 16mm, well

at least the numbers were different,16mm was'n called 7254.

Dominic Case · March 9, 2004

the numbers were different,16mm was'n called 7254

Yes it was. ( I remember it well . . .)

I seem to recall a time in the early days of 5247 and 7247 when they weere the same emulsion, but the 35mm was rated at EI 125, and the 16mm was rated at EI 100.

This reflected the fact that underexposed negative produces a grainier image, particularly in the shadows. Of course this is more critical in 16mm. Because the EI speed system is based partly on what produces an "acceptable" image, the EI speed rating ended up as a bit slower for the 16mm. Even though the emulsion was identical.

These days, the film is rated the same, and people just know to expose a little more for 16mm especially for a blow-up.

Filip Plesha · March 9, 2004

Yea you are right,i just checked the chronology of films at kodak.com

i don't know where i got the idea then,vierd.

I should revise my film history. :huh:

Anyway,the first two versions of 5247 were allso 100 ASA

i think (the one released and pulled from production the same year and used in europe untill the "real" 5247 didn't came out, and the real one (released in 1976)),

the recomended ASA rating was changed later to 125.

By the way,you used those oldies? You must go way back..