Jerry Pesta Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 First post. Be gentle. :) I've searched the forums but was unable to find an answer. A few months ago I saw Black Swan in a theater and was very impressed with the cinematography. I understand that the film was shot largely on Super 16, and cropped to 2.35:1 for exhibition. I am curious to know how Regular 16 cropped to 1.85:1 would compare. Have there been any recent films that have been shot on Regular 16 and cropped to 1.85:1 for exhibition? Could Regular 16 cropped to 1.85:1 look as good as Black Swan? I realize that "good" is incredibly subjective. Would Regular 16 cropped to 1.85:1 be about as grainy as Super 16 cropped to 2.35:1 if one were to use the same lenses and stocks that were used on Black Swan? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 R16 cropped to 1.85:1 has around 40% less negative area than s16 in the same AR. That is a considerable difference. Using the latest slow stocks will help to mitigate the increased grain, but you will still see a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Hobbs Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I don't think the difference would be that dramatic. You might not see grain in every circumstance. You would definitely want to make sure you have a thick negative. Super 16 cropped to 2.35 is 5.3mm x 12.5mm giving you a diagonal of 13.6mm and an area of 66.25 square mm's Regular 16 cropped to 1.85 is 5.5mm x 10.26mm giving you a diagonal of 11.6mm and an area of 56.43 square mm's And for reference Super 16 is 7.41mm x 12.5mm giving you a diagonal of 14.53mm and an area of 92.6 square mm's The difference isn't incredibly great. They are almost exactly the same height on the negative. You're stock choice and post process would probably have a greater effect on the resulting image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 The 1.85/1 image height of 16R is around 0.202", while the height of 2,35/1 is around 0.202". Hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Vincent Sweeney Posted May 3, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2011 The question here is why would you bother shooting R16 at all? For a feature, you'd want to use a modern, practical, reliable 16mm camera so just rent a Prod or SR3 and go for it on S16. The prices now are extremely good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Pesta Posted May 4, 2011 Author Share Posted May 4, 2011 Thank you to all who replied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 The difference isn't incredibly great. They are almost exactly the same height on the negative. It's still a 20% difference, and in 16mm, it all counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now