Does R16 look better blown up to 35 than U16 scanned then out to 35?

[Trevor McClung]

Having trouble getting answers.

Ultra 16 for me is a way to make R16 look better with a nail file and 2000 grain sand paper. I'm wondering if it would look better scanned at 2 or 4k and then recorded to 35 vs. a cropped blow up to 35 from R16.

 

Super 16 would be nice but if I'm going to upgrade I'm going to 35 2perf so Ultra haters please don't beat me up.

Thanks

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

Your question is a little unclear; I can't tell if you want to compare U16 and R16 within the same workflow, or if you want to compare an U16 film -> digital -> 35mm film workflow to an all-analog R16 -> 35mm optical blowup workflow.

 

For the former, you can see for yourself: https://vimeo.com/7091040

 

For the latter, optical blowups usually necessitate multiple intermediate copies before arriving at the final print. Though I like the look of the all-analog process, the reduced number of steps between camera negative and final print in a digital workflow is generally considered to preserve more of the detail present in the original negative.

[Trevor McClung]

Wow, that's cool. Thanks.

I'll try to explain myself better.

I understand that you can't blow up U16 to 35 so you have to scan and then record out to film.

So I'm wondering if it's better to scan u16 then record out to film or blow up the r16 to film?