Rob McCray Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Is there that big of a visible difference between these two formats when telecined for 16x9? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted July 1, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted July 1, 2012 Slight, but if you knew what to look for it might be possible with the same stock, camera and lens; one ultra and one super. Even regular 16 cropped in can look great if it is shot well and telecined/colored well. However, it doesn't really matter, it comes down to a financial decision usually. If you can afford Super 16 it is better because of size and compatibility of telecine/scan. Ultra will make more sense on cameras like a Scoopic where it is very expensive to try and covert to Super 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giray Izcan Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I don't think the difference would be noticable when used same stock same lighting and same lens. I am waiting to get my NPR back from Bernie this week, so I will see ultra 16 first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giray Izcan Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Also, with super 16 camera prices or cheaper, you can get a nice bl3 set from Visual Products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob McCray Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Thanks guys! But looking at your sample clips, Will, you make me want to go 35mm! The easter clip is gorgeous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted July 5, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted July 5, 2012 Thanks guys! But looking at your sample clips, Will, you make me want to go 35mm! The easter clip is gorgeous. When you take into consideration that the costs of processing 16mm are only slightly less and transfer is the same cost, 35mm starts to become appealing. Also, short-ends and re-cans are much more available with 35mm which also keeps costs down. In fact, 35mm has never been cheaper to own and shoot. Just go with a PL camera so your lens investments will transfer to pro digital cameras as well. 16mm is still a great option due to its compact nature and longer running times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob McCray Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Yes, I was just looking at some old posts about 35mm costing less than 16mm (if you do it right). What I wish is that the price of converting a Konvas 2M to 3-perf was much lower. That to me would be ideal and I'd make the move to 35mm without hesitation. But then again, maybe the 25% savings in film isn't all that much when you're already saving due to short-ends/re-cans. 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