35mm vs S16

J. Anthony Gonzales · April 7, 2004

Here's a quick poll, from a D.P.'s point of view:

With all things being equal, except for the following, which would you choose:

A very low ratio shoot with 35mm or a higher ratio (2x-3x) shoot with S16?

Any comments would be great as well.

Thanks,

John G.

David Mullen ASC · April 7, 2004

Entirely depends on the specific project. Tough gritty urban tale with lots of dialogue scenes, I'd go with S16. Shooting unpredictable children and animals, I'd also go for whatever gave me a higher shooting ratio. Controlled, visually polished tale with minimal dialogue and characters, can be well-planned and storyboarded and then can realistically hope to follow the boards, I'd go with 35mm and the lower shooting ratio.

But it really depends on the project, what it needs to look like, and what the logistics are.

John Pytlak RIP · April 7, 2004

I agree with David. If you need to live within a small budget, Super-16 can give you more flexibility. Just don't expect grain-free images on a 60-foot screen. :)

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

Short-ends and recans can save money too, but at some risk if they were poorly stored or handled.

GeorgeSelinsky · April 7, 2004

I agree with Dave pretty much.

In the case of S16 vs 35mm I'd say go with 35mm short ends. Yeah, I'll live with 2 minute loads if I can get 35mm for almost S 16 prices.

For me, 35mm short ends raw stock and negative processing works out to about $21 a minute (plus tape transfer).

Just to compare, 16mm black and white reversal and negative is about $13.50 a minute, color negative and color reversal in 16 is $18 a minute (reversal stock is cheaper but processing usually costs more per foot), and just for fun, Kodachrome 40 in Super 8 with Kodak processing is about $8 a minute All of this is w/o tape transfer, which is a constant save for Super 8 where the rental and p.u./d.o. of the gate is extra (unless you get the Workprinter and do it yourself).

- G.