35mm

[Pavan Deep]

I was wondering about the quality of 35mm, it’s generally accepted that perf  35mm motion picture film is great quality. In still photography 4 perf is the same as half frame and people always say that half frame 35mm is awful quality. Why is the case? Is 35mm still film different.

Pav

[David Sekanina]

Motion picture film is shot at 24fps. The grain is never at the same place from frame to frame, therefore increasing the perceived resolution when projected at 24fps. As a kid I always wondered why the film stills shown in the cinema entrance were so terribly grainy, while the projection looked great. Until I understood the increased resolution at 24fps.

Edited June 14, 2022 by David Sekanina

[David Sekanina]

 

Twenty-five years ago I made large Cibachrome/Ilfchrome prints from 16mm Kodachrome frames shot with my Arriflex16BL. They looked like pointillism paintings by Seurat. But when projected it looked a lot less grainy.

Edited June 14, 2022 by David Sekanina

[Mark Dunn]

Well, full-frame 35mm. neg should be pretty grain-free at 10x8 and acceptable at 16x20, certainly up to 200ISO, so that puts the half-frame limit at about 8x6. So not "awful" but it may explain why it never really caught on.

As to the still/cine difference, David's post needs no elaboration. The effective shutter speed at 24pps is rarely above 1/50 second, so there is often considerable motion blur in every frame which the brain simply ignores, but seen as a still it would be very noticeable.

16mm. Kodachrome is something to be extremely envious of.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Mark Dunn

[Tyler Purcell]

As David said, when motion picture film moves through a projector, the grain structure from frame to frame, doesn't line up. Thus, at 24fps, there is far less perceivable grain on screen. This is why motion picture film can be 4 perf 35mm and get away with it, even after 4 levels of duplication for prints.