Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/12/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
    I agree. It's not 35mm, so why pretend it is?
  3. 1 point
    Exceeding in what way? If you are going for a specific film look, why pick a digital camera? Which digital camera produces a film look without having to tweak the images in post? Honest question.
  4. 1 point
    Check out First Man (2018), S16 intercut with mostly 2 and 3 perf 35mm. I saw it on the big screen (digital) and it all looked fantastic. I've also got it on Blu Ray. The first part of the movie is S16. Looked just slightly grainy but great in the theatre. The rest of the movie is mostly 2 perf 35mm. The S16 was particularly good for the cockpit shots and when they filmed in the command module/LEM. Walking on the moon set was shot in 65mm. But if you mean making 35mm prints, super 16 might be quite grainy. Then again, it's certainly been done with success. Modern audiences, accustomed to crystal clear digital imagery, might take a while to acclimatize to it.
  5. 1 point
    A) No B) Steadiness is better with 35, cameras with register pins provided. Unsteadiness is distributed over a longer piece of film holding the image. Additionally, positioning errors are less magnified from 35, equal screen sizes compared. C) Dangerous ground for answering; some would speak of a typical 35 look but could never define it clearly. What we can do is divide the historical development into distinct optical and presentational periods. The pioneers, mostly trained photographers or vaudeville entrepreneurs tried out everything thinkable. With films from between 1888 and 1928 speed is erratic, aspect ratios wild, lighting chaotic, lenses everything from two- to six-elements systems. A certain standard had come along with the Tessar lens, orthochromatic raw stock, the 3-to-4 image aspect ratio, and carbon arc lamps. Then the talkies cemented frame rate, camera movements, indoor lighting level, normal focal length a little shorter. The next period must be labeled color with the inlay of the série noire, both streams in the light of high-intensity carbon arcs. Modern documentary production established itself during the thirties. The last major change to the 35 look came with wide screen presentation, xenon arc light, and coated lenses throughout. 16 to 35 was done since 1923 but Super-16 was not practised until 1970. You cannot play 16 as big as 35. When a 16 original is enlarged to 35 grain is, too. As a matter of fact today’s colour stocks are more finely grained than the films of the fifties, Kodachrome being the exception that proves the rule. The worst time in terms of colours and pictorial quality were the late seventies. Lighting practice got a little sloppy then.
  6. 1 point
    No, grain size is a factor because of the smaller S16 neg and if you want a really shallow DoF. You can have a visually great S16 film, but they are different.
  7. 1 point
    Take care to do your research on what DVD stock you use, some are more stable for archive then others. I'd assume the archive grade is better then HDD but at this point its still a guess. I think the main issue with DVD's is they don't hold much data. A 4TB HDD would take a lot of space if written out to DVDs. Blu Ray of course is better data wise - but I wonder if its more or less robust for archival purposes.
×
×
  • Create New...