Landscapes shot in Super 16

[David Preddy]

Hi there,

 

I'm trying to get an idea of the image quality of shooting a landscape (more specifically a desert landscape) in Super 16.

Does anyone know any films/scenes from films that I could watch to get an idea of this?

 

Right now I'm deciding between shooting in s16 or 2 perf 35mm.

 

If I shot s16 I'd probably be using an SR3 with Arri/Zeiss Ultra 16s

 

Thanks!

 

David

[Bruce Greene]

I would shoot the 2perf 35mm. The difference in price should be minimal. Image quality will be substantially better, unless you want a really grainy look from the 16mm.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I don't think Super 16 is really ideal for wide landscapes. It can be a bit soft especially if you're using 500T. For close ups, it is great.

 

I believe most, if not all, of Ken Burns' documentaries like 'The National Parks' were shot on the format, so that would be a good start for reference. Though I don't know what lenses they were using.

[Pavan Deep]

Look at the film Theeb [2014], there are a lot of landscape shots, it was shot in a desert on Super 16 with an Arri 416 and Hawk anamorphics.

 

Pav

Edited March 20, 2017 by Pavan Deep

[Chris Burke]

But on the other hand, ultra 16s paired with 7203 can be very sharp. Still 2 perf wins out. I feel the wide-format really is well suited for Desert landscapes.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I think most of those ken burns shoots are on the Canon S16mm Zooms, but don't quote me too hard on that.

 

on S16mm, desert, you're on 50D, which I think would be just fine, honestly and might be easier than 2-perf which can be hard to source bodies for and you're stuck in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

 

If that's what you want, go 2-perf, but if you don't, then S16mm or splurge and go 3 perf 35.

[Brian Drysdale]

I always shot Super16 using the slowest film I could get away with using. I'd go for 50D in landscapes. like that.

[David Cunningham]

My concern would be grain more than sharpness... all those flat colors like blue sky and yellow desert sand will lend itself to making the grain more obvious and intrusive.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I should have clarified - wide landscape shots in Super 16 can look soft, if you are used to shooting on modern digital cameras (which most people are). Some of the aesthetically pleasing softness of film (especially small gauge film) that we love for faces in close-ups can also work against you in a wide shot.

 

Shooting on slow film stock in high contrast situations, with sharp lenses at a deep stop can help mitigate some of this. Polarizers and ND grads can help increase contrast and apparent sharpness. And digital scans of the negative will look sharper than a telecine or a photochemical print.

[Logan Thomas Triplett]

To me Super 16 and 2 perf 35 are two very different paint brushes. Both formats are similar in cost as you get 22 min at 2 perf 35 for a 100 ft mag and you get 11 or so minutes /400 ft mag on SS16 (Super 16mm still is cheaper, but its not a CRAZY difference).

 

To me the looks are very different. I adore super 16mm, and wouldn't be afraid of the grain, its lovely. That being said, its not for everything. Sure, my initial thought is to go w/ 2 perf 35 because it is a much wider format and we are talking about landscapes, but then again good cinematography isn't always about going with the most obvious choice, so I would explore both. They are both two of my favorite formats.

 

Also I would heavily consider the type of shoot you are on, as it is much easier to throw a 416 on your shoulder although there are some lighter weight 2 perf options too, especially w/ 400 ft mags. I had this very same decision this fall, and because of camera avail I went with ss16 and a 416 and fell back in love with 16mm. I wouldn't count it out.

 

Happy shooting!