S16mm looking like 35mm

[francoisdop]

HI,

 

Does anyone have some tricks to make S16mm looking like shot on 35mm ?

(Appart from shooting wide open to achieve a narrow depth of field,

and properly exposing the neg : having a black and a white reference in each frame + overexposed slightly and print down)

thanks a lot (in advance)

[Dimitrios Koukas]

HI,

 

Does anyone have some tricks to make S16mm looking like shot on 35mm ?

(Appart from shooting wide open to achieve a narrow depth of field,

and properly exposing the neg : having a black and a white reference in each frame + overexposed slightly and print down)

thanks a lot (in advance)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As in previous topics discussed, go for the lowest film stock you can.50 ASA or so.

This will cost you more lights but the result is far more better.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Laurent Andrieux]

having a black and a white reference in each frame

:blink: :huh: :unsure:

[Dimitrios Koukas]

:blink:  :huh:  :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Be nice

:)

Dim

[Robert Glenn]

buying a good lens might help. Film stocks seem to be formulated for 35mm blowup and HD transfers today, so good equipment should maximize the results

[John Pytlak RIP]

HI,

 

Does anyone have some tricks to make S16mm looking like shot on 35mm ?

(Appart from shooting wide open to achieve a narrow depth of field,

and properly exposing the neg : having a black and a white reference in each frame + overexposed slightly and print down)

thanks a lot (in advance)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some resources:

 

http://www.duart.com/pdf/16mm-35mm.pdf

 

http://www.colorlab.com/services/blowupsf.html

 

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

 

http://www.cameraguild.com/php/phorum/read...f=1&i=339&t=339

[Laurent Andrieux]

Be nice

:)

Dim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What's not nice ? :D

[Wendell_Greene]

Well if this is for TK and not for print, have your transfer done on a Spirit with Da Vinci cc by a top of the line colorist. A growing number of music videos today are shot on S16 using high quality lenses, Kodak Vision2 stocks. When lit and exposed well and with a great transfer and viewed on TV, you really can't tell the difference from 35mm.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Some recent Super-16 productions for HD or the big screen:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.6&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...0.1.4.3.8&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...nkenstein.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...earnhardt.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...rDieAlone.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why.../mcAlpine.jhtml

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

If you want S16 to look like 35mm never use a focal length lens wider then 25mm. That is the secret!

[Sam Wells]

I can think of many many 35mm films with considerable depth of field.

 

This is as much a question of fashion as physics as far as I'm concerned.

 

-Sam

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

16mm has come a long way but when you slap a wideangle lens on the camera, the optical design of a wide angle lens delivers a wider view by making everything in the picture smaller including fine detail. If you stay away from the WA's and alway use the longest lens possible you magnify detail and deliver more of a 35mm look.

 

Works great if you can back up!

My lens package is in two cases the wides and the tights . Always leave the wides in the production vehicle.

[Matt Pacini]

Well, there's two ways of looking at that .

I love the look of wide angle lenses, and in my opinion, it "looks like" there is more detail in the frame, exactly because it's making things in the background smaller (and it's not as important to see the detail of).

 

 

But anyway, my advice is;

1. Use the lowest ISO speed film you can (as mentioned above)

2. Use the sharpest lenses you can get.

3. Err on the side of closeups for your compositions.

[Guest santo]

I can think of many many 35mm films with considerable depth of field.

 

This is as much a question of fashion as physics as far as I'm concerned.

 

-Sam

 

It may be a question of fashion in Hollywood studio films of today, but in the past a shallower depth of field in 35mm indicated a lower budget film as the colour stocks were so slow that they required major lighting. As an example -- and it's just because I was looking for examples of early 1960's colour films and their palette -- I looked at REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN and then at a Doris Day/Rock Hudson movie of the same time period. Now Revenge is photographed by the great Jack Asher who achieved cinematography god status with BRIDES OF DRACULA, but one can see, in spite of the terrific colour design and photography, that even in a well-lit scene like the meeting of the medical council, there is very short depth of field as the lighting equipment was distinctly limited and a much larger f-stop obviously had to be used than in the big budget Hollywood studio Doris Day/Hudson movie. In the latter movie everything is in focus except in extreme close-up situations. In Revenge's medical council scene certainly nothing would be gained from having certain characters not in focus and others in focus, especially when they have dialogue and are making important plot points, but it is is obvious ther was little choice but to strike a compromise.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

What's not nice ? :D

 

Just joking here,

I didn't got the white and black reference cards either, I would suggest a colour patch or a grey card instead.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Joseph White]

i shot some 7217 with cooke s4's on super 16mm - only used the 25mm and the 75mm really - and it looked damn close to 35mm. it was for tape, so there was no blowup, but you had to get real close to the screen to really tell the difference between it and 35mm. and that was on a 200t stock too so i didn't even need massive lights. more than anything just be really super careful about your exposures and your ratios and it'll look grand.

[Stephen Williams]

i shot some 7217 with cooke s4's on super 16mm - only used the 25mm and the 75mm really - and it looked damn close to 35mm. it was for tape, so there was no blowup, but you had to get real close to the screen to really tell the difference between it and 35mm. and that was on a 200t stock too so i didn't even need massive lights. more than anything just be really super careful about your exposures and your ratios and it'll look grand.

 

Hi,

 

In effect all you did was zoom in on a 35mm film frame. Why other than grain should there big difference?

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

16mm has come a long way but when you slap a wideangle lens on the camera, the optical design of a wide angle lens delivers a wider view by making everything in the picture smaller including fine detail. My lens package is in two cases the wides and the tights . Always leave the wides in the production vehicle.

 

You could say this about any format.

 

Size of things in the frame depend also on how close you are and how big they are !

 

I would suggest that a 75mm lens in S16 could easily look softer than a 10mm if you had atmospheric haze for instance.

 

-Sam

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

You could say this about any format.

 

Size of things in the frame depend also on how close you are and how big they are !

 

I would suggest that a 75mm lens in S16 could easily look softer than a 10mm if you had atmospheric haze for instance.

 

-Sam

 

 

I would like to try and stay on this list with out engaging in a heated discussion. I could get into the psychological and optical reasons why shooting longer then normal lenses mimic the look of 35mm on Super 16, but then we could argue the merits of those comments. I would rather simply state this.

First the orginal question: how do you make S16 look like 35

 

1) SlowGrainless Film

2)Proper exposure -This may refer to the grey card comment

3)Sharp lenses

4) A Good Tripod

 

We agree on this yes?

 

 

My humble comment - Use 25mm or longer focal lengths and back up

 

 

If there is enough interest I will set up my camera create a sample scene and capture jpeg frames thru the Jurgens video assist.

 

I can preview 9.5/12/16/25/35/50/65/85mm focal lengths sorry the 18 is on vaction and my longer lenses will take to much time to mount. . Everyone can decide for themselves. Seeing is after all believing right?

[Joseph White]

just saying that the combination of the fine grain stock and high quality lenses gave us a look comparable to 35mm on super 16mm. basically reiterating what most have been stating - about exposure, lens quality and fine grain stock. cooke also now makes wide angle s4's for super 16mm which are supposed to look fantastic too.

 

 

 

Hi,

 

In effect all you did was zoom in on a 35mm film frame. Why other than grain should there big difference?

 

Stephen

[Dickson Sorensen]

Super 16 to 35mm

 

My advice:

 

Use medium to fine grain film.

Top quality optics.

Camera gate properly seating & regestered.

the f stop wider in 16 than 35

after transfer its hard to tell the difference

 

I saw tests that Kodak did transfered to HD and it was amazing. In fact at one point when we rewound the tape and lost track of which take we we looking at we couldn't identify visually the 16 from 35 takes. The secret is that in 16 you have no room for error. Any mistake may be unforgiving. In 35 you have a lot more lattitude for error and the ability to re frame in transfer. If going to interneg for film prints it is a whole different matter then 35 really stands out.

[Andy Sparaco SOC]

Super 16 to 35mm

 

The secret is that in 16 you have no room for error. Any mistake may be unforgiving. In 35 you have a lot more lattitude for error and the ability to re frame in transfer.

 

 

Very true indeed. You must be a careful worker.