Black Swan / 16mm, DSLR Quality better?

H

Homunculus

Carbonite Member
For those of you who have seen the Black Swan trailer (latest Arronofsky film),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jaI1XOB-bs

you can see by the quality that unless my eyes are failing me, it strongly appears to be shot in 16mm as the quality seems very similar to The Wrestler which is also in 16mm. The footage is extremely grainy and doesn't appear to have as good color rendition and possibly latitude / DR as 35mm.

So I am just curious, are DSLR's approaching or equivalent to the quality of 16mm, at least the top DSLR's like GH13, Canon 5d/7d etc? Or does 16mm still have the image in resolution, colors, DR, etc, if so how? In terms of clarity at least it seems DSLR's have the edge as this 16mm stuff seems extremely grainy but I am just curious whether it still holds the edge. Perhaps only Red One can beat out 16mm in all those above mentioned categories.

My other point, could this film have been shot with a DSLR and basically gotten the same exact look? Could the Wrestler have as well? Or are there still some major advantages I'm missing that even 16mm holds over top DSLR's?

By the way, can't wait to see the movie, it's getting immense early reviews, 93% on Rotten Tomatoes so far. Arronofsky is my favorite director right now.
 
Never seen a side-by-side comparison of 16mm to DSLR, but it seems like someone should have done it by now...

According to Imdbpro, Black Swan was shot on 16mm with an Arriflex 416, and then was processed at 2K for the DI. Film stock was [SIZE=-1]Fuji Eterna Vivid 160T 8643
[/SIZE]
 
Hmm this is a complicated question that would involve lots of answers probably not appreciated by everyone. I'll just say a few things in response to the original post.

There are reasons to shoot 16mm over 35mm. Some want the gritty feel and feel it's best achieve through shooting 16mm over shooting clean and adding all of the elements in post...so that could be why they chose it over 35mm or even a RED or an Alexa or anything else.

The codec scares many away right now I think, me being one of those people. I've seen how it can be helped (5DtoRGB is particularly good), but it still has its setbacks. It's a tool like any other and while it has it's drawbacks some have made them look really awesome in lots of different lighting situations.

The resolution might be very comparable, and I bet the DSLR would definitely be cleaner but in a digital way and not a film way...especially in low-light. BUT, I might take the range of film and the grain over the digital blocks and such in a DSLR. Pick your poison I guess. 16mm film and the range of H264 Compressed 5D footage aren't exactly equal...and if they could be called "close" they aren't close in the exactly same way nor will they look the same.

I don't want to call one better than the other. 16mm and a 5D are different in 1000 ways, but (as you can see) they're both being used to tell a story and whoever chose the 16mm chose it because he/she wanted to or had a specific reason.

Somebody please correct me if I've said something wrong, I'm curious to hear responses.
 
Sure you can make a movie with any camera ever made. DSLR's still have that bit plastic non-filmic DSLR look (I own 5D).
 
Just to address the question on latitude; 16mm film has exactly the same latitude as 35mm or IMAX film. It's just film, but cut into smaller pieces. As such, 16mm is still going to hold the edge in dynamic range.
 
it was made on an iPhone 4, which is the quintessential capture device nowadays. with some 5D Mk II footage intercut.
 
robotsound said:
Just to address the question on latitude; 16mm film has exactly the same latitude as 35mm or IMAX film. It's just film, but cut into smaller pieces. As such, 16mm is still going to hold the edge in dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Very true, as I've always thought... but there is actually a small increase in perceived latitude, when resolution is greatly increased.

I asked David Mullen about this when I came across an article in American Cinematographer where DP John Shwartzman alluded to gaining shadow detail and latitude when shooting anamorphic versus S35mm crop... despite the same film stock.

Here is the post:
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=425448&postcount=1977

Here is D. Mullens response:
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=425461&postcount=1980

For the most part, yes. Kodak 5219 and 7219 should have the same attributes. But better resolution = more fine detail and gradients in tones and color.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the filmmakers - Libatique and Aranofsky really set out to make this a "beautiful" film like The Red Shoes. Everything looked unrefined to me, even the lighting. And I think most of that was intentional.

Super 16mm film doesn't have to be that grainy if exposed correctly. There's a lot of good grain reduction tools you can apply in post to retain detail and yet reduce a lot of the grain you would see in an unprocessed 2K DI. Obviously they didn't choose to do that.

I don't know where everyone saw this movie. But I saw it in a Landmark theatre in the westside pavilion here in LA and it looked horrible. Everything I see in a Landmark theatre looks horrible, I just end up there because my friends are all close by to this theatre. Never again. I don't know who does their DMR, or whether they use Arri's or not, or do IP's, but something is really messed up with their process so that everything I see there looks like its projected from a DVD. Crap. Crap. Crap. No more $14 for crap! You hear me Landmark??
 
Doctor Wu said:
I don't think the filmmakers - Libatique and Aranofsky really set out to make this a "beautiful" film like The Red Shoes. Everything looked unrefined to me, even the lighting. And I think most of that was intentional.

Super 16mm film doesn't have to be that grainy if exposed correctly. There's a lot of good grain reduction tools you can apply in post to retain detail and yet reduce a lot of the grain you would see in an unprocessed 2K DI. Obviously they didn't choose to do that.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure! You nailed it. Many think 16mm just falls apart like that naturally. With modern filmstocks, lenses, and post treatment, you kinda have to TRY to get that kinda look. Grain structure in today's film stocks are soooo much better than that of the past. :)
 
Oh, and you're absolutely right about the film grain and resolution influencing perceived dynamic range. That David Mullen thread on RedUser is truly one of the highlights of the internet :)
 
Come on now gentlemen, we have to acknowledge that the use of the HDSLR in black swan was primarily a marketing exercise.
I mean really, come on, what was the point of shooting such a small amount of the film on the HDSLR's ?
Did it really add that much to the story?

It seems to me that we all know what happened behind the scenes that were shot on HDSLR's, but we pay less attention to what these scenes were actually about.
These scenes were mainly just an ad for this new technology.
They are a statement from the filmmakers that "wow check it out! We were using cutting edge technology when we made this film! And so can you!"
 
not to defend the people that stole the plot from Perfect Blue and said it was not even an influence, but I actually think it was not a marketing thing:
* first, because most people don't know about it, it's only us in this very small world, so as a marketing thing it would just not be worth it
* and then, because there's another reason that sounds quite plausible to me: they just wanted to have a very small camera package in order to shoot run-and-gun and without permits:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Black-Swan-Canon-7D-subway-scenes.png
 
* first, because most people don't know about it, it's only us in this very small world
Click to expand...

We haven't got any kind of inside scoop here pal.
Do you really think that all the teenage arronofsky buffs around the world wouldn't know about this?

they just wanted to have a very small camera package in order to shoot run-and-gun and without permits:
Click to expand...

Do you really buy that? I don't think that one of the most in-demand directors at the moment would have trouble with permits.
 
Last edited:
lighten-up-anyone-touches-my-stuff-and-i-ll-kill-you-demotivational-poster-1253664846.jpg
 
jerum3030 said:
Do you really buy that? I don't think that one of the most in-demand directors at the moment would have trouble with permits.
Click to expand...

Absolutely I believe that. This wasn't a high budget studio film (I think Aronofsky prefers the hands on, low budget type of film-making, but that's a different discussion). Did you see the screenshot posted of the subway scenes? Just because you're a somewhat in-demand director doesn't mean you have free access to everything you could ever want. It's like when an A-list actor takes on a low budget indie movie... they don't make their usual rate, they don't have their usual high end amenities.

I'm sure they didn't have the budget nor time to jump through hoops to get the permits, close down the subway for a few days, find a company to fill it with extras (payed), days of pre-pro, planning, and on and on and on. They had a [relatively speaking] small crew; they went out and shot their movie. Bam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top