Using 16mm as opposed to Super 16

R

rc444

Well-known member
Hi everyone,

I'm toying with the idea of getting a 16mm camera for $700 from an auction site. 8mm is not an option for me because of the small guage and the shortage of support for 8mm stock etc, at least in NZ. Super 16mm is not an option either, it's a bit dear for me, so 16mm is very appealing.

I'm aware of the physical differences between 16mm and Super 16. Super 16 obviously yields a bigger picture, and I believe it has a 25% increase in picture size compared to 16mm when projected.

8mm and super 16 seems to get a lot of press when it comes to the smaller indie film formats, but I hear very little about standard 16mm. Questions:

1. Has anyone here shot on standard 16mm? How have they found using it?
2. Is there much support in terms of stock / lens for standard 16 cameras?
3. I know Super 16 projects quite well. But is standard 16 passable in terms of quality when projected in a cinema?

Look forward to your answers.
David
 
Super 16 is the exact same film stock as 16mm; buying the stock, processing, and transfer should all cost exactly the same.

If there's any cost increase in going to Super16, it'd be in the cost of the camera and lenses (not all 16mm lenses cover the full Super16 frame).

S16 and 16mm are the same format, basically. 16mm is a 4:3 ratio, S16 is a little bit wider so it approaches (but doesn't completely reach) a 16:9 ratio.

When framing for 4:3, the formats are identical. There is no difference whatsoever, when shooting 4:3.

When shooting widescreen, S16 has a big advantage. It's natively widescreen (about 1.6:1), whereas with regular 16 you'd have to crop off the top and bottom. You end up getting over 40% more surface area with S16, vs. cropped regular-16; a 16:9 version of R16 = about 56 square mm, vs. S16 which yields 81 square mm.

So if you're shooting widescreen, S16 holds a big edge.

The difference is going to be noticeable in terms of grain and sharpness, S16 will obviously be sharper in projection with less visible grain.
 
Super 16 actually does not project at all (except for some labs that allow you to screen dailies in that format) - you have to optically print it to regular 16 or 35mm for distribution. Super 16 uses the same stock as regular 16 (just make sure you get single perf.). Buy a Bolex - there are several places that can convert it to Super 16 when you are ready (that's what I did).
 
Yes, that certainly bears mentioning as well: S16 is an origination-only format, but it has to be transferred to 35mm for projection (or video, if you want). It's possible to transfer to to R16 for projection but not a lot of compelling reasons why you'd want to do that; you'd lose all the advantages of S16 in the process, and there's extremely little in the way of 16mm infrastructure in today's theaters.
 
Watch "the Shield" it's shot on S16 and even then is pushed to extremes. They do tons of "cool" things including readjusting the f-stop as they go from inside to outside etc. You will see that opticaly S16 is lower res then HD (i said opticaly boys!) that said though it has its strenghts. For instance deeply personal movies such as "Brown Bunny" would be unwatchable if it wasn't shot on film - knowing that each minute of the film cots money to shoot i payed more attention to the "inaction" on the screen.
 
I just shot my first test project on 16mm B/W reversal. I was required to shoot with the stock, but oh man, it looked sweet. I was wondering, would shooting S16 and getting a transfer to HD be worth it for a short (5-7min) film? Would HD be overkill for the format? After the lab has sent you the material on a HDD, how much room is there for grading (in AE for instance)?

I am just thinking out loud here. I have several months to decide what I want my final to be shot on, but I want to start investigating now.
 
Well, some 16mm film stock will not work for super 16 because it has perfs along both sides. Not common but I have inherited some rawstock because my old MOS ARRI will digest it.

On the other hand you have to make sure your lab is set up to handle super 16 if you're using that format, because part of the image area extends out into part of the film that was commonly carried on the "shoulder" of the rollers in labs set up for regular 16mm and will get some nasty scratches.

Most film production for television in Sweden and for the BBC was regular 16mm 25fps when I was there in the '80s, and it looked great. Super 16 was invented by a swede named Rune Eriksson and was intended for blow-up to 35mm 1:66. It makes an almost perfect 16x9 transfer. My only complaint was that many telecines introduced an irritating "weave" back and forth that was not present in the filmed image.

You get nicer color range, especially near the white end where video still falls apart. Also shooting time-lapse of the sun is less worrisome.

Regular 16mm still has some life in it, but processing and digitizing are expensive.

Cheers,
Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top