16mm versus super 16

[peter_g]

I'm considering shooting a film on either 16mm or super 16, telecine'ing striaght off the negative and editing on tape. Whats the point in shooting on 1.66:1 super16 when the majority of people will see it on 4:3 TV's? would'nt it make better sense to shoot on 16mm rather then get a lower quality letterbox telecine from super 16? I don't know if anamorphic "squashed" widescreen is an option when the telecine is off super 16mm. This project will not have a negative cut and is unlightly to ever get a cinematic realease

Thanks

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 28, 2003 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Peter_G ]</font>

[Nigel]

You will not get a lower quality telecine by going with letterboxed S16. The quality is the same--It is the iamge area that is not.

I suggest to everyone to shoot S16 because it allows the viewer(Even if they are watching it on TV) to have a more Cinematic exprience.

This is an on going debate--I just worked on a music video where the director wanted an 1.33 image and was dead set on it. I still feel he made a bad mistake.

Plus, in the off chance that you create a work that is stunning and wonderful you can later blow it up with less loss.

Good Luck

[peter_g]

I don't believe the image quality is the same. The post production place I have in mind gives you a letterbox image ment to be viewed on 4:3 aspect ratio TV's

[Nigel]

No you won't lose any resolution--The film itself will not be compromised in any way. What will happen is that in order to see the whole widescreen image you will have to "Shrink" the image but it will not result in any sort of loss on a television screen. The resolving power of film is far greater than can be shown on a TV.

Go with the S16--You won't be sorry. If you have any questions about it email me or ask in detail here.

Good Luck

[Nigel]

There is no offence taken or given. I think that the person that gave yoou these "Facts" is way off base. There will be no loss of resolution. In PAL countries you have TV resolution of 625 lines. Which is far less than film. What the letter box will do is slightly shrink the iamge to fit on the screen but beyond that you will not notice any sort of loss.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say that resolution will be lowered. Show me some numbers.....

I shoot S16 on a very regular basis. I am transfering all of my stuff to DigiBeta and keeping the full 1.66 ratio. It looks great--There is not a single speck of loss in resolution.

The resolving power of film is independant to its aspect ratio.

Good Luck

[peter_g]

I know that any television format is far inferior to film in terms of resolution. Let me put what I mean like this: With super16 telecine'd to PAL & letterboxed there is less pixels of the actual image itself then if you shot on regular 16mm. Ergo, 16mm offers someone a greater number of pixels on a TV screen then super16 would. With super16, alot of those pixels would just be black nothingness. That is what I mean when I say it is lower resolution.

Your way of working sounds like exactly what I want to do. I'd like to hear exactly how it all works step by step with a view to emulating you, if you don't mind taking the time.

Do you rent a digibeta deck? How much does digibeta stock cost? Do you need some kind of capture card?

These are the questions I can never seem to get a satisfactory answer for!

Thanks alot

[Alex]

Peter G, you are right on about the loss of resolution due to the increase in black pixels on the screen. More black video pixels on the screen mean LESS remaining video pixels are available to capture even MORE film info.

More film area on less pixels equals a LOSS in resolution.

I have been told "I didn't know what I was talking about" when I brought this very issue up on another forum, but your deduction is quite logical and one that I agree with.

[peter_g]

what I'm saying is that a significant portion of the screen is filled with black rather then the image itself, in order to accomidate the aspect ratio. Thus, the resolution is lower. Plus some people find it annoying, the two black bars. Its like when they show those ridiculously wide cinemascope movies (They're typically westerns). There so wide that a pan and scan (zooming into the image) is not possible while including all the parts of the image required to make the story work, so they have to waste alot of the image space with black in order to accomidate the aspect ratio.

Its a widescreen image that is intended to be viewed on a 4:3 TV.

Sorry if I come across as patronising, I just was'nt sure if you understood me.

[Nigel]

Peter--

I understand your concern. It would seem that one would get less when they are trying to get more.....

I was going to write more of an explantion but decided it would be to long. Email me and we can go over the details.

Good Luck

[Alex]

Take your time, compose it on your own computer, then share it when it's done to your satisfaction.