-
I read that this movie was shot on Super 16, so I rented it to see what that is like. I know there are a lot of factors involved, in how the VHS tape I viewed was mastered. However, all that aside, that film sure looks good to me. I can't remember ever being so impressed by a 16mm movie.
Really makes that much difference eh? My girlfriend said it looked just like a "regular" movie to her.
Whenever there was a fade, or a really dark shot it would get grainy, but otherwise very beautiful in my eyes, the color, the lighting, contrast, etc.
Anyone care to comment?
-M
------------------
-
on a good video copy the grain is very visible throughout the movie. i think it's becasue they used a fast stock and very little lighting though, and not because it's 16.
/matt
-
Yeah, I thought it looked great.
There's no question it's good enough for professional work.
He shot it on an Aaton, I believe.
I didn't care for the movie that much, but I wish I'd have seen in at the theater in 35mm, to see how the blowup looked.
I wonder if they telecine'd the S16 neg, or the 35mm print that had been timed.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
I saw it in a theater. It looked great. I had no idea it was super 16 until I read an article about it later.
------------------
-
That's interesting. To my unsuspecting eye I wouldn't have any clue it wasn't a Panavision, etc. But why would somebody shoot a movie in Super 16? What are the benefits over 35mm?
------------------
-
Lower film costs and better depth of field than 35mm, for starters. Also, the equipment is lighter and more portable. Cheaper to rent, too. Better depth of field means less light which means smaller crews, no genny and fewer power tie-ins, since you can almost always muster about 10,000 watts off available breakers by spreading the power across several circuits.
Anyway, these are some of the benefits of Super 16. If you are going letterboxed on HD, then it works great for video also.
Roger
-
On a funny note-
When Nicolas Cage heard that the movie was going to be shot on Super 16, he "politely" to the director that if he needed the extra money to shoot in 35mm, he would pay for it.
What a nice guy.
Scott
------------------
-
As an avid S16 shooter and as a S16 Owner/Operator. I can tell you that the interpositive stocks that are made now are great and that you will really have to look to see that it was blown up. I did some tests using reversal to 35mm Neg to 35mm Pos. I thought that it cut out a step which would mean that it would look better--But it actually increased contrast.
I would venture to say that they made the video copies both VHS and DVD off of the Neg. In order to get the best quality on your tapes that is usually what is done. They might not have used the camera originals but a copy.
------------------
-
Hey Nigel, I'm curious about something:
When shooting S16 for blowup, do they color time it:
1. When they make the interpos, then just make the 35 neg & release prints without messing with it?
2. After the interpos, when they make the 35mm neg?
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Hi, guys!
Nigel: I did the same test years ago and found the same thing. Reversal just was never designed for reproduction. That's why the contrast was higher. When they were shooting "The Deer Hunter" and wanted a reversal documentary look for the Vietnam footage, they actually printed the negative and then duped right off a projection print. No one had the balls to shoot reversal!
Matt: When the timing is done is dependent on whether the film was cut on 16mm or 35mm. If the film was shot on super 16mm and then the selected takes were blown up to 35mm for editing, then the final timing would probably be done during the answer print stage, though some timing issues must be addressed during any kind of film printing. It isn't just a "load and copy" process.
However, if the film were cut on 16mm, then the timing could be done when A/B rolling to 35mm interpositive material on an optical printer, which would be the best way, but more expensive. I know a lot of people that will contact print to 16mm interpositive material first, because contact printing is cheaper, then blow up the 16mm interpositive to 35mm negative. However the grain difference and sharpness is hugely different than A/B rolling directly from the 16mm negative to 35mm interpositive. Just depends on the budget assigned for the blow up.
After posting this information, I realized that I have been assuming you are talking about traditional optical printing. I would imagine that with today's technology for scanning and printing back to film, super 16mm could be scanned and printed to 35mm with a great degree of control. How cost effective that would be, I don't know.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 22, 2001).]
