@Bluestarcinema interesting fact, those interlaced lines don't show up on standard def rear projection tv's (what would have been common back in the early days of video). The interlaced method was devised to put 24 fps film into video. If you took out an old vhs of a disney classic, scanned it to digital, and played it on your computer you would experience those same lines.
@Bluestarcinema I think it's you that needs to take photography 101. A smaller sensor or film gate causes FOV (field of view) crop. If you use a 50mm lens designed for a 35mm camera on a 16mm camera, yes the lens's depth of field does not change, but because of the cropping it becomes equivalent to a longer lens (effectively zooming into the image).
This means that in order to get the same shot from the same distance you need to use a wider lens which with have a longer depth of field.
@Bluestarcinema Effectively smaller sensor does indeed have impact on depth of field. When shooting at same aperture, to shoot the same field of view with larger sensor allowes you to shoot either closer or to shoot with larger focal length, which will yield a narrover depth of field. This is photography 101. Calling other people names is not going to get you very far. Good luck my firend.
*IF* you are using 35mm lenses on a super 16mm format, than yes a smaller sized piece of film will conceal more "out of focus" regions that normally would have been retained on 35mm. This is not the case with Arri and Panavision. Lenses by these manufacturers are tailored for each size of film. A 9.5mm wide angle lens (made for super 16mm) will look EXACTLY the same as a 9.5mm wide angle lens, that was made for 35mm. End of story.
Only low budget filmmakers MIXING lenses have this issue.
@Bluestarcinema That's wrong. 9.5mm is the focal length which is the distance between the rear of the lens and the point where the light focuses on the film plane. 9.5mm on S16 then will always cover less on 35mm.
Visit the arri website where you can see the different angles of view for the lenses design for 35mm and s16mm. A 9.5mm lens on s16mm = 86 degree angle of view. To get the same on 35mm you need 14mm.
Different formats need different focal lengths to get the same angle of view.
@rossawilson01 said "9.5mm is the focal length which is the distance between the rear of the lens and the point where the light focuses on the film plane."
In modern lenses a 9.5mm lens is not usually 9.5mm from the film plane. The focal length measurement is actually based on large-format still cameras (4x5, 8x10, etc.) that had very simple fixed lenses that were moved by a bellows. The focal length is the distance from the film plane to the center of the lens when it is focused at infinity.
@Bluestarcinema Sometimes lens manufacturers print the 35mm EQUIVALENT focal length on the lens.
For example a 50mm lens designed for a 35mm camera might yield the same field of view as a 50mm EQUIVALENT lens made for 16mm. But the 50mm equivalent is not actually 50mm, it's wider. I don't have the actual ratio in front of me, but for argument sake lets say it might actually be 24mm or something.
I think this is what you are referring to with Arri and Panavision lenses.
@JurgisTamulis because negative film records around 16 stops worth of dynamic range. You can only see 6 stops total at any given time, but this allows you to recover any amount of highlight detail. You can over expose a negative by 6 stops and recover skin tones in the highlights. I've verified this myself with vision 2 and 3, as well Kodaks Ektar 100 photography negative film (which is based off of motion picture emulsion technologies)
@JurgisTamulis Cause it's magic, duh. What are you, new?
Also, adding to the "magic", film emulsion is made from part of the brain stems of newborns. Sadly, it takes a lot of them for each batch made by Kodak. Does Fuji do this? NO! No wonder their films are not nearly as good.
Sure, it's a shame about the babies. But damnit, FILM IS WORTH IT!
Babies...we thank you for your contribution to the world of cinema!
@nielda155 16mm has a smaller negative area than 35mm meaning that 16mm has a shallower depth of field and because the image has to be blown up more than 35mm for projection, there is theoretically more film grain visible on the image. Because it's smaller it's cheaper, but considered to be of a lower quality.
@Bluestarcinema What I believe I said about grain was that 16mm would *appear* to be grainer than 35mm, and that would be in a like-for-like comparison, projecting both formats to the same size from a negative, since a 16mm image has to be enlarged more than 35mm one.
@Bluestarcinema When people say super 16mm is more grainy than 35mm they mean there is more grain visible at the same size picture, hence more grainy. They are not implying it's a different piece of film with actually bigger grains in it.
Super 16mm can appear grainless depending on what film stock is used how it's scanned. That said, more grain appears when pulling detail from the image and it affects your depth of field shooting at 16 over 35.
@BenBarrettBB the only way something has a shallower depth of field is if the lens opens up in aperture. extremely shallow depth of field is usually f1.4 or f2.8
Deep (or extreme) depth of field means everything is in focus, accomplished by either 1. closing the aperture or 2. using a wide angle lens (generally speaking).
you can verify all of this on any photo / cinematography forum.
the size of film has nothing to do with any of this, all of this is determined by the lens and lens only.
@Bluestarcinema I was trying to keep it simple, but it seems as though I was not clear enough. It is a well known fact that the target size affects the depth of field of an image; a larger target area allows for a shallower depth of field. You are right that this is to do with the lens though, since in order to achieve the same field of view for a smaller target size the focal length must be shorter, thus giving the appearance of a greater depth of field. See the ASC Manual, 9th ed. pp.155-8.
@Bluestarcinema Again wrong. The format size has a huge effect. Put a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera at F2 and you get a small depth of field. Put the same lens on a super 16mm camera or even a 50mm MADE especially for super 16mm and open it to F2 and you get a larger depth of field. Buy a book dude. Every format from your compact digital camera to medium format uses the same scale of focal length. And every time you change it the format size and lens aperture affect the depth of field.
I'm having to make a decision between the Red One and the Arri SR3 for my feature length. I'm really trying to look at all aspects in my decision making, as I love the picture in both of them. . Could I get some opinions?
@ThePynnacle it comes down to price vs quality. Film will destroy the red camera in every respect. Resolution, color, texture, dynamic range and exposure. Film cameras can shoot 1-150 frames per second steady, they don't suffer from shutter roll or blown out highlights. This is why hollywood shoots with 35mm film, cost isn't an issue there so they take nothing but the best.
If your on a budget you probably have no choice but to shoot digital, and that's really all it boils down to.
@Bluestarcinema Thanks man, yeah, I am completely for film's look and feel over digital's, how much does it cost at average for processing with Super 16 though? I know the price for 35, leaving that out of the question, I'm investigating my budget.
@ThePynnaclePeople say that video is cheap, that may be true but if your thinking to shot a feature and you want the best colours and the best of image quality and you want to preserve that quality in post and over the time shot on HD or digital could be more expensive than film, you can scan a s16mm fil in 4K with out any problem and after your work is finished the original film is save with all the same quality and in the future like 50 years forward the film can be transfered to any new media
I LOVE IT!!
tonyn24play 7 months ago
This is why film shouldnt die such awesome colours.
OBW88 8 months ago 6
I LOVE IT .......Keep up the good work tony from L.A.
tonyn24play 10 months ago
i don't like the lines...
Trelli28 1 year ago 2
@Trelli28 thats called interlacing. the film was scanned to VIDEO, than copied back to digital. dumbest shit ever.
Bluestarcinema 1 year ago 8
@Bluestarcinema interesting fact, those interlaced lines don't show up on standard def rear projection tv's (what would have been common back in the early days of video). The interlaced method was devised to put 24 fps film into video. If you took out an old vhs of a disney classic, scanned it to digital, and played it on your computer you would experience those same lines.
davetheboy91 5 months ago
@Bluestarcinema I think it's you that needs to take photography 101. A smaller sensor or film gate causes FOV (field of view) crop. If you use a 50mm lens designed for a 35mm camera on a 16mm camera, yes the lens's depth of field does not change, but because of the cropping it becomes equivalent to a longer lens (effectively zooming into the image).
This means that in order to get the same shot from the same distance you need to use a wider lens which with have a longer depth of field.
TheHandOfFear 1 year ago
Whats this song called?
Thanks :)
TotalTronics 1 year ago
@TotalTronics The song is 'Hoppípolla' by 'Sigur Rós' from the album 'Takk...'
TheHandOfFear 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema Effectively smaller sensor does indeed have impact on depth of field. When shooting at same aperture, to shoot the same field of view with larger sensor allowes you to shoot either closer or to shoot with larger focal length, which will yield a narrover depth of field. This is photography 101. Calling other people names is not going to get you very far. Good luck my firend.
BMFin 1 year ago
*IF* you are using 35mm lenses on a super 16mm format, than yes a smaller sized piece of film will conceal more "out of focus" regions that normally would have been retained on 35mm. This is not the case with Arri and Panavision. Lenses by these manufacturers are tailored for each size of film. A 9.5mm wide angle lens (made for super 16mm) will look EXACTLY the same as a 9.5mm wide angle lens, that was made for 35mm. End of story.
Only low budget filmmakers MIXING lenses have this issue.
Bluestarcinema 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bluestarcinema believe what you want ..
BMFin 1 year ago
Comment removed
rossawilson01 1 year ago
Comment removed
rossawilson01 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema That's wrong. 9.5mm is the focal length which is the distance between the rear of the lens and the point where the light focuses on the film plane. 9.5mm on S16 then will always cover less on 35mm.
Visit the arri website where you can see the different angles of view for the lenses design for 35mm and s16mm. A 9.5mm lens on s16mm = 86 degree angle of view. To get the same on 35mm you need 14mm.
Different formats need different focal lengths to get the same angle of view.
rossawilson01 1 year ago
@rossawilson01 said "9.5mm is the focal length which is the distance between the rear of the lens and the point where the light focuses on the film plane."
In modern lenses a 9.5mm lens is not usually 9.5mm from the film plane. The focal length measurement is actually based on large-format still cameras (4x5, 8x10, etc.) that had very simple fixed lenses that were moved by a bellows. The focal length is the distance from the film plane to the center of the lens when it is focused at infinity.
TheHandOfFear 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema Sometimes lens manufacturers print the 35mm EQUIVALENT focal length on the lens.
For example a 50mm lens designed for a 35mm camera might yield the same field of view as a 50mm EQUIVALENT lens made for 16mm. But the 50mm equivalent is not actually 50mm, it's wider. I don't have the actual ratio in front of me, but for argument sake lets say it might actually be 24mm or something.
I think this is what you are referring to with Arri and Panavision lenses.
TheHandOfFear 1 year ago
Comment removed
BMFin 1 year ago
Why does 16 mm film has such high dynamic range?
JurgisTamulis 1 year ago
@JurgisTamulis because negative film records around 16 stops worth of dynamic range. You can only see 6 stops total at any given time, but this allows you to recover any amount of highlight detail. You can over expose a negative by 6 stops and recover skin tones in the highlights. I've verified this myself with vision 2 and 3, as well Kodaks Ektar 100 photography negative film (which is based off of motion picture emulsion technologies)
with digital you can recover about 2 stops.
Bluestarcinema 1 year ago 11
@JurgisTamulis Cause it's magic, duh. What are you, new?
Also, adding to the "magic", film emulsion is made from part of the brain stems of newborns. Sadly, it takes a lot of them for each batch made by Kodak. Does Fuji do this? NO! No wonder their films are not nearly as good.
Sure, it's a shame about the babies. But damnit, FILM IS WORTH IT!
Babies...we thank you for your contribution to the world of cinema!
eggbertsmith 1 month ago
Of course your shooting format affects the depth of field - Circle of Confusion ring a bell?
knotfalling 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry for my ignorace but whats the difference between 16mm and 35mm it looks the same to me.
nielda155 1 year ago
sorry for my ignorace but whats the difference between 16mm and 35mm
nielda155 1 year ago
@nielda155 16mm has a smaller negative area than 35mm meaning that 16mm has a shallower depth of field and because the image has to be blown up more than 35mm for projection, there is theoretically more film grain visible on the image. Because it's smaller it's cheaper, but considered to be of a lower quality.
BenBarrettBB 1 year ago
@BenBarrettBB you have no idea what your talking about. you might want to research depth of field.
Depth of field is how "out of focus" the background is. it has NOTHING to do with the surface area of film, or the size of cut.
super 16mm is not more grainy than 35mm or 65mm. it only appears that way because you are blowing it up to the same size as 35mm or 65mm.
Super 16mm (if scanned proplerly) is grainless at 1280x720.
35mm is grainless at 4K if scanned properly.
Bluestarcinema 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema What I believe I said about grain was that 16mm would *appear* to be grainer than 35mm, and that would be in a like-for-like comparison, projecting both formats to the same size from a negative, since a 16mm image has to be enlarged more than 35mm one.
BenBarrettBB 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema Ofcourse Sensor size has to do with DOF.
Larger sensor size allows narrower DOF
BMFin 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema When people say super 16mm is more grainy than 35mm they mean there is more grain visible at the same size picture, hence more grainy. They are not implying it's a different piece of film with actually bigger grains in it.
Super 16mm can appear grainless depending on what film stock is used how it's scanned. That said, more grain appears when pulling detail from the image and it affects your depth of field shooting at 16 over 35.
rossawilson01 1 year ago
@BenBarrettBB the only way something has a shallower depth of field is if the lens opens up in aperture. extremely shallow depth of field is usually f1.4 or f2.8
Deep (or extreme) depth of field means everything is in focus, accomplished by either 1. closing the aperture or 2. using a wide angle lens (generally speaking).
you can verify all of this on any photo / cinematography forum.
the size of film has nothing to do with any of this, all of this is determined by the lens and lens only.
Bluestarcinema 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema I was trying to keep it simple, but it seems as though I was not clear enough. It is a well known fact that the target size affects the depth of field of an image; a larger target area allows for a shallower depth of field. You are right that this is to do with the lens though, since in order to achieve the same field of view for a smaller target size the focal length must be shorter, thus giving the appearance of a greater depth of field. See the ASC Manual, 9th ed. pp.155-8.
BenBarrettBB 1 year ago
@Bluestarcinema Again wrong. The format size has a huge effect. Put a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera at F2 and you get a small depth of field. Put the same lens on a super 16mm camera or even a 50mm MADE especially for super 16mm and open it to F2 and you get a larger depth of field. Buy a book dude. Every format from your compact digital camera to medium format uses the same scale of focal length. And every time you change it the format size and lens aperture affect the depth of field.
rossawilson01 1 year ago
what's the name of this song?
Curpizza 1 year ago
the power of film! HD is only for TV and very low budget productions.
Joyvel 1 year ago
I'm having to make a decision between the Red One and the Arri SR3 for my feature length. I'm really trying to look at all aspects in my decision making, as I love the picture in both of them. . Could I get some opinions?
ThePynnacle 1 year ago
@ThePynnacle it comes down to price vs quality. Film will destroy the red camera in every respect. Resolution, color, texture, dynamic range and exposure. Film cameras can shoot 1-150 frames per second steady, they don't suffer from shutter roll or blown out highlights. This is why hollywood shoots with 35mm film, cost isn't an issue there so they take nothing but the best.
If your on a budget you probably have no choice but to shoot digital, and that's really all it boils down to.
Bluestarcinema 1 year ago 6
@Bluestarcinema Thanks man, yeah, I am completely for film's look and feel over digital's, how much does it cost at average for processing with Super 16 though? I know the price for 35, leaving that out of the question, I'm investigating my budget.
ThePynnacle 1 year ago
@ThePynnaclePeople say that video is cheap, that may be true but if your thinking to shot a feature and you want the best colours and the best of image quality and you want to preserve that quality in post and over the time shot on HD or digital could be more expensive than film, you can scan a s16mm fil in 4K with out any problem and after your work is finished the original film is save with all the same quality and in the future like 50 years forward the film can be transfered to any new media
Joyvel 1 year ago
beautiful! Beautiful!
jera3 1 year ago
it's beautiful
georgeddirector 2 years ago
Hmm... Never new the SR3 had interlaced mode.
(hehehe).
wakeupfist 2 years ago
@wakeupfist It's probably from transferring it around different file formats so many times.
rockfilmers 1 year ago
@rockfilmers
Again, the '(hehehe)' part was supposed to imply that it was a joke.
wakeupfist 1 year ago