Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996


Super 16mm

>I will be shooting a 30min film in April and the production is in the midst of deciding whether to go regular 16 mm or super 16 mm. Which every way they go I am considering using 7277 or 7279? They are concerned about grain since they hope to go to a 35 mm blowup with either format but I know that going with 7277 would be better but the extra lighting and lights might hinder the production. What is the advice of the group as for grain in a blowup from these two stocks?

> They don't want a 35 mm print to look grainy since it does not go with the material and they are afraid of looking too much like a student film. I know super 16 mm is better overall but which stock would be better and what about T-stop? I unfortunately have not seen what a blowup from these stocks to blowup looks like since they usually end up on video.

>Brian Fass

>Cinematographer/Camera Assistant


>Hi Brian, haven't done it but Mike Pearlman, sometimes on this list, shot a feature for my friend Eugene Martin called "Edge City" entirely on S16 7279, in direct blowup to 35mm it looked great. Day and night both on 79, they wanted the dof (entire film was hand held, a kind of, well think Gomez/Segonzac - "Laws of Gravity" on speed... (this is a _terrible_ metaphor, please forgive me.

>Anyway I think Michael P. did it with an XTR and three primes (superspeeds). Looked great, especially the day stuff. Urban and suburban kids building up to and getting into a serious street fight. A little 'edge' to the look - no pun intended, but I did not really think 'grainy' while watching it.

>-Sam Wells

>filmmaking/nj/usa


>Asking someone if a certain stock is "too" grainy or not is like asking if the soup has too much salt in it. That's a personal judgement call Ð all film stocks have grain, so whether the structure is "too visible" or not is up to you and your director (and producer.)

>The only way to know for sure is to shoot a test, and take it through the IP/IN steps, blowing it up to 35mm.

>I would say that from what I've seen, a digital blow-up from S-16 using a 2K Spirit transfer will yield less grainy results in the final 35mm image. Partially that's because you can scan a negative and output a negative, saving one generation. And the way that the Spirit illuminates & scans the film frame tends to suppress some graininess, compared to an optical printer which can overly sharpen grain.

>Otherwise, it's hard to get around the fact that slower speed stocks are finer grained. 7277 is only slightly less grainy than 7279, and its lower contrast can sometimes mitigate that since you can see grain better in a flatter image with more midtones. You would be more assured to getting less grain if you dropped down to the 200 ASA stocks. If not, at least overexpose your fast stocks; I'd probably rate 7279 at 320 ASA for a blow-up.

>You can't have it all. Low grain, high speed, small negative... pick any two.

David Mullen ASC

Cinematographer / L.A.


>>I know super 16 mm is better overall but which stock would be better and what >about T-stop?

>I unfortunately have not seen what a blowup from these stocks looks like since they usually end up on video.

>I have done a couple of features which were blowups from Super -16 to 35, one of then shooting exclusively on 7279 - the results when printing on the new Vision print stock are pretty good... much better than blowups used to be. Don't bother with std 16 if you are considering any chance of a blowup, it really will be a bit grainy as there is a 40% difference in the usable negative size.

>Toby Oliver, DP

Sydney, Australia

www.cineartimage.com.au


>Given what you've described (no grain upon blowup), I would shoot 7274, not the '79.

>'74 is really the only "tight" stock for blowup that gives you some margin of error from the lab and opticals. Not saying it hasn't been done with 500 ISO stock, I just think you can do it on '74, and it isn't that hard to light it even for night/ext.

>Mark Doering-Powell

>Los Angeles based Director of Photography


>>'74 is really the only "tight" stock for blowup that gives you some margin of error from >the lab and opticals. Not saying it hasn't been done with 500 ISO stock, I just think >you can do it on '74, and it isn't that hard to light it even for night/ext.

>Yeah I didn't mean to imply 7279 was 'no grain' I meant that grain in the direct blowup I mentioned (by Duart) was not intrusive. And surprisingly tight, given the 79.

>But that is direct to 35, not from IP IN.

>-Sam Wells

>filmmaking/nj/usa


>>I have done a couple of features which were blowups from Super -16 to 35, one of >then shooting exclusively on 7279 - the results when printing on the new Vision print >stock are pretty good...

>Toby,

>Really liked your work on "Big House" I saw it on the big screen and assumed it was 35mm ! Can I ask who did the blow up ? I assume you went through a 35 IP ? From your website I saw you used the wide Canon zoom for the shoot. Why not use prime lenses ? I have a S16 project for blow up coming up and was considering 7245 rated 25 ASA for daylight exteriors. Was wondering if you had used the 45 for any of your blow up projects.

Tom Gleeson D.O.P.

Sydney Australia

http://users.bigpond.net.au-gleeson


>Not about 77 or 79 but I was transferring, on Spirit, some S16 footage shot on 46 and 84 and the 84 was noticeably finer grained. So, you may want to look at 84.

Geoff Boyle FBKS

Director of Photography


>>Not about 77 or 79 but I was transferring, on Spirit, some S16 footage shot on 46 >and 84 and the 84 was noticeably finer grained. So, you may want to look at 84

>That's odd. I've seen Kodak's own demo film on 5284 and it's clearly slightly MORE grainy in the highlights than 5279 (that's the demo shot by Andrew Dunn and some French DP's). And 5246 is finer-grained than 5279. So how does a low-con 500 ASA stock end up having less grain than a normal contrast 250 ASA stock? Especially one with a slower-speed blue layer as well?

>We're talking about Expression 500T, right? "Gosford Park" was entirely shot on that stock and it was fairly grainy (I know there were other factors like diffusion, S-35 blow-up to scope, etc.) But so far, everything I've seen shot on Expression 500T shows me that it's not finer-grained than Vision 500T.

>Perhaps you got a bad roll of '46?

David Mullen ASC

Cinematographer / L.A.


>>Not about 77 or 79 but I was transferring, on Spirit, some S16 footage shot on 46 >and 84 and the 84 was noticeably finer grained.

>Out of curiosity, what did you rate the '46 and '84 at?

>Jessica Gallant

>Los Angeles based Director of Photography


>>Out of curiosity, what did you rate the '46 and '84 at?

>Exactly what it says on the can.

>My metering technique tends to produce slightly denser than normal images but I'm always careful with 84 to try and keep the exposure down to "normal".

>Geoff Boyle FBKS

>Director of Photography

>www.cinematography.net


>Geoff Boyle wrote :

>>Perhaps you got a bad roll of '46?

>It would have to be a bad batch.

>No, this is something I've noticed over a few shoots.

>As you know I was involved in pre-release testing of what became 84 so I've had a good chance to look at it and I've also used it on a lot of shoots on S16 and S35. I've been shooting it for about 18 months now.

>The thing I wonder about is the influence of Spirit.

>I've seen the Andrew Dunne & Co film many times, and I mean many and can only agree with you, but I also see what I shoot myself and transfer on Spirit.

>I haven't tried transferring on any other TK machine so I don't know if this is a characteristic of just this combination or not.

>Going off at somewhat of a tangent I'm becoming more & more convinced that a major factor in the limitation of images is the print/intermediate stock.

>A couple of months ago I went to DFL to see some new material and then went on to Cinesite to do a presentation about 84 for Kodak, hence the having seen the demo film many times, what shocked me then was that the projected prints that I saw at DFL looked better than the Kodak demo prints.

>Now if Kodak can't make film look it's best who can!

>I thought a lot about it and I think that the factors are:-

>1) lower grain via DI

>2) more highlight detail via DI

>3) more shadow detail via DI

>And the thing is not just more but smoother.

>Geoff Boyle FBKS

>Director of Photography


>> liked your work on "Big House" I saw it on the big screen and assumed it was 35mm >Can I ask who did the blow up ? I assume you went through a 35 IP

>Atlab here in Sydney did the blow up for 'The Big House' (a 25min short), which was shot entirely on 7279, and i'm pretty sure we had a S16 inter-pos for budget reasons. I think it was, and maybe still is, Atlabs' policy to advise producers with a budget restriction to go with S16 over 35 IP as the difference in quality isn't worth the difference in cost. Dominic Case may have the latest info re this. The low-budget S16 feature 'Fresh Air' was also blown up with a S16 IP for the same reasons, but i was pretty happy with the blow up results for both films anyway.

>I've used the Canon zooms for all my S16 films for the convenience and speed in getting a few extra setups in the day, and also that the usual alternative, the 16mm Zeiss superspeeds, have that triangular iris giving you little out of focus triangles on highlights that for some reason i find quite annoying but of course you need a stop more light for the zoom ( I shoot around 2.8 - 4) and you sacrifice a bit of ultimate sharpness but the contrasty Vision stocks help make up for it.

>I haven't used 45 yet - but I did use 100ASA 48 some years ago for the S16 short 'Stitched' and the blowup was really clean and sharp; the 45 blowups I have seen (in sunny exterior scenes) really did look like 35mm resolution, but talk to John Bowring at Lemac, he's shot a lot of it.

Toby Oliver, DP

Sydney, Australia

www.cineartimage.com.au