8 or 16?

[pbrstreetgang]

Okay all you cinematographers dial in your eyesight. Which one of these Kodakchrome 40 reversal pics was shot in 16mm :? The other three are super 8mm They have been clipped and the only alterations are the black outer frame lines. Nothing has been manipulated colorwise. All are low res.

http://www.imageload.org/show.php/16433 ... e.jpg.html

http://www.imageload.org/show.php/16432 ... 1.jpg.html

http://www.imageload.org/show.php/16434 ... e.JPG.html

http://www.imageload.org/show.php/16435 ... l.JPG.html

[Evan Kubota]

Both flower shots look like they were from the same transfer - same as the girl/'roadkill'. I'm guessing that the flower shots are S8.

[freddiesykes]

The bird of paradise one is 16mm, I'm guessing. Too close to call..

[sooper8fan]

"roadkill" looks like VHS

[Scotness]

I reckon:

Bird of Paradise: Super 8
Duneflower: 16mm
Emma: Super 8
roadside memorial: Super 8

I think the detail on the stamens(?) indicates it might be 16mm

But really I can't tell - at about 15cm x 10cm it's almost impossible - transfer it to a tv screen or a cinema screen and I could probably tell.

Scot

[Patrick]

Hmmm...let me guess....

Bird of Paradise - 16mm
Duneflower - 16mm
Emma - super 8
Roadside Memorial - super 8

[VideoFred]

My guess:

Bird of Paradise= 16mm

Fred.

[metaT8]

None of them look like 16 to me except #3 (face close-up).

But I know that shot is super 8 from a previous thread.

So either we have one poorly shot 16mm next to 3 very well shot S8 or this is a trick question.

[David M. Leugers]

Based on the images provided, I'd say Duneflower is 16mm. So much depends on the transfer and they all look pretty good.


David M. Leugers

[audadvnc]

I also note that each image is 370 x 270 pixels, which is well below the resolution limits of Super 8, let alone 16mm. I'd guess 35 or 65mm images shot in the same lighting conditions would look about the same at this pixel size.

[T-Scan]

What Scotness said I also think to be correct.

[mattias]

I also note that each image is 370 x 270 pixels, which is well below the resolution limits of Super 8, let alone 16mm. I'd guess 35 or 65mm images shot in the same lighting conditions would look about the same at this pixel size.

exactly what i was about to say.

/matt

[pbrstreetgang]

Well, first off, thank you all for taking time out to respond to this post.

I've been testing a new lightbox setup I use for super8 still photography and so I thought I'd post a couple of clips here just for fun. To be truthful there is no 16mm shot, all are super8. So yes, it was a bit of a trick question I wanted to post full resolution pics but the host website wouldn't let me (how to get around that?).

I understand that one can get even the worst s8 clips to look good at such a small pixel size but even blown out to full res these pics have the tightest grain and brilliant colors. Projected they are simply beautiful and the grain is still ultra tight.

I guess the whole point of this exercise is to show that given the right camera, lighting, exposure super8mm can look like 16mm (no shit Sherlock 8) ). I must admit, small, single s8 clips (no motion here) posted on a forum isn't the most definitive example, though I've seen some pretty lackluster s8 clips posted on other film shooting websites. A door comes to mind now. OOPS, sorry Santo

[eggart]

What is the image area difference between the Reg 16 and S8 frame? It's not half is it?

[pbrstreetgang]

What is the image area difference between the Reg 16 and S8 frame? It's not half is it?

s8mm= 5.31mm by 4.01mm projectable picture area
16mm=9.65mm by 7.21mm projectable picture area

A