To be fair one could argue that if 16:9 were one's preferred target (and why not - it's now the ubiquitous standard aspect), and that Super8 was your benchmark, then 16mm, rather than UP8, might be better, because:
a. 16mm provides better image quality than UP8 (in the 16:9 to 4:3 domain)
b. 16mm is no more hassle than shooting UP8.
c. 16mm costs more or less the same as Super8 per frame (to which you might be already accustomed)
So what happens here, of course, is the classic quality/cost tradeoff.
You can trade in the additional quality of 16mm (over UP8), for twice the amount of UP8 running time per foot (over 16mm). In other words, a choice of UP8 (over 16mm) will have your cost per frame go down by 2. Classic tradeoff. However your quality goes down by 4 (well actually a little less than 4) but that is something you could very well wear for the cost saving. [For me a quality drop of 4X is not necessarily a problem because I'm experimenting with, and developing the recovery of, any lost quality, through digital means - so it's more a question of stock cost than image quality].
Where UP8 really comes into it's own, is when targeting the wider aspects (Cinemascope and wider). The quality/cost tradeoff vanishes. You would have to start bringing anamorphics to 16mm to up the ante on the side of 16mm. Additional hassle of course, but better quality.
But no cost saving. But if you're happy using anamorphics (as I could be) - guess what - you can then up the ante on the side of UP8 again: doing cinemascope 3D on UP8 becomes possible. To do the same in 16mm you'd need a 4X anamorphic (do they exist), or a complex over/under prism arrangement (costly). And again,
no cost saving.
What I always end up doing in these situations is not necessarily selecting one over another but just buying into each. However it's good to have an idea of the factors involved when selecting which for a specific project.
Carl
Here is what UP8.3D would look like on the film (using 2X anamorphic and readily available 3D adapters)
Simulation only (cut and paste job in Photoshop):
A relatively easy program could be written to unsqueeze each frame back into 2.8:1, and multiplex them into currently available 3D codecs (BlueRay3D) or anaglyph (red/cyan). And there are relatively cheap electronic glasses you can buy that convert your average computer monitor into a 3D screen. Who needs a 3DTV when those are readily available?
Apart from the novelty and tech challenge there are critical issues with 3D, in terms of philosophical/artistic temperment. I found this essay on "immersive" technology interesting:
http://uartsinbelgrade.academia.edu/Jel ... liver_Grau
