Jump to content


Photo

Widening the gate (Ultra16) goes into the perfs?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Marcus Frakes

Marcus Frakes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2005 - 09:24 AM

When I hold up my negative 16mm films, and do some calculations, it seems that widening the gate to Ultra16 (.7mm) on BOTH sides causes the exposure to be in the perf(s)....at least on one side....both if you go double perf.

The standard 16mm image already encroaches on the perfs, why/how could you widen it? Are there film stocks with smaller sprocket holes?

PS. I read all the other problems with going to Ultra 16, just curious about the perfs..
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 18 November 2005 - 09:30 AM

When I hold up my negative 16mm films, and do some calculations, it seems that widening the gate to Ultra16 (.7mm) on BOTH sides causes the exposure to be in the perf(s)....at least on one side....both if you go double perf.

The standard 16mm image already encroaches on the perfs, why/how could you widen it? Are there film stocks with smaller sprocket holes?

PS. I read all the other problems with going to Ultra 16, just curious about the perfs..


Hi,

That's correct, you expose a wide image between the perfs. The top and bottom of frame is not used. If you have a very cheap camera from EBAY, and you want to have some fun then have a go. Otherwise don't waste your money!

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Marcus Frakes

Marcus Frakes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2005 - 09:52 AM

Hi,

That's correct, you expose a wide image between the perfs. The top and bottom of frame is not used. If you have a very cheap camera from EBAY, and you want to have some fun then have a go. Otherwise don't waste your money!

Stephen


Thanks Stephen, upon closer examination, I see the frames are in between the perfs on the sides *as well as* on the top and bottom. This brings up another perplexing question; why did the Super 16 spec have to recenter? It looks like you could have just widened the gate on both sides and not have to do a new lens remount??
  • 0

#4 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 18 November 2005 - 10:20 AM

Super 16 goes where the sound would be if you'd print a 16 mm positive with sound on the side, ie where the ridge of perf is.

This is why you need 1 ridge stock exclusively with Super 16. Since the center of the image is no more in the center of the film, you also need to recenter the optical axis, therefore the mount. Otherwise you would have vignetting on this edge with short focal lenghts and you would not keep the center while zooming...

BTW, I thought Ultra 16 was not only wider than super 16 but also using the "sound" side...
  • 0

#5 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 18 November 2005 - 10:51 AM

Thanks Stephen, upon closer examination, I see the frames are in between the perfs on the sides *as well as* on the top and bottom. This brings up another perplexing question; why did the Super 16 spec have to recenter? It looks like you could have just widened the gate on both sides and not have to do a new lens remount??



Hi,

Super 16 took 20 years to take off. S16 uses more of the film area than Ultra 16. S16 fits the old European standard of 1:1.66. The designer wanted a light portable camera to shoot his features with.

Stephen
  • 0

#6 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 18 November 2005 - 12:21 PM

Isn't "the draughtman's contract" by Peter Greenaway the first feature ever made in Super 16 ?
  • 0

#7 Christian Appelt

Christian Appelt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 12:59 PM

No, it wasn't. The first Super-16 film was Lyckliga Skitar (Sweden 1970) with cinematography by Rune Ericsson who invented the format. More can be found here:

16mm Revolution
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 18 November 2005 - 01:57 PM

Isn't "the draughtman's contract" by Peter Greenaway the first feature ever made in Super 16 ?


Hi,

It was the first film to use the Cooke Super 16 Varokinetal 10.4-52mm lens.

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Boris Belay

Boris Belay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Other
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 18 November 2005 - 02:20 PM

And The Draughtman's Contract was pretty much the first film to make a big impression (or none, actually, since it was assumed to have been shot in 35) when presented at Cannes, I think. The 'world' then began to take note that Super-16 was a viable option. It took a few more years for most of the labs to effectively accept it.
Ultra-16 only makes sense if you do you own telecine, as I do, and control most of the steps after shooting yourself (or work closely with a lab that will bear with you). So even though the camera conversion is simple and the advantages seem evident, it's not resommended in most cases... but that's been discussed at lenght in other threads.
-Boris
  • 0

#10 Mike Welle

Mike Welle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 03:19 PM

Hi,

It was the first film to use the Cooke Super 16 Varokinetal 10.4-52mm lens.

Stephen


I wanted to bring this up as well. I meant to throw out this question to the forum. I saw "The Draughtman's Contract" (1982) on DVD and I could tell it looked 16mm-ish. But when I saw clips from "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995) shot with the Canon 8-64, I thought it looked like a much more "advanced" image. I know the Cooke 10.4-52 goes back to 1983 according to their website (how is that possible since "TDC" came out in 1982?). But my central question is does "Leaving Las Vegas" demonstrate the visual superiority of one lens, in other words the Canon 8-64 over the Cooke 10.4-52 in your opinion, or not? And I'm asking that to everyone here. By the way Anthony Higgins was in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Did you recognize him?
  • 0

#11 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 18 November 2005 - 05:11 PM

I wanted to bring this up as well. I meant to throw out this question to the forum. I saw "The Draughtman's Contract" (1982) on DVD and I could tell it looked 16mm-ish. But when I saw clips from "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995) shot with the Canon 8-64, I thought it looked like a much more "advanced" image.


Certainly the improvements in film stocks (e.g., Kodak T-Grain technology) between 1982 and 1995 were at least partly responsible for the improvement you saw. :)

Even more improvement with the Kodak VISION2 stocks, especially for lower graininess.
  • 0

#12 Marcus Frakes

Marcus Frakes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2005 - 05:24 PM

Certainly the improvements in film stocks (e.g., Kodak T-Grain technology) between 1982 and 1995 were at least partly responsible for the improvement you saw. :)

Even more improvement with the Kodak VISION2 stocks, especially for lower graininess.


OK. I'm going to try and ask my question is a different way.

WHY did Super 16 need to recenter the lens/center of focus??
The regurgitated answer is "Oh because the perfs are there".

But if you look closely at any processed 16mm negative. You will see that the frame is "in between" the perfs. I'm NOT talking about just between the left and right sides, also between the discarded top and bottom part of the frame....LOOK at it.

From what I see, the Super 16 format didn't absolutely have to recenter and Ultra 16 could have gone all the way to Super's 12.40mm...but didn't for some reason??
  • 0

#13 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 18 November 2005 - 05:53 PM

huh. try this, I think it will explain...

http://www.abelcine....s16guide6.shtml

Look closely at the diagram. Super-16 extends the frame to the non-perf side only. If you didn't recenter the lens, the optical center of your frame would be off to one side (the perf side) which, among other things could lead to vignetting on one side of your frame.

Wouldn't ultra-16 have part of your picture area in direct contact with the sprocket rollers during its pass through the camera? That seems a bit risky.
  • 0

#14 Boris Belay

Boris Belay
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Other
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 18 November 2005 - 09:55 PM

Marcus, Do you mean that what is useable in a S-16 image after cropping to particular standard screen ratios could have fit between the top and bottom rows of perfs ?
That is the principle of Ultra-16, indeed. But the point of Super-16 when it was defined (ie, before HDTV and reg. 16/9 ratio) seems to have been simply to use as much of the available neg as possible, cropping coming afterwards if necessary (and as standards get defined).
Does that make sense ?


PS. To go back to one of your original question, yes, there is (was?) a 16mm.-wide film format with smaller perfs : Double Super-8.
And as a matter of fact I know of at least one person who has worked on and advocated a sort of Ultra-16 on DS-8 film in which cropping is not necessary, since the Super-8 perfs are so small. He is a Swiss engineer, formerly with the Swiss TV, and maybe even Bolex, whose name I have to find in my notes.
Needless to say, his format has not gained much acceptance, although I love the idea.
But I'm not sure where Kodak stands on DS-8 these days... that amy be part of the problem !
-Boris
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio