Jump to content


Photo

Ultra 16 ?


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 05:55 AM

Has anyone used Ultra 16 yet? If so how did it go? Pav did you have any success? Any one, any news? regarding Ultra?
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 03 January 2006 - 06:22 AM

Has anyone used Ultra 16 yet? If so how did it go? Pav did you have any success? Any one, any news? regarding Ultra?


Hi,

Oh no not this again. Please do a search, don't waste your time or money on non standard and unsupported format!

Cheers

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 07:34 AM

Hi,

Oh no not this again. Please do a search, don't waste your time or money on non standard and unsupported format!

Cheers

Stephen


Hi Stephen

Yes done all the neccesary searches before posting this tHREAD.

As I have said in the Past I have an Arri BL the Ultra format could give this Camera a new lease..I am very tempted to take a trip to the Jewelars BUT Before I do I would like to know about anyone using Ultra succesfully..

SO Pav? or anyone else here has made progress using the Ultra format
  • 0

#4 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 January 2006 - 08:57 AM

Oh no not this again.



Stephen, my reaction as well. Seems like once or twice a year this gets brought out and beat to death again. Remember the thread from last year I think it was, went on for about five or ten pages? While we're at it, why don't we just start a thread of "Which is better, video or film?"

-Tim
  • 0

#5 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:12 AM

Stephen, my reaction as well. Seems like once or twice a year this gets brought out and beat to death again. Remember the thread from last year I think it was, went on for about five or ten pages? While we're at it, why don't we just start a thread of "Which is better, video or film?"

-Tim


I dont understand this response? beat to death? Why say this? And what is it to do with asking if anyone has succesfully used it?

I had hoped for some help?
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:20 AM

I dont understand this response? beat to death? Why say this? And what is it to do with asking if anyone has succesfully used it?

I had hoped for some help?


Hi,

I don't think anybody has. There is no infrastructure, that's the problem. There are no optical printer gates or modified telecines. Super 16 took 20 years to get going and is now well supported.

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 January 2006 - 10:02 AM

I dont understand this response? beat to death? Why say this? And what is it to do with asking if anyone has succesfully used it?

I had hoped for some help?


Mark, there are no end to the potential problems inherent to Ultra 16, and yet a few want to tout it as the savior of 16mm filmmaking. And if you do a search of this forum, you will find dozens of pages of information about why these few believe as they do. And you will see rebuttals to most if not all of their arguments. This forum has been down that road again and again and it always ends up the same, with the few insisting on how great Ultra 16 is, and the rest of us going,"Okay, if you want to do that with your camera, go ahead." So please, before we have another five or ten page thread full of rants about how wonderful Ultra 16 is and how the rest of us "just don't get it" or are "pawns of the Super 16 establishment", take some time and do a search on the "16mm Only" forum and you will find everything you need to know about Ultra 16.

Happy New Year,
-Tim
  • 0

#8 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 10:36 AM

Mark, there are no end to the potential problems inherent to Ultra 16,

-----------------------------------------------------
Well the Format itself has no problems and can give almost the same results as Super 16 As for Telecine this is not a problem according to the Laboratories
-----------------------------------------------------


and yet a few want to tout it as the savior of 16mm filmmaking.

-----------------------------------------------------
I think some want to get the best piccy Possible especially in low light situations
-------------------------------------------------------



And if you do a search of this forum, you will find dozens of pages of information about why these few believe as they do. And you will see rebuttals to most if not all of their arguments.


-------------------------------------------------------
I dont see arguments as its already accepted that it works Its just the Implementation side and I already Know that telecine can be utilised along with HDV and if you did happen to make that Blockbuster and wanted to blow it up to 35mm..It Wouldnt cost that much for an individual.. Even to get a U-16 Gate made.. Which would allow others in too..And probably pay for itself anyway..
---------------------------------------------------------


This forum has been down that road again and again and it always ends up the same, with the few insisting on how great Ultra 16 is, and the rest of us going,"Okay, if you want to do that with your camera, go ahead."


-----------------------------------------------------------
But we are not going down that road again? I am asking if people have Used Ultra 16 and how they got along with it ? Its important to me because I want to get the best I can out of my Camera Especially now I have a set Of Zeiss superspeed primes and want the best for low light filming I am not happy making do with cutting my arri BL Frame up and degrading the Picture and I dont want an Academy frame either
-----------------------------------------------------------


So please, before we have another five or ten page thread full of rants about how wonderful Ultra 16 is and how the rest of us "just don't get it" or are "pawns of the Super 16 establishment",


--------------------------------------------------------
Its not an us and them situation its been discussed we dont need to go over old ground I just want to know how succesful people have been or anything new to add.
-------------------------------------------------------------


take some time and do a search on the "16mm Only" forum and you will find everything you need to know about Ultra 16.


-----------------------------------------------------------
I did a search before I posted the thread and I also Participated in previous threads about this One person in particular (pav) was getting his Camera done
-----------------------------------------------------------


Happy New Year,
-Tim
------------------------------------------------------------

:D
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 03 January 2006 - 10:49 AM

-----------------------------------------------------
Well the Format itself has no problems and can give almost the same results as Super 16 As for Telecine this is not a problem according to the Laboratories
-----------------------------------------------------



Hi,

I am not aware of any Lab, Scanner or Spirit style telecine that can handle Ultra-16.

If you wish to use Ultra-16 you will have to build you own post path. You will not save any money!

If there were no problems, as you say, then Ultra 16 would be a common format!

Stephen
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2006 - 11:45 AM

It seems we get into this Ultra-16 argument about twice a year.

Search the archives more thoroughly because we've all posted pages and pages on the topic over the years.

It's a non-standard format that is not well-supported in the post world. Plus you have to crop some of the negative off of the top & bottom to get around the perfs, so the overall increase in negative area is not dramatic. And the reason why it's not better supported by Kodak, the labs, and the camera makers is because it's ONLY purpose is to give a new lease on life for pre-1970's 16mm cameras, which tend to be used only by lower-budgeted filmmakers. Considering Super-16 has been in existence now for over thirty years, the industry is not particularly worried about the usability of cameras that are even older than that, especially since one can just crop them to widescreen if absolutely necessary.
  • 0

#11 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 12:44 PM

It seems we get into this Ultra-16 argument about twice a year.

Search the archives more thoroughly because we've all posted pages and pages on the topic over the years.

It's a non-standard format that is not well-supported in the post world. Plus you have to crop some of the negative off of the top & bottom to get around the perfs, so the overall increase in negative area is not dramatic. And the reason why it's not better supported by Kodak, the labs, and the camera makers is because it's ONLY purpose is to give a new lease on life for pre-1970's 16mm cameras, which tend to be used only by lower-budgeted filmmakers. Considering Super-16 has been in existence now for over thirty years, the industry is not particularly worried about the usability of cameras that are even older than that, especially since one can just crop them to widescreen if absolutely necessary.


Yes I know this david...

My thread has been hijacked and taken OT..

Once again then the Question

-------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Has anyone used Ultra 16 yet? If so how did it go? Pav did you have any success? Any one, any news? regarding Ultra?
-------------------------------------------------

Easy enough to understand? Or shall I simplify it more?

HAS Anyone Put ultra through a Laboratory and telecined it to HDV If so what happened was it good did it work Were the Perfs OK <<<<<

This thread was for people who have done the conversion Or those with news.. NOT to have old arguments resurrected..
  • 0

#12 3ldfilms

3ldfilms
  • Guests

Posted 03 January 2006 - 01:00 PM

Hey Mark...

While I have not used Ultra 16 (though I was tempted to convert a K-3 to it just to experiment) I just noticed an Ultra 16 Bolex on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem

If nothing else, perhaps the seller could answer some of yoru questions as he seems to have used it.

Ed
  • 0

#13 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 January 2006 - 01:17 PM

Mark--

Since you did read the threads from the past, I'm sure you're well aware that I am no great supporter of the Ultra-16 concept. While it can function in theory, I think you will find that there are only a couple of people (and I mean literally only two or three human beings on the planet) who are using this format. So functional or not, the extreme lack of acceptance in the industry means that it will not "add any life" to your 16BL. I would also caution that due to a number of factors in the design of that camera it is likely not the best candidate for this conversion. Not the least reason is that the viewfinder will not be able to show the additional picture area, so you won't even know what you're filming.

Sorry, but if you do hear of anyone using Ultra-16, please feel free to post about it. It is a rare event indeed.
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2006 - 01:41 PM

The deafening silence should tell you something when you ask how many of us have used Ultra-16. There was one person here who was using it but he hasn't spoken up. You did also ask "any one, any news, regarding Ultra-16..." which sounded like an open call for discussion. Now you seem to be berating us for not telling you what you wanted to hear. I suppose if we had all shut up instead of answering your post, you'd then be posting again saying "what, no one wants to talk about Ultra-16???"

You can't have it both ways.

Edited by David Mullen, 03 January 2006 - 01:44 PM.

  • 0

#15 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:04 PM

The deafening silence should tell you something when you ask how many of us have used Ultra-16. There was one person here who was using it but he hasn't spoken up. You did also ask "any one, any news, regarding Ultra-16..." which sounded like an open call for discussion. Now you seem to be berating us for not telling you what you wanted to hear. I suppose if we had all shut up instead of answering your post, you'd then be posting again saying "what, no one wants to talk about Ultra-16???"

You can't have it both ways.


Im not sure why the negative attitude on this topic? and I am not berating anyone all Im trying to do is correct the course of this thread Which seems to be heading for indignant annoyance at once again being asked to give the reasons why Ultra is not Viable..

IM Not asking this?

I am in fact asking If people have used Ultra AND How they got along with it.. I have tried my best to explain in easy to understand terms..

Any discussion that is helpful constructive and even going over old territory is fine with me IF THATS WHAT People want to do I dont mind the thread being Hijacked but if it is to be Hijacked a draw a line at being told to do searches because Im responsible for the Hijacking Not only is this putting words in my mouth but its highly insulting and completely puts my original request for help in the bin.... What I wanted was just to find out how people were getting along who had used it

An example of what I mean and who I had hoped to hear from

http://www.cinematog...860&hl=ULTRA 16

Scroll nearer to the Bottom and you will see a poster called pav who was doing the conversion..
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:16 PM

You can't micro-manage an open discussion like that. If we weren't all talking about Ultra-16, then that would be hijacking the thread. Instead, we're just not talking about Ultra-16 in the way you wanted us to. You can't force us to discuss Ultra-16 specifically from a user's perspective of it since almost none of us have used it, and the people who have aren't posting these days. Therefore there is a vacuum that tends to get filled.

You could post NO ONE TALK ABOUT THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU'VE USED ULTRA-16 if you want to. You just take the risk of hearing the wind whistle through the trees.
  • 0

#17 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:17 PM

I am in fact asking If people have used Ultra AND How they got along with it.


Admin Note:

Please, dear forum members, in an attempt to address the original question and remain on topic, add your comments to this thread ONLY if you have had experience with Ultra 16.


Thanks.

Tim
  • 0

#18 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:30 PM

I will don't want to stray off topic but I would like to see him pointed in the direction of someone with experience..

If you search the forums at commiecam.com there is at least one guy I know there who is actively doing ultra 16 stuff.I would PM him and try to get some feedback.

If you dig through the searches on this forum here, I believe it memory serves me correctly that there may have been one or two guys doing it who have posted at cinematography.com. The few who are using it may not actively watch the forums.If you seek them out,chances are they'll be happy to answer questions.

Hope this helps and hope this OK by Tim.
Just let me know if it's not.
  • 0

#19 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2006 - 03:23 PM

Hey Mark...

While I have not used Ultra 16 (though I was tempted to convert a K-3 to it just to experiment) I just noticed an Ultra 16 Bolex on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem

If nothing else, perhaps the seller could answer some of yoru questions as he seems to have used it.

Ed

Hi ed!

Yes took a look and sent the guy an e-mail.. Anything comes back I will let you know..

I will don't want to stray off topic but I would like to see him pointed in the direction of someone with experience..

If you search the forums at commiecam.com there is at least one guy I know there who is actively doing ultra 16 stuff.I would PM him and try to get some feedback.

If you dig through the searches on this forum here, I believe it memory serves me correctly that there may have been one or two guys doing it who have posted at cinematography.com. The few who are using it may not actively watch the forums.If you seek them out,chances are they'll be happy to answer questions.

Hope this helps and hope this OK by Tim.
Just let me know if it's not.

Tim could you be a lttle more specific? I visited the website and couldnt find the guy in question..Thanks.
  • 0

#20 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 03 January 2006 - 08:00 PM

Go to the www.commiecam.com website and join the discussion board....just scroll down on the home page and you'll find the smartgroups link...

Then search "ultra 16"
And dig through some posts.

I believe Adam Frey from Crimson Chain Productions may have done some work with it...
http://crimsonchainproductions.com

I also found posts by the user
peterh5322 describing how to convert a kinor 16 in great detail.

I also remember a gentleman from europe posting about his ultra 16 work.
You may have to do some digging.I do believe you'll find the most info there from people who have experimented and actually talked to post houses.
  • 0


Glidecam

The Slider

Tai Audio

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

CineTape

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly