Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic 16mm


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 21 June 2006 - 09:23 AM

What dimension would the gate have to be if one would what to shoot 2.40:1 or 2.35:1 scope on a 16mm camera?

Cordially
Árni Heimir
  • 0

#2 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 21 June 2006 - 09:52 AM

1.20:1 or 1.17:1, respectively. Nobody except Panavision in London has that groundglass, as far as I know, but you can get away with using the old 4x3 (1.33:1) markings and kind of "imagine" shaving slightly off to the sides. The great thing is that you can reframe horizontally later in telecine - lots of leeway on the sides.

I've shot with Panavision C-series one one project in 16mm. My only recommendation is that you think about the practicallity of the shoot. For instance, since the widest lens you'll be able to use is around a 35mm (like a 17mm spherical, roughly), it's not something I'd want to be stuck with in a tight location.

Also, my shoot was a nightmare because I wasn't clear enough about the fact that you have to zoom into the neg (actually you don't, but that's impossible to explain to someone who doesn't understand intricate technicalities), so everyone was freaking out. They thought it'd be like 35mm. Also, the telecine operator was completely at a loss here - they simply didn't understand it and they couldn't get the 2x extraction right ever, so many times stuff looked squished and stands that were clearly out of my frame lines came back into shot an whatnot. It was a complete nightmare and I got blamed for it simply because they didn't understand what anamorphic entails on 16mm. So whatever you do - shoot a frame chart at the beginning of one of the rolls.

Ultimately it was my fault, though - I should have been crystal clear. I just assumed that if you ask them if they've shot anamorphic on 16mm before and they say yes, that doesn't mean they actually have (in this case they had MASKED to 2.40:1 on 16mm and only used scope on 35mm...). I did underexpose one shot, though, so that didn't help my credibility - they just thought I was some incompetent svengali... :blink: :D
  • 0

#3 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 21 June 2006 - 12:24 PM

1.20:1 or 1.17:1, respectively. Nobody except Panavision in London has that groundglass, as far as I know, but you can get away with using the old 4x3 (1.33:1) markings and kind of "imagine" shaving slightly off to the sides. The great thing is that you can reframe horizontally later in telecine - lots of leeway on the sides.

---As far as ground glasses go, TV safe area will give the correct side lines.
a blow up would be 2.5x. So 8.4mm x 2.5= 21mm. That's actually inbetween the academy and scope side lines. 20.96/21.31

As for practicallity, you're right on that.
For 25mm or possibly shorter, one'll need an attachment.
That'll be quite a chore to find, will probably have to be purchased rather than rented.

Then focusing two lenses at once...
Two focus pullers, no focusing on the fly.

SuperScope on Super16 would be the way to go.
& some wide angles that don't quite cover the full S16 frame, will cover the'scope area.

---LV
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 June 2006 - 12:31 PM

I once had to transfer a short film shot in 35mm anamorphic to letterboxed 16x9 PAL, and the inexperienced colorist did not understand 16x9 (1.33X) anamorphic video NOR (2X) anamorphic photography.

He kept manually squeezing and unsqueezing the image by eye trying to figure it out, looking at a 4x3 monitor (that was the other problem -- no standard-def 16x9 monitor). Drove me up the wall -- I had to draw lots of sketches explaining how it should look. He didn't last long at that post house.

It's less complicated / confusing when you're transferring to 16x9 HD and don't have the anamorphic standard-def 16x9 issues to deal with in the telecine bay.
  • 0

#5 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 21 June 2006 - 02:04 PM

I know. It's a complete mess right now. Walk into ANY TV retailer and count how many of the 16x9 display TV's that show the correct format. If you find more than 30% that are right - buy your TV there! They're almost always squished or strangely zoomed in the most hideous way - it's like they accept the fact that everyone looks like flagpoles because "it's the newest thing"... Drives me nuts.
  • 0


Opal

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Glidecam

The Slider

CineTape

Tai Audio

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab