Jump to content


Photo

Houses that handle Ultra 16


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 30 November 2006 - 10:22 AM

I'm considering having my Scoopic modified for Ultra 16 since it seems to be much easier than doing a true Super 16 mod but I'm concerned that finding a transfer house might be difficult. This will allow me to continue to use it as standard 16, but for future HD transfers I'll have a little more film to work with.

I believe a Spirit or Shadow can handle it, but I know that the Y-Front my local house uses can't since it can't see into the sproket area on the left (due to pin registration?).

I'm basically looking for two types of transfers, a standard def, anamorphic 16:9 and HD. Can anyone recommend a reasonable transfer houses with good colorists that could handle the Ultra 16 frame?
  • 0

#2 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2006 - 11:35 AM

I'm considering having my Scoopic modified for Ultra 16 since it seems to be much easier than doing a true Super 16 mod but I'm concerned that finding a transfer house might be difficult. This will allow me to continue to use it as standard 16, but for future HD transfers I'll have a little more film to work with.

I believe a Spirit or Shadow can handle it, but I know that the Y-Front my local house uses can't since it can't see into the sproket area on the left (due to pin registration?).

I'm basically looking for two types of transfers, a standard def, anamorphic 16:9 and HD. Can anyone recommend a reasonable transfer houses with good colorists that could handle the Ultra 16 frame?


Most any higher end house can zoom back a bit to get the full area.

Fotokem is the best on the west coast in my opinion.

Yale Film and Video comes in as a close second, older equipment but they more than make up for it. Greg, the main telecine guy, is the bees knees.

Off topic, does your K-3 S16 have a modified viewfinder?

Do you know how they did it?

Is there a removable viewfinder mask? I was under the impression the prism was the limiting factor in getting a viewfinder modification.

F.R.
  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 30 November 2006 - 11:41 AM

Most any higher end house can zoom back a bit to get the full area.

Fotokem is the best on the west coast in my opinion.

Yale Film and Video comes in as a close second, older equipment but they more than make up for it. Greg, the main telecine guy, is the bees knees.

Off topic, does your K-3 S16 have a modified viewfinder?

Do you know how they did it?

Is there a removable viewfinder mask? I was under the impression the prism was the limiting factor in getting a viewfinder modification.

F.R.


Hi,

FWIW no commercial telecine or optical printer supports Ultra 16.

Stephen
  • 0

#4 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2006 - 12:03 PM

Hi,

FWIW no commercial telecine or optical supports Ultra 16.

Stephen


They won't tell you the "officially support" it. But then again, when you are in the suite with colorist you can ask them to pull back to the perfs.

And on the high end of things...

Scan Ultra 16 at 2K for a digital intermediate and you'd be surprised how good it looks. But that gets expensive.

Use of non standard SMPTE or ISO formats at a transfer house will make them say they don't support it but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

It would just be "at the users risk".

Ultra-16mm is wonderful format.

F.R.
  • 0

#5 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 30 November 2006 - 12:48 PM

They won't tell you the "officially support" it. But then again, when you are in the suite with colorist you can ask them to pull back to the perfs.

And on the high end of things...

Scan Ultra 16 at 2K for a digital intermediate and you'd be surprised how good it looks. But that gets expensive.

Use of non standard SMPTE or ISO formats at a transfer house will make them say they don't support it but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

It would just be "at the users risk".

Ultra-16mm is wonderful format.

F.R.


Hi.

I was using a Spirit for S16 last week and asked the colourist to pull back, he was unable to see between the 2 perfs! Therefore I believe that a Spirit is unable to scan Ultra 16.

FWIW there is no scanner with an Ultra 16 gate so again a 2K scan is not possible, except in your imagination.

BTW it is a requirement of this forum to use your real name.

Stephen
  • 0

#6 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 01 December 2006 - 01:28 AM

Film Runner,

D'ya mind changing your display name to your real name in the 'My Controls' link?

The first paragraph of the Forum Guidelines thus state:

Members on this forum are required to use their full real names for their Display Name. The format to use is your first name followed by a space followed by your last/family/surname. Please capitalize the first letter of each. Accounts that do not comply will be removed and cannot be reactivated. Display names can be edited in My Controls / Change Display Name once you?re logged in.


  • 0

#7 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2006 - 01:41 AM

Hi.

I was using a Spirit for S16 last week and asked the colourist to pull back, he was unable to see between the 2 perfs! Therefore I believe that a Spirit is unable to scan Ultra 16.

FWIW there is no scanner with an Ultra 16 gate so again a 2K scan is not possible, except in your imagination.

BTW it is a requirement of this forum to use your real name.

Stephen


This is my real name. Check my last post on that subject.

F.R.
  • 0

#8 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:07 AM

FWIW there is no scanner with an Ultra 16 gate so again a 2K scan is not possible, except in your imagination.


Really?

How much would you care to wager on that?

F.R.
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:24 AM

Please change your display name to your real name.
  • 0

#10 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:25 AM

Please change your display name to your real name.


What? You want a scan of my Driver's License?

Will that make everybody happy?

F.R.
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:27 AM

What? You want a scan of my Driver's License?


No, we just want you to use your real name.
  • 0

#12 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:37 AM

No, we just want you to use your real name.


I'd rather not.

Have fun in your little sandbox.

You guys missed out.

F.R.
  • 0

#13 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 01 December 2006 - 04:00 AM

Really?

How much would you care to wager on that?

F.R.


Hi Mr Film Runner,

Gates in film scanners are machined to fractions of a mm. They will not by chance be 1mm oversize! Sure if you use a S16 gate you can see the perfs on one side but not on the other.

Stephen
  • 0

#14 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 01 December 2006 - 04:33 AM

I'm considering having my Scoopic modified for Ultra 16 since it seems to be much easier than doing a true Super 16 mod but I'm concerned that finding a transfer house might be difficult. This will allow me to continue to use it as standard 16, but for future HD transfers I'll have a little more film to work with.

I believe a Spirit or Shadow can handle it, but I know that the Y-Front my local house uses can't since it can't see into the sproket area on the left (due to pin registration?).

I'm basically looking for two types of transfers, a standard def, anamorphic 16:9 and HD. Can anyone recommend a reasonable transfer houses with good colorists that could handle the Ultra 16 frame?



I think the basic problem with this format is that most film handling gear (Tk.,Printers, etc.) ignores the area between the sprockets on that side of the 16mm frame and furthermore uses it as the primary support and handling of the film. This is, of course, not a problem in process or assembly if you assume Super-16 and do bench assembly with tight-winds.

I was using a Spirit2k with Pogle platinum in NYC some months ago (I was operating) to transfer Super-16 which I had shot. Being familiar with TK/CC operation I tried some standard re-positioning stuff as I wanted to see how a CCD based Tk handled zooms, etc and I am used to Flying Spot. I saw no perf area on the Spirit. I would assume that a re-working of the super16 gate and optics would have to happen with the spirit to get it to do ultra, or at least a re-machining of the skid plate in the gate. A cut skid plate would not do anything to keep other parts of the TK mechanism from scratching the ultra area on the left side i.e. rollers.

A Y-Front does not have a Pin registered 16mm gate or at least I do not know of anyone who ever made one, 35mm pin+ gates were common. I think it would be relatively easier to get a SD rank to at least show the full frame of this format and at one time last year I had someone call to inquire about whether we could handle ultra16 and I was considering a simple modification to one of our 16mm gates to be able to see the area those people decided to shoot Super16 instead. That modification would be a easy thing for our machine shop to do and would involve widening the aperture of the skid plate but again would not be a complete re work of the Tk mechanism from rollers to encoder sprockets to skid plate flats which would be needed to ensure a scratch free movement.

I think scanning might be a more viable option but if you are trying to put your 16mm on a Northlight or Arriscan those costs will dwarf any money saved by shooting Ultra-16. Perhaps Jeff Kreines Kinetta scanner would work for this as I believe it is a continuous movement with a very simple "gate" requiring a optical zoom on the camera you might want to ask him.

I seriously doubt that a facility with a Spirit or DSX, etc would be willing to modify a $60K+ gate for this.

-Rob-
  • 0

#15 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 01 December 2006 - 10:18 AM

I seriously doubt that a facility with a Spirit or DSX, etc would be willing to modify a $60K+ gate for this.


I agree. It boils down to finding a gate/device that can see the sprokets; if it can "zoom out" to see those, then I'm sure I can work with the colorist and a little math to get to my anamorphic SD or HD transfer.

I was told that a Millennium can do it as it can see the entire film. I thought the Spirit could, but I defer to more experienced people on that.

Just trying to find if someone that has actually worked in this format and had any transfer successes. The mod for my Scoopic will be affordable while a Super 16 mod would be crazy labor intensive and not worth it by a long shot.

p.s. What a pleasure to be a member of a forum that doesn't rely on cheezy nicknames and has professionals that actually care about their craft and helping other artists develop.
  • 0

#16 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2006 - 11:11 AM

I agree. It boils down to finding a gate/device that can see the sprokets; if it can "zoom out" to see those, then I'm sure I can work with the colorist and a little math to get to my anamorphic SD or HD transfer.

I was told that a Millennium can do it as it can see the entire film.



YOU ARE CORRECT!

Stephen Williams owes you a lunch for his bogus information.

I'd have had him taking me to lunch, but he wouldn't put his money where his mouth is.


p.s. What a pleasure to be a member of a forum that doesn't rely on cheezy nicknames and has professionals that actually care about their craft and helping other artists develop.


Well, Will Montgomery, ass kissing is your choice.

I won't take part in any online group that demands people's 'true name'.

Aside from being incredible tacky, childish and possibly even dangerous. It's ethically and morally wrong.

But all of you work or want to work in Hollywood, so I guess that isn't a problem for you.

Have fun. I'm leaving.

Goodbye.

F.R.
  • 0

#17 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 01 December 2006 - 01:01 PM

I agree. It boils down to finding a gate/device that can see the sprokets; if it can "zoom out" to see those, then I'm sure I can work with the colorist and a little math to get to my anamorphic SD or HD transfer.

I was told that a Millennium can do it as it can see the entire film. I thought the Spirit could, but I defer to more experienced people on that.



The Millenium may very well be able to do this as it has a gate which "floats' the film on air somehow and a flying spot machine can change the patch size and shape to give optical zoom effects so it would be worth a try. That machine is in my opinion capable of making better images than the spirit 2K and later models will scan to 4K.

-Rob-
  • 0

#18 James Erd

James Erd
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Director
  • Palo Alto, CA

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:12 PM

My understanding is that a camera converted to Super-16 can still shoot standard 16 film. So that seems worthwhile if the conversion itself is economical. Granted the Scoopy doesn't look like a good candidate, but there are other cameras out there. Keeping an eye out for a good deal on a Super-16 might make Ultra-16 a moot issue. Is being able to expose between the sprockets worthwhile if it's so hard to find support later?
  • 0

#19 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:22 PM

YOU ARE CORRECT!

Stephen Williams owes you a lunch for his bogus information.

I'd have had him taking me to lunch, but he wouldn't put his money where his mouth is.
Well, Will Montgomery, ass kissing is your choice.

I won't take part in any online group that demands people's 'true name'.

Goodbye.

F.R.


Hi FR,

Are you saying Milleniun supports Ultra 16 ?

OK so a handfull of telecines in the world may be able to see the image but what about scratching?

So what scanners can handle Ultra 16 then?

Stephen
  • 0

#20 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 03 December 2006 - 10:43 AM

OK so a handfull of telecines in the world may be able to see the image but what about scratching?

So what scanners can handle Ultra 16 then?

Stephen


Stephen, can you explain the main differences between scanners and a telecine machines.

Cheers,
Andy
  • 0


CineTape

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Opal

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies