Jump to content


Why not Anamorphic REGULAR 16?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 07:20 PM

Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind.

Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16."

Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base?
  • 0

#2 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 07:28 PM

Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind.

Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16."

Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base?


There ya' go. There is a sound business idea. Kodak and Fuji would surely get behind you.

Ramp up costs would be steep but not impossible.

A friend of mine has a Prism Anamorphic Vistascope lens from many years ago. It was manafactured for 16mm and it is a wonderful piece of glass. Even gives those nice horizontal blue flares!

Non-prism anamorphics aren't as spectacular.

F.R.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 14 December 2006 - 07:37 PM

Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind.

Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16."

Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base?


Sure, but why would someone invest in new lens technology just to make under-$10,000 cameras more viable? Someone who can only afford an old 16mm camera isn't going to be able to afford new anamorphic lenses that would probably cost more than the camera...

But, yes, there has been a need for partial anamorphic lenses, like with a 1.33X squeeze. This would help squeeze a 16x9-to1.85 image onto 4x3 formats (like 16mm, full aperture 4-perf 35mm, or 4x3 video) or squeeze a 2.35 image onto 16x9-ish formats (like Super-16, 3-perf 35mm, 16x9 video, etc.) In fact, there has been talk about such lenses for the past fifty years, off and on, but no one has really done anything about it yet.

Panavision has been developing a set (very slowly it seems) for their 16x9 Genesis camera, but it could be used on any camera with a Panavision mount. Joe Dunton has also expressed an interest in developing a set. The only thing I've heard about besides that was JP Beauviala at Aaton adapting an ISCO 1.5X anamorphic projector lens attachment onto a Super-16 camera. But he dropped that idea.

Trouble is that unless you spend the money to develop high-quality anamorphic camera lenses with this unique squeeze ratio in order to achieve a sharp image... then you're just defeating the purpose and might as well just crop the image and use a sharp spherical lens. I don't think anamorphic lens attachments are going to work much better than they do in 4x3 DV (in which there is no consensus as to whether they are worth the bother and improve the quality at all compared to cropping.)
  • 0

#4 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 15 December 2006 - 02:36 PM

Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind.

Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16."

Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base?


Cinema Products was going to that with a system they called Todd-AO 16 which used Iscorama-54 attachments. But at the last minute they did not put it on the market.

The Vistascopes do not focus, which can be a problem.
  • 0

#5 Adam Frisch FSF

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

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:13 PM

It would be welcome with a 1.33X anamorphic set of 16mm primes. As of now one is kind of stuck with just one format in 16mm.
  • 0

#6 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2031 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 15 December 2006 - 06:02 PM

I have a Kowa 16H Anamorphic lens that I have yet to rig an adaptor for... I've heard they've been used on Super 8 cameras, but I'm curious about trying it on my Scoopic MS.

The focus will be a pain since the Scoopic lens can't be removed. Perhaps the K3 would be a better option to try this lens on since it could actually be adapted for the M42 mount.
  • 0

#7 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 15 December 2006 - 06:08 PM

I believe the Kowa 16H is a 2x anamorphic, which is too wide, in my opinion, rendering a 2.66:1 image when unsqueezed. There are 1.5x anamorphics out there, but they're not as common. 1.5x is what I was suggesting.

I'm not sure what the problem would be with your non-removable Scoopic lens, other than the fact that at 75mm in diameter it's too big...

I think your Kowa would function better with fixed focal length lenses with small front diameters, like the Switars.

Edited by Ian Marks, 15 December 2006 - 06:08 PM.

  • 0

#8 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 16 December 2006 - 12:54 PM

I have a Kowa 16H Anamorphic lens that I have yet to rig an adaptor for... I've heard they've been used on Super 8 cameras, but I'm curious about trying it on my Scoopic MS.

The focus will be a pain since the Scoopic lens can't be removed. Perhaps the K3 would be a better option to try this lens on since it could actually be adapted for the M42 mount.

The Kowa is a lens attachment. It goes in front of the camera lens.
  • 0

#9 Murthy SNB

Murthy SNB
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bangalore INDIA

Posted 22 December 2006 - 09:49 AM

Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind.

Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16."

Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base?

Anamorphic is verymuch viable with regular 16 than on super 16, you can understand it if you
carefully go through the aspect ratios,
as for the lenses concerned, yes it will be prohibitively costly for new ones if MADE/PRODUCED
but anamorphic adaptors are best and easy way,
which I have done and getting 35mm cinemascope release prints, with 1.85:1,
  • 0

#10 James Erd

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

Posted 23 December 2006 - 02:28 PM

I was looking for an old aerial-image printing system known as a Vistascope and found this even older add: http://www.widescree...stascopeads.htm

Thought you might get a kick out it so I'm posting it here.
  • 0

#11 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 December 2006 - 03:12 PM

I was looking for an old aerial-image printing system known as a Vistascope and found this even older add: http://www.widescree...stascopeads.htm

Thought you might get a kick out it so I'm posting it here.


That ad is great!

If you look to the bottom right of the ad, there is a small form you can fill out to order the item. I'm gonna do that right now!!!! :P

Check out this page as well:
http://www.widescree...euradapters.htm

Edited by Keneu, 23 December 2006 - 03:16 PM.

  • 0

#12 shutter bug

shutter bug
  • Guests

Posted 30 December 2006 - 12:01 PM

there are lens makers out there that can design and cut a lens for your specific needs and the cost doesnt have to be out of this world. why not get a squeeze lens made up that fits behind the lens you plan on using which ofcourse have to cover super16.
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 30 December 2006 - 12:05 PM

"Shutter Bug", please change your User Name to your first and last name -- it's required. Thanks.
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 30 December 2006 - 02:25 PM

there are lens makers out there that can design and cut a lens for your specific needs and the cost doesnt have to be out of this world. why not get a squeeze lens made up that fits behind the lens you plan on using which ofcourse have to cover super16.

Mr. Bug:

For an anamorphic the cost is out of this world.

"Anamorphic lenses are time and money... lots of both" Denny Clairmont

From the PowerBroker's site, on bemoaning the cost and time of having existing rear anamorphics mounted.

For S16 you'll need a 1.5X or 1.33X squeeze, which have yet to exist.
There's not enough space behind a 16mm to fit a rear anamorphot.

Why not prospect for ice on Mars?
  • 0

#15 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 February 2007 - 12:58 PM

I'm about to do this with my front-attach 2x Anamorphic Lens taken from a projector.
Here are some test shots from my DSLR, Squeezed and De-Squeezed.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image


It's just such a pain to align the adapter to the lens on a K-3, it's much easier on a DSLR where you see the output hires right away.

Any idea on how to align a "ghetto" anamorphic lens adapter on the X/Y?

(Not the corresponding prisms. Which I aligned already.) But "level" it to the horizon somehow.
  • 0

#16 Jordan Brade

Jordan Brade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles, California

Posted 26 February 2007 - 08:12 PM

There are some anamorphic adaptors for video lenses, and I know that one company has one with a 72mm thread.

When I got my Eclair NPR, it came with an Angenieux 12-120mm zoom. I'm not at home right now, and I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure the thread on the lense is 72mm.

Assuming my memory isn't crapping out on me, and of course compensating for a huge chunk of extra glass, would I be able to use this adaptor? It seems like a possible solution, but I'm wondering if it would affect the lense at all.

The description of the adaptor also mentions vignetting, but that doesn't seem like it would be too much of an issue unless I did a zoom from 12-120 in one shot.

Here's a link:
Anamorphic adaptor
  • 0

#17 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 February 2007 - 08:09 AM

There are some anamorphic adaptors for video lenses, and I know that one company has one with a 72mm thread.

When I got my Eclair NPR, it came with an Angenieux 12-120mm zoom. I'm not at home right now, and I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure the thread on the lense is 72mm.

Assuming my memory isn't crapping out on me, and of course compensating for a huge chunk of extra glass, would I be able to use this adaptor? It seems like a possible solution, but I'm wondering if it would affect the lense at all.

The description of the adaptor also mentions vignetting, but that doesn't seem like it would be too much of an issue unless I did a zoom from 12-120 in one shot.

Here's a link:
Anamorphic adaptor


I looked at the Panasonic AG-LA7200G Anamorphic Adapter for DVX, it's a 1.3/1.5 (I think) Squeeze, it would be great for creating (about 2.40) on a Super-16 negative. Incidentally it has a 72mm rear, thread or clamp I have no clue.

I think the one you posted from 16x9 inc is just Telephoto Adapter. :-).
  • 0

#18 Mark Williams

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

Posted 27 February 2007 - 09:11 AM

Has anyone tried one of these ISCORAMA-54. If so whats it like?
  • 0

#19 Jordan Brade

Jordan Brade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles, California

Posted 27 February 2007 - 12:47 PM

I looked at the Panasonic AG-LA7200G Anamorphic Adapter for DVX, it's a 1.3/1.5 (I think) Squeeze, it would be great for creating (about 2.40) on a Super-16 negative. Incidentally it has a 72mm rear, thread or clamp I have no clue.

I think the one you posted from 16x9 inc is just Telephoto Adapter. :-).


Oops. I should probably start reading the descriptions better.

I'm pretty sure that the Panasonic adaptor goes on similarly to its lense hood.
  • 0

#20 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 February 2007 - 09:48 AM

Has anyone tried one of these ISCORAMA-54. If so whats it like?


I'm guessing this thread should answer a lot about ISCORAMA-54.

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=19558

The still you saw were shot through a SINGER 16-D which I believe to be a renamed SANKOR 16-D
  • 0


Glidecam

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

CineTape

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Opal

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC