Jump to content


Photo

2.35:1 Super 16mm


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Steven Wyatt

Steven Wyatt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Yorkshire, UK

Posted 29 October 2007 - 06:57 AM

Hello,

This probably been posted before, but I wondered if any one could shed any light on the matter. I' m looking into the possibility of shooting in this aspect ratio as opposed to standard 1:78:1. Are there anamorphic lenses in super 16 available to accomplish this? Either that or are there alternative methods such as utilising anamorphic adaptors on the camera to achieve this ratio. Originally I was thinking of using spherical lenses and then cropping either in the lab or in post. The only problem with this is that I do not have access to a 2.35.1 ground glass, which makes shooting a problem.

Any suggestions and/or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Regards,
Steven Wyatt
  • 0

#2 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 29 October 2007 - 07:54 AM

You're correct in that it has been posted before - try a search ;)
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 29 October 2007 - 10:59 AM

Technically, you'd need an anamorphic lens with a 1.42X squeeze to exactly fit 2.39 : 1 onto the 1.68 : 1 Super-16 negative. None are made. Currently, your only realistic choice are the standard 2X anamorphic lenses made, which will give you are 3.36 : 1 image, so you'd be cropping the sides to get 2.39 as much as you'd be croping top & bottom to get 2.39 if you shot with normal spherical lenses.

Plus you'd have the problem of finding short-enough focal-length 35mm anamorphic lenses to get wide-angle shots on a Super-16 camera.
  • 0

#4 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2430 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:29 AM

There are, or were, 'Scope adapters with a 1.5x squeeze made by Iscorama but, as they go on the front of the lens, they only cover relatively small lenses and tend to vignette at the wide end of a zoom.
There's some old information here http://members.aol.c...Widescreen.html
  • 0

#5 Murthy SNB

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

Posted 30 October 2007 - 01:28 AM

Hello,

This probably been posted before, but I wondered if any one could shed any light on the matter. I' m looking into the possibility of shooting in this aspect ratio as opposed to standard 1:78:1. Are there anamorphic lenses in super 16 available to accomplish this? Either that or are there alternative methods such as utilising anamorphic adaptors on the camera to achieve this ratio. Originally I was thinking of using spherical lenses and then cropping either in the lab or in post. The only problem with this is that I do not have access to a 2.35.1 ground glass, which makes shooting a problem.

Any suggestions and/or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Regards,
Steven Wyatt

The simplest way of shooting anamorphic in 16mm is to go for regular 16mm insted of super 16mm
and having a anamorphic adaptor on prime lenses, and go for regular 35mm blowup, for theatrical
release print, where youwill get the letterboxed cinemascope of 2.35:1 print,
regarding the ground glass, you can shoot full frame within safe area square mark,
you may not get the desqueezing in the finder, you have to get a bit adapted to the squeezed
image in the viewfinder,

Murthy SNB
  • 0

#6 jacob thomas

jacob thomas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 January 2008 - 07:53 PM

The simplest way of shooting anamorphic in 16mm is to go for regular 16mm insted of super 16mm
and having a anamorphic adaptor on prime lenses, and go for regular 35mm blowup, for theatrical
release print, where youwill get the letterboxed cinemascope of 2.35:1 print,
regarding the ground glass, you can shoot full frame within safe area square mark,
you may not get the desqueezing in the finder, you have to get a bit adapted to the squeezed
image in the viewfinder,

Murthy SNB


Why not try an anamorphic adaptor designed for shooting 16:9 on a 4:3 camera, this will give a 1.33 squeeze resulting in a ratio very close to 1:2.35. (1.33 x 1.66 = 2.20 or 1.33 x 1.78 = 2.35). I think there is a thread about this on one of the forums here...
  • 0

#7 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1585 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 28 January 2008 - 09:36 PM

Why not try an anamorphic adaptor designed for shooting 16:9 on a 4:3 camera, this will give a 1.33 squeeze resulting in a ratio very close to 1:2.35. (1.33 x 1.66 = 2.20 or 1.33 x 1.78 = 2.35). I think there is a thread about this on one of the forums here...



Wasn't Last King of Scotland 'scope 2.40 from a mix of Super16 and 35mm ?

-Rob-
  • 0

#8 Steve Zimmerman

Steve Zimmerman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Other
  • Charleston, SC USA

Posted 29 January 2008 - 12:15 AM

I guess this director has done a few 16mm widescreen films using "special anamorphic lenses".

http://www.dvdbeaver...eview/japon.htm
  • 0

#9 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 29 January 2008 - 03:12 PM

I guess this director has done a few 16mm widescreen films using "special anamorphic lenses".

http://www.dvdbeaver...eview/japon.htm


It was an old 35mm anamorphic attachment borrowed from Gaspar Noe's cameraman.

"This director" is a lawyer and used that attachment on just this movie.
Gaspar Noe maybe used it on a couple or so, but 'Irreversible' was SuperScope Super16.
  • 0

#10 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 29 January 2008 - 03:15 PM

Wasn't Last King of Scotland 'scope 2.40 from a mix of Super16 and 35mm ?


But it was SuperScope, You can't really call Super16 Super35. So use the original name for the process.

Current 1.33x anamorphs are okay for TV, but not really for large theatre screens.
  • 0

#11 Joe Sexton

Joe Sexton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Director

Posted 13 February 2008 - 12:11 PM

Why not try an anamorphic adaptor designed for shooting 16:9 on a 4:3 camera, this will give a 1.33 squeeze resulting in a ratio very close to 1:2.35. (1.33 x 1.66 = 2.20 or 1.33 x 1.78 = 2.35). I think there is a thread about this on one of the forums here...


I tried this with a panasonic adapter made for the DVX. It worked with wide lenses but not long ones. I was successful with up to my 28mm lens. But when I tried it with a 50mm lens I ended up with some weird color separation. I included a photo below of the result with the 28mm lens. Sorry the image is so dark it was supposed to be a dark scene. I can see if I still have any footage with the 50mm lens if you want to see what problems I had. To answer your question I wouldn't recommend it.

Posted Image

Edited by Joe Sexton, 13 February 2008 - 12:11 PM.

  • 0

#12 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 13 February 2008 - 12:43 PM

It was an old 35mm anamorphic attachment borrowed from Gaspar Noe's cameraman.
...
Gaspar Noe maybe used it on a couple or so, but 'Irreversible' was SuperScope Super16.

Noé's 1998 film Seul contre tous (I Stand Alone) was shot in anamorphic 16 mm - to be specific, I think that was regular 16 mm with a 2x attachment. Could have been that one.

The 35mm release print that I projected some years ago was actually just a tiny bit wider than 2.40:1; you could see very small black bars at the top and bottom of the image. (Not as wide as "full" 2.66:1, though.)
  • 0

#13 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 13 February 2008 - 10:51 PM

Hello,

This probably been posted before, but I wondered if any one could shed any light on the matter. I' m looking into the possibility of shooting in this aspect ratio as opposed to standard 1:78:1. Are there anamorphic lenses in super 16 available to accomplish this? Either that or are there alternative methods such as utilising anamorphic adaptors on the camera to achieve this ratio. Originally I was thinking of using spherical lenses and then cropping either in the lab or in post. The only problem with this is that I do not have access to a 2.35.1 ground glass, which makes shooting a problem.

Any suggestions and/or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Regards,
Steven Wyatt



I am rather the novice here, but would any Aaton ground glass fit your camera? I am assuming you have an Eclair. I am quite sure that Aaton makes an almost common top 2.35 / 1.78 viewing screen. Might that help? If you have a video tap, you could use a mask on the video monitor. Just make sure that if you do, you give your self some wiggle room. I did this once with a regular 16mm stuff for matting only, but I needed to see the frame. The black tape I put on the monitor was a huge help.

chris
  • 0

#14 Oron Cohen

Oron Cohen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tel-Aviv/London

Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:17 AM

Hi,

I recntely shot a film in London in super16 in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, me to didn't had exces to 2.35:1 ground glass, so I just used the montior with gaffer tape on it(cropping to 2.35:1) as a refernec, I think it's turend out great, we also shot some steady cam work and my steady cam opertor also did the same thing on his monitor, and everthing turend out ok.
the only problem that we had was in the wide shots, because even the 9.5 prime lens didn't always gave us the extrime wide shot that we wanted.
but I realy think that when you shoot a low budget film you sometimes need to use low budget methods if you know what I mean...

Attached Images

  • n581187348_740852_3293.jpg
  • n581187348_740965_5796.jpg
  • n581187348_740848_2423.jpg

  • 0

#15 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:42 AM

I recntely shot a film in London in super16 in 2.35:1 aspect ratio

Wow, that's actually much wider than 2.35:1/2.40:1... or even 2.66:1 (which is what you get with regular 16mm + 2x anamorphic attachment).

Edited by Antti Näyhä, 14 February 2008 - 05:46 AM.

  • 0

#16 Oron Cohen

Oron Cohen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tel-Aviv/London

Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:47 AM

here are two more wide shots, that I had some problem with, because I didn't have a "normal" wide lens.

Attached Images

  • vlcsnap_1082952.jpg
  • vlcsnap_1094748.jpg

  • 0

#17 Oron Cohen

Oron Cohen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tel-Aviv/London

Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:51 AM

Wow, that's actually much wider than 2.35:1/2.40:1... or even 2.66:1 (which is what you get with regular 16mm + 2x anamorphic attachment).


I don't really can say for sure what crop mask the editor has put, but I am almost certain that this is a 2.35:1 mask on, please anyone correct me if I'm worng.
but any way when we get to post production it will be 2:35:1.

Oron.
  • 0

#18 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:12 AM

I don't really can say for sure what crop mask the editor has put, but I am almost certain that this is a 2.35:1 mask on

Your screenshots are about 3.12:1 to be exact. :) Probably just a quick approximation by the editor...
  • 0

#19 Oron Cohen

Oron Cohen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tel-Aviv/London

Posted 16 February 2008 - 06:50 AM

Your screenshots are about 3.12:1 to be exact. :) Probably just a quick approximation by the editor...


Dear Antti,

Thanks for paying my attention to this!
I got those stills captures from the director a day or two before I post them and I admit I didn't measured the frame or notice it in first view(but I learned that mistakes happen even if you think that you know your job perfectly),
anyway I checked it with the a editor and he did use the 2.35:1 mask from the pre-set on the FSP, so I didn't found out (yet) why it came out 3.12:1 and I'm trying to check it out, if you or any one else have any idea why this could happen I will be happy to hear your views.

Thanks,

Oron.

Edited by Oron Cohen, 16 February 2008 - 06:51 AM.

  • 0

#20 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3076 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 February 2008 - 07:40 AM

If your footage was TK'ed as 16x9 anamorphic, what may have happened is that your editor applied the 2.35 mask to the squeezed footage, which would then be unsqueezed in FCP leaving you with an ultra wide crop
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineTape

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Tai Audio

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post