Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic standard 16mm


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Mark Williams

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

Posted 08 March 2008 - 01:59 PM

The standard 16mm aperture is about 78mm square and obviously the same in anamorphic.

Super 16mm cropped for 1:85 is 80mm square

Anamorphic standard 16 is about 1:2 using a 1.5 anamorphic lense so a bit needs cropping.

The real difference between Super16mm and standard 16mm area is 17% not as often quoted 20%

So is the difference between standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm about 15% or less? in 1:85 aspect ratio?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 08 March 2008 - 05:14 PM

What "anamorphic 16mm" format are you talking about?
  • 0

#3 Mark Williams

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

Posted 08 March 2008 - 05:50 PM

What "anamorphic 16mm" format are you talking about?

I guess I have lost you in the fact there isnt one. I assume your talking about this part of my post

QUOTE
So is the difference between standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm about 15% or less? in 1:85 aspect ratio?

--------------------------------------------------------
I was not implying Standard anamorphic to be a format just a way to put my question..

OK I'll put it another way. Super 16 is often quoted as being 20% larger than the area of Standard 16mm film Its not its closer to 17% However that aside.

Although you have to crop 16mm film that has been filmed with an anamorphic lens to get 1:85.The HDTV Aspect ratio. You also have to crop super 16mm film to get 1:85 the aspect ratio for HDTV. You would end up with standard 16mm having about 15% less viewable area than super 16mm This is good news if you cant upgrade your standard 16MM camera to Super 16. Although may be not as sharp as Super 16mm its still better than the oft quoted 50% loss by masking standard 16mm to achieve this.
  • 0

#4 Mark Williams

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 10:47 AM

Perhaps there was? A 16mm anamorphic format? Todd-AO 16 Designed to compete with super 16 but never took off? This used an anamorphic lens with a standard 16mm camera.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 10:53 AM

Although you have to crop 16mm film that has been filmed with an anamorphic lens to get 1:85.The HDTV Aspect ratio. You also have to crop super 16mm film to get 1:85 the aspect ratio for HDTV.


Again, what anamorphic 16mm format that gives you 1.85?

Do you mean a standard 2X anamorphic lens, which would give you 2.66 : 1 if you figure the 16mm frame is 1.33, or 2.74 if you figure the 16mm frame is 1.37? So why would you use an anamorphic lens to get 1.85?

Or are you talking about some sort of 1.34X anamorphic lens yet to be released? Or the experimental 1.5X anamorphic lens made up by someone for a test years ago using an ISCO attachment that doesn't really exist for use?

2X anamorphic lenses are currently the only commonplace anamorphics.

And HDTV is 1.78, not 1.85.

The Super-16 negative is 1.68, full aperture.

So are you asking about cropping Super-16 to 1.78 for HDTV versus cropping regular 16mm to 1.78?
  • 0

#6 Mark Williams

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 04:02 PM

OK One step at a time

1) The Super 16mm frame size is 17% larger than the Standard 16mm frame.

2) Using an anamorphic 1.5x lens on a standard 16mm camera will mean that image when unsqueezed will be 17% smaller than a super 16mm picture.

3) The Anamorhic lens on a standard academy size 16mm frame will give you a 2:1 aspect ratio.
4) The super 16mm frame size will be 1:66

To achieve a blow up to 35mm film both the standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm will both have to be trimmed.

6) The difference now between super16 and anamorphic standard 16 to achieve either a HDTV aspect ratio or for blow up to 35mm is a lot less than the 54% often quoted.

7) Because film can now be digitally scanned this is a way perhaps to use standard 16mm footage with a lot less grain.

8) And super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

What is your opinion? Or anyone elses opinion of this? Workable? If not why?
  • 0

#7 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:02 PM

OK One step at a time

1) The Super 16mm frame size is 17% larger than the Standard 16mm frame.

2) Using an anamorphic 1.5x lens on a standard 16mm camera will mean that image when unsqueezed will be 17% smaller than a super 16mm picture.

3) The Anamorhic lens on a standard academy size 16mm frame will give you a 2:1 aspect ratio.
4) The super 16mm frame size will be 1:66

To achieve a blow up to 35mm film both the standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm will both have to be trimmed.

6) The difference now between super16 and anamorphic standard 16 to achieve either a HDTV aspect ratio or for blow up to 35mm is a lot less than the 54% often quoted.

7) Because film can now be digitally scanned this is a way perhaps to use standard 16mm footage with a lot less grain.

8) And super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

What is your opinion? Or anyone elses opinion of this? Workable? If not why?



Firstly I don't see why you would want to chop the sides off a 2:1 aspect ratio picture. I think it would just be nice at 2:1

Secondly chopping the sides off is likely to screw up the framing a lot more than a tiny bit off the top and/or bottom. I guess you would thus need to find a way of marking where to crop in the viewfinder.

Thirdly I assume you are asking about the perceived resolution in real terms and I have no idea.

love

Freya
  • 0

#8 Mark Williams

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:11 PM

Firstly I don't see why you would want to chop the sides off a 2:1 aspect ratio picture. I think it would just be nice at 2:1

Secondly chopping the sides off is likely to screw up the framing a lot more than a tiny bit off the top and/or bottom. I guess you would thus need to find a way of marking where to crop in the viewfinder.

Thirdly I assume you are asking about the perceived resolution in real terms and I have no idea.

love

Freya


Hi Freya Yes I agree I think its a shame to lop off the sides! And yes would have to mark out the frame size although for anamorphic 16 you would be taking a bit from one or both ends. Not top and bottom.

Edited by Mark Williams, 10 March 2008 - 05:12 PM.

  • 0

#9 Keneu Luca

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:20 PM

OK One step at a time

1) The Super 16mm frame size is 17% larger than the Standard 16mm frame.

2) Using an anamorphic 1.5x lens on a standard 16mm camera will mean that image when unsqueezed will be 17% smaller than a super 16mm picture.

3) The Anamorhic lens on a standard academy size 16mm frame will give you a 2:1 aspect ratio.
4) The super 16mm frame size will be 1:66

To achieve a blow up to 35mm film both the standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm will both have to be trimmed.

6) The difference now between super16 and anamorphic standard 16 to achieve either a HDTV aspect ratio or for blow up to 35mm is a lot less than the 54% often quoted.

7) Because film can now be digitally scanned this is a way perhaps to use standard 16mm footage with a lot less grain.

8) And super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

What is your opinion? Or anyone elses opinion of this? Workable? If not why?


As someone who is currently experimenting with 16mm anamorphic, I'll give you my three and a half cents.

First, what are the specs of this 1.5X lens? Size and diameter? There are issues of vignetting with short focal length spherical lenses, which relates to the diameter size of the anamorphic lens. Another issue is distance to the subject. Anamorphic lens attachments like the ones we're discussing typically cannot focus closer than 5 feet from the subject. And man does that suck.

Are you referring to an exisitng 1.5X anamorphic lens? Or would one need to be designed, in which case, costs might rise to the equivalent of just shooting super 16. A variety of mounts needs to be addressed as well.

Now if you're talking about a more conventionial 2X anamorphic lens on regular 16mm - that I think is a more worthwhile endeavor.

See here:
http://www.cinematog...p;hl=anamorphic
  • 0

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:23 PM

Hi Freya Yes I agree I think its a shame to lop off the sides! And yes would have to mark out the frame size although for anamorphic 16 you would be taking a bit from one or both ends. Not top and bottom.



Exactly what I mean and if you are chooping it off the sides it's going to screw up your framing a lot more than chopping a bit off the top and/or bottom of a S16 frame.

But why would you want to chop off the sides. Why would you want 1.85:1 when you could have 2:1?
Storarro seems happy with 2:1. Why would you butcher a perfectly good aspect ratio to get 1.85:1?
There seems to be no good reason???

love

Freya
  • 0

#11 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:46 PM

would have thought the best option would be to shoot s16 with hawk v-lites (with 1.33x elements inside). cannot wait for these lenses.
  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:50 PM

would have thought the best option would be to shoot s16 with hawk v-lites (with 1.33x elements inside). cannot wait for these lenses.



Keith these sound really intresting! :)
Can you tell me anything more about these?
Are they adapted Lomos or something else?

love

Freya
  • 0

#13 Mark Williams

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 05:58 PM

Freya its not that you would want to but 1:85 is the size for blowing up to 35mm and 1:78 is the size for HDTV So to reach those requirements you have to lop a bit off. However you could always have black bars they would only be small.

Hi Kenue
First, what are the specs of this 1.5X lens? Size and diameter? There are issues of vignetting with short focal length spherical lenses, which relates to the diameter size of the anamorphic lens.

An iscorama 54

Another issue is distance to the subject. Anamorphic lens attachments like the ones we're discussing typically cannot focus closer than 5 feet from the subject. And man does that suck.

Yeah

Are you referring to an exisitng 1.5X anamorphic lens? Or would one need to be designed, in which case, costs might rise to the equivalent of just shooting super 16. A variety of mounts needs to be addressed as well.

It exists although Im waiting for it to be deliverd

Now if you're talking about a more conventionial 2X anamorphic lens on regular 16mm - that I think is a more worthwhile endeavor

You would need to crop though for 2:39 from 2:74. Im looking for a way to upgrade my standard 16mm camera to a higher level.
  • 0

#14 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 10 March 2008 - 06:27 PM

Freya its not that you would want to but 1:85 is the size for blowing up to 35mm and 1:78 is the size for HDTV So to reach those requirements you have to lop a bit off. However you could always have black bars they would only be small.


I think you could easily just letterbox the footage on a 1.85 print. It might even help in those cinemas where the image spills off the screen slightly. Letterboxing would mean you would keep the full quality from the negative without cropping and would also be squished into a smaller area which would reduce grain too.

Same goes for HD video too really, you can easily just letterbox it into 16:9 for video. I actually do this for standard definition video when I shoot 1.5x anamorphic.

I guess you could even pillarbox it onto an anamorphic print!

The other problem you may run into is the quality of the anamorphic glass and whether it will diminish the quality of your film in some way.

love

Freya
  • 0

#15 Mark Williams

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 06:40 PM

Well in those circumstances your right and it would be even more competitive with super 16mm which would have black bars on the ends if it used its whole image area. :)
  • 0

#16 Adam Frisch FSF

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 06:44 PM

Hawk V-Lites are not 1.33x squeeze. They're normal 2x anamorphics, just smaller and lighter.

For anamorphic to work on 16mm, someone needs to design lenses specific for this format, either with a 1.33x or 1.5 squeeze. They have to be wide enough to be useful - 35mm coverage and focal lengths simply won't cut it. This hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Panavision were supposedly developing anamorphics for a digital camera, but i haven't heard of nything lately. Joe Dunton did the same, but nothing's come off it.

Until this happens, using anamorphic on 16mm is futile, since not only are you having to use far to long lenses, you're also not gaining any resolution by chopping stuff off at the sides.
  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 07:34 PM

Vantage says they can convert their Hawk lenses to 1.34X anamorphic by switching some elements in them, though I have yet to see such lenses.

Anamorphic 1.5X 16mm doesn't really exist as a viable format yet -- a one-time experiment by sticking a 1.5X Isco adaptor onto a lens doesn't count. So I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether this imaginary 1.5X anamorphic 16mm format is better than Super-16...

Until there are entire sets of primes and zooms available in a new anamorphic format, it's nothing more than an experiment.
  • 0

#18 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 10 March 2008 - 09:01 PM

Vantage says they can convert their Hawk lenses to 1.34X anamorphic by switching some elements in them, though I have yet to see such lenses.

Anamorphic 1.5X 16mm doesn't really exist as a viable format yet -- a one-time experiment by sticking a 1.5X Isco adaptor onto a lens doesn't count. So I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether this imaginary 1.5X anamorphic 16mm format is better than Super-16...

Until there are entire sets of primes and zooms available in a new anamorphic format, it's nothing more than an experiment.

Oh come now David, let the boy dream of conquering the world with his new format. We both were young too once.
  • 0

#19 Keneu Luca

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

Posted 10 March 2008 - 10:24 PM

Mark, and everyone else, take a look at this video.

http://download.thef...grayson_bts.zip

It's from this website:

http://theforce.net/.../nonsw/grayson/
  • 0

#20 Antti Näyhä

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

Posted 11 March 2008 - 02:45 AM

The Super-16 negative is 1.68, full aperture.

super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

Just out of interest, I had to look this up. The Super 16 camera aperture is 0.493 x 0.292 in (12.52 x 7.41 mm), which makes it 1.69:1.

Not that it's that exact in practice, of course, as some of the edges will have to be cropped out anyway... Sorry for the nitpicking. :)
  • 0


Ritter Battery

CineTape

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

CineLab

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Opal

The Slider

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc