Jump to content


Photo

New Format


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 10:42 AM

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?

Attached Images

  • Scope16.jpg

  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 09 September 2008 - 10:56 AM

Hi,

It does not exist, probably because because there will be a lot of scratching of negative.

Stephen

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?


  • 0

#3 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 11:04 AM

Mitchell's pull-down and pin registration are below the gate. There's room in the aperture plate to chop out the gate. If well polished it shouldn't scratch the neg. Getting DI would be a problem. But, any new format has troubles.
  • 0

#4 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 September 2008 - 11:23 AM

This would be a variant of the Ultra-16 concept. Actually, I believe in the eighties someone did some ski or surf films this way and then 4-walled theaters with a specially rigged projector and synced magtrack.

It could be done, but ........ why?

And I would call it something like Widescreen-16mm as anamorphic has nothing to do with it.
  • 0

#5 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 09 September 2008 - 11:26 AM

Mitchell's pull-down and pin registration are below the gate. There's room in the aperture plate to chop out the gate. If well polished it shouldn't scratch the neg. Getting DI would be a problem. But, any new format has troubles.


I was thinking more about the sprockets & rollers scratching the film, not the gate.
  • 0

#6 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 September 2008 - 11:28 AM

This would be a variant of the Ultra-16 concept. Actually, I believe in the eighties someone did some ski or surf films this way and then 4-walled theaters with a specially rigged projector and synced magtrack.

It could be done, but ........ why?

And I would call it something like Widescreen-16mm as anamorphic has nothing to do with it.


Right. If Ultra 16 is already taken, how about Uber16? Pano16? :P
  • 0

#7 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 September 2008 - 12:20 PM

IIRC, doesn't 16mm have edge numbers or other factory latent image stuff in the space vertically between the holes?

As for having perfs between rather than alongside the frames, the old 9.5mm format did it that way, with the sprocket holes in the center. That was problematic, in that any feed failure tore up the middle of the picture.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#8 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 12:40 PM

Hey John,

Good call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keykode

I guess asking the Yellow God to turn off the keykoding machine might be fruitless.

Here are some numbers to think about:

S16
@ 1.85:1, .493 x .266, Area= .131
@ 2.39:1, .493 x .206, Area= .102

Scope16
@ 2.39:1, .591 x .247, Area= .146

T-scope:
@ 2.39:1 .868 x .373, Area= .324

The numbers ain't shabby for Scope16. Plus, you get all that room for a data block. Darn keykode!

Though, I guess you could run the frame right up to the edge of the keykode and right up to the other edge of the film. I don't know what the math would be on that since I don't have specs on keykode dimensions.
  • 0

#9 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 01:34 PM

I guess asking the Yellow God to turn off the keykoding machine might be fruitless.

Attached Images

  • 16mm_keykodes.jpg

  • 0

#10 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 01:56 PM

Mitchell's pull-down and pin registration are below the gate. There's room in the aperture plate to chop out the gate. If well polished it shouldn't scratch the neg. Getting DI would be a problem. But, any new format has troubles.


Plus, you could run double-perf on a Mitchell and get flawless registration. Something that 16mm really needs.

So, more real estate than S16, better registration, and scope ratio. With V3's resolution and some decent lenses, this isn't a terrible idea. Just imperfect.
  • 0

#11 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 02:04 PM

Holy smokes! What if you could buffer the audio and flash a time overlapped, digital, audio track (SDDS-like) into that large data block?

Less film wasted on slating as well. No more sync gear wired up to everything. Put the XLR mic inputs right on the camera and have built-in phantom power like on a Canon XL2. I like the way this is going.
  • 0

#12 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 02:25 PM

...and, if you shoot only color stock, the audio data could be in grades of relational color allowing for greater data presence for the space. You could pack a hell of a lot of data into that space. Maybe 8 tracks of 24 bit sound or something completely over the top like that. Since the camera is flashing the data, it is not picture exposure sensitive. You could set a compensator for push and pull processing. I think you could maintain densities without too much trouble.
  • 0

#13 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 September 2008 - 04:31 PM

I'd rather suggest Vista-16, which would turn the camera on its side with a frame twp perfs long. Plenty of room for data along the top (non-perf) edge. But then again, I'd still say you're nuts for pursuing it.
  • 0

#14 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 September 2008 - 04:37 PM

Thinking doesn't cost anything.

Attached Images

  • scope16_02.jpg

  • 0

#15 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 10 September 2008 - 11:04 AM

235
@ 3:2, 1.417" x .945", Diagonal= 1.703" (1.339"Area, 4.724"Perimeter)

Scope16
@ 2.39:1, .591 x .247, Area= .146, Diagonal= 0.640538, down-conversion factor= .376

Scope16 might just get away with a 3X reverse teleconversion. If so, you could use a Nikon f1.2 lens at f0.45 with a DoF of f1.2. Or, you could shoot at f1.2 (DoF of f3.4) on V3 at an ASA of 4,000.

Too bad Cinema Products isn't still in business. I could see all this system with a "CP16SC" label on the side.
  • 0

#16 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 September 2008 - 11:49 AM

I'm quite surprised there was never a production-end equivalent to SDDS for single-system sound. Probably the closest to it would be Aatoncode. I don't think anyone's ever recorded digital sound onto camera negative. I suspect the need to do it and the technology to do it never quite coexisted.

P
  • 0

#17 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 September 2008 - 12:31 PM

Well, if you're going to turn off the latent image numbering and data, why not turn off the perforating machine, too? That way you can build cameras that advance the film using some sort of friction grip, and in addition to the image, expose their own registration marks just outside the frame. Scan for DI aligning to those marks, and you have much better registration than you can get mechanically, without the expensive and complex pulldown and registration pin mechanisms. And you can make your frames whatever size and aspect ratio you want within the width limitations of the film.

Years ago, I thought of adding that kind of latent image registration mark between the perfs on 35mm, but nobody thought it was worth the effort.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#18 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 10 September 2008 - 12:40 PM

I remember having that discussion with you some time back on some other crazy format. I agree. I think it's a great idea. Bring film into the digital age. It's still the superior capture medium. Integrate elements from other technologies and it just gets better and better.

Sod the nay-sayers.
  • 0

#19 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 10 September 2008 - 03:38 PM

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?


There was an article in a 60s AC about this. Some Australian hobbyist converted his Bolex to it.
The sample frames in the article did exhibit Kodacrome edge ID.

Tony Shapps at WWW.WIDESCREEN-CENTRE.CO.UK would know more.

Paul:
Are you hunkerin' down in your storm shelter & developing cabin fever?
  • 0

#20 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 10 September 2008 - 03:59 PM

Hey Leo,

Thanks for the tip.

I'm about 7 hours drive north of New Orleans. The hurricanes break up into only wicked thunderstorms by the time they get up here. Oddly, we've been getting way more tornado action, lately. Sometimes it blows in with the worn-out hurricanes. Sometimes it just blows in. I keep hearing that it's the result of global weirding. Last three summers, previous, we've been in a drought. Last summer just about broke Atlanta. This summer we've had rain aplenty. The cattleman that owns all of the land surrounding my house has pulled three crops of hay off his land and will get a forth. Last summer, he barely got one. People think movie making is crazy and unpredictable...
  • 0


Technodolly

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineTape

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Opal

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc