Jump to content


Photo

Ultra 16 Telecine


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 17 September 2008 - 02:09 PM

What telecine machines can handle Ultra 16?

Considering modifying a Scoopic for this format, but the local Y-Front & Millennium machines can't see into the sprocket area.

Would I be limited to Spirits only?
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 17 September 2008 - 02:24 PM

What telecine machines can handle Ultra 16?

Considering modifying a Scoopic for this format, but the local Y-Front & Millennium machines can't see into the sprocket area.

Would I be limited to Spirits only?


Hi,

Spirits don't support Ultra 16. I am fairly sure that no other telecine on planet earth does either.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 17 September 2008 - 05:02 PM

Spirits don't support Ultra 16. I am fairly sure that no other telecine on planet earth does either.

Any Martian or Lunar telecine suites available?
  • 0

#4 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:38 PM

I seem to recall that bonolabs was working with Ultra16. You might check them out. www.bonolabs.com ... I can see them on the right side of my screen...

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com
  • 0

#5 kevin jackman

kevin jackman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:23 AM

I seem to recall that bonolabs was working with Ultra16. You might check them out. www.bonolabs.com ... I can see them on the right side of my screen...

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com



you might want to make sure your lens will cover the wider frame. i dont think it will.
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:44 AM

I seem to recall that bonolabs was working with Ultra16. You might check them out. www.bonolabs.com ... I can see them on the right side of my screen...

Bruce Taylor
www.Indi35.com


Hi Bruce,

I don't think they had any idea what Ultra 16 is, they just gave an answer to a questin they did not understand IMHO. It would cost a facility an awful lot of money for very little return, thats why it's not supported.

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Andy_Alderslade

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

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:38 AM

Hi Bruce,

I don't think they had any idea what Ultra 16 is, they just gave an answer to a questin they did not understand IMHO. It would cost a facility an awful lot of money for very little return, thats why it's not supported.

Stephen


I suppose the only facilities that would be immediately be able to deal with it would be archive and amateur film telecine people who use Movie Stuffs's transfer equipment. As far as I am aware their equipment allows versatile zooming in on the frame area and easy adjustments, I think Justin Lovell uses the Super 8 version for 'max-8/super-duper-8' transfers.

http://www.moviestuf...m_telecine.html

I hear their equipment producers very good results, considering their equipment is semi-recycled and a fraction of the cost of standard telecine equipment.

Edited by Andy_Alderslade, 18 September 2008 - 05:39 AM.

  • 0

#8 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:00 AM

Bonolabs does handle it, in fact they kind of promote it.

http://www.ultra16mm.com/

However they have a different philosophy on transfers which I totally respect but is not right for me. They prefer to give flat transfers and allow the client to make their own color adjustments while I'd prefer a hot shot colorist to do that work for me at transfer time which saves me decisions down the road and adds value to the already crazy price of telecine.

you might want to make sure your lens will cover the wider frame. i dont think it will.

I've been told by a trusted camera tech that the Scoopic lens can handle Ultra 16 but will not handle Super 16 without the major reconstruction of re-centering the lens. And since Ultra 16 is easily backwards compatible with Regular 16 I thought I'd give it a try. But if no one can see into the sprocket area for telecine then there's not much reason to do it.
  • 0

#9 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:16 PM

Bonolabs does handle it, in fact they kind of promote it.

http://www.ultra16mm.com/

However they have a different philosophy on transfers which I totally respect but is not right for me. They prefer to give flat transfers and allow the client to make their own color adjustments while I'd prefer a hot shot colorist to do that work for me at transfer time which saves me decisions down the road and adds value to the already crazy price of telecine.



Before people start jumping on the Bonolabs Ultra 16 bandwagon, I recommend taking a minute to look at this link, and the pictures attached to it:

http://www.cinematog...gitk/digitk.htm

Earlier this year I tried to get Bono to do a test for me to dissipate doubts generated by the above link. He flatly refused, unless I paid full price, no refund, etc. Very customer un-friendly, to say the least. "Satisfaction guarantee? what do you think, we care about our clients?" could have been the answer. I strongly discourage anyone from dealing with Bono

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 18 September 2008 - 03:18 PM.

  • 0

#10 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:20 PM

Very customer un-friendly, to say the least.

I wasn't going to say that, but since you brought it up first, that was pretty much my experience too. I think they are used to dealing just with students who want to get the cheapest price possible. I really got a negative feel from them. Maybe since much of their business is government archiving work & students they don't see the need to by kind to customers.
  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:24 AM

Bonolabs does handle it, in fact they kind of promote it.


Hi,

Whilst they promote it on there home page, it's not sated as a format they can transfer. Have you seen the results? & are both sides of the perfs being scanned or just 1 side using a S16 gate.

Stephen
  • 0

#12 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 10:48 AM

It seems there are no pro machines out there that could handle this format. I'll try over in the telecine forum.
  • 0

#13 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 11:16 AM

Hi,

Whilst they promote it on there home page, it's not sated as a format they can transfer. Have you seen the results? & are both sides of the perfs being scanned or just 1 side using a S16 gate.

Stephen


Bono claims to have recieved a U16 gate recently:

Our highly modified new Ultra16mm gate has arrived. Some basic preliminary testing has shown the image to be razor sharp and extremely even and flat across the image focus plane. We’re very happy so far and the stock testing will take place in the next few weeks. Our processors are now being brought back online and we’ll be offering complete packages as before. The stocks/processes that will be offered are Color neg (ECN2), B&W neg and E-6.

http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Bono uses a Cine Glyph scanner.

http://tig.colorist....ril/005928.html

As to what they mean by "razor sharp image and extremely even and flat across the focus plane" is anybody's guess, judging from this example:

http://www.cinematog...itk/SF_Bono.tif

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 September 2008 - 11:20 AM.

  • 0

#14 Mark Williams

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 04:21 PM

Bono claims to have recieved a U16 gate recently:

Our highly modified new Ultra16mm gate has arrived. Some basic preliminary testing has shown the image to be razor sharp and extremely even and flat across the image focus plane. We?re very happy so far and the stock testing will take place in the next few weeks. Our processors are now being brought back online and we?ll be offering complete packages as before. The stocks/processes that will be offered are Color neg (ECN2), B&W neg and E-6.

http://www.ultra16mm.com/

Bono uses a Cine Glyph scanner.

http://tig.colorist....ril/005928.html

As to what they mean by "razor sharp image and extremely even and flat across the focus plane" is anybody's guess, judging from this example:

http://www.cinematog...itk/SF_Bono.tif


Sounds like Ultra is now a real format! :) At last someone has made a gate for it.. Well done Bono.
  • 0

#15 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 04:50 PM

Sounds like Ultra is now a real format! :) At last someone has made a gate for it.. Well done Bono.


However the quality from cropped 16mm transfered on a Spirit may well look better.

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 05:33 PM

Sounds like Ultra is now a real format! :) At last someone has made a gate for it.. Well done Bono.


Stephen is right, it is not so much about making a U16 gate as having the know how and equipment to do a good job transfering the footage. ;)
  • 0

#17 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 19 September 2008 - 11:06 PM

All true, but if you are already using a quality machine like a Spirit and a good colorist, then a little extra negative to work with can make a difference. I see a difference between 16mm zoomed & cropped for 16:9 vs. Super 16; more noticeable in poor lighting conditions and faster stocks of course, but still there is a difference.

Much more important to have a great colorist in any case.
  • 0

#18 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 20 September 2008 - 02:02 AM

All true, but if you are already using a quality machine like a Spirit and a good colorist, then a little extra negative to work with can make a difference. I see a difference between 16mm zoomed & cropped for 16:9 vs. Super 16; more noticeable in poor lighting conditions and faster stocks of course, but still there is a difference.

Much more important to have a great colorist in any case.


Hi,

Thinking about it the Kinetta archive scanner would work. The lenses you use when shootin S16 are in most cased going to be the limiting factor.

The biggest risk with Ultra 16 is the processing machine & Ultrasonic scratching in the sprocket area. S16 was an issue as many labs did not modify their equipment for sevreal years.

Stephen
  • 0

#19 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 20 September 2008 - 02:09 AM

All true, but if you are already using a quality machine like a Spirit and a good colorist, then a little extra negative to work with can make a difference. I see a difference between 16mm zoomed & cropped for 16:9 vs. Super 16; more noticeable in poor lighting conditions and faster stocks of course, but still there is a difference.

Much more important to have a great colorist in any case.


I agree, but if the telecine machine is funky and the image is soft on the edges, good colorist or not, it is not going to work. I guess we are both agreeing that the telecine machine has to be in good working order in order to get good results with any format . . . So yes, a good colorist is essential to good results on a good machine.

And I really agree that 16 zoomed in is grainier, generally speaking, than S16.

There are advantages and disadvantages to R16, S16 and U16, and here they break them down rather nicely. Not coincidentally, this website seems to be and offshoot of Bonolabs.

http://marylandfilms...6-compared.html

The main caveat against U16, personally speaking, being that there is a myriad cameras that shoot the S16 format AND any number of proven S16 post workflows (digital and optical), whereas U16 is only supported by Bono right now -and for the foreseeable future- and U16 mm camera conversions are not very common.

I personally rather use S16 because it affords me a lot more flexibility in post, being that my working relationship with Bono took a nose dive and he is the only game in town.

But, it all boils down to user preference, I suppose.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 20 September 2008 - 02:12 AM.

  • 0

#20 Mark Williams

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

Posted 20 September 2008 - 05:44 AM

However the quality from cropped 16mm transfered on a Spirit may well look better.

Stephen

Would love to see the gate used on a spirit!

Why not use a 1.5 anamorphic lens on standard 16mm? I do.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineTape

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

CineLab

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC