Jump to content


Photo

2:1 anamorphics on s16mm?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Hunter Hampton

Hunter Hampton
  • Sustaining Members
  • 170 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:18 AM

So I have this crazy idea; There are a quite a few 2K screens in my area, and I am planning a feature shot on s16mm in a few months with a DI... would I be crazy to shoot with 2:1 anamorphic lenses and project from the full aperture? (3.32:1 or something?)

It has got me thinking with the ease of making a 2K-DCP with that aspect ratio, and also most likely the only theater run of the film would be locally at these digital screens anyways... I think 3.3:1 would look good, but maybe I am just being a little to far out? What do you think?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:29 AM

You'd have to show it letterboxed to 3.36 : 1 either in a 35mm anamorphic print, or 2K projection -- there is no DCI spec to cover 3.36 : 1.
  • 0

#3 Hunter Hampton

Hunter Hampton
  • Sustaining Members
  • 170 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:00 AM

Right, that would cut down on the resolution during projection.

I really like the artifacts from shooting anamorphics and I plan on intentionally flaring the lens for many scenes which would exaggerate some of that. I guess the real question is can I really shoot with 2:1 anamorphics on s16mm and and get away with screening 3.3:1... or would I be better off just shooting 1.85:1 with spherical lenses?

Just thinking out loud! ; )
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:26 AM

Vantage Film have 1.33 anamorphic lenses designed for 16mm. Best speak to them. But I'm not sure how widely these lenses are available yet.

Otherwise you can letterbox S16 to 2.35 and do either an optical or digital blow-up to 35mm. That way your film can play anywhere. I've seen an optical blowup a couple of years ago and I was very impressed, it held up very well on the big screen.
  • 0

#5 Hunter Hampton

Hunter Hampton
  • Sustaining Members
  • 170 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 December 2008 - 06:11 PM

I wonder what the rate is for those 1.33x lenses, im guessing they are expensive- thanks for the info though. I think I will try a screen test and see how a 2K letter-boxed DCP holds up.
  • 0

#6 lentsoe mamatela

lentsoe mamatela

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Student
  • south africa

Posted 29 December 2008 - 03:21 AM

im curious, the whole anamorphic thing boggles me a little, i understand the size ratio the image is projected, however on s16mm for example does is give one a closer image to one of 35mm..?
and projection...how does it influence what one can project...?
thanks...
  • 0

#7 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:36 AM

for what it is worth and if I have my facts straight, the new movie The Wrestler shot in Super 16 and framed for cropped widescreen format, then I assume they did a DI.

Anyone with any corrections feel free to join in.

Best

Tim
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 December 2008 - 11:46 AM

Super-16 is 1.68 : 1, full aperture.

4-perf 35mm print projection is either matted widescreen (usually masked by the projector to 1.85) or anamorphic widescreen (a 2X squeezed image on the print is stretched by 2X; the print area is around 1.20 : 1 and the unsqueezed image becomes around 2.40 : 1 on the screen.) And both formats have an offset image in order to have room on the left for an optical soundtrack.

So no what what format you shoot, you have to end up as one of these two 35mm print formats if you plan on striking release prints.

Putting anamorphic lens on a Super-16 camera could only cause an improvement IF it caused you to crop the 1.68 negative LESS to create one of these two 35mm print formats. Unfortunately, a standard 2X anamorphic lens is too much of a squeeze for a 1.68 negative -- you end up with a 3.36 : 1 image that would have to be cropped on the sides to get a 2.40 image, so there is no quality advantage compared to cropping top & bottom to get a 2.40 image when using normal spherical lenses on a Super-16 camera.

It's all about negative real estate more or less.

Using these new 1.33X Hawk Vantage 35mm anamorphic lenses on a Super-16 camera would get you more negative area for a blow-up to 2.40 than cropping Super-16 top & bottom to get it. However, you'd have to deal with a lack of short-enough focal lengths to get wide-angle shots on the smaller negative.
  • 0

#9 Jann Doeppert

Jann Doeppert

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Student
  • Ludwigsburg / Stockholm

Posted 31 January 2009 - 03:24 PM

I shot this short with the HAWK C-Series (2:1) on S16 using a little less than the N16 neg-area. The neg was scanned at 2k and reframed during telecine...

WFB_00010.jpg
WFB_00016.jpg
WFB_00013.jpg

Edited by Jann Döppert, 31 January 2009 - 03:25 PM.

  • 0


Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineLab

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Opal

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery