Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic for S16mm


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Rob Webster

Rob Webster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:30 PM

Simple question:

Does anyone know if anamorphic lenses exist for super 16 (pl mount) cameras?

I haven't seen any and im not keen on paying for 35mm anamorphic optics and then adapting them down to S16.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Rob
  • 0

#2 Rob Vogt

Rob Vogt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 25 March 2009 - 06:43 PM

Simple question:

Does anyone know if anamorphic lenses exist for super 16 (pl mount) cameras?

I haven't seen any and im not keen on paying for 35mm anamorphic optics and then adapting them down to S16.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Rob


As Adam Frisch has pointed out in another thread the Hawk V-lite 1.3x anamorphic lenses have just been released and will give you a 2:40 aspect ratio with 16mm. You'll probably have to wait a while for the rental houses to stock up on these lenses though. Other than that you're probably stuck with standard 2x anamorphic and cropping
  • 0

#3 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:30 PM

. . . the Hawk V-lite 1.3x anamorphic lenses have just been released and will give you a 2:40 aspect ratio with 16mm.


Sorry to nitpick. You mean with S16 mm (1.66:1), as 16 mm is only 1.33:1 and a 1.3x squeeze would not get you to 2.40:1 without having to crop the top and bottom.

I wish a 2x version would be made too (unlikely, I know), so I could use it on some of my R16 cameras. Of course, then I would have to lose some of the sides _which is preferable to the alternatives . . .

Why is regular 16 considered a "dead format"? :angry:
  • 0

#4 Rob Webster

Rob Webster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 26 March 2009 - 08:37 AM

The Hawk V-Lites are designed for 35mm though? So how would that affect the apparent focal length when used with s16?

Would they be 4x the focal length because of the format change and anamorphic squeeze?
  • 0

#5 Andy_Alderslade

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

Posted 26 March 2009 - 08:51 AM

Why is regular 16 considered a "dead format"? :angry:


I suppose because nearly all modern production is being targeted for 16x9 viewing, mostly at least. The other factors of wastage, and grain size (if comparing cropped regular 16mm to Super 16) probably play a part too.

Also considering the grand economy of film production, converting a standard 16mm camera to Super 16 is hardly expensive either.
  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 26 March 2009 - 08:53 AM

No, Focal length would be the same, Field of View would change, but a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. I don't know how short of lenses they make, so I suppose one would have to wait and see.
  • 0

#7 Andy_Alderslade

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

Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:01 AM

The Hawk V-Lites are designed for 35mm though? So how would that affect the apparent focal length when used with s16?

Would they be 4x the focal length because of the format change and anamorphic squeeze?


The focal length of a lens is what it is, but of course you will need much shorter focal lengths on a s16 camera than 35mm to get the same field of view. Presumably if they are considering the Super 16 market they will have some shorter focal lengths available, at least down to a 12mm - its worth finding out what focal lengths will be available.
  • 0

#8 Bernie O'Doherty

Bernie O'Doherty
  • Sustaining Members
  • 232 posts
  • Other
  • Newark Valley, NY

Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:17 AM

Rob, The Hawk anamorphic lens range is a 14, 18, 24, 28, 35, 45, 55, 80, and 110mm. When using with R16 the Squeeze is 2X. When using for S16 the Squeeze is 1.3X. Only the S16 uses the full negative area. I asked them about Ultra 16 coverage....they will get back to me, but they initially thought that would be a totally useable negative area. I can hear the German calculations from upstate NY as I write......
  • 0

#9 Rob Webster

Rob Webster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:39 AM

Rob, The Hawk anamorphic lens range is a 14, 18, 24, 28, 35, 45, 55, 80, and 110mm. When using with R16 the Squeeze is 2X. When using for S16 the Squeeze is 1.3X. Only the S16 uses the full negative area. I asked them about Ultra 16 coverage....they will get back to me, but they initially thought that would be a totally useable negative area. I can hear the German calculations from upstate NY as I write......


Thanks for the help guys. So the V-lites used with s16 will have 4x the horizontal field of view as the equivalent s16mm lens of the same focal length and twice the horizontal field of view?

Forgive my ignorance, did a shoot this week on s16mm with 35mm primes and we couldnt work out the equivalence becuase we had no 16 lenses to compare to.
  • 0

#10 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 26 March 2009 - 10:04 AM

When using with R16 the Squeeze is 2X. When using for S16 the Squeeze is 1.3X. Only the S16 uses the full negative area.


Hey Bernie, how does this work? The same lens has 2 different squeeze ratios? I am a bit confused by this.
S
  • 0

#11 Andy_Alderslade

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

Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:17 AM

Thanks for the help guys. So the V-lites used with s16 will have 4x the horizontal field of view as the equivalent s16mm lens of the same focal length and twice the horizontal field of view?

Forgive my ignorance, did a shoot this week on s16mm with 35mm primes and we couldnt work out the equivalence becuase we had no 16 lenses to compare to.


Lenses are lenses, they are the same focal length no matter what camera format you use.

So a 50mm lens made for 35mm will have the same field of view mounted on a super 16 camera as a 50mm Super 16 lens on a Super 16mm camera - as with all other focal lengths.

Essentially the smaller the surface area you are recording to regardless whether it is an electronic chip or film emulsion, the less of the full width of the glass it is using, so the smaller the field of view.

So imagining that a 50mm lens mounted on a s16 camera has only roughly half the horizontal field of view as that same exact lens mounted on a 35mm camera.

That's why the typical set of s16 primes set is 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm and 50mm.

Where for a 35mm shoot the primes would often consist of: 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm and 75mm

Those anamorphic lenses have a 1.3x horizontal squeeze so there for the widest lens a 14mm is roughly in the range of a non anamorphic 10mm lens - so it could be considered wide enough for most practical purposes.

I hope I got that all right,
Andy
  • 0

#12 Bernie O'Doherty

Bernie O'Doherty
  • Sustaining Members
  • 232 posts
  • Other
  • Newark Valley, NY

Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:47 AM

Hi, Saul,

The lenses are the same for both R16 and S16. The difference comes in when you have to go from R16 to anamorphic. You're chopping some of the film out top and bottom to maintain the same aspect ratio. So essentially you're not getting as much out of the R16 anamorphic as you are out of the S16 anamorphic.
  • 0

#13 Rob Vogt

Rob Vogt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:35 PM

If you're doing a blowup using the having shot with the 1.3x squeeze would you then need to find a lab that can unsqueeze 1.3x lens (as in renting a lens and slapping that on the labs projector) or would you have to do it digitally.
  • 0

#14 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:04 PM

Hi, Saul,

The lenses are the same for both R16 and S16. The difference comes in when you have to go from R16 to anamorphic. You're chopping some of the film out top and bottom to maintain the same aspect ratio. So essentially you're not getting as much out of the R16 anamorphic as you are out of the S16 anamorphic.


Right, that is what I posted earlier in this thread. By how you wrote your original post, I thought you meant that the same lenses had a dual squeeze ratio for use on both R16 and S16.
  • 0


Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineTape

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Opal

CineLab

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies