Jump to content


Photo

16mm + Anamorphic : What's the answer?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 John Young

John Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Other
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 06 January 2011 - 10:51 PM

Over the past three weeks, I have been reading every thread that had the words 16mm and Anamorphic in them.
Now, I'm just more confused. Let me see if I can ask some questions in a round about way:

16mm REGULAR = 1.37:1
16mm SUPER = 1.66:1
16mm ULTRA = 1.85:1

Now it seems to me like there have been lots of tests and stuff flung about, but no solid examples of "this is how it is".
It would also seem to my humble mind, that a 2x horizontal squeeze type adapter on REGULAR 16mm (yielding 2.74:1) is very much close to scope aspect ratio.

Other than because people are way too excited about HD and 16:9 digital zoom pow, is there any other reason I should be worried about a U16 or S16 camera? OR am I missing some magical way to get a nice 2.40 crop out of 16mm?

Please, let's not get into a techniscope, 2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf super 35 is cheaper fight. I'd like to talk about 16mm.

From the footage I have seen, the problem with some adapters is just that, they are adapters. There is no real way to make sure they are lined up correctly. I have seen beautiful anamorphic footage tilted and almost ruined because of a misaligned lens.

Also, why can't one use a square anamorphic like those Russian jobs? I likely need to learn more about that.

PLEASE! Thoughts? Comments?

JRY
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 January 2011 - 11:32 PM

Trouble is that cropping the sides of a 2.74 : 1 image (16mm with a 2X anamorphic lens) to get 2.39 : 1 image is not much better than cropping the top & bottom of a Super-16 image to get 2.39 : 1, and it's a lot easier to shoot with a spherical lens on a Super-16 camera to boot.

Plus you get into the problem of field of view - most 2X anamorphic lenses are designed for a 4-perf 35mm negative where a 40mm is the most common wide-angle lens used in anamorphic movies, with the occasional use of a 35mm or even a 28mm. But for a 16mm camera, you'd want something shorter than 20mm for your wide-angle shots in anamorphic.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 January 2011 - 11:39 PM

You can figure that the maximum area you'll be able to use on a 16mm frame for anamorphic is about 7.4mm, and the maximum width you can use in Super-16 is around 12.5mm.

So given a final 2.39 image, that means that the 16mm area used when shooting with a 2X anamorphic would be about 8.84mm x 7.4mm, which is 65.42 sq. millimeters. With spherical Super-16, it would be about 12.5mm x 5.23mm, which is 65.37 sq. millimeters. It's sort of a wash, especially considering that most spherical optics are sharper than anamorphic optics, plus you don't have the problem with a lack of short focal lengths in anamorphic for 16mm.
  • 0

#4 John Young

John Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Other
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 06 January 2011 - 11:56 PM

THANK YOU DAVID!

I was hoping you would chime in.

One last question, your saying the optimal use would be to extract a 2.39 image out of Super-16? Since you would be shooting with spherical lenses?
I know it is possible, but is that a request that would be respected, or would telecine houses not like me very much?
  • 0

#5 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 January 2011 - 12:01 AM

Dave Rapka did some anamorphic 16mm about 30 - 40 years ago. It was a trade show piece for McCulloch chain saws. They wanted the widest frame they could get, because the product is a long horizontal thing.... You can use the full 2.74:1, or even put it on Super 16 and get 3.32:1 provided that you have double system sound and complete control over both the shoot and projection. It makes sense for that kind of special purpose job.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 January 2011 - 12:37 AM

THANK YOU DAVID!

I was hoping you would chime in.

One last question, your saying the optimal use would be to extract a 2.39 image out of Super-16? Since you would be shooting with spherical lenses?
I know it is possible, but is that a request that would be respected, or would telecine houses not like me very much?


Well, optimal use of Super-16 would be to shoot for a 1.66 to 1.85 image, not 2.39... I'm just saying that it's simpler, easier, to just crop Super-16 if you want a 2.39 image rather than deal with anamorphic lenses.

Video is either 4x3 or 16x9, more often 16x9 these days -- either way, a 2.39 image requires letterboxing. You shoot a framing chart and tell the lab to follow that for letterboxing the transfer. It's no big deal.
  • 0

#7 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 07 January 2011 - 02:59 AM

Watch Black Swan or The Wrestler, since they are examples that are easy to access. They were shot Super 16 with a 2.4 matte. This is done often, it is very practical, can look great and gives you lots of room to tweak your frame up and down. The same thing is done with 35mm often too.

I don't understand fully when you asked about the lab extracting the 2.4. If you are posting with HD files, you will get a normal 16:9 HD 1080 frame to work with that can be easily matted from there.
  • 0

#8 John Young

John Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Other
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 07 January 2011 - 08:38 AM

When I talk about a lab extraction, I mean will they do what I tell them, or will I get something that "they" think I want. I really despise people that think for me, and deal with it often. Usually, it's because I make eccentric requests. I know the requests I make are possible to do, or I wouldn't ask.

What I would really like from the lab is one of two things: An already cropped 2.39 scan at the highest resolution possible, or a full negative, 2k scan - Edge to edge, I'll do my own crop/matte. This would be for a DI. I like the DI process, and if I get a 2k scan done, then I have the option of going to basically whatever format I wish.

I hope I don't come across bitter, I really am a nice guy to work with. It's just that I usually ask for a specific result, and get what everyone else gets; the "norm".
  • 0

#9 Antti Näyhä

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

Posted 07 January 2011 - 09:22 AM

Now it seems to me like there have been lots of tests and stuff flung about, but no solid examples of "this is how it is".
It would also seem to my humble mind, that a 2x horizontal squeeze type adapter on REGULAR 16mm (yielding 2.74:1) is very much close to scope aspect ratio.

It has been done in real-life features, for example in Carlos Reygadas's "Japón" and Gaspar Noé's "I Stand Alone". They used a custom adapter (according to some sources, the very same unit).

It's a specific and quite beautiful look really, although I can imagine the technical inconvenience compared to Super 16. At least "I Stand Alone" was printed on 35mm Scope with thin black bars on the top and bottom, yielding an aspect ratio a bit wider than 2,39:1. I haven't seen "Japón" on 35mm, but they might have done the same (at least the DVD is around 2,66:1).

Did you already find this thread?

Edited by Antti Näyhä, 07 January 2011 - 09:24 AM.

  • 0

#10 daniel mahlknecht

daniel mahlknecht
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Italy - South Tyrol

Posted 07 January 2011 - 09:43 AM

Last year Vantage /Hawk presented a new set of anamorphic lenses especially made to shoot scope on super16 cameras.
http://www.vantagefi.../index_45.shtml
So this would be actually the first choice if productionformat was super16 and screening copy should be cinemascope.

daniel
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 January 2011 - 11:38 AM

If you are doing a D.I., you would always scan the whole negative first. Cropping is the final thing done before a film-out, and letterboxing is the last thing done to make the video masters.

The cropping will go a whole lot faster if you consistently framed for the same amount and area of cropping.

This is why you shoot a framing chart and cut it into the head of your work edit, so everyone knows how to mask the image.
  • 0

#12 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3070 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 January 2011 - 01:03 PM

What I would really like from the lab is one of two things: An already cropped 2.39 scan at the highest resolution possible, or a full negative, 2k scan - Edge to edge, I'll do my own crop/matte.



I've done this a few times, and I would highly recommend leaving the 2.40 crop until you conform your picture. Having the flexibility to re-rack the picture a little is very useful.
  • 0

#13 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 07 January 2011 - 02:14 PM

Add "Enter the Void" to my examples of very recent S16 films with a 2.4 crop.
  • 0

#14 John Young

John Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Other
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 07 January 2011 - 03:07 PM

It has been done in real-life features, for example in Carlos Reygadas's "Japón" and Gaspar Noé's "I Stand Alone". They used a custom adapter (according to some sources, the very same unit).

It's a specific and quite beautiful look really, although I can imagine the technical inconvenience compared to Super 16. At least "I Stand Alone" was printed on 35mm Scope with thin black bars on the top and bottom, yielding an aspect ratio a bit wider than 2,39:1. I haven't seen "Japón" on 35mm, but they might have done the same (at least the DVD is around 2,66:1).

Did you already find this thread?


Actually, I just found that thread this morning. Also, I missed Black Swan at the local theatre. I really need to see that.
HAWK lenses look very nice, and by that I mean expensive.

Someone offered me an Arriflex BL for less than $1000. I should jump on it, and I know I can find a use for it. But I'm holding out to get the best possible equipment for my needs. I plan on using the equipment for more than one shoot. And, since I want to own my equipment, it needs to be cost effective for what I want to do with it.

Personally, I'm holding out for a techniscope 35 camera. But, if I can find other 16mm cameras for sub $1000 prices, I could do my own multi camera shoots, for the same price as an average techniscope 35.
  • 0

#15 AmatEscalante

AmatEscalante
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 07 January 2011 - 05:38 PM

1-Movies shot on regular 16 with 2x anamorphic are "Japon" by Carlos Reygadas and "I Stand Alone" by Gaspar Noe. These two examples are projected in 35mm Scope capable cinemas with an aspect ratio of around 2.66:1 They just add thin black bars in top and bottom of the 2.40:1 aspect ratio of the 35mm print. You can use any PL mount camera and ANY 2x anamorphic lens to achieve this.

2-"Irreversible" and most of "Enter the Void" by Gaspar Noe, "The Wrestler" by Darren Aronofsky are some examples of films shot on Super 16 framing for 2.40:1 achieved trough cropping in the digital intermediate. This is the easier way and would be basically the same process as shooting super 35 for scope finish. You can use any Super 16 camera and any spherical lens.

3- Using 1.3x anamorphic squeeze lenses by Hawk on Super 16. I believe Black Swan by Darren Aronofsky was shot like this? This sounds interesting BUT there is only one kind of lenses that you can use to achieve. In theory one would get the best quality in the 16mm anamorphic options because you use the complete 1.66 area...

Hope this helps.
  • 0

#16 John Young

John Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Other
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:48 PM

1-Movies shot on regular 16 with 2x anamorphic are "Japon" by Carlos Reygadas and "I Stand Alone" by Gaspar Noe. These two examples are projected in 35mm Scope capable cinemas with an aspect ratio of around 2.66:1 They just add thin black bars in top and bottom of the 2.40:1 aspect ratio of the 35mm print. You can use any PL mount camera and ANY 2x anamorphic lens to achieve this.

2-"Irreversible" and most of "Enter the Void" by Gaspar Noe, "The Wrestler" by Darren Aronofsky are some examples of films shot on Super 16 framing for 2.40:1 achieved trough cropping in the digital intermediate. This is the easier way and would be basically the same process as shooting super 35 for scope finish. You can use any Super 16 camera and any spherical lens.

3- Using 1.3x anamorphic squeeze lenses by Hawk on Super 16. I believe Black Swan by Darren Aronofsky was shot like this? This sounds interesting BUT there is only one kind of lenses that you can use to achieve. In theory one would get the best quality in the 16mm anamorphic options because you use the complete 1.66 area...

Hope this helps.


Alright. This Gaspar Noe guy's films look fantastic! I must see more of his work. Second I will try my best to go with option two! It seems the best of both worlds there. Option three, not so much, and option one is still viable if I can't seem to find an affordable Super-16 camera!

THANKS GUYS!
  • 0

#17 AmatEscalante

AmatEscalante
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 07 January 2011 - 10:55 PM

Alright. This Gaspar Noe guy's films look fantastic! I must see more of his work. Second I will try my best to go with option two! It seems the best of both worlds there. Option three, not so much, and option one is still viable if I can't seem to find an affordable Super-16 camera!

THANKS GUYS!



# 3 is wrong! The 1.3x anamorphic example of "Black Swan" was shot with spherical (normal) Arri Ultra 16 lenses! Same as "Irreversible", "The Wrestler", etc. Just read the AC Dec '10 article on it.
  • 0

#18 John Young

John Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Other
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 12 January 2011 - 09:28 PM

OK! New questions.
Let's assume some things:
Let's say I have an Arri-s, regular 16mm and I was going to do 2.66:1.
Let's say I wanted to buy a lens (a cheap lens what to experiment with).

If a lens like an Iscorama had a Nikon mount, do they make adapters for the Arri mount or whatever (If it's not PL?)
If it's an "adapter" type lens like the Kowa 2x, what is the most common way of mounting the lens?
Other than the obvious, what is the difference between front mount (in front of the lens) and rear mount (behind the lens) adapters?
  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 January 2011 - 09:52 PM

Rear-adapted anamorphics don't have any of the optical characteristics of classic anamorphic photography, you don't get the squeezed-looking background shapes, you don't get the horizontal flares, etc. You do sometimes get square-ish bokeh on telephoto lenses.
  • 0

#20 Murthy SNB

Murthy SNB
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bangalore INDIA

Posted 14 January 2011 - 04:35 AM

Over the past three weeks, I have been reading every thread that had the words 16mm and Anamorphic in them.
Now, I'm just more confused. Let me see if I can ask some questions in a round about way:

16mm REGULAR = 1.37:1
16mm SUPER = 1.66:1
16mm ULTRA = 1.85:1

Now it seems to me like there have been lots of tests and stuff flung about, but no solid examples of "this is how it is".
It would also seem to my humble mind, that a 2x horizontal squeeze type adapter on REGULAR 16mm (yielding 2.74:1) is very much close to scope aspect ratio.

Other than because people are way too excited about HD and 16:9 digital zoom pow, is there any other reason I should be worried about a U16 or S16 camera? OR am I missing some magical way to get a nice 2.40 crop out of 16mm?

Please, let's not get into a techniscope, 2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf super 35 is cheaper fight. I'd like to talk about 16mm.

From the footage I have seen, the problem with some adapters is just that, they are adapters. There is no real way to make sure they are lined up correctly. I have seen beautiful anamorphic footage tilted and almost ruined because of a misaligned lens.

Also, why can't one use a square anamorphic like those Russian jobs? I likely need to learn more about that.

PLEASE! Thoughts? Comments?

JRY

Yes the Russian anamorphic glasses work perfectly and I have
adapted one to my Eclair NPR & Zeiss 10-100 zoom lens,
It works perfectly,the adaptation work should be precise
It is regular 16 simply blown up to 35 to get 2.40:1
cinemascope, which result with thick frame line,
no cropping either side or top/bottom full regular 16 frame
fits to 1.33:1 35mm with 2.40:1 anamorphic, In projaection
use normal 35mm gate, or even with anamorphic gate, the top/
bottom appear as black border, very simple, no techmical
problems encountered down stream work flow, hugely cost
saving in terms of Negtive cost,
www.16mmcinemascope.com

murthysnb
cinematographer
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Opal

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS