Jump to content


Photo

16mm + Anamorphic : What's the answer?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 05:22 AM

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.


I dont have the numbers - but I can see that Ultra16 would give the smallest grain with a scope aspect in 16mm (with spherical lenses) - interesting ...
  • 0

#22 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20109 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:39 AM

I dont have the numbers - but I can see that Ultra16 would give the smallest grain with a scope aspect in 16mm (with spherical lenses) - interesting ...



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

No, the Ultra-16 frame is 11.8mm wide compared to 12.4mm for Super-16.
  • 0

#23 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 03:26 PM

oh! - I thought ultra16 went nearer to the edges ?

Sure you've got to have something to support the film against the pressure plate - but then the graphic for the super16 is wrong - it does go to the edges :huh:
  • 0

#24 John Young

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

Posted 14 January 2011 - 04:47 PM

oh! - I thought ultra16 went nearer to the edges ?

Sure you've got to have something to support the film against the pressure plate - but then the graphic for the super16 is wrong - it does go to the edges :huh:


Chris,
I'm not understanding what your talking about, but Super-16 goes to one edge only, and Ultra-16 goes to both edges (intersprocket).
Why would having something to support the film against the pressure plate have anything to do with how wide the gate is?
  • 0

#25 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 05:11 PM

Chris,
I'm not understanding what your talking about, but Super-16 goes to one edge only, and Ultra-16 goes to both edges (intersprocket).
Why would having something to support the film against the pressure plate have anything to do with how wide the gate is?


a few things going on here...

Ultra16 as has been pointed out doesn't go all the way to the edges - but it would seem that it could go further, and hence be a better option for anamorphic
Super16 doesn't go all the way to the edge either - but the graphic in the link David provided shows that it does, which is wrong, but its the internet after all (no biggy)

Finally, you have to support the film around the aperture area from buckling or distorting in the 'Z' dimension - this is achieved with a pressure plate that bears on the base side of the film, its needs something to work against which is the aperture plate which touches the emulsion, it works both as a light stopper and as the 'registration' side of the sandwich that keeps the film on the film plane, it effectively defines the film plane ... Super16 could if you wanted fall off the side of the film but youd have no edge for the pressure plate to push against on that side and your film would fall off the film plane and cause localised focus issues. No good.

You might think well ok, then remove just the area around the actual aperture, then the light will get through and the rest of the aperture plate will support the film! But the area of film that is supported by the aperture plate (and therefore also is obscured from light) is like I mentioned 'sandwiched' this has the tendency to cause scratches on the emulsion, making the area useless for acquisition ...

There is a thin thin strip of unexposed film on the side of super16 film that supports the film on the aperture plate - check it out on the RHS:
Posted Image

My query pertains to Ultra16 - I see now that the claw is going to scratch the film in the same way on the sprocket side, so that is the limit there but why not extend out the other side to the super16 limit - yes, making yet another format, like 'asymmetrical ultra16 optimised for anamorphic' - yeh, youd have to move your lens mount etc... all too unworkable - but unless that horizontal number is still not as high as the super 16 dimension it's not logically unsound ;)
  • 0

#26 John Young

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

Posted 14 January 2011 - 05:20 PM

While I LOVE theoretical discussions (I have a degree in theory), I can save you a lot of trouble on my part by saying that I have decided to officially go with regular 16mm and a 2x anamorphic lens, giving me something in the neighborhood of 2.74:1, which I may "fix" digitally bringing it to 2.66:1 - I have to do more tests.
  • 0

#27 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 05:28 PM

There is a thin thin strip of unexposed film on the side of super16 film that supports the film on the aperture plate -


Correct. This strip is 0.020" = 0.5mm wide. That's really cutting it close.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#28 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20109 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 January 2011 - 05:55 PM

Don't forget that film has keycode and edgecode info on one edge which limits the ability to use the full width of the negative.
  • 1

#29 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 10:47 PM

Don't forget that film has keycode and edgecode info on one edge which limits the ability to use the full width of the negative.

I think you hit claw before code - maybe claws don't scratch that much ? and/or certain claws don't slide on the base on the way up...

So one direction you've got a support limit and the other you've got edge code limit (or claw)...

So film with no code and a nice claw movement - you could go pretty wide huh

But once these limits are put in context with every other factor involved its all a bit theoretical as john suggests... that time of the year I guess ;)

Edited by Chris Millar, 14 January 2011 - 10:49 PM.

  • 0

#30 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:02 PM

- maybe claws don't scratch that much ? and/or certain claws don't slide on the base on the way up...


Hardly any cameras have claws that slide on the film. The only one I know of for sure was the old Eclair CM-3, which had a ratchet claw on the emulsion side.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#31 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 January 2011 - 11:48 PM

Hardly any cameras have claws that slide on the film. The only one I know of for sure was the old Eclair CM-3, which had a ratchet claw on the emulsion side.

Aside from some early models - all H16 Bolex

getting off topic though huh :lol:
  • 0

#32 Paul Korver

Paul Korver
  • Sustaining Members
  • 154 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2011 - 03:21 AM

I believe Panavision has a 1.33 or 1.4 anamorphic lens for S16mm that uses the entire S16mm neg. We did a DI recently that was shot in this format. I remember the producer saying it was a lot less than going with the Hawks.

And as for Ultra 16mm we work with it all the time. I have yet to see claw scratches... only scratches from if you use the wrong processors. But as David points out edgecode is issue... as well as having some negative area available to support the film as it passes through the gate. We now have the ability to scan U16mm at up to 4K resolution which is admittedly overkill for all but the finest grain S16mm but still pretty cool.

-Paul
  • 0

#33 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2011 - 04:57 AM

And as for Ultra 16mm we work with it all the time. I have yet to see claw scratches...
-Paul

I don't think it extends into that area ;)
  • 0

#34 Vincent Sweeney

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

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:18 AM

http://www.vantagefi...quipment_41.pdf

Hawk lenses link. (They need a wider one. Maybe a 9mm)
  • 0

#35 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1737 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 25 January 2011 - 09:56 AM

http://www.vantagefilm.com/file/pdf/equipment_41.pdf

Hawk lenses link. (They need a wider one. Maybe a 9mm)



vincent,

did you see this test of these lenses on vimeo, a student short called posterest. there is thread on these boards about it. Anyway, they used an 18mm 1.3x and it looked quite wide. They have a 14mm 1.3x which would yield a little bit wider than an 11mm horizontal field of view
  • 0

#36 Joseph Zizzo

Joseph Zizzo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 78 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • new york

Posted 26 January 2011 - 06:11 PM

does anyone know who has these in LA?

thanks.
  • 0

#37 jeroenvanderpoel

jeroenvanderpoel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • amsterdam

Posted 01 March 2011 - 04:22 PM

One Hawk anamorphic (prime) lens with a squeeze factor of 1.3* will cost you for rental about 700 euro's (per day).
In europe there is only one rental station, its close to the boarders of tjechoslowakya.
They couldnt rent me 1 lens, because they wanted to rent the whole prime package. So it was to risky for them.
These lenses are 40.000 euro's per lens. And while (becides the aesthetics of the format) 16mm is a low budget format,
I guess these lenses will not become populair. Besides that, i think that a 1.3 squeeze factor is almost nothing, so you will have lack of a anamorphic look, and next to that shooting anamorphic on s16mm will limit you to only 1 particular lens package..
Another problem is that lovers of these wide angle lenses will be excluded.
So in the end I had to choose the 3perf 35mm format with a 2.35:1 ground glass, and i was very happy (while the shoot took place at night) that I was able to reframe in the post. Besides that, the shoot was done with one shot, on a 60m camera track, and was happening after the magic moment. Because the actors made some stupid **(obscenity removed)** up, i had to redo it for a third time, and had to push the film 2 stops..
I was happy with the result, because we were in a big need of a unpolished look..
Resolution has (in my opinion) much to do with grain, and the way you shoot (if you use close ups, it always looks to your brain less grainy, visa versa).Black swan was quiet impressive, It looked like they didnt over crank the film in terms of overexposion (to tighten up the grain). The lighting wasnt that contrasty, and they used speedy films.. So in my opinion: if you need resolution: Choose a film like 50d 100t or 200t, make use of zeiss ultra primes. And dont go to wide in terms of a shot(oh but i love a 9mm range lenses). And make use of a good scan (DI), and give your film (unless you dont like the bit more melancholic look) a bit more blue (tungsten film in daylight,or hmi lights, or tungsten with full ctb). Hope this make sense.... (35mm can look damm grainy as well)
  • 0

#38 b k moorty

b k moorty

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bangalore

Posted 15 July 2011 - 01:14 AM

low budget? want to save on neg COST, less tech. hurdles, no lab hurdles,
go for regular 16 with Anamorphic adaptors, shoot direct Anamorphic in 16mm,
go for regular blow-up, get Anamorphic/cinemascope print for theatrical release,
No D I required, save on D I cost also,
  • 0

#39 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2086 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:10 AM

One Hawk anamorphic (prime) lens with a squeeze factor of 1.3* will cost you for rental about 700 euro's (per day).

Ouch. Somehow I bet there's not a ton of demand for them.
  • 0

#40 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 19 October 2017 - 01:05 PM

While I LOVE theoretical discussions (I have a degree in theory), I can save you a lot of trouble on my part by saying that I have decided to officially go with regular 16mm and a 2x anamorphic lens, giving me something in the neighborhood of 2.74:1, which I may "fix" digitally bringing it to 2.66:1 - I have to do more tests.

 

I'm kind of leaning that way myself. I just don't have any idea which adapter to get. My research has indicated that this would be the choice:

https://www.bhphotov...t_50_1_33x.html

 

However, the thread size is 62mm. My Angenieux zoom has a 72mm thread. I imagine this would severely impair the results.

 

I do have an adapter that allows me to use M42 screw mount still lenses on the C-mount. Maybe I could use the 50mm prime on there. But, I'm told that stacking adapters is a bad idea 100% of the time.


  • 0


Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineTape

CineLab

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Visual Products

Abel Cine

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Glidecam