Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic 16:9 comparable to Ultra16?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Philip Kral

Philip Kral
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 September 2011 - 02:36 AM

Here's an interesting thought. I have a CP16 regular 16mm camera, with it an anamorphic 16:9 lens that i've used on a few shoots. A few years ago I figured this was a good compromise between paying for a super16 conversion or cropping the Regular 16 image (I didn't gain any resolution but I didn't really lose any either). As much as I like anamorphic lens's, they are somewhat of a hassle, from the looks of it the new ultra16 format seems like it would give similar results (Being that it's not much gain in resolution but none lost either)
The theory seems sound (Not to mention i'd be getting the 1.85 frame yadda yadda yadda). I figure I can sell this annoying lens for the price it would take to convert it to ultra16.
The question is, Would the ultra16 quality be just as good if not better then the R16 with the anamorphic lens? The anamorphic lens would save the verticle, but the ultra16 would cut the top and bottom but add to the sides.

-Phil
  • 0

#2 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:46 AM

Apples and oranges. Problem with anamorphic is that you probably have a cheap anamorphic lens (real ones are crazy expensive) so that will massively effect quality. Plus, anamorphic is anamorphic and comes with it's own set of challenges and (beautiful) distortions.

I would say a really good prime lens on your CP-16 with a slower film stock, cropped to 16:9 would look "better" than an average or cheap anamorphic lens on the same film stock "stretched" out to 16:9 in a transfer.

But the anamorphic version will have that cool anamorphic look if that is what you are looking for.
  • 0

#3 Philip Kral

Philip Kral
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:46 AM

Apples and oranges. Problem with anamorphic is that you probably have a cheap anamorphic lens (real ones are crazy expensive) so that will massively effect quality. Plus, anamorphic is anamorphic and comes with it's own set of challenges and (beautiful) distortions.

I would say a really good prime lens on your CP-16 with a slower film stock, cropped to 16:9 would look "better" than an average or cheap anamorphic lens on the same film stock "stretched" out to 16:9 in a transfer.

But the anamorphic version will have that cool anamorphic look if that is what you are looking for.



Thank you for your input. That was my thought after thinking on it for a day or two. The irony is the anamorphic adapter isn't cheap as it sells for about a thousand or more now. But it's made cheaply, and it's a hassle. I might as well sell it. As for Ultra16 I don't think it would help with 16:9, for 1.85 on the other hand I might consider in the future. But that's another story and mabye another argument i'd like to avoid. Thank you again!

-Phil
  • 0

#4 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 15 September 2011 - 09:45 AM

Why not sell the camera and adapter and put that money towards a nice Aaton LTR or Arri SR2 that's already Super 16mm? These cameras are coming down fast, they are sitting on rental house shelves with nowhere to go.

You can also jump up to a 35mm Arri 2c for even less money if you really want to have MOS fun.
  • 0

#5 Philip Kral

Philip Kral
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 September 2011 - 07:49 PM

Why not sell the camera and adapter and put that money towards a nice Aaton LTR or Arri SR2 that's already Super 16mm? These cameras are coming down fast, they are sitting on rental house shelves with nowhere to go.

You can also jump up to a 35mm Arri 2c for even less money if you really want to have MOS fun.


Because although many people have made this point, the math doesn't add up:
If i sell both the lens and the camera then I might get between 1500.00 to 2000.00 towards the sound sync super16 Arri or Aaton. I have yet to see any of these cameras under 5 grand so I still have to pay out of pocket 3,000.00
OR
If I modify the camera that I have now after selling the lens, then the conversion will cost me around 2,000.00 (assuming i can get around a grand for the lens)
If I sell the lens (Again assuming I can get a grand for that lens) and only focus on shooting 1.85 (Really, the only benefit to shooting Ultra16 when compared to Super16). Then I can get 2 cameras converted to Ultra16.

I would gladly sell everything and purchase a super 16 camera if the price would come down to a grand or 2 for a sound sync camera. Or if I had enough outside work to justify the upgrade. Mabye in the near future?

As for a 35mm MOS fun camera, I already Have a Konvas. Which is ironic I can dabble in 35mm but can't get my hands on a sound sync S16.
  • 0


CineLab

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Abel Cine

Opal

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

CineTape

FJS International, LLC